200601 Jan PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
January 5, 2006
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, January 5, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in
the County Court House, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC to hold a public
meeting.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Walter Conlogue, Chairman Dexter Hayes, Planning Director
David Adams Steve Candler, Sr. Planner
Sue Hayes Sam Burgess, Planner
Sandra Spiers Holt Moore, Assistant County Attorney
Planning Board Chairman Conlogue opened the meeting by welcoming those present to
the public hearing. Chairman Conlogue led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
Chairman Conlogue asked whether the December, 2005 Planning Board Minutes were
available. Sam Burgess stated that the December Minutes had been drafted but were not
ready for Planning Board review.
Item 1: Rezoning (Cont'd Aug, 2005 PB Mtg) - Request by Park Lake Properties,
LLC to rezone approximately 104.6 acres of property located in the 2000 & 2100
blocks of Castle Hayne Road, west side, from R-20 Residential to R-15 Residential.
(Z-801, 07/05)
Steve Candler gave a brief review of the request and presented pictures of the subject
property and nearby land uses.
Rob Balland, representing Park Lake Properties, provided information regarding the site
and history of the rezoning request. He stated that wastewater capacity for the site was
limited and that sewer lines would need to be extended to the property. Balland added
that NCDOT would require turn lanes and that traffic on Castle Hayne Road should be
reduced with the opening of the MLK Parkway and I-140 Bypass. Site construction
would not begin until 2008, which should allow time for the Northside Plant to be
upgraded.
Chris Miller, nearby resident was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Miller questioned whether
all the wetlands had been properly mapped, the specific housing type proposed for the
project, and the increase in the total number of lots if the property were rezoned.
Chairman Conlogue responded by stating that this petition was for a straight rezoning and
that a site plan would be reviewed by the County's Technical Review Committee (TRC).
Mr. Balland also responded by saying that the future lots would be single family with the
possibility of a few town homes.
Sue Hayes expressed concern that if the property were rezoned, an increase in the total
number of lots would be significant.
1
David Adams expressed concern about several existing residential lots to the south being
in two different zoning districts and the commercial district located near Castle Hayne
Road. Planning Director Hayes noted that staff would recommend that both areas needed
adjusting and that they could be included with the present petition if it was the Board's
desire. Sandra Spiers was concerned about when sewer would become available to the
area.
Dexter Hayes provided the Staff Summary:
At their regular meeting on July 7, 2005, the Planning Board "continued" the rezoning
request for thirty- (30) days. The Planning Board questioned the petitioners about the
availability public infrastructure and traffic congestion two concerns of the planning staff.
The petitioners met with planning staff and responded to the board's concerns in a letter
dated September 2, 2005.
The subject property is located just north of Arlington Drive and south of Bermuda Drive
on the west side of Castle Hayne Road. Zoning districts located nearby include a R-15
Residential Zoning District to the south, I-2 Heavy Industrial adjacent and to the west,
and AR Airport Residential located directly across the street on the east side of Castle
Hayne Road. Two existing residential developments anchor the rezoning request to the
north and south. Both developments are currently being served by individual wells and
septic tanks.
This rezoning petition is a combination of 8 tracts of property containing approximately
104 acres. The tracts have a total of 950 feet of road frontage on Castle Hayne Road
with an average depth of 3,400 feet that extend to the marshes of the northeast Cape Fear
River. The petition also includes a small portion of B-1 Neighborhood Business located
in the southeastern corner of tract 44 (zoning site map).
During the past 10 years, this area along Castle Hayne Road has witnessed very little
commercial and residential growth. This lack of growth can be attributed to the absence
of public water and sewer and other infrastructure needs. However, Castle Hayne Road
has experienced an increase in traffic due to existing businesses located nearby and also
being one of the primary road gateways leading into downtown Wilmington and the
Brunswick County beaches. In response to the traffic increase and congestion, DOT
construction projects will include the I-140 Bypass and the final leg of the Martin Luther
King Parkway (MLK) that will extend from the downtown area to Market Street. Both
are almost complete.
The applicant's request to rezone approximately 104 acres from R-20 Residential to R-15
Residential appears to be logical knowing that a future residential site plan will be
submitted on these tracts. However, rezoning these tracts now to a greater density (1.9
units per acre to 2.5 units) may present its own challenges. First, a great deal of
uncertainty still exists on the availability of water and sewer. At the present time, City
water and sewer is located approximately a mile away near Division Drive.
Sewer capacity is also limited until the Northside Plant is upgraded. Second, traffic
congestion continues to be a serious issue along Castle Hayne Road, especially during the
morning and late afternoon. Until the MLK Parkway and the I-140 Bypass are complete,
residents along Arlington and Carl Seitter Drive will continue to find it difficult to access
2
Castle Hayne Road. Third, environmental issues may play a role in developing the
property at a higher residential density. With the uncertainty of water and sewer
availability and the impact that the MLK Parkway may have on the area near Castle
Hayne, Staff recommends that the property remain R-20 until more definitive
infrastructure plans for the area become known.
In response to staff concerns, the applicant has the following responses. According to
WK Dickson, the engineering firm for the applicant, they desire to receive capacity from
the Northside treatment plant expansion. With the county's new water treatment plant,
the applicant expects to receive capacity from that facility. Both projects have a
completion date by the summer of 2008. The applicant expects traffic congestion relief
from the I-140 bypass and the Martin Luther King Parkway. The applicant realizes the
project requires a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and any proposed mitigation measures
required by the TIA will be included in the design of the project. The applicant states
that environmental impacts should not be an issue. The wetlands are mapped and any
proposed designs would minimize impacts to the wetlands and the Class IV soils located
on the property.
With the lack of water and sewer services located nearby along with the uncertainty of
future sewer capacity for the area, Walt Conlogue asked the petitioner if he would like to
withdraw his request prior to a vote by the Board on the rezoning request until the sewer
issue was resolved. The petitioner withdrew his rezoning petition. There was no vote by
the Planning Board.
Item 2: Rezoning (Cont'd Dec, 2005 PB Mtg) - Request by John E. Evans, Jr to
rezone approximately 26.5 acres of property located at 1500 and 1551 Point Harbor
Road from I-1 Light Industrial to CD (B-2) Highway Business with Mixed Uses. (Z-
826,12/05)
Steve Candler gave a brief review of the request and presented pictures of the subject
property and adjacent land uses.
John Evans, petitioner for the project explained that the project would have City water
and sewer. Both utilities are proposed to run under the Cape Fear River and would not
conflict with any future dredging by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Evans also presented a
narrative and development schedule for the project. Evans also mentioned that the
proposed town homes would be on pilings to mitigate any flooding concerns. Wet and
dry boat slips are also proposed. Several members of Mr. Evan's design team (Wilson &
Eastman) also spoke about the project.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the request.
Dexter Hayes provided the staff summary:
The property is located along the western edge of the Northeast Cape Fear River south of
the Isabelle Holmes Bridge. The area was once the home of Wilmington Shipyard, a
bustling ship repair facility. Though some of the property has been converted to other
uses, remnants of that use still remain.
3
In February 1996, the Commissioners approved a Conditional Use Zoning that authorized
the construction of 41 residential units, a 115-slip marina, a hotel, and 50,000 sq ft of
retail and office space. That development never materialized and the property was
rezoned to I-1 Light Industrial in January 2005.
The site's primary road frontage is along Point Harbor Rd, a service road connecting to
US 421. The greatest obstacle hindering development of the site is the absence of
adequate water and sewer. This project proposes a phased plan for providing those
services. Existing facilities on the property include a Maritime Building, Rowing Club
and several small offices. The marina presently has 24 wet slips. The new plan calls for
18 town homes, and a marina office with 100 wet and 144 dry slips. A second phase of
the project shows proposed future towers that would exceed the residential density limits
of 2.5 units per acre and cannot be built.
The property is classified Conservation which typically include all marshlands and land
within the 100 - year floodplain. Floodplain elevation for this property is 9 feet.
The redevelopment of this site is at a strategic gateway into the City of Wilmington.
Construction of the PPD offices is underway across the river. Several concerns should be
addressed in finalizing plans for this site. Since the property has a history of intensive
industrial use, environmental assessments should be completed prior to using the property
for residential purposes. Another concern is its close proximity to the heavy truck traffic
along US 421 and NC 133. Traffic volumes are already high and will only become more
intense with the noise from the nearby Bridge crossings. Nevertheless, the proposed
mixed-use marina facility with some limited residential appears to be a reasonable fit for
the site. Assuming the adjustments in the setbacks and wetland boundaries can be
satisfied in the final plan, staff would recommend approval of the zoning change for the
first phase of the project. The applicant submitted a more detailed plan as the planning
board requested.
Preliminary Staff Findings
A. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public
health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as
submitted and approved.
A. Water service is available from the City of Wilmington across the river.
B. Sewer service will be provided on site with a packaged treatment facility.
C. All of the property is located within a 100-year flood area.
D. Access to the project will be from US 421 a major arterial and Point Harbor
Rd
E. Fire Service is available from the North Wilmington VFD
B. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. A site plan pursuant to the Ordinance has been submitted.
B. The 18 units proposed are consistent with the density limits for Conservation
areas.
C. Parking, Building Height and Impervious coverage satisfy the County
requirements
4
D. Wetlands areas need to be mapped and preserved.
E. Buffer yards and Setbacks need to be adjusted on the plan.
C. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. Redevelopment of this site as planned would be a significant change to the
quality of land uses in the area.
B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values
of commercial uses nearby.
D. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if
developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in
harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general
conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County.
A. The 1999 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Conservation with residential
density limited to no more than 2.5 units per acre. Water dependent uses and
commercial uses may be allowed as long as they are sensitive to preserving
the natural functions of the site
B. The property adjoins other marine activities and a truck stop to the north;
Downtown waterfront uses are planned across the river.
Suggested Conditions
• Except for the existing uses and the commercial marina, new uses will be
limited to B-1 neighborhood business
• Eliminate Billboard sign
• Sidewalks and walkways must be provided
• Additional phases and out parcel development will require an amended
plan
• CAMA and COD setbacks may apply along the waterfront and brackish
marsh
David Adams wanted additional information clarifying the land the property. Planning
Director Hayes asked Mr. Evans about the specific design of the town home units. Mr.
Evan's design team displayed renditions of the project.
Sandra Spiers made a motion to recommend elevations on approval of the conditional use
request along with Planning staff recommendations. David Adams seconded the motion.
The vote by the Board was 3-1 with Sue Hayes voting in opposition to the project. Sue
Hayes felt the approval was premature.
Item 3: Special Use Permit - Request by Winner, LLC for Muddy Waters, LLC to
consider a Special Use Permit for a high density residential development on
approximately 22.71 acres of property located at 105 and 125 Battleship Road, west
side or the Cape Fear River, directly south of the USS North Carolina Battleship.
(5-546, 01/06)
5
Steve Candler gave a brief review of the request and presented pictures of the site and
surrounding land uses.
John Evans petitioner for the proposal spoke about the project and plans for water and
sewer. Mr. Evans mentioned that the project would also have a riverwalk and other
attractive features. Warren Wilson, a member of the design team for the project indicated
that the two residential towers would have a small footprint in order to have more open
space. Bill Smith also a member of the project team commented on how the project
would increase the tax base.
Public concerns about the proposed project came from George Edwards who wanted to
know how the proposed project would be integrated with the River Corridor Plan in terms
of green space. Alan Rusher suggested limiting utilities to reduce the impact to nearby
marine industries. Representatives with the Battleship suggested that improvements
needed to be made to Battleship Road leading out to Highway 421 North. Gerry Edwards
from the Historic Commission spoke about needing more details concerning the project.
Dexter Hayes provided the staff summery for the project
Preliminarv Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health
or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as
submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is located within the North Wilmington FD.
B. City water and City sewer will serve the site.
C. Access to the site is from Battleship Road via US Highway 421.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the zoning ordinance.
A. The site is located in a B-2 Highway Zoning District. Residential Development is
permitted by Special Use Permit in the B-2 Highway Business District.
B. The twin towers exceed the maximum building height of 40 feet. However there is an
exception for buildings located within the Urban Transition Area and fronting along a
collector, Minor Arterial or Principal Arterial as indicated on the County's
Thoroughfare Classification Plan, provided their FAR does not exceed 1.0.
C. County policies and ordinances encourage the mixing of residential and commercial
uses.
3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. The subject property is adjacent to vacant property on the Brunswick County line and
the USS North Carolina Battleship Memorial and fronts on Downtown Wilmington.
B. The site plan indicates that storage of all storm water will be on-site.
C. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property values.
6
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed
according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the
area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of
development for New Hanover County.
A. The New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as Conservation
and Transition. Development on these properties will include site-specific
flexibility and creativity.
B. Density in the Conservation area cannot exceed 2.5 units and acre.
Staff Comments:
b. NCDOT and the County need to consider the traffic impacts. Staff recommends
that Battleship Road be improved to accommodate the increase in vehicular traffic
and relieve flooding.
c. Only B-1 Neighborhood Business Uses will be allowed, can be expanded with
office type uses.
d. Sidewalks and walkways need to interconnect the site and the waterfront.
e. Exterior finishes of the buildings need to reflect the scenic vistas of the
Downtown Waterfront.
f. Final design details need to be carefully considered to compliment the
Wilmington Historic District.
Sandra Spiers recommended that the petitioner provide additional details concerning the
project and to meet with the Wilmington Historic Foundation. Several Planning Board
members agreed saying additional information was needed. David Adams was concerned
about the height of the towers and their relationship with nearby land uses.
After several more minutes of discussion concerning the proposed project, the petitioner
withdrew his request.
Item 4: Rezoning (Continued Item) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for Gulfstream
Shopping Center Properties, LLC to rezone approximately 7.37 acres of property
located at 609 Piner Road behind the Junction Creek Office Park from R-15
Residential to O&I Office and Institutional. (Z-817,11/05)
Steve Candler gave a brief review of the request and presented pictures of the site and
nearby land uses.
Cindee Wolf with Withers & Ravenel explained that the rezoning proposal would provide
a good transition between the existing commercial property located on South College
Road and existing R-15 Residential District to the east. Access to the site would be
through Junction Creek Park and not Piner Road. Ms. Wolf also mention that any
subdivision of the property would require review by the County's Technical Review
Committee.
Steve Hobbs with Seaboard Commercial Properties wanted to know what the developer
planned to place on the site. Chairman Conlogue explained that this request was a straight
rezoning and the focus of the Planning Board was to look at the rezoning request.
7
No one spoke in opposition to the request.
Dexter Hayes presented the staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located just northeast of the College and Piner Road intersection
near Monkey Junction. Adjacent and to the west is an existing business and office park.
East and north near the property are several residential neighborhoods - Greenbrier and
Wood Duck Forest. Two O&I Office and Institution Districts also exist along Piner Road
that were rezoned in the late `90's. Presently, both O&I Districts are vacant.
Land Use patterns near the Monkey Junction area have undergone a significant
transformation since the early 1980's when most of the real estate was zoned residential.
A large commercial node has evolved during the past 20 years that include restaurants,
offices and major retail type centers. Changes in these land use patterns near Monkey
Junction during this time have been a result of the extension of the County's sewer.
Pressures to rezone in this area will continue, especially with its proximity to a major
intersection and demand for goods and services in the southern part of the County.
This rezoning petition is a logical extension to the existing Office park zoned CD (O&I)
located adjacent and to the north. Additional access to Piner Road increases
interconnectivity through the business park. Also significant is the existing topography
and drainage features on the site, which provide for a natural transition in the existing
office park.
Recognizing the expansion by this commercial corner and the desire to merge the
existing residential land use pattern with existing street connections nearby, the applicant
has made some adjustments to the rezoning petition. The rear portion of the property will
remain R-15 residential. This allows for more compatible uses with the adjoining
property owners who will be able to share an improved access to Piner Road. Staff is
satisfied with the revised rezoning description and the preliminary design and
recommends approval.
David Adams made a motion to approve the petitioner's rezoning request. Sandra Spiers
seconded Adams request. The vote by the Board was 4-0.
Item 5: Special Use Permit- Request by Thelma Washington to consider a Special
Use Permit to expand a Child Care Center in a R-10 Residential District located at
309 Cardiff Road. (5-547, 01/06)
Steve Candler gave a brief review of the request and presented pictures of the property
and nearby land uses.
Thelma Washington stated that she wanted to increase the number of children in the
daycare from 5-8. A local neighbor spoke in support of Ms. Washington's request.
No one spoke in opposition to the request.
8
Dexter Hayes provided a staff summary and findings of fact on the petition.
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health
or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and
approved.
A. County water and sewer serve the property.
B. The property accesses Castle Hayne Road, an identified arterial, by Rock Hill
Road an identified collector.
C. Fire Service is available from the Wrightsboro Fire Station nearby.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. The property is zoned R-10 Residential.
B. Off-street parking requirements are on the plan and meet the requirements of
Article VIII of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance.
C. The entire play area is in an enclosed fence with a minimum height of four
feet.
D. The applicant states the day care is licensed by the State of North Carolina.
E. No outside on-premises signs currently exists.
3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. Similar type facilities exist in other residential districts in New Hanover
B. County.
C. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values
of residents who live nearby.
D. No new structures are proposed for the Special Use.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed
according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the
area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of
development for New Hanover County.
A. The 1999 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Resource Protection, which
provides for the protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and
recreational resources.
B. Policies in the Comprehensive plan support providing additional services for
the special needs population, the elderly as well as for children.
Chairman Conlogue asked the petitioner if she agreed with the Planning staff's findings.
Ms. Washington said she agreed with the findings.
Sue Hayes made a motion to approve the petitioner's request to expand the child care
operation. Sandra Spiers seconded the motion. The vote by the Board was 4-0.
9
Item 6: Text Amendment - Request by John Evans to amend the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance Section 55-4 Dimensional Requirements for Height and
FAR Requirements in the B-2 Highway Business District. (A-345, 12/05)
The proposed text amendment can be accomplished by amending the following: (the
petitioner's amendment is underlined)
Section 55-4: Dimensional Requirements
(4) Maximum Building Height-40 feet; except that buildings located within the Urban
Transition Area and fronting along a collector, Minor Arterial or Principal Arterial as
indicated on the County's Thoroughfare Classification Plan, may exceed 40 feet provided
their Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) does not exceed 1.0 (2/7/83) (10/5/95)
The FAR may exceed 1.0, but shall not exceed 1.4 if:
(a) The ratio of the total building footprint to the total buildable site area does not
exceed 40%, and
(b) The required parking (exclusive of off-loading and service parking) is
included within the building footprint.
NOTE: Parking deck area calculations shall be excluded from the total building area
calculations when computing the FAR and the total height of the parking structure shall
be excluded from the height limits specified in this article.
STAFF SUMMARY
FAR (floor area ratio) requirements were adopted in the County's Zoning
Ordinance in 1983 to allow for more intensive commercial development along major
arterials. At this point in time the land economics of the County has not resulted in any
request to use this height and density provision. The existing Ordinance defines FAR as
follows:
23-74: Floor Area Ratio - Floor Area Ratio equals the total floor area of all structures
located on lot divided by the gross lot area. (2/7/83)
FAR - TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL STRUCTURES ON A LOT
GROSS LOT AREA
This definition allows the developer to count the gross lot area to determine the amount
of floor area allowed in the Buildings. The applicant proposes a bonus in the allowable
square footage if the lot coverage is limited and the parking is within the building
footprint. This idea is appealing if additional green space can be preserved on the site.
Staff suggests an alternative change that would equate additional square footage with
certain open space amenities. Ordinarily, the FAR usually considers the buildable area of
a site after setbacks and parking areas have been subtracted. Our standard counts the
gross lot area, which already increases the square footage by 40 - 50
Staff agrees that parking under the building would minimize disturbance of the site and
retain additional open space.
We recommend the following bonus provisions be added to the FAR calculation:
If all surface parking (excluding visitor drop-off and pick-up) is within the
building footprint, additional floor area can be added at the rate of I ft of floor area per
1 ft ofparking area.
10
The board agreed with staff suggestion that keeping the FAR to a 1.0 ratio would preserve
more open space. Ms. Spiers made a motion to approve the staff version of the amendment.
With a second from Mr. Adams, the vote was unanimous 4 to 0.
Item 7: Text Amendments - Request by Planning staff to amend the New Hanover
County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect changes made by the North
Carolina General Assembly in the 2005 Legislative Session. (A-346, 01/06)
Zoning and Subdivision Text Amendments Numerous text amendments in
response to amendments in the Zoning and Planning Enabling Legislation for
Counties that were adopted in the 2005 legislative session.
The adoption of Senate Bills 518 and 814 and 681 amends the State's planning and
development laws. Since these laws are used as the basis to enact local zoning and
subdivision ordinances, certain changes will be required to make our local ordinances
consistent with these new statutes. Dave Owens with the Institute of Government has
prepared a brief summary of the changes to the North Carolina Planning Statues which is
attached. He has also prepared a checklist that highlights the potential changes as well as
a brief explanation. Many of the changes are procedural in nature and will not require
text amendments. Revising the Rules of Procedure applicable to the various Boards can
accommodate some of these.
Following are the specific Zoning Ordinance Changes as prepared by Staff:
ENACTMENT:
An ordinance establishing comprehensive zoning regulations for certain areas of the
county of New Hanover, North Carolina, and providing for the administration,
enforcement-ai+d amendment or repealing thereof, in accordance with the provisions of
North Caro 1[Q..xc 3 4 0 thfeugh 153 ° u 3 ^ O /G13,192A ifieluoxviye
lna genera statutes xoo ono cux oa.~x xoo o~o~~ww~~xxxox, an for
the repeal of all ordinances in conflict herewith.
PREAMBLE:
WHEREAS, the General Statutes of North Carolina empowers the County of New
Hanover to enact a Zoning Ordinance and to provide for its administration, enforcement
and amendment or repealing, and
SECTION L Authority
The provisions of this ordinance are adopted under authority granted by the General
Assembly of North Carolina. (General Statutes 153 A, A#iolo 19)
59.7-4: Approval Process
(1) Overview
a. In all Conditional Use District proceedings, only testimony and
other evidence pertinent to the specific use proposed in the
petition/application shall be presented.
11
b. After the public notice of scheduled hearing before the Planning
Board is delivered to the newspapers, no amendments to the additional
conditions and requirements specified in the petition/application shall
be added which are less restrictive, including but not limited to less
setback, more dwelling units, greater height, more access points, new
uses and fewer improvements.
c. No rezoning to a Conditional Use District shall be approved unless
all conditions and requirements for the companion Special Use Permit
have been included voluntarily by the petitioner, or their authorized
representative. Any condition and site-specific standards imposed
shall address the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the
development or use of the site.
d. No rezoning to a Conditional Use District shall be approved
unless the companion Special Use Permit is also approved for the use
or uses specified.
e. The companion Special Use Permit shall be approved only if the
requirements of Article VII, "Provisions for Uses Allowed as Special
Uses", Section 59.7-3 and Section 59.7-4(2) are fully satisfied.
67-9: Tree Removal (7/01)
(5) Failure to obtain a tree removal permit prior to any timber harvest may
result in a three or five-year delay in obtaining a building permit or
approval of any development or subdivision plans.
110: Development Agreements
110-1 In addition to the requirements of this Ordinance and as provided in
NCGS 153A-379, the County Commissioners after conducting a public
hearing may enter into private development agreements. These
development agreements may require a commitment of public and private
resources for large-scale projects. Such projects must contain at least 25
acres or more exclusive of wetlands, mandatory buffers, and other portions
of the property precluded from development. In entering into such
agreements, the County may not exercise any authority or make any
commitment not authorized by general or local act and may not impose
any tax or fee not authorized by otherwise applicable law.
112-3: Planning Board Consideration
(5) The Planning Board shall advise and comment on whether the proposed
amendment is consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and
Development and any other adopted plans that may be applicable.
112-5: Action by the County Commissioners
(1) The County Commissioners shall consider the Planning Board's
recommendation for each proposed zoning amendment, unless the Planning
Board recommends denial and the petition is not appealed at a regularly
scheduled public hearing, advertised as described in Section 112-1 above and
12
held in accordance with its rules of procedure then in effect. The County
Commissioners shall adopt no amendment until after public notice and
hearing. Prior to adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the
Commissioners shall adopt a statement describing whether its action is
consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development and
explaining why the Commissioners consider the action taken as reasonable
and in the public interest.
Section 122: Powers and Duties
122-1: The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is error
in any decision made by the Building Inspector or other administrative officials in
the carrying out or enforcement of any provision of the Ordinance. A concurring
vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the members of the Board shall be necessary to reverse,
wholly, or partly, any such decision. Vacant seats and disqualified members are
not considered in calculating 4/5 votes.
(2) To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the terms of
this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to
special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would
result in unnecessary hardship. No change in permitted uses may be authorized
by variance. In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate
conditions and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. A concurring vote
of four-fifths (4/5) of the members of the Board shall be necessary to grant a
variance. A variance from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be granted by the
Board unless and until the following findings are made: (3/7/83)
Following are the specific Subdivision Ordinance Amendments as prepared by Staff
20-17 Subdivision - A "subdivision" shall include all divisions of a tract or parcel of land
into two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions when any one or more of those
divisions are created for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or building
development, and shall include all divisions of land involving the dedication of a new
street or a change in existing streets; provided, however, that the following shall not be
included within this definition nor be subject to the regulations authorized by this
ordinance:
(1) the combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and recorded
lots where the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or
exceed the standards of the County as shown in its subdivision ordinance.
(2) the division of land into parcels greater than ten (10) acres where no street right-of-
way dedication is involved.
(3) the public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for the widening or opening of
streets or for public transportation system corridors.
(4) the division of a tract in single ownership whose entire area is no greater than two (2)
acres into not more than three (3) lots, where no street right-of-way dedication is
involved and where the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County
as shown in its subdivision ordinance.
13
32-5 Contracts to sell Lots from Approved Preliminary Plat
The provisions of this section shall not prohibit any owner or its agent from entering
into contracts to sell or lease by reference to an approved preliminary plat for which a
final plat has not yet been properly approved under the subdivision ordinance or recorded
with the register of deeds, provided the contract does all of the following:
Incorporates as an attachment a copy of the preliminM plat referenced in
the contract and obligates the owner to deliver to the buyer a copy of
the recorded plat prior to closing and conveyance.
Plainly and conspicuously notifies the prospective buyer or lessee that a
final subdivision plat has not been approved or recorded at the time of
the contract, that no governmental body will incur any obligation to
the prospective buyer or lessee with respect to the approval of the final
subdivision plat, that changes between the preliminary and final plats
are possible, and that the contract or lease may be terminated without
breach by the buyer or lessee if the final recorded plat differs in anX
material respect from the preliminM plat.
Provides that if the approved and recorded final plat does not differ in any
material respect from the plat referred to in the contract, the buyer or
lessee may not be required by the seller or lessor to close any earlier
than five days after the delivery of a copy of the final recorded plat.
Provides that if the approved and recorded final plat differs in any material
respect from the preliminary plat referred to in the contract, the buyer
or lessee may not be required by the seller or lessor to close any earlier
than 15 days after the delivery of the final recorded plat, during which
15-day period the buyer or lessee may terminate the contract without
breach or any further obligation and may receive a refund of all earnest
money or prepaid purchase price.
The provisions of this section shall not prohibit any owner or its agent from entering
into contracts to sell or lease land by reference to an approved preliminM plat for which
a final plat has not been properly approved under the subdivision ordinance or recorded
with the register of deeds where the buyer or lessee is any person who has contracted to
acquire or lease the land for the purpose of engaging in the business of construction of
residential, commercial, or industrial buildings on the land, or for the purpose of resale or
lease of the land to persons engaged in that kind of business, provided that no conveyance
of that land may occur and no contract to lease it may become effective until after the
final plat has been properly approved under the subdivision ordinance and recorded with
the register of deeds."
51: Guarantees of Improvements
a) Cost Estimates - The subdivider shall furnish bona fide estimates of the subject
improvements for verification by the County Engineer. Upon approval of the cash,
performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit by the County, the subdivider shall
deposit with the County the amount specified by the County Engineer in the form of cash,
cash equivalent, or irrevocable letter of credit.
68: Enforcement of Ordinance
(5) Building Permits may be denied for lots that have been illegally subdivided.
14
Dexter Hayes informed the board that the General Assembly passed these changes to the
planning legislation last fall and most sections of the legislation became effective January
1, 2006. Ms. Spiers asked Mr. Hayes about the section of the amendments that allows the
transfer for sale of unapproved lots. Mr. Hayes explained that the transfer of sale would
be based upon the approved preliminary plat and not the final plat. If any changes
occurred to the final plat, the potential sale of land would be subject to review by the
buyer, who could terminate the contract. After some further discussion, Mr. Adams
made a motion to refer the proposed amendments to the County commissioners without
prejudice. With a second from Ms. Spiers, the vote was 4 to 0.
TRC Report
Sam Burgess presented the following projects that were reviewed by the County's TRC
during the month of December, 2005:
Tidal Walk (Performance Residential)
154 lots located off Myrtle Grove Road, east side
City water
County sewer
Public roads
Approved by a vote 3-2 with conditions
Woods A Murrayville (Performance Residential)
26 lots off Murrayville Road, north side
County water
County sewer
Public roads
"Continued" by a vote of 4-0 (several issues need be addressed)
Jordan Tract Townhomes (Performance Residential Extension Request)
26 town home units off Gordon Road, north side
County water
County sewer
Private roads
Site plan extended for one year by a vote of 4-0
Walnut Hills Ext-Apple Valley (Performance Residential Re-approval)
160 lots off Rockhill Road
County water
County sewer
Public roads
Re-approved by a vote of 4-0
Other Items
• CAMA Land Use Plan Update
15
• Plantation Road connection to Market Street & road improvements
Chairman Conlogue adjoined the Planning Board meeting at 8:55 pm.
16