The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-10-2025 Planning Board Minutes Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board  July 10, 2025 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on July 10, 2025, at 6:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.    Members’ Present      Colin Tarrant, Chair    Cameron Moore, Vice Chair    Clark Hipp   Hansen Matthews   Kevin Hine   Kaitlyn Rhonehouse   Pete Avery     Staff Present   Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use       Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor   Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Zach Dickerson, Senior Development Review Planner    Katherine May, Development Review Planner  Timothy Lowe, County Engineer  K. Jordan Smith, County Attorney    Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor  Shauna Bradley, Administrative Specialist  Chair Tarrant called the meeting to order at 6:01 PM and welcomed the audience. Approval of Minutes  The minutes from March 6th Regular Planning Board meeting, June 3rd Planning Board Agenda Review, and June 5th Regular Planning Board meeting were presented for consideration and approval. With no discussion, a motion to approve minutes was made by Mr. Matthews, seconded by Mr. Avery, and was approved unanimously (7-0). Chair Tarrant announced that the item discussed during the meeting would advance the County Commissioners' meeting, scheduled for August 4th, 2025. He also noted that Ms. Rhonehouse would serve as the Planning Board’s representative during that meeting. 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 (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) R5, Residential Moderate High Density for a convenience store with fuel stations, fast food restaurant with drive-thru, with row-style dwelling units. Mr. Dickerson approached to confirm that the applicant would like to request a continuance of the item of request. Attorney Corrie Lee, representing the applicant, then approached to explain there were utility location issues that occurred and confirmed the need to request a continuance. She continued, saying the applicant will be making minor modifications to the site plan and would like to present to the Board again at the August 7th Planning Board meeting. No one from the public was signed up to speak in support of or in opposition to the project. Mr. Hipp motioned to continue the proposed rezoning to the August 7, 2025, regular Planning Board meeting to allow the applicant time to update the concept plan to accommodate underground utilities. Mr. Avery seconded. The motion to grant continuance passed 6-0. Update - Maintenance Amendment to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Standards for Signs Staff provided an update on the ongoing maintenance amendment to New Hanover County’s sign regulations, originally presented to the Planning Board in June. This amendment formed part of a continued effort to modernize and clarify the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) since its adoption. The goal was to ensure that the sign standards remained relevant and enforceable considering changed technologies, evolved community conditions, and legal developments. The maintenance amendment focused specifically on three key areas: modernization of standards, clarification of language, and legal compliance. It was emphasized that these amendments did not involve policy changes, which could only be initiated through direction from the Board of Commissioners or County Management. While staff originally intended to release a public comment draft at the July meeting, they had determined that additional research was necessary. Rather than issuing an incomplete amendment and revisiting the regulations shortly afterward, staff chose to delay the draft's release until the August 7 meeting. This decision reflected a commitment to ensure clarity, consistency, and ease of administration within the code. The proposed amendment will impact several sections of the UDO beyond the primary sign standards outlined in Section 5.6. Those included will be Article II, which contained definitions and methods for measuring sign height and area; Article III, which outlined sign standards by zoning district; Article IV, which addressed outdoor advertising and signage for specific uses; Article XI, which covered nonconforming signs; and Article XII, which included enforcement provisions. Staff aimed to ensure that all related provisions were updated in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. Modernization efforts were primarily focused on digital signage. The current ordinance did not directly address digital signs, and past interpretations were largely based on outdated illumination standards that did not reflect newer technologies. To improve usability, staff proposed reorganizing the sign regulations, updating conflicting or obsolete terminology, eliminating redundant language, and formally incorporating staff interpretations into the ordinance. These Commented [RR1]: We do need to note the vote. changes were intended to improve transparency and reduce the need for code users to seek clarification through staff inquiries. Staff also announced plans to revise the permitting process to require sign permits for all permanent signs. The existing ordinance exempted some signs from permitting but still required them to meet all applicable standards. This contradiction had caused confusion and often resulted in compliance issues after signs were already installed. By eliminating this exemption, staff believed the permitting process—described as straightforward and low-cost—would help prevent future violations and protect property owners from unintended infractions. Another area of focus was the Urban Mixed Use Zoning District (UMXD), which was adopted in 2019 and was designed to support walkable, urban-style development. Unlike other commercial districts that followed traditional highway corridor models, the UMXD lacked clear, tailored sign standards. Staff referenced the Riverfront Mixed-Use District, which mirrored downtown Wilmington’s development pattern, as a potential framework for drafting more suitable sign standards for the UMXD. In addition, staff reviewed digital sign provisions developed during the UDO project in coordination with outside consultants. These provisions sometimes differed from those in the City of Wilmington’s Land Development Code (LDC). Staff emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency where development patterns were similar between the city and county but also acknowledged the need for flexibility in areas where county development diverged from the city’s character. Finally, staff noted plans to allow digital sign components for nonresidential uses—such as churches or schools—within residential zoning districts located along high-traffic corridors. The current code treated all such uses the same, regardless of their context, which overlooked the potential differences in visual impact between signs placed along major roads versus those in quiet residential areas. The proposed amendment would address this discrepancy and offer a more context-sensitive approach. Staff concluded the presentation by welcoming additional feedback from the Planning Board to inform them of the final public comment draft, which they still anticipated being released at the August meeting. Meeting adjourned at 6:21Pm