200602 Feb PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 2, 2006
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, February 2, 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 Sam Burgess, Planner
Sue Hayes Steve Candler, Senior Planner
Robin Robinson Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist
Frank Smith Holt Moore, Assistant County Attorney
Kenneth Wrangell Chris O'Keefe, Senior Planner
Members Absent:
Sandra Spiers
Chairman Conlogue opened the meeting by welcoming those present to the public
hearing and explaining the meeting's format and time allotted. Chairman Conlogue led
the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Conlogue proceeded with the approval of the minutes. Robin Robinson made
a motion to approve the December minutes. Sue Hayes seconded the motion. The Board
approved the December 1, 2005 minutes by a vote 6-0. Chairman Conlogue then
proceeded with the first hearing item.
Item 1: Rezoning - Request by Conrad Lowman to rezone approximately 8.39 acres
of property located at 8871 Stephens Church Road from R-15 Residential to B-2
Highway Business District (Z-827, 02/06).
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning, and related information.
Conrad Lowman stated that he is requesting the rezoning because the property is no
longer desirable for residential use because of the new I-140 bypass to route 17. This
connection has increased traffic, noise, and destroyed a natural barrier and left his
property exposed to a major highway. Mr. Lowman stated that his property meets criteria
recommended by county and state agencies for commercial development; adjacent
neighbors have not voiced opposition to the rezoning; and environmental groups believe
that his property/west side of highway 17 is best for development.
There were no additional comments in favor and no comments in opposition.
1
Dexter Haves provided staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located approximately '/z mile southwest of the Pender County
line on Stephens Church Road. Stephens Church Road runs parallel to Market Street (17)
on the north side for approximately 4200 feet. The subject property has a residential
dwelling in the southeast corner fronting the road. Stephens Church Road currently has
two access points to Market Street.
Land use patterns near the proposed site include a CD B-2 Highway Business near the
county line on the north side of Market Street, a B-1 Neighborhood Business directly
across from the property on the south side of Market Street, and a CD O&I Office and
Institutional near the county line on the south side of Market Street with the remainder of
the surrounding land uses residential.
This rezoning petition is probably the precursor to several rezoning petitions that will
likely occur along Stephens Church Road.
Staff's recommendation is that the properties along Stephens Church Road remain
residential. Many of these requests are a result of the numerous residential subdivisions
that are being considered nearby. The Kirkland neighborhood was provided sewer
several years ago with CDBG funds. Many of the homes were rehabilitated or replaced
with those funds. Rezoning 8 acres in the center of the neighborhood would be contrary
to that effort. Access plans for this portion of Market Street will reinforce the use of
Stephens Church Road as a service road for the north side. Direct access to Market Street
will not be permitted. As a result, only those uses generating a minimum number of trips
should be permitted.
Several board members were concerned about access from the service road to the main
road and inquired about DOT future plans. Walter Conlogue thought the petition was
premature. A discussion ensued between board members and staff regarding access.
Sue Haves made a motion to deny.
Robin Robinson seconded the motion and echoed several Board members' sentiments
that this is a good vision but the plan is premature and suggested a mixed use instead of
B-2.
Frank Smith suggested a more neighborhood oriented development.
The Board voted 6-0 to deny the rezoning request.
2
Item 2: Rezoning - Request by Jim Hundley, Jr. to rezone approximately 9.92 acres
located at 611 Middle Sound Loop Road from R-20 Residential to R-15 Residential
District (Z-828, 02/06).
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning, and related information.
The petitioner, Jim Hundley was not present for the hearing and there was discussion
among the Board whether to hear the case. Frank Smith made a motion to continue the
item for 30 days and David Adams seconded the motion. The motion failed with a tie
vote of 3-3. Sue Haves made a motion to hear the item and Robin Robinson seconded the
motion. The motion was passed with a 4-2 vote to hear the item.
Dr. Bill Parr, resident of Middle Sound, spoke in opposition of this rezoning because it
will add to the traffic congestion around Ogden Elementary School as well as contribute
to the school's overpopulation. Dr. Parr that the criteria for rezoning, "to better a
community" is not met by this petitioner and argued that this rezoning may open up the
area for R-15 and commercial development. He read an excerpt from the Comprehensive
Plan to reiterate his argument that this neighborhood was planned for R-20.
Vera Northern resident and owner of two mobile homes on the property spoke in
opposition of the rezoning because it would be expensive for the residents, many who are
seniors and families with small children, to move and difficult to find affordable housing.
Chairman Conlogue asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of the item. There
were no supporters present to speak in favor of the item.
Dexter Haves provided staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located approximately '/2 mile off Market Street at 611 Middle
Sound Loop Road. The property is presently known as the Countryside Mobile Home
Park, which currently contains 28 mobile homes.
Land use patterns near the proposed site include Sandybrook Subdivision to the south,
which is zoned R-15, along with other developments zoned R-20. The conversion from
R-20 to R-15 typically means a denser development, 2.5 units verses 1.9 units an acre.
However, with the removal of the 28 mobile homes on the property, the applicant can
only build approximately 25 units, which would be a less intense use of the property.
The applicant would also remove 28 aging septic tanks in the resource protection area
and replace them with county sewer. Density limit would still be consistent with the land
use plan.
Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Board approves the rezoning petition.
3
There was discussion among the Board and Staff regarding the number of homes
compared to mobile homes and trips per day generated given the rezoning. There was
also concern that the rezoning would open up the property to high-density development
in the form of apartments but Dexter Hayes dismissed that possibility because of the land
classification.
David Adams made a motion to deny the request. The motion was seconded by Sue
Haves. The motion failed by a 3-3 vote.
Robin Robinson made a motion to approve the request and was seconded by Kenneth
Wrangell. The motion also fails by a 3-3 vote. The item will go to the Commissioners
April meeting.
Item 3: Rezoning - Request by Audrey Mizrahi to rezone approximately .83 acres
located at 4229 Castle Hayne Road from RA Rural Agricultural to O&I (CD) Office
and Institutional Conditional Use District (Z-829, 02/06).
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning, and related information.
Audrey Mizrahi, the petitioner, asked that the property be rezoned so that she could open
up a veterinary clinic to serve the area. She would use the existing structure and not
board any animals. She also has a signed petition from adjacent property owners
supporting her plan.
There were no speakers in opposition of the case.
Dexter Haves provided staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY:
The property is located on Castle Hayne Road approximately '/4 mile north from
McDougald Road. The current land use on the site is a vacant house. The property
directly south of the site was zoned O&I (CD) approximately three (3) years ago for a
dentist office. Adjacent uses in that area of Castle Hayne Road include a car service
garage and LP gas distribution operation. The closest other veterinary clinic in this area
is in Northchase.
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The Board must rind that the use will not materially endanger the public
health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as
submitted and approved.
4
A. The property currently has a well and septic tank.
B. All of the property is located outside a 100-year flood area.
C. Access to the property is from US Hwy 117/NC 133 Castle Hayne
Road a major arterial on the County Thoroughfare Classification Plan.
D. Fire Service is available from the Castle Hayne VFD
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. A Special Use in an O&I zoning district allows a veterinary clinic.
B. The site plan must show a buffer for the northern property boundary, which is
required because it abuts a residential district.
C. Parking requirements are 17 spaces.
D. Total signage is 16 square feet, less than the allowed 75 square feet.
E. The existing structure meets the minimum setbacks for abutting residential
districts on the north and west sides of the property.
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. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of
commercial uses nearby.
B. The applicant obtained signed petitions expressing no opposition from the
surrounding property owners to the veterinary clinic.
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, no new
structures are proposed.
B. An existing O&I (CD) for a dentist office abuts the south portion of the
property.
Suggested Conditions
A. No additional conditions suggested
Robin Robinson asked the petitioner if she accepted the staff findings and she replied yes.
Frank Smith made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Sue Haves seconded the
motion. The item passed 6-0.
5
Item 4: Special Use Permit - Request by Carolina Marina and Yacht Club, LLC to
consider a Special Use Permit for a Commercial Marina with 220 Dry Stack Storage
Spaces and Clubhouse located at 1512 Burnett Road (S-545, 12/05).
Frank Smith recused himself from this item.
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning, and related information.
Ken Shanklin, an attorney representing the property owner, Tim Ward, explained to the
Board that this case should be treated as a request for an amendment to existing Special
Use Permit 13 (S-13) and that the peripheral cases regarding interpretation and validity
of the existing permit should not impact the hearing of this case.
There was discussion among the Board and Assistant County Attorney regarding the
legality of hearing this case and it was determined that it was appropriate to hear the case.
Ken Shanklin further argued that an amendment to S-13 should be granted for 220 dry
stack storage and clubhouse on the grounds that this area needs affordable water access
for its citizens; that this project is endorsed by the CAMA use plan; that dry stack storage
is environmental sound; and that this project would have a positive economic impact.
Tim Ward, petitioner for this item, reiterated that this is merely a request to amend an
existing permit (S-13) that has already been approved. Mr. Ward said that he held two
meetings to address neighbors concerns regarding traffic and property value and both
issues were resolved with 12 neighbors.
William McSteen an adjacent property owner, endorsed this project arguing for
affordable water access and thinks that this project will not increase traffic.
Matt Nichols an attorney also representing the property owner, Tim Ward showed slides
stating that there are 557 registered boats per square mile in New Hanover County,
200,000 estimated population in New Hanover and Pender County combined, but only
three public boat ramps from Snow's Cut Bridge to Surf City to service this population.
Montell Irvin a traffic engineer who was commissioned to perform a traffic assessment
for the petitioner concluded that the entrance to the property and surrounding roads have
plenty of capacity and that this project will not adversely impact traffic.
Gene Merritt, a real estate appraiser was commissioned by the petitioner to evaluate the
impact of dry stack storage on property value. He studied five dry stack facilities in the
area and concluded that there was no depreciation in property value and rather property
located near the water appreciated at a higher rate than property inland.
Matt Nichols read from the New Hanover Parks Department Public Access study (1986)
section 3-15, "water access is extremely limited in the area."
6
Joe Jackson adjacent property owner and Marine Max employee, supports the petitioner
and made the point that there is an increasing demand for water recreation and thus
access to water is a public necessity; that the demand for water recreation is good for the
local economy; and dry stack storage is more environmentally friendly.
Matt Nichols entered several exhibits into public record.
Bill Raney, an attorney representing adjacent property owners Violet and David Ward
spoke in opposition of this item. He asked those in opposition of the project to stand and
approximately 10 people stood. He argued that this item should be treated like a new
Special Use Permit request and not an amendment to an existing permit because the
scope of the project is much larger and different than the original Special Use Permit.
David Ward adjacent landowner spoke in opposition of the item and showed video
footage of the property and surrounding area. He argued against the item because it
would negatively impact the neighborhood and change the quiet nature of the
neighborhood. Increased traffic would endanger the safety of the children who walk to
the bus stop. Proposed dredging by the petitioner would destroy protected wetlands and
nursery marshland as well as change natural coves and currents.
Violet Ward spoke in opposition to this item arguing that it would adversely change the
neighborhood, make it noisy, and depreciate her property value.
Kim Altman an adjacent property owner spoke in opposition of this item because of
public safety, environmental concerns, and not being harmonious with their
neighborhood.
Dexter Haves provided staff summary:
PLANNING BOARD ACTION 12/5/05
The applicant wished to continue the item to discuss the proposed project with the
surrounding neighbors. The applicant requested the item appear on the February 2, 2006
agenda.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION 12/5/02:
The Planning Board discussed the neighbors concerns and the size and scale of
the project as compared to the existing special use permit. The board questioned how the
original project was developed and ultimately voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the
project. They generally felt the project would be out of character with the neighborhood.
Staff has included the old plans as recently revised from the original special use permit
which reflect the boat ramp, piers, a large parking area for 41 boats, and a 30' X 50'
yacht clubhouse.
7
PRELIMINARY 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 Federal Point VFD.
B. The site has direct access to Burnett Road (S.R. 1527)
C. The site is served by private well and septic.
D. Two Dry Stack Storage buildings (220 spaces) with associated parking, ten wet
slips, and a clubhouse and office area are proposed.
E. The project may also be subject to additional CAMA and Corps permits.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the zoning ordinance.
A. The 30' MHW setback can be accommodated for the proposed marina facility.
B. The minimum 20' Buffer yard and a 12 foot streetyard area are required.
C. In accordance with section 67 of the Ordinance, tree mitigation for removal of
significant trees will be required.
D. Night lighting by design and construction shall be contained on the site.
E. A revised site plan has been submitted with the special use permit.
F. CAMA permits along with a storm-water infiltration system should affirm that the
siting of the facility would have minimal impacts on water quality, primary
nursery areas, shellfish grounds, and conservation resources.
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. There is an existing special use permit from 1971 for a commercial marina in this
location.
B. The existing special use permit site plan shows some buildings within the COD
setback area.
C. The site is zoned R-15 Residential. Commercial Marinas are permitted by special
use permit in all residential districts.
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 subject property is located in the Conservation Land Classification. The
purpose of the conservation class is to provide for effective long-term
management and protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural
resources while also protecting the rights of the property owner.
B. Boat access facilities in the county are limited.
8
C. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan support utilizing dry stack storage as means
of providing public access.
D. Other policies promote additional facilities to provide water access.
Planning Staff Concerns:
1) The scale of the project should be reduced to be more compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. Preserving the stand of oaks along the road frontage
would accomplish both objectives.
2) The 20' buffer should extend the entire length of the southern property line.
3) A Street Yard should be provided along the road frontage.
4) The impervious surface within the COD setback should be reduced to the
minimum necessary to provide useable access to the drop zone.
5) All of the vehicle movement areas should utilize pervious paving material to
promote infiltration and reduce impacts.
6) Food sales should be limited to convenience items excluding alcohol.
7) Hours of operation should be established.
Ken Shanklin asked those in support of the item to stand; approximately 30 people stood.
He reiterated that this should be treated as an amendment to an existing valid special use
permit. He stated that the project complies with the four technical requirements of
section 71 required for a special use permit. He also added that this project would be an
improvement to the community.
Chairman Conlogue asked petitioner and Assistant Attorney Moore for clarification
regarding lot acreage and the pending lawsuit in the Court of Appeals regarding the use
of a forklift.
Tim Ward emphasized that he has taken all the necessary actions to provide for a well-
developed plan. He reiterated that he has addressed all concerns regarding environmental
detriments, traffic, property value, technical requirements, and staff concerns.
Bill Raney summarized his clients' opposition to the item and reiterated that is fails to
meet the four criteria necessary to issue a special use permit. The project would endanger
public health and safety, does not meet zoning ordinances, decreases property value, and
is not harmonious with existing neighborhood.
The Board expressed their concerns regarding the protection of the wetlands, water
resources, and nurseries surrounding this area. There were also concerns regarding
dredging. Clarification was requested regarding the distance, height and size of the dry
stack storage facility and size and number of wet slips. There was concern regarding the
differences between original plan versus the new plan. The comment was made that this
plan is not in harmony with the existing neighborhood.
9
Sue Haves made a motion for denial and David Adams seconded the motion. The Board
voted 5-0 to recommend denial of this item.
Item 5: Rezoning- (Continued) Request by Scarafoni and Associates to rezone
approximately 7.15 acres located at 8259 and 8261 Market Street from R-15
Residential to B-1 Neighborhood Business District (Z-824, 12/05).
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning, and related information.
Tom Johnson, attorney with Ward & Smith representing the petitioner, reported that they
have complied with staff and board recommendations from the December 2005 Planning
Board Meeting. His clients have met with DOT and a design for the road connecting
Plantation Road and Porters Neck Road has been approved. Mr. Johnson also stated that
their plan is consistent with other rezoning in the area.
There were no additional speakers in support of this item and there were no speakers in
opposition of this item.
Dexter Haves provided staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property consists of two parcels of land located in the southwest
quadrant of the I-140 Bypass and Market Street. These parcels adjoin a rapidly
developing commercial center serving the Porters Neck Community. This commercial
node was established in the early `90's. Commercial land uses that have evolved during
the past decade include the Porters Neck Shopping Center and Oak Landing Shopping
Center. Other retail and professional office type facilities are located nearby, primarily
south of the Porters Neck/Market Street intersection. An apartment complex with
approximately 260 units adjoins this property to the south and is located directly behind
the Porters Neck Shopping Center. The I-140 Bypass is scheduled to be completed and
operational next summer. Several large tracts immediately north of this property were
recently rezoned for Commercial use following the opening of the Bypass.
During the past 7 years, the Porters Neck area has witnessed significant
residential growth. This growth can be attributed to the availability of public water and
sewer. Several new residential neighborhoods along Porters Neck and Edgewater Club
Roads have also been developed largely in response to the availability of these services.
As a result, the demand for retail services for these and other established neighborhoods
has increased.
The applicant's request to rezone this additional acreage to B-1 Neighborhood
Business appears to be a logical extension to the commercial node at Porters Neck Road
and Market Street. The zoning area is also consistent with the Land Use Plan's Urban
10
Transition Classification and is within the Urban Services Growth Boundary as amended
in July 2001. The potential for higher density residential development also exists as
evidenced by the apartment complex located nearby.
NCDOT has had preliminary discussions about the improvements needed for Plantation
Road, a 3-mile east-west collector that could provide access to large acreage tracts to the
west. Staff believes that any development plans for this property should include a road
connection to the signalized intersection at Market St. Until such right-of-way
connections are approved, staff recommends that the zoning change for this property be
delayed.
There was discussion among the Board and Staff regarding the consequences of
connecting Plantation Road to Market Street and the impact on nearby wetlands. The
Staff advised that the connection might actually alleviate some Market Street traffic by
offering commercial services for residents using Plantation Road.
Robin Robinson made a motion to approve the item Ken Wrangell seconded the motion.
The Board voted unanimously 6-0 to approve the item.
Item 6: Rezoning- (Continued) Request by Withers and Ravenel for Carol Swenson
to rezone approximately 15.76 acres from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential
located at 9800 River Road (Z-823, 12/05).
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning, and related information.
Cindee Wolf, Withers & Ravenel, presented to the Board written confirmation from
AQUA that the area can be served by private sewer and water. Also the rezoning makes
logical sense and that the Staff's recommendations have been satisfied.
The Board inquired about tree mitigation and traffic. Ms Wolf stated that as many
significant trees as possible will be saved. The question regarding the impact of this
project on traffic was satisfied.
There were no additional speakers in favor of the item and there were no speakers in
opposition.
Robin Robinson made a motion to approve the project. David Adams seconded the
motion. The item passed 5-1 (Frank Smith).
Item 7: Special Use Permit - Request by John Wessell III for Sass & Schwenker,
LLC to consider a Special Use Permit for a High Density Development in an R-15
Residential District at 4731, 4735 and 4809 Carolina Beach Road (5-551, 02/06).
11
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning, and related information.
John Wessell attorney for Sass & Schwenker stated that they agree and accept Staff
findings for the project and deferred to Cindee Wolf, Withers & Ravenel for plan
summary.
Cindee Wolf showed an overhead of site plans and sketches of proposed luxury town
homes.
Dexter Haves provided staff summary:
Preliminary 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 Myrtle Grove VFD.
B. Public water and sewer will serve the site.
C. The subject property is not located in a 100-year floodplain.
D. Access to the site is from Carolina Beach Road (US421), a major
arterial thoroughfare.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the zoning ordinance.
A. The site is located in an R-15 Residential Zoning District. A Special Use Permit
allows High-Density development in an R-15 Residential District in accordance
with certain performance criteria
B. The maximum number of allowed units on 6.41 acres in an R-15 under High-
Density development is 65 units. The applicant proposal has only 50 units.
C. The minimum required amount of open space is 2 acres. The applicant has
approximately 3 acres.
D. Maximum impervious surface ratio is 40% for an R-15. The applicant has 39.7%.
E. Parking, building height and impervious coverage satisfy the county zoning
ordinance.
F. Buffer yards and setbacks are on the proposed plan and meet the county zoning
ordinance.
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 projects exist in other residential districts in New Hanover
County.
12
B. Other high-density projects are located in direct proximity to the proposed
site.
C. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property values.
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
Developed. The purpose of the Developed class is to provide for continued
intensive development on lands that have urban services.
B. Some R-10 zoning districts exist adjacent to this section of Carolina Beach
Road.
Staff Comments:
1) Staff recommends keeping the existing significant hardwood trees.
2) Staff recommends the existing hollies remain along the streetscape.
3) Staff recommends that the interior street be connected to the property line to
allow afuture connection to Belle Meade Woods.
The Board inquired about the connection between the development's interior street and
Belle Meade Woods Road. The Board also asked about a ditch on the site and the
direction of its drainage.
Robin Robinson made a motion to recommend approval of the item. David Adams
seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously 6-0 to recommend approval of the
item.
Item 8: Special Use Permit -Request by Withers and Ravenel for Kevin Hoban to
consider a Special Use Permit for a High Density Development in an R-15
Residential District at 4416 South College Road (5-549, 02/06).
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning, and related information.
Cindee Wolf with Withers and Ravenel stated that the project is consistent with the
Planning Staff's recommendations for high-density development along College Road.
Ms. Wolf emphasized that the condominium plans were designed to allow for ample open
space for aesthetic purposes and possesses an adequate buffer from Georgetown
development. Ms. Wolf stated that per the Planning Staff's request, she inquired about a
connection to Tesla Park Drive but the road is a private right away.
13
The Board asked Cindee questions regarding the project's elevation and drainage.
Tom Nettleman Georgetown resident spoke in opposition of the project. He presented a
petition signed by 41 Georgetown residents opposing the project. Mr. Nettlman opposes
the project because it will exasperate the heavy traffic and U-turn that residents driving
south must make to enter the development. Mr. Nettleman is also concerned that the
condominiums will decrease his property value. Additionally, the biggest concern for
Mr. Nettleman is the drainage issue and he believes that the condominiums will impact
the poor drainage the area already faces. The Georgetown residents have hired an
engineer to study the drainage problem and a final report is due in a couple of months.
Robert Wooley, Georgetown resident also opposes the project for the same reasons as
Mr. Nettleman and added that the surrounding schools are private and since there are no
buses, the students are driven to school individually by their parents, which creates a lot
of traffic twice a day. He also cited the traffic situation and added that residents must
cross two lanes of southbound traffic on College Road and merge in order to drive north.
Jimmy Fentress, engineer with Stroud Engineering and contracted by Withers and
Ravenel, addressed the storm water issue. He stated that the discharge point goes to a
ditch that runs along the northern side of Johnson Farms and should not affect
Georgetown. He emphasized that their project will comply with all county and state
ordinances.
Cindee Wolf gave rebuttal in which she stated that their plan has met all the findings of
fact and staff recommendations as required.
Dexter Haves provided staff summary:
Preliminary 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 Myrtle Grove VFD.
B. Public water and sewer will serve the site.
C. The subject property is not located in a 100-year floodplain.
D. Access to the site is from South College Road, a major arterial
thoroughfare.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the zoning ordinance.
14
A. The site is located in an R-15 Residential Zoning District. A Special Use
Permit allows High-Density development in an R-15 Residential District in
accordance with certain performance criteria.
B. The maximum number of allowed units on 12 acres in an R-15 under High-
Density development is 122 units. The applicant proposal has 122 units.
C. The minimum required amount of improved recreational area is 1.8 acres. The
proposed site has 2.0 acres of improved recreational land.
D. Parking, building height and impervious coverage satisfy the county zoning
ordinance.
E. Buffer yards and setbacks are on the proposed plan and meet the county
zoning ordinance.
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 projects exist in other residential districts in New Hanover
County.
B. Other high-density projects are located in direct proximity to the proposed
site.
C. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property values.
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
Developed. The purpose of the Developed class is to provide for continued
intensive development on lands that have urban services.
B. Several High Density projects already exists along South College Road.
Staff Comments:
1) Staff recommends the applicant obtain a connection to Tesla Park Drive- a private
street.
2) Utility easements will be required for the proposed drainage and utility lines.
Tom Nettleman stated in his rebuttal that there are major differences between Tesla Park
and the proposed project in that Tesla Park provided a tree-lined buffer. He also argued
that since the current drainage system cannot handle the current precipitation volume,
that building this condominium complex was a bad idea.
15
The Board discussed the drainage issue including the direction of the water flow,
drainage ditch, and pond capacity. It was suggested that the engineer's findings may help
resolve the issue for both parties.
David Adams made a motion to approve the item but it was not seconded so the motion
died.
Sue Haves made a motion to deny the item and Robin Robinson seconded the item.
Frank Smith made a substitute motion to continue to item for 30 days to gain more
information on drainage and traffic concerns affecting surrounding areas. David Adams
seconded the motion.
The board voted unanimously 6-0 to continue the item for 30 days.
Item 9: Subdivision Appeal - Request by Seaview residents Botta, Gore, Rivenbark
et al to appeal the decision of the County's Technical Review Committee (TRC)
approving the preliminary site plan for Tidal Walk, a 154 lot residential subdivision
located near the 7800 block of Myrtle Grove Road, east side (SA-25, 01/06).
Ken Wrangell recused himself from this item.
David Adams recused himself from this item because he is the TRC Chair.
Sam Burgess presented slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning, and related information:
Project History
The County's Technical Review Committee (TRC) preliminarily approved Tidal Walk
subdivision for 154 single-family residential lots on December 7, 2005. A reduced copy
of the preliminary plan is attached. Preliminary site plan approval by the TRC was by a
vote 3-2 and included the following requirements:
1) Road improvement recommendations made in the Transportation Impact Analysis
(TIA) report be coordinated with the developer and NCDOT.
2) A redesign of the turn-around near the clubhouse (eastern portion of project) will
need to be revisited with County Fire Services to meet fire code regulations.
3) The road connection leading into Seaview Road (SR 1564) will need to be
centered to minimize impact to adjoining landowners. A 10' utility easement will
also be required.
4) Since City water will be utilized for the project, the TRC strongly encouraged the
developer to meet with City officials to determine whether additional site design
changes may be required.
The applicant's in their appeal to the Planning Board of the Tidal Walk project list the
following concerns:
16
1) The TRC's decision to preliminary approve the plan is in direct contravention to
Section 41-1(7E) of the County's Subdivision Regulations - " The street
arrangement shall be such as not to cause a hardship to owners of adjoining
property when developed." This street plan places a severe hardship on adjoining
landowners in Seaview. No specific buffer requirements were imposed by the
TRC to reduce sight and sound from the new road connecting with Seaview Road
for the adjoining landowners. No road should be constructed without a buffer on
both of the adjoining Seaview properties. Traffic from the project would also
increase on Seaview Road.
2) The proposed sewer pump station is located directly behind two residential lots in
Seaview. Any placement of this station near the Seaview neighborhood and near a
100-year flood area should be avoided to lessen the environmental impacts to the
adjoining Seaview residents' property. If the sewer pump station is placed as
proposed, land values would also be affected.
3) Stormwater run-off from this new development should not affect the residents of
Seaview Road.
The Board inquired what the appellants' issues were and it was stated that the issues were
the street connectivity and the location of the sewer pump. It was then recommended by
Assistant County Attorney, Holt Moore that the involved parties who were to testify, be
sworn in since the decision rendered would be final unless appealed.
The parties were sworn in.
Brian Geschickler, an attorney representing Seaview Road resident, Ms. Botta, argued
that their appeal is based on the failure of the project to meet a TRC guideline, which
states that the project will not present a hardship for adjoining property owners.
Chairman Conlogue questioned the basis of the appeal arguing that the zoning ordinances
require connectivity.
Mike Gore Seaview Road resident opposes the location of the road connection, pumping
station, and force feed line. He argues that Seaview Road should not be a corridor for
these items.
Christine Botta, Seaview Road resident opposes the location of the pumping station
stating that it is in a 100-year flood plain, thereby placing the burden of any flood
damages upon Seaview residents.
Wanda Rivenbark, Seaview Road resident opposes the road connection because it will
endanger public safety; change the quiet neighborhood, and there is a dangerous blind
curve turning right off of Myrtle Grove Road onto Seaview Road.
17
Frank Smith asked the staff and attorney, Holt Moore, if the Planning Board had the
authority to waive connectivity requirements. Dexter Haves responded yes and read the
clause detailing this.
John Wessell, an attorney representing the Tidal Walk developers stated that his client is
merely complying with the county's requirement for connectivity and that by moving the
stub elsewhere, would defeat the point of connectivity. Additionally, his client has
complied with the TRC's recommendations that the road be moved to the center of the
vacant lot. Mr. Wessell also stated that his client has moved the lift station several times
at the request of Seaview Road residents and stated that there is no evidence to support
moving it to another location.
Frank Smith inquired about the direction of the storm water flow in relation to the
proximity of the Intracoastal Waterway.
Frank Braxton an engineer, outlined the measures that the developer has taken to comply
with city, county, and state regulations.
There was additional discussion regarding the location of the lift station and its buffers.
Frank Smith made a motion to affirm the TRC's decision with an amendment that the lift
station be situated as far into the Tidal Walk development as possible. Robin Robinson
seconded the motion. The appeal was denied 4-0.
Brian Geschickler objected to the hearing and argued that his clients did not have ample
time to speak. Chairman Conlogue told Mr. Geschickler that he can make an appeal to
the County Commissioners.
Item 10: Text Amendment - Request by planning staff to amend the New Hanover
County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for the purpose of regulating any
project that generates more than 100 trips during peak hours (A-347, 02/06).
Steve Candler provided background on this item by explaining that the Planning Staff
received directive by the County Commissioners in December 2005 to research methods
to regulate significant traffic producing projects. Mr. Candler outlined the current
transportation regulations to which New Hanover County is subject to and detailed some
information from the 2002 Traffic Impact Analysis.
Mr. Candler began to discuss the staff recommendations when Chairman Conlogue
suggested a work session to discuss this item fully. It was suggested by the Board that
this be a joint work session and that the County Commissioners be invited to the work
session.
18
There was discussion of how to implement a traffic analysis requirement for commercial
development so that these projects would be held to the same standards and would be
consistent with residential development requirements.
John Cowan, a resident of Middlesound Loop Road commented that traffic is a huge
problem and getting worse. He urged the Board to take quicker action and work faster.
Marjorie MacNeille, resident of Gordon Woods urged the Board to consider more public
transportation options and offered to give the Planning Department suggestions in
writing.
Frank Smith made a motion to table the item and hold a joint work session. The motion
was seconded by Sue Haves. The Board voted 6-0 to table the item.
Item 11: Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) Plan Update - Planning Board
review for the adoption of the 2006 update to the Wilmington and New Hanover
County Land Use Plan as required by the Coastal Area Management Act prior to
submission to the Coastal Resources Commission for certification at their June
Quarterly meeting.
Frank Smith explained the various agencies that comprised the Advisory Panel.
Chris O'Keefe gave a presentation of the 2006 updates to the CAMA plan. He discussed
the history, background, updating process, organization, and highlights of the plan. Mr.
O'Keefe asked for the Board to approve the updated plan and forward it onto the County
Commissioners.
Several Board members stated that the plan needed editing and that there were content
omissions that should be addressed in the plan.
Phil Prete an environmental planner with the City of Wilmington explained that the
errors are grammatical and typographical in nature and not substantive and that any
changes will be made prior to submitting to the state.
There was more discussion whether to forward the current draft to the County
Commissioners and whether to endorse it or not.
Robin Robinson made a motion to endorse the draft with the provisions that the
typographical and grammatical errors are fixed and to reserve the right to recommend
substantive changes.
Frank Smith seconded the motion.
The motion was passed 4-2 (Adams and Hayes) and it was noted that recommendations
for this plan could be made at the next Planning Board meeting.
19
Item 12: Text Amendment - Request by planning and zoning staff to amend the New
Hanover County flood ordinance to incorporate the updated NFIP maps (A-348,
02/06).
Chris O'Keefe provided background, reviewed substantive changes, and new
terminology for the flood maps. Mr. O'Keefe stated that the new maps would be
effective April 2006 and asked that the new ordinance should be adopted.
Robin Robinson made a motion to adopt the new ordinance. Ken Wrangell seconded the
motion. The Board approved the item 5-0.
Sam Burgess gave an update on the Technical Review Committee's activity for the
month of January 2006.
The TRC reviewed four performance residential developments:
1. Champions Row
The TRC approved 25 lots with no conditions by a vote of 4-0
2. Anchors Bend
The TRC approved 205 lots with four conditions by a vote of 4-0.
3. Hidden Pointe/Saratoga Place
The TRC approved 4 lots by a 4-0 vote.
4. Brewster Place (Road Designation Change: Public to Private)
The TRC voted to deny the request by a 4-0 vote.
Sam Burgess announced that the neat TRC meeting will be held February 18, 2006 at
2:00 p.m. and there will be three items on the agenda.
Being of no further business, Robin Robinson made a motion to adjourn and Ken
Wrangell seconded the motion, which the Board unanimously approved. The meeting
adjourned at 12:07 am.
20
21