Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-8-2026 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board  January 8, 2025 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on October 2, 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 Clark Hipp   Kaitlyn Rhonehouse   Kevin Hine Andy Hewitt Members Absent  Shemeka Kemp Staff Present   Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney    Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor   Zachary Dickerson, Senior Development Planner Amy Doss, Development Review Planner Ryan Beil, Development Review Planner   Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 5 P.M. and welcomed the audience. He then informed that board that Ms. Kemp was unable to attend the meeting due to an unexpected work conflict and that her absence was excused per the Board of Commissioners’ Policies and Procedures for county boards and committees Approval of Minutes The minutes from the Planning Board’s Regular meeting on July 10th, November 6th, December 4th of 2025 and December 2nd Agenda Review Meeting Minutes were presented for consideration and approval. With no discussion, Mr. Hipp MOTIONED to approve the meeting minutes. It was SECONDED by Mr. Hewitt, and the minutes were approved, 6-0. Chair Moore announced that the items discussed during the meeting would advance to the County Commissioners’ meeting tentatively scheduled for Monday February 22, 2026. The Planning Board representatives will be Cameron Moore and Andy Hewitt. Chair Moore will be there due to the Comprehensive Plan being presented, and Mr. Hewitt was scheduled as the Planning Board representative. Chair Moore reminded the Board of the Code of Ethics, emphasizing that board members must avoid conflicts of interest maintaining integrity and independence in their roles and asked if any member had any known conflicts of interest regarding the matters on the agenda. Mr. Avery mentioned that he has land near the applicants, but Attorney Richards advised that this would not be considered a conflict of interest under the policy. Regular Business Preliminary Forum Chair Moore clarified that the Planning Board would not be making any decisions or recommendations to the Board of Commissioners for this request. Instead, the decision regarding the application would be made during a quasi-judicial public hearing at the upcoming Board of Commissioners meeting. Special Use Permit – (S25-07 – Tideline Boats) – Special Use Permit request by Greg Taylor with TMC Taylor Construction, INC, on behalf of 2nd Wilmington Properties LLC, property owner, for the use of Ship and Boat Building in a (CZD) I-1, Conditional Light Industrial district on approximately 1.58 acres located at 2020 Capital Drive. Associate Planner Ryan Beil presented an overview of a proposed Special Use Permit application (S25-07) for a property located at 2020 Capital Drive. He explained that the purpose of the preliminary forum was to allow the Planning Board to provide advisory comments, guidance, and suggestions to the applicant and the public prior to the Board of Commissioners’ quasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Beil reviewed the proposed reuse of the property for a shipbuilding operation and presented aerial imagery and site photographs illustrating existing site conditions, including parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and stormwater features. Mr. Beil summarized the zoning history and site context, noting that the property was originally zoned Airport Residential and R-15 in 1972 and was rezoned to conditionally zoned I-1 in 1995, a district intended to allow limited industrial uses while prohibiting more intensive or incompatible activities, with shipbuilding permitted only by Special Use Permit. He stated that surrounding zoning included B- 1 to the east and conditionally zoned I-1 to the north, south, and west. The proposed operation involved conducting all boat and shipbuilding activities within the existing building, focusing on high-end and fishing catamarans. He noted that parking exceeded ordinance requirements, existing landscaping standards were met, and stormwater was managed through a regional pond and a permeable fenced area at the rear of the building. No conditions were proposed by the applicant, and the project was not anticipated to generate more than 100 AM or PM peak-hour trips, eliminating the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis under the Unified Development Ordinance. Mr. Beil noted that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the property as an Employment Center, intended to function as an employment and production hub for office and light industrial uses. He explained that, during the quasi-judicial hearing, the Board of Commissioners would be required to determine whether the four required findings for approval of a Special Use Permit were met, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He concluded by stating that the Planning Board’s discussion was intended to identify areas needing clarification or additional information, provide guidance to the applicant in advance of the Board of Commissioners’ hearing, inform potential opponents, and flag any issues that should be addressed prior to the public hearing. Chair Moore invited the applicant up to present. George Stronek, representing Tideline Boats, identified himself as the applicant and stated that his business would be leasing the property. He explained that the proposed use of the site was for fiberglass boat manufacturing, with the entire manufacturing process occurring in the existing building. He stated that no manufacturing activities would take place outdoors. Limited exterior activity would consist of washing boats and the temporary storage of one or two boats prior to delivery. He indicated that the business anticipated employing six employees beginning in March, with staffing expected to increase to approximately 12 employees by the end of the year. He stated that production would be limited to approximately one boat per month. He further noted that a letter had been provided from Chris Stevens, President of the Industrial Park Property Owners Association, indicating that the Association supported and approved of the proposed use. Mr. Stronach concluded by stating that he was available to answer any questions regarding business operations. In response to a question regarding the applicable Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) or SSE code for the proposed operation, the applicant stated that he did not know the code at that time. He was advised that the applicant’s NAICS classification appeared to fall under boat building and explained that different SIC/SSE codes associated with manufacturing may carry varying stormwater permitting requirements, particularly given the site’s discharge to a shared regional stormwater pond and the proposed exterior boat washing activities. The applicant acknowledged the comments and stated that the appropriate classification and any required stormwater permitting would be confirmed prior to the Board of Commissioners’ meeting, noting that the manufacturing process was relatively clean but agreed to further evaluate the issue. No additional comments were raised, and the preliminary forum was closed with the application scheduled to proceed to the Board of Commissioners for consideration, with the Planning Board serving in an advisory capacity. With no public comments, the preliminary forum closed with a staff overview of next steps in the process. Public Hearings Rezoning Request – (Z25-18 – Beacon Townhomes) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Leo Nguyen, property owners, to rezone approximately 1.16 acres located at 7244 Carolina Beach Road and 825 Red Lighthouse Lane from R-15, Residential to a (CZD) R-5, Residential Moderate-High Density district for a maximum of 9 attached dwelling units in the form of duplex, triplex and quadraplex units. Associate Planner Amy Doss presented the overview for Rezoning Request Z25-18 (Beacon Townhomes), a request to rezone approximately 1.16 acres located at 7244 Carolina Beach Road and 825 Red Lighthouse Lane. She reviewed the applicant’s proposed concept plan, which included duplex, triplex, and quadraplex units, guest parking, open space, tree preservation areas, sidewalk locations, a stormwater pond, and a proposed public access easement along with an existing access easement on the northern property boundary. The site was proposed to have right-in, right-out access on Carolina Beach Road via Red Lighthouse Lane, with northbound traffic able to make U-turns at St. Vincent Drive. Ms. Doss noted that while peak-hour trips were expected to increase, the increase remained below the threshold for requiring a traffic impact analysis. The development was estimated to generate approximately two additional students. Surrounding land uses included residential developments and commercial mixed- use properties. She also noted coordination efforts related to transportation and an anticipated memorandum of understanding involving the Red Lighthouse Village HOA. With respect to policy consistency, Ms. Doss explained that while the 2016 Comprehensive Plan recommended residential densities generally ranging from 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre, the Destination 2050 plan that was scheduled to be considered by the Board of Commissioners in February discouraged residential density in this location. Ms. Doss stated that although the application and proposed conditions were included, staff anticipated changes to the final site design due to existing easements. Those changes could potentially constitute a major modification, which might require additional review. She further noted that, despite general consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, staff had identified technical issues that could affect site plan approval. Based on these considerations, staff recommended denial of the rezoning request. She concluded her presentation. Cindee Wolfe, representing the property owner and potential developer, presented the rezoning request and expressed disappointment with the staff recommendation for denial, stating that several issues could have been resolved earlier and that there was agreement with staff on multiple aspects of the proposal. She explained that the subject site’s location along Carolina Beach Road, combined with nearby intersections and access limitations, made traditional single-family development under existing R-15 zoning less appropriate. She noted that by-right development could result in multiple single-family homes with additional driveway access and traffic impacts and emphasized that the proposed rezoning was intended to address safety concerns rather than increase them. She described the proposed nine-unit townhome development, with all access from Red Lighthouse Lane, and noted coordination with the Lighthouse Village HOA to achieve safer access consistent with NCDOT standards. She stated that the project would include two-story units with garages, guest parking, public water and sewer service, and stormwater management measures suited to site conditions, along with buffers, fencing, and setbacks to protect adjacent properties and eliminate new traffic on Little Pony Trail. She concluded that the proposal was consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals for higher-density residential development along major corridors, housing diversity, and infill development where services are available, and represented an appropriate residential transition along a busy highway corridor. Ms. Wolfe clarified that the plan shown to the Board in her presentation was an updated version that included modifications to respond to staff’s concerns. She also differentiated between the version included in the packet as the application submittal and the original concept presented at the community information meeting conducted prior to formal application submittal. She explained the changes to the concept plan after staff's comments, including reconfiguring unit placements to preserve a mature water oak, ensure adequate buffering, and maintain nine units with access only from Red Lighthouse Lane. In response to questions from the Board about the sidewalk requirements, fencing, and by-right development potential under existing R-15 zoning. Ms. Wolfe stated that the internal circulation consisted of private drives and that sidewalks were included as a reasonable design feature, while staff clarified that the access would be classified as a private road built to NCDOT standards with potential for a waiver from the sidewalk requirements during technical review. Ms. Wolfe confirmed that the proposed fence was not located within the access easement and that additional buffer width was provided. She also explained that the site could accommodate between three and five dwelling units by right, with potential for accessory dwelling units or additional lots depending on subdivision standards. Chair Moore noted that there were members of the public signed up to speak in support of the project. David Gross- 802 Redlight House Lane Mr. Gross, President of the Red Lighthouse Lane Homeowners Association, described Red Lighthouse Lane as a small community of 22 homes, primarily modular homes built in the early 2000s with some site-built homes, and stated that the neighborhood had generally expressed support for the project. While acknowledging minor concerns about increased traffic, he noted that the addition of nine townhomes was not expected to generate significant traffic and that any new traffic would be concentrated near the entrance rather than throughout the neighborhood. He stated that he supported the most recent site layout, noting that the proposed homes were set back from Carolina Beach Road and would not be visually intrusive when entering the community. He also expressed support for allowing access through Red Lighthouse Lane, citing the presence of an existing turn lane that enhances safety. He noted that the development would contribute to ongoing road maintenance through coordination with the HOA, including potential financial contributions and shared responsibility for future upkeep. He concluded by noting that the property had remained vacant for many years and that the proposed development represented a positive and compatible use of the site. The Board discussed whether there was a written agreement or memorandum of understanding in place between the developer and the Red Lighthouse Lane HOA regarding access, maintenance responsibilities, and financial contributions. Ms. Wolfe and Mr. Gross explained that while no agreement had been formally executed, the parties had been working in good faith and had prepared draft documentation outlining proposed terms. Ms. Wolfe stated that execution of a formal agreement had been deferred pending rezoning approval to avoid premature legal costs but confirmed that her client would be responsible for all legal documentation related to access, landscaping improvements, fencing, and financial contributions, including an initial payment and ongoing monthly dues for road and common area maintenance. Members of the Board expressed concern about the lack of finalized documentation, particularly given the reliance on private road access and the County’s experience with orphaned private roads. Ms. Wolfe confirmed that the proposed access via Red Lighthouse Lane was fundamental to the project and that there was no alternative access plan if an agreement with the HOA could not be finalized. She further noted that relocation of access would constitute a major modification and that the project would not proceed without the agreed-upon access arrangement. Discussion also addressed the proposed rezoning conditions, with Ms. Wolfe stating that most conditions were acceptable, with one potentially requiring adjustment due to the revised unit configuration, while confirming compliance with height, tree preservation, lighting, access easements, and open space requirements. The Board also discussed whether rezoning approval could be made contingent upon execution of an MOU, and staff indicated that such a condition could be included. Some members emphasized the importance of clear, enforceable language addressing road maintenance and liability, while others cautioned against the Board becoming involved in private access agreements. Overall, the discussion highlighted the central role of access and maintenance arrangements in evaluating the request, with several members noting that the absence of a finalized agreement remained a key concern. Chair Moore noted that there were members of the public signed up to speak in opposition to the project Adrian Garber – P.O. Box 15770 Adrian Garber spoke in opposition to the rezoning request, asking the Board to deny the proposal to rezone the property from R-15 to R-5. She stated that the increased density was not compatible with the surrounding single-family residential development, was inconsistent with the character of the area, and was not in the public interest. She argued that the proposal failed to meet R-5 sidewalk requirements, did not function as an appropriate transition, and conflicted with the Destination 2050 vision discouraging higher-density residential development in the southern portion of the county. Ms. Garber emphasized that existing R-15 zoning better supports stormwater absorption, tree preservation, privacy, and neighborhood character, and she expressed concern that approving higher density on a small parcel would set a precedent for additional rezonings, negatively impacting infrastructure, quality of life, and community character. Laurie Brunner – 816 Little Pony Trail Laurie Brunner, a resident of Little Pony Trail, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. She stated that there were already several high-density projects along the southern portion of Carolina Beach Road and that retaining the existing R-15 zoning was more consistent with the character of the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Ms. Brunner expressed concern that rezoning the property to CZD R-5 and allowing nine two-story attached units would negatively impact the integrity of the area, noting that placing such development between two single-family neighborhoods was unreasonable. John Thompson – 808 Little Pony Trail John Thompson, a resident of Little Pony Trail, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. He stated that the proposal was inconsistent with the existing neighborhood and expressed concern that such development would negatively affect peaceful residential areas. He urged the Board to deny the request. Julie Thompson – 808 Little Pony Trail Julie Thompson, a resident of Little Pony Trail, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request, expressing concerns primarily related to traffic safety and neighborhood impacts. She described existing difficulties accessing Carolina Beach Road due to curves, limited sight distance, and seasonal traffic, noting that safety concerns had previously led the U.S. Postal Service to relocate mailboxes off the roadway. She stated that additional traffic from the proposed development would worsen safety conditions, particularly for U-turn movements. Ms. Thompson also questioned the level of neighborhood support cited by others, stating that several nearby residents she spoke with from Red Lighthouse Lane and Lea Landing opposed the project and that some residents may not have received required notifications. She expressed concern over multiple changes to the site plan and urged the Board to deny the request due to safety, notification, and neighborhood compatibility concerns. Tim Brunner- 816 Little Pony Trail Tim Brunner, a resident of Little Pony Trail, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request, stating that he believed the process had been unclear and inconsistent, citing the existence of multiple site plans and a lack of transparency. He expressed concern that the property’s location near a roadway curve created a traffic safety hazard and characterized the proposal as an effort to maximize development intensity with minimal investment. Mr. Brunner also raised concerns about long-term oversight and maintenance, referencing conditions at nearby developments where he alleged infrastructure and stormwater facilities were not adequately maintained after construction. He urged the Board to deny the request, citing safety concerns, process issues, and a lack of confidence in post-approval accountability. Chair Moore opened the floor for the applicant’s rebuttal. Ms. Cindee Wolfe responded to public comments by emphasizing that the primary objective of the proposal was to eliminate new traffic impacts to Little Pony Trail and Lea Landing by directing all access to Red Lighthouse Lane, which already includes a turn lane and functions comparably to other intersections along Carolina Beach Road. She stated that the project would create no new conflict points along Little Pony Trail and that plan revisions were made specifically in response to neighborhood concerns raised during the community information meeting. Ms. Wolfe acknowledged that additional density was necessary to support the negotiated access arrangement but argued that the proposed development represented an improvement over by-right development, which could introduce multiple new driveway access points. She stated that if the property were developed under existing zoning, access to Red Lighthouse Lane would not be pursued due to cost and feasibility, and the property would likely be developed as individual single-family lots with access from Carolina Beach Road. Chair Moore opened the floor for the opposition’s rebuttal. Tim Brunner- 816 Little Pony Trail Tim Brunner responded by stating that he believed development of three single- family homes with access from Little Pony Trail would be acceptable, noting that nearby properties already function with similar access. He expressed strong opposition to the proposed nine-unit development, characterizing it as excessive for the size of the parcel and raising concerns about parking impacts. Mr. Brunner questioned where vehicles associated with the development would be accommodated, citing the likelihood of overflow parking issues and neighborhood conflicts, and reiterated that the proposed density was incompatible with the surrounding area. Julie Brunner – 816 Little Pony Trail Julie Brunner spoke in rebuttal, reiterating concerns about traffic safety and access. She stated that existing conditions already make it difficult and dangerous to enter Carolina Beach Road due to a sharp curve with limited visibility and high vehicle speeds. She noted that both Little Pony Trail and nearby Lea Landing experience challenges accessing the roadway and expressed concern that adding additional residents and vehicles from the proposed development would significantly increase the risk of accidents. Ms. Brunner emphasized that safety, particularly related to sight distance and turning movements, was the primary concern driving her opposition to the project. Adrian Garber – P.O. Box 15770 Adrian Garber reiterated her opposition to the project, citing traffic safety and environmental concerns. She noted that although she did not live within 500 feet of the site, her daughter lived on Lea Landing Road near Carolina Beach Road, where there are no acceleration or deceleration lanes. She expressed concern that increased density would add impervious surfaces, limit stormwater absorption and planting opportunities, and exacerbate existing safety issues along Little Pony Trail, Lea Landing, and Red Lighthouse Lane, where limited sight distance, short turn lanes, and frequent truck traffic already create hazardous conditions. Chair Moore closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Board Discussion During Board discussion, members clarified their advisory role and emphasized that any action would be a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Several members expressed concern about being asked to evaluate the rezoning in light of the pending Destination 2050 Comprehensive Plan update, with staff clarifying that the application must be reviewed under the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, which remains in effect until formally replaced. Staff explained that the recommendation for denial was based on unresolved technical issues, including the lack of a transitional buffer, sidewalk requirements, and the absence of a formal access arrangement, noting that revised materials were received earlier in the day, too late for full staff review. Board members expressed differing views on the proposal. Some indicated support for the general concept of increased residential density along Carolina Beach Road and access via Red Lighthouse Lane, viewing it as preferable to by-right development that could add driveways and traffic conflicts. Others voiced discomfort with the process, citing the presence of multiple site plans, incomplete vetting of revisions, and the lack of finalized or reviewable documentation related to access and maintenance agreements. Several members stressed the importance of transparency and ensured both staff and the public had adequate opportunity to review a complete and consistent plan before making a recommendation. Ultimately, the Board discussed potential paths forward, including denial, approval with conditions, or continuation. A consensus emerged that the application would benefit from additional time to allow submission of a fully vetted site plan, incorporation of agreed-upon conditions (such as sidewalks, buffers, and access), and staff review. After Board discussion, Ms. Wolfe requested a continuance, stating she would work with staff to address outstanding technical issues, potentially reduce the unit count, add sidewalks, and provide documentation related to access prior to the Board of Commissioners’ review. Mr. Hine MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Hipp to continue the public hearing for the proposed rezoning to the February 5, 2026, regular Planning Board meeting to allow the applicant time to update the concept plan. The motion carried 6-0. Comprehensive Plan Update - Request by New Hanover County to adopt the NHC Destination 2050 Comprehensive Plan update. Planning & Land Use Director Rebekah Roth presented an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update, explaining that staff spent approximately 18 months preparing a full update to New Hanover County’s Comprehensive Plan as part of the County’s continuous planning process. She stated that the update aligns land use policy with the Board of Commissioners’ long-term vision for a vibrant, prosperous, and sustainable coastal community and complements recent updates to the County’s Strategic Plan. Ms. Roth clarified that the Comprehensive Plan applies only to unincorporated areas of the County and functions as a policy document establishing the desired future growth pattern and strategies to achieve it. While not regulatory, the plan was intended to serve as the county’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) plan and some policies would be considered during the state CAMA permitting process once it was adopted by the Coastal Resources Commission. At a local level, the plan would be used by the Board of Commissioners when making land use decisions but was not binding. Ms. Roth reviewed the County’s planning history, noting adoption of the first Comprehensive Plan in 2016 and subsequent growth, regulatory modernization through the Unified Development Ordinance, water and sewer expansion, and establishment of a stormwater services program. Following targeted amendments to the 2016 Plan that were started in fall 2023, staff initiated the current update in late spring 2024. She described the three-phase process used for the update: data collection and public input, technical studies and policy direction from the Board of Commissioners, and drafting, public review, and adoption, with the draft plan released for public review in December. Community Planning Supervisor, Katia Boykin presented an overview of public engagement activities and comments. She reported that staff implemented an extensive engagement strategy beginning with an open house in August 2024 and concluding in May 2025, including library meetings, mobile meetings, festival outreach, and 18 targeted focus group interviews. Engagement efforts generated approximately 2,400 individual comments, including responses from more than 600 participants in a residential survey. Ms. Boykin stated that the draft plan was available for public review from November 19 to December 19, 2025, both online and in hard copy at multiple county facilities. During the comment period, staff received 32 formal comments, all of which were reviewed and evaluated. Ms. Boykin summarized key public comment themes, including protection of natural resources and water quality, expanded parks and open space, housing affordability and diversity balanced against infrastructure and school capacity concerns, clarity of place type definitions, support for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, improved mapping and data transparency, and the need for measurable goals and accountability. She noted that many comments were supportive of the plan and appreciative of staff efforts and emphasized that regular five-year updates help ensure the plan remains responsive and legally sound. Ms. Roth concluded with a detailed presentation of the plan’s structure and major policy updates. She highlighted consolidation of goals from 21 to four themed areas: Quality of Place; Infrastructure and Support Services; Environmental Stewardship and Resilience; and Coordination and Engagement—supported by measurable objectives, policies, a Future Land Use Map, and an implementation framework. She explained refinements to place types, including clarification of conservation areas, introduction of Infill Residential to better reflect existing neighborhood character, and refined mixed-use categories to focus higher-intensity development in appropriate, master-planned locations. Ms. Roth emphasized that the Future Land Use Map was advisory, not parcel-specific, and that adoption of the plan initiates an ongoing cycle of monitoring, reporting, and future updates rather than concluding the planning effort. Chair Moore noted that there were members of the public signed up to speak in support of update. Isabelle Shepherd – 1937 Hudson Drive Isabelle Shepherd, speaking on behalf of the Alliance for Cape Fear Trees, expressed strong support for the Comprehensive Plan update and thanked planning staff for their diligent and transparent work. She stated that the plan reflected extensive community engagement and aligns with values of equity, sustainability, and resilience, particularly through its recognition of trees as critical infrastructure that provide heat mitigation, stormwater management, and nature-based resilience. Ms. Shepherd urged the Planning Board to recommend approval of Destination 2050, noting that it positioned New Hanover County as a regional leader in sustainable growth, and offered the organization’s continued support in implementing the plan through future Unified Development Ordinance updates and integration of green infrastructure. Roger Shew - 4910 Park Avenue Roger Shew emphasized the importance of creating welcoming commercial corridors. He encouraged stronger requirements for vegetated buffers between roadways and commercial development to improve visual character and community appeal, noting that heavily commercialized corridors without vegetation are unattractive. He also highlighted flooding concerns in areas such as Sidbury, pointing to hydric soils, loss of tree canopy, and clearing of natural areas as contributors to stormwater problems. He urged that future Unified Development Ordinance updates more carefully consider soil conditions, wetlands, and natural systems in managing stormwater and flooding, and concluded by commending staff’s work and recommending approval of the plan. Chair Moore closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Board Discussion The Board discussion focused on the work staff put into the document, their responsiveness to past feedback and discussions about the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, and how the draft plan addressed infrastructure capacity and environmental constraints. Board members did voice concerns that limiting incremental density in areas designated as Infill Residential and not allowing residential uses in Corridor Commercial areas could have unintended consequences given land costs and availability. Despite those concerns, the Board generally agreed that balancing growth, housing affordability, environmental stewardship, and infrastructure capacity is challenging. Members noted that, as a guiding document rather than a regulatory tool, the Comprehensive Plan would continue to be refined through implementation actions, ordinance updates, and future amendments. Chair Moore MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Avery to recommend approval of the proposed update to the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan, finding it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as it builds on the foundation of that plan in supporting connected growth, respecting establishes communities, targeting new development where land is available, protecting environmentally sensitive areas, and mitigating risk to flooding and other natural hazards. The Board found recommending approval to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed plan is based on community input and technical data and is aligned with prior Board of Commissioners policy direction. The motion carried 6-0. Additionally, Chair Moore asked staff to communicate the concerns raised by Planning Board members during the discussion to the Board of Commissioners. Text Amendment Request (TA25-05) - Request by New Hanover County to amend the Unified Development Ordinance Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 to update references to the Comprehensive Plan place types, designate the Riverfront Mixed Use zoning district as a legacy district, modify transportation-related application requirements for PD rezonings, incorporate recent changes to state statutes, and correct an unintended conflict included in the recent sign standards ordinance amendment. Ms. Roth presented a proposed Unified Development Ordinance text amendment intended to accompany the Comprehensive Plan update. This amendment is being brought forward as a companion to the consideration of the NHC Destination 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update, primarily because the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) specifically references Comprehensive Plan place types in some standards that could create unintended impacts if the plan were adopted without a concurrent amendment. The amendment also provides an opportunity to begin the implementation plan process, incorporate recent changes to state statutes, and correct a conflicting provision unintentionally included in the recently adopted TA25- 04 sign standards update amendment. The amendment was released for public comment in December, with one supportive comment received, and is scheduled for consideration by the Board of Commissioners in February following the Planning Board’s recommendation. With no speakers signed up in support or opposition, Chair Moore closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Hearing no further discussion, Mr. Hine MOVED, SECONDED by Ms. Rhonehouse to recommend approval of the proposed Unified Development Ordinance to update references to Comprehensive Plan place types, begin implementation of the NHC Destination 2050 Comprehensive Plan update, incorporate recent changes to state statutes, and correct a conflicting provision in the sign standards. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and 2026 NHC Destination 2050 Comprehensive Plan because it will support the use of zoning tools that will allow for coordinated land use and infrastructure planning, limit the use of tools that are not aligned with plan policies, and maintain consistency with state law. The Board also found recommending approval to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed amendment will allow for a common understanding of local authority under state law and begin implementation of key provisions in the 2026 NHC Destination 2050 Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried 6-0. Other Items The Board discussed its Rule of Procedures, which needed to be updated due to Board of Commissioner modifications to their Policies and Procedures for Boards and Committees adopted in December. Chair Moore MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Hine, to table the item until the draft was finalized and ready for review and scheduled it for further discussion. The motion carried 6-0. Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 8:09 PM.