Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-2025 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board  September 4, 2025 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on September 4, 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   Hansen Matthews   Kaitlyn Rhonehouse   Members Absent  Kevin Hine   Staff Present   Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use       Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney    Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor   Amy Doss, Development Review Planner Katherine May, Development Review Planner  Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor  Shauna Bradley, Administrative Specialist  Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. and welcomed the audience. Approval of Minutes  The minutes from July 8th and August 5th Planning Board Agenda Review were presented for consideration and approval. With no discussion, a motion to approve meeting minutes was made by Mr. Matthews, seconded by Mr. Avery, and approved unanimously by the Board. Chair Moore announced that items discussed during the meeting would advance the County Commissioners' meeting, scheduled for Oct 6, 2025. He also noted that Mr. Avery would serve as the Planning Board’s representative during that meeting. There were no stated conflicts of interests. Regular Business  Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z25-16) – Request by Atilano Cardenas and Sebastian Cardenas, applicants, on behalf of Phillip and Princetta Pierce, property owners, to rezone approximately 0.39 acres located at 2624 Castle Hayne Road from an existing (CZD) B- 1, Neighborhood Business district to a new (CZD) B-1 district for the uses of grocery store and restaurant. Ms. Mays informed the Board that the applicant had requested that the item be continued to October 2, 2025 meeting. Mr. Hipp motioned to approve the request to continue the item and Mr. Avery seconded the motion. The Board approved 6-0. Public Hearing Text Amendment Request (TA25-04) - Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 12 of the Unified Development Ordinance to modernize and clarify sign standards and ensure provisions are compliant with legal requirements. Ms. Roth presented a proposed text amendment to modernize and clarify the County’s sign regulations. The amendment was designed to address newer technologies, particularly digital signage, and to reflect changes in the legal context that had occurred since the original provisions were adopted. Ms. Roth explained that the current sign standards, many of which were established in 2001, had anticipated the amortization of all nonconforming signs. This approach would have required all signage to come into compliance within a set timeframe. However, the Board of Commissioners later eliminated the amortization process, resulting in the continued presence of nonconforming signs that predate the 2001 ordinance. Since that time, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation limiting local governments’ authority to regulate nonconforming signs, and federal court rulings invalidated content-based sign regulations. These developments, along with the emergence of new sign technologies, prompted staff to conduct a comprehensive audit of the Unified Development Ordinance. The audit identified the need for clearer definitions, updated standards, and a more consistent structure for sign-related provisions. Ms. Roth reported that the proposed amendment introduced clear definitions and standards for digital signage, including luminance levels for both daylight and nighttime hours. It also addressed audio components in signage, prohibiting them unless required for accessibility. The amendment proposed the removal of non-regulatory purpose statements, clarified the permitting process by requiring all permanent signs to obtain a sign permit, and revised language concerning legal nonconforming signs to align with state law. Ms. Roth emphasized that signs constructed in compliance with standards in place at the time of installation would be considered legal nonconformities, even if permit documentation could not be located. The amendment also included updates to enforcement references, eliminated content- based distinctions such as those for real estate signs, and clarified measurement standards, including how sight triangles are measured along private roads. Ms. Roth noted that the amendment did not propose differentiated standards for monument versus pole signs and did not alter corridor-specific regulations for areas such as Carolina Beach Road or Market Street. During the public comment period held from August 13 to August 26, staff received one phone inquiry and one written comment. These comments led to clarifications regarding the application of digital signage standards to legal nonconforming billboards and revisions to vague language related to legal nonconformities. Ms. Roth concluded by recommending approval of the proposed amendment, stating that it would improve clarity, consistency, and enforceability in the administration of the County’s sign regulations. After the Planning Board’s consideration, the amendment would proceed to the Board of Commissioners for consideration at their first meeting in October. Board Discussion During the discussion, Ms. Roth explained that the general rule for content neutrality was that if one must read the sign to determine what standards apply, then the regulation was not content neutral. For example, a regulation stating that a sign may not exceed 12 square feet in size and 2 feet in height is content neutral. However, a regulation that allowed a “real estate sign” for a specific duration, such as three weeks, was not content neutral because it was based on the sign’s message. Ms. Roth responded to an inquiry about the timing of sign review in the development process that signage is often addressed later in the process and would not be reviewed during Technical Review Committee (TRC) evaluations unless specifically submitted at that stage. The Board inquired whether the amendment was forward-looking in its treatment of emerging technologies such as digital and audio-enabled signage. Ms. Roth responded that the amendment was designed to anticipate such developments and to provide a regulatory framework that could accommodate future innovations. She emphasized that it was preferable to proactively include provisions for new technologies rather than attempt to interpret outdated standards retroactively. Finally, the Board sought clarification on the distinction between non-permitted and prohibited signs. Ms. Roth explained that prohibited signs are those not allowed anywhere in the County, such as signs that mimic emergency lights and pose safety risks. In contrast, non-permitted signs may be allowed in some zoning districts but not others. For example, a free-standing pole sign might be prohibited in a residential district but permitted in a commercial zone. Mr. Hipp motioned to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to modernize and clarify sign standards and ensure provisions will be compliant with legal requirements. He found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it supported business success through its inclusion of provisions for modern technologies and clarified standards. He found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed amendment supports a common understanding of sign requirements, retained existing sign-related policies, and aligned regulations with the current legal context. Mr. Matthews seconded the motion. The Board approved 6-0. Preliminary Forum Request by James Yopp with Hoosier Daddy, LLC, applicant and property owner, for an Additional Dwelling Allowance for additional density up to 6.54 dwelling units per acre in a R-15, Residential district on approximately 43.10 acres located at 5669, 5671, 5713, 5831 Carolina Beach Road and 1046, 1051, 1052, 1055 Rosa Parks Lane. Mr. Farrell presented an overview of the criteria for a preliminary forum concerning a Special Use Permit. The request was for an additional dwelling allowance in the R-15 zoning district. He explained that the request was materially different from the previous application, with a reduced unit count, lower density, and revised access points. The proposed development included 291 dwelling units at a maximum density of 6.75 units per acre. The site, located north of the Tarin Woods subdivision, was divided into two sections: a 13.10-acre area allowing a mix of housing types including multifamily, and a 30-acre area permitting only attached housing types, excluding multifamily. The concept plan incorporated open space, stormwater infrastructure, and a new right-in, right-out access on Carolina Beach Road, with restricted access to Rosa Parks Lane. The project also proposed a second point of egress for the Tarin Woods area via Manassas Drive. Mr. Farrell outlined the ordinance standards for additional dwelling allowances, which differed from typical performance residential subdivisions. These included a maximum density of 10.2 units per acre, a 35% open space requirement, a 40% impervious surface limit, and enhanced perimeter setbacks. Structures over 25 feet in height would be subject to additional setbacks. The site’s location allowed for a transitional development pattern in line with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. He concluded by reiterating that the Board of Commissioners would be required to determine whether the project met four specific findings during their quasi-judicial hearing. These included public health and safety, compliance with the UDO, impact on surrounding property values, and harmony with the area and land use plan. Mr. Farrell emphasized that all testimony must be presented during the Commissioners’ hearing and that the purpose of the forum was to provide guidance to the applicant and the public in preparation for that process. Mr. Farrell confirmed that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project had been completed previously and did include the proposed right-in, right-out access on Carolina Beach Road as one of the required improvements. It was also clarified that the prior application, which had been denied by the Board of Commissioners, proposed 444 dwelling units. Attorney Corrie Lee, representing the applicant, began her presentation with acknowledging that a previous Special Use Permit request for the same site had been reviewed in May. In accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance, the applicant submitted a materially different proposal. She emphasized that the revised proposal included significant changes to the site layout and access. She highlighted that the proposed development would exceed the minimum open space requirement by setting aside 35% of the site, compared to the 10–20% typically required in conventional subdivisions. She stated that expert testimony would be presented at the Board of Commissioners’ quasi-judicial hearing to demonstrate compliance with all ordinance requirements. Howard Resnick, a professional engineer, would testify regarding site plan compliance, including setbacks and road connections. Chase Smith, a traffic engineer, would address traffic impacts, noting that the approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) remained valid and projected nearly 1,000 fewer daily trips than the previously approved threshold of 3,025 trips per day. Ms. Lee explained that the TIA had been reviewed and approved by all relevant agencies. This approach ensured that the proposed development remained within acceptable traffic thresholds, even with nearby growth such as the addition of a Target store. Ms. Lee stated that Cal Morgan would provide expert testimony that the proposed development would not materially endanger public health or safety, nor substantially injure the value of adjoining properties. She asserted that the project was consistent with the County’s land use plan and provided a transitional buffer between Carolina Beach Road and adjacent single-family neighborhoods. She also noted that the ability to apply for a Special Use Permit itself constituted evidence that the proposed use was harmonious with surrounding development, as recognized by North Carolina courts. The Planning Board questioned how Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) accounted for other developments in the vicinity. Mr. Farrell and Caitlyn Cerza with WMPO clarified that each TIA is scoped to include nearby developments that are either completed, under construction, or approved but not yet built. In addition to known projects, a background growth rate is factored into account for general increases in population and traffic. The goal of each TIA was to be conservative and to anticipate future conditions as accurately as possible. Ms. Cerza explained that while some approved developments may not be constructed, local planning staff, NCDOT, and WMPO met regularly to evaluate the status of such projects. If a development was known to have been withdrawn or significantly altered, it may be excluded from future TIA assumptions. The scoping process for each new TIA included a review of existing approvals and infrastructure, and local expertise was used to determine whether previously approved projects should still be considered in traffic modeling. Ms. Cerza confirmed that the TIA associated with the current application had been previously approved and remained valid. The analysis accounted for up to 3,025 daily trips, while the current proposal was estimated to generate approximately 2,100 trips per day. WMPO and NCDOT had reviewed the updated figures and verified that the existing TIA remained applicable given the revised scope of the development and the improvements already installed. The Board also discussed the timing of required roadway improvements, specifically the proposed right-in, right-out access on Carolina Beach Road. It was noted that such improvements are typically tied to the number of certificates of occupancy issued and would be required prior to full buildout of the development. The applicant confirmed that the TIA had been recertified by the WMPO and that no new analysis was required based on the current traffic projections and agency feedback. Mr. Moore opened the floor to the public in favor. Ms. Yvette Robinson passed on speaking. Mr. Moore opened the floor to public in opposition. Samantha Bunge, 6119 Tarin Road Ms. Bunge expressed opposition to the proposed Special Use Permit, citing procedural deficiencies and substantive concerns. She stated that the application was incomplete and improperly executed, with inconsistencies in ownership information and signature authority that violated both the Unified Development Ordinance and North Carolina General Statutes. She also challenged the validity of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), stated it was outdated, based on COVID-era traffic counts, and tied to a materially different site plan. She contended that the current proposal increased density and eliminated road connections, funneling traffic through residential streets not designed for heavy use. Ms. Bunge raised additional concerns that included the lack of a comprehensive master plan, potential conflicts with neighborhood covenants prohibiting multifamily housing, and uncertainty over whether the proposed units would be for sale or rental. She concluded by urging the Board to reject the application, asserting that it failed to meet the legal standards for a Special Use Permit, lacked competent and substantial evidence, and remained incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Shawn Bunge, 6119 Tarin Road Mr. Bunge expressed concern about the safety and feasibility of evacuating during a major emergency, citing FEMA and Army Corps of Engineers studies from 2010 that estimated a 52- hour evacuation time based on population and housing data significantly lower than current levels. He questioned how evacuation could be achieved within the standard 48-hour window given the lack of infrastructure improvements and increased development. Drawn from personal experience with severe traffic delays during minor flooding, he emphasized the need for updated, data-driven analysis rather than reliance on professional judgment and called for a more rigorous evaluation of evacuation capacity and road infrastructure before approving the development. Gayle Tabor, 6130 Shiloh Drive Ms. Tabor stated that repeated applications for high-density projects in the area had consistently proven incompatible with the neighborhood. She described ongoing issues with large construction vehicles using residential streets like Manassas and Shiloh Drives, causing damage to roadways and medians and creating frequent traffic hazards. She criticized the Traffic Impact Analysis as outdated and ineffective, arguing that if such studies were accurate, the county would not be experiencing its current traffic and infrastructure challenges. She also noted that Rosa Parks Lane was intended as egress only, meaning all ingress traffic would be funneled through already burdened residential streets, further exacerbating safety concerns. Vivan Radecsky, 6001 Appomattox Drive Ms. Radecsky stated that the ongoing construction activity, particularly by the developer, had disrupted the harmony of the neighborhood. She noted that the removal of trees and bushes along Manassas Drive and the median had left the area with the look of being unfinished and neglected. Ms. Radecsky also raised concerns about persistent flooding issues that remain unresolved. Mr. Moore opened the floor for applicant’s rebuttal. Ms. Lee responded to the concerns raised and affirmed that the application was properly executed and met all procedural requirements. She reiterated that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) remained valid, having been reviewed and confirmed by certified professional engineers and relevant agencies. emphasized that the current proposal generated approximately 1,000 fewer daily trips than the previously approved threshold. She noted that developers often contribute to infrastructure improvements, including turn lanes and medians, which help mitigate traffic impacts. Ms. Lee explained that the Special Use Permit process provides a clear legal framework for applicants to meet specific findings, offering predictability and accountability. She also maintained that the proposed development was harmonious with the surrounding area, serving as a transitional buffer between commercial and residential zones, and aligned with the County’s land use plan. She concluded by stating that the ability to apply for a Special Use Permit itself demonstrated the project’s compatibility under the law. Opposition’s rebuttal Barry Goldberg, 6125 Sweetgum Drive Mr. Goldberg expressed concern about the proposed access point along Carolina Beach Road, stating that the corridor appeared fully developed with existing businesses such as a dry cleaner, oil change service, and other commercial establishments. He questioned where an egress or entrance to the proposed development could realistically be located, noting that he did not observe any available open space along the corridor to accommodate such an access point. Mr. Goldberg requested clarification on how access from Carolina Beach Road would be achieved given the current land use. Lorrie Goldberg, 6125 Sweetgum Drive Ms. Goldberg expressed concern about ongoing construction activity associated with the proposed development, specifically the frequent presence of uncovered trucks traveling along Sweetgum and Appomattox Drives. She stated that these trucks were transporting logs, fill dirt, and other materials without proper covering, leaving debris on roads that were already in poor condition. Ms. Goldberg referenced a recent road study conducted by the Tarin Woods community, which identified the need for significant repairs, and asserted that the developer had made no effort to clean up the mess left behind. She questioned why the trucks were not complying with ordinance requirements and voiced concern that the situation would worsen if the development were approved. The Chair closed the preliminary forum. Board Discussion Mr. Farrell responded to questions regarding access by referencing the concept plan and aerial imagery, which showed a portion of the project boundary extending to Carolina Beach Road just north of Rosa Parks Lane. He explained that the proposed Ironwood Drive would connect through the site to a right-in, right-out access point on Carolina Beach Road. Board members acknowledged this access but emphasized that construction traffic was currently using residential streets such as Sweetgum Drive, causing disruption to the Tarin Woods neighborhood. Several members encouraged the developer to prioritize construction access from Carolina Beach Road early in the project to alleviate impacts on surrounding residential streets. The Board noted the reduced density and the inclusion of a direct access point to Carolina Beach Road as positive developments. Board members also discussed the quasi-judicial nature of the upcoming hearing before the Board of Commissioners. It was emphasized that, under this process, only competent, material, and substantial evidence, typically provided by qualified experts, could be considered in the decision-making process. Members advised residents opposed to the project to consider securing legal and professional representation, such as land use attorneys, engineers, and appraisers, to effectively present their case. While acknowledging the applicant’s reduction in density and increased open space, members reiterated that concerns about the Traffic Impact Analysis remained significant. They suggested that, although not required, updating the TIA could help address ongoing public skepticism and improve transparency. The discussion concluded with a recommendation that the developer formalize and communicate the validity of the TIA through updated documentation and consider early construction access from Carolina Beach Road to reduce neighborhood disruption. The Board acknowledged the applicant’s efforts to reduce density and address the four required findings of fact, noting that the presentation was well-structured and would likely be strengthened further at the Board of Commissioners’ hearing. They encouraged the applicant to provide greater clarity on how the proposed open space—particularly active versus passive areas—would function within the context of surrounding neighborhoods, and to clearly communicate the timeline for establishing access from Carolina Beach Road, especially for construction traffic. The Board also recommended that the applicant clarify the development’s relationship to the existing HOA and address whether it would be governed separately. There being no further business, Mr. Hipp motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Matthews seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7:55PM. The motion to adjourn was approved unanimously, 5-0.