200603 Mar PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 2, 2006
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, March 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 Steve Candler, Senior Planner
Sue Hayes Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist
Robin Robinson Holt Moore, Assistant County Attorney
Frank Smith Chris O'Keefe, Senior Planner
Sandra Spiers, Vice Chairman
Kenneth Wrangell
Chairman Walter Conlogue opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public
hearing. Steve Candler led the reciting of the Pledge ofAllegiance.
Chairman Conlogue proceeded with the approval of the January 5, 2006 and February 2,
2006 minutes. Robin Robinson made a motion to approve the minutes. Ken Wrangell
seconded the motion. The Board approved the January and February minutes by a vote
of 6-0. Chairman Conlogue announced that Robin Robinson is not seeking a second term
on the Planning Board and then proceeded with the first hearing item.
Item 1: CAMA Land Use Update- (continued) Request by planning board to
continue discussion of the proposed CAMA Land Use Update.
Chris O'Keefe summarized that at the February 2, 2006 Planning Board meeting the
Board voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the CAMA Plan Update despite some Board
concerns. Mr. O'Keefe stated that in the interim, staff has met with Board members to
address these concerns and to incorporate Board comments into the plan. Mr. O'Keefe
asked for additional comments from the Board at this time.
Sue Haves stated that she and David Adams met with Phil Prete and Chris O'Keefe to
discuss the implementation section of the plan and what she has read to date looked good.
Additionally Ms. Hayes stated that she was concerned with the percentage of allowable
impervious surface stated in Policy 1. 1, Section 3.12 of the CAMA Plan.
Chris O'Keefe explained that the 25% is a result of a compromise with various interest
groups in the community.
1
David Adams commented that the land suitability analysis (found in the appendices) is a
good model that should have been utilized in comparison to the number of undeveloped
acres in the county and suggested this be included in the neat CAMA update.
Mr. Adams stressed the importance of implementation of the land use plan and
referenced the upcoming bond issue as an opportunity to achieve some of the plan's goals
for open space.
Frank Smith arrived during the CAMA land use discussion (5:45 p.m.).
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend approval and to urge County Commissioners to
provide resources to fully implement the CAMA Land Use Plan in a timely manner.
David Adams seconded the motion. The Board approved the motion by a vote of 7-0
Item 2: Traffic Impact Analysis- (continued) Request by the planning board to
continue discussion of Traffic Impact Analysis from the work session on February
15, 2006.
Chairman Conlogue asked the audience to sign in if they planned to publicly comment on
any of the agenda items and stated the time parameters for public comment.
Chairman Conlogue introduced the second item on the agenda and thanked County
Commissioner Nancy Pritchett and Lanny Wilson, NCDOT for attending the February
15, 2006 traffic work session.
Dexter Haves provided an update on the February 15, 2006 work session and stated that
the Planning Department will develop a new administrative process to evaluate large
commercial projects that generate large volumes of traffic. This process will be similar
to the current standard used to evaluate projects that generate 100 peak hour trips.
It was decided that another work session would be held on March 22, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
to review the Planning Department's proposed process.
Item 3: Special Use Permit - (continued) 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 overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning and related information.
Cindee Wolf, Withers & Ravenel representing the applicant Kevin Hoban gave a brief
summary of the site plan and distributed an updated site plan. Ms. Wolf noted the
updated plan reflects efforts to increase the buffering and to allow for better drainage.
Ms. Wolf reiterated that the plan meets all the required conditions and zoning
2
requirements and that the developer is still amenable to a stub to Tesla Park Drive if the
opportunity was to present itself in the future. Ms. Wolf also stated that since the last
Planning Board meeting, the developer has met with the Georgetown residents to address
major issues such as drainage and stated that the engineer's assessment of the ditch
concluded that the ditch was overgrown and needed maintenance to provide for better
flow.
Jay Hutchings, principal developer, stated that he and Jimmy Fentress, Stroud
Engineering, met with the Board of Directors for the Georgetown Homeowners
Association to discuss the drainage issue, however the Board was not willing to discuss
the issue. Mr. Hutchings made a standing offer to help fix the drainage problem if the
project is approved.
Jimmy Fentress, engineer, stated that because the Board of Directors for the Georgetown
Homeowners Association refused to discuss the drainage issue his findings were based
solely on his physical site inspection. Mr. Fentress stated that the drainage ditch is
overgrown by vegetation and the channel needs improvements to comply with county and
state storm water rules as well as to prepare for future storms.
Frank Smith asked whose property the channel was located on and Cindee Wolf stated
that the channel was located on Kevin Hoban's property.
Tom Nettleman representing the Georgetown Home Owners Association and
Georgetown Board of Directors spoke in opposition of the item. He asked those in
opposition to stand and approximately 25 people stood and presented a petition signed by
111 members of the Georgetown Homeowners Association opposing the project. Mr.
Nettleman argued that the plan does not meet the requirements necessary for a special use
permit on the grounds that it would endanger public health and safety; substantially injure
property value, and would not be in harmony with the surrounding area.
Cindee Wolf stated in her rebuttal that the project meets the criteria for high density
development and reiterated that they have made special considerations for the
Georgetown community including additional setbacks, buffers, and berm.
Tom Nettleman stated in his rebuttal that the plan is not in harmony with the adjacent
property and therefore does not meet one of the criteria necessary for a special use
permit.
Chairman Conlogue asked for clarification regarding the number of units in R-15 versus
that of a high-density development.
Dexter Hayes summarized staff comments:
3
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.
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.
4
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 exist 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.
There was concern among the Board regarding the project's failure to meet findings of
fact #4 and that this project would increase traffic. There was discussion regarding
impervious surfaces and drainage issues.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the application. Robin Robinson
seconded the motion. The Board voted 6-0 to recommend denial of this item. David
Adams abstained.
Item 4: Special Use Permit -Request by Withers and Ravenel to consider a Special
Use Permit for a Community Boating Facility in an R-20S Residential District at
1647 and 1653 Canady Road (S-554, 03/06).
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning and related information.
Cindee Wolf representing the property owner Robert Capps III gave an overview of the
proposed subdivision. Ms. Wolf stated that this project will have less of an impact on the
environment than individual docks would and that the project meets the CAMA Land
Use Plan criteria. Ms. Wolf also stated that the project meets county regulations and will
comply with the county's prescribed conditions and staff's recommendations.
Al Capps, property owner and applicant showed photographs of his property and gave a
project summary. Mr. Capps stated that the project meets the criteria for a special use
permit and that he has contacted two dozen neighbors and there have been no objections
to the project.
John Randise Canady Road resident, spoke in opposition of the project stating that the
project is not in harmony with the neighborhood and of no benefit to the neighborhood.
Mr. Randise stated that the project is detrimental to the environment; the existing sewer
system is questionable; and the water is very shallow at points. Additionally, Mr. Randise
requested that if the Planning Board was to recommend approval, that a condition be
added prohibiting the use of lights 24 hours a day.
5
Dexter Haves provided the 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 Ogden Fire District.
B. A private well will serve the dock facility.
C. A very small percentage of the subject property is located in a 100-year floodplain.
D. Access to the site is from Canady Road off Mason Landing Road.
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-20S Residential Zoning District. A Special Use Permit
allows a community boating facility in an R-20S Residential District.
B. The property has existing docks that need rehabilitation, which would require
minimal environmental impacts.
C. The site will not need any off-street parking, because it is close enough to the
residential lots it serves.
D. The proposed community boating facility has seven O boat slips and seven (7)
proposed residential lots, which meets the required ratio.
E. A pedestrian easement will be provided and conferred to each owner for access to the
community boating facility.
F. No commercial activities, as required by the ordinance, are proposed for the facility.
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. Some commercial marinas and some community boating facilities have been
previously permitted in the Middle Sound area.
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 Resource
Protection. The purpose of the Resource Protection class is to provide for the
preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and
recreational resources. The Resource Protection class has been developed in
recognition of the fact that New Hanover County, one of the most urbanized counties
6
in the State, still contains numerous areas of environmental or cultural sensitivity
which merit protection from urban land uses.
B. An area approximately ten (10) feet wide that runs along the entire creek bank is
brackish marsh and is in the Conservation Overlay District (COD).
C. Surrounding land uses include single-family housing.
Staff Comments:
1) Staff recommends the applicant mitigate the four trees cut down along the
bluff of Pages Creek. The trees stabilized the bluff.
2) Staff recommends the other significant trees on the property be protected.
There was discussion regarding tree mitigation, dredging, access for emergency service
vehicles, and lighting.
Sandra Spiers made a motion to recommend approval of the item with the following
conditions:
1. The trees that were cut down be mitigated.
2. Significant trees be protected.
3. No overhead lighting in the dock/basin area.
4. Homeowners relinquish their individual riparian rights to docks.
Ken Wrangell seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously 7-0 to recommend
approval of the item.
Item 5: Special Use Permit -Request by Betty Burbank and Brad Kerr to consider a
Special Use Permit for a Veterinary Office in an O&I Office and Institutional
District at 2311 Castle Hayne Road (S-552, 03/06).
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning and related information.
Brad Kerr, petitioner and veterinarian stated that his holistic veterinarian practice would
include Chinese acupuncture and not surgery or boarding. Dr. Kerr stated that his project
meets all the criteria necessary for a special use permit and that the adjacent land owners,
the Bethany Presbyterian church, approves of the project.
There was no one present who spoke in opposition of the item.
Dexer Haves provided the staff findings:
7
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 Wrightsboro VFD.
B. Water is provided by a well and sewer is provided by a septic tank.
C. The subject property is not located in a 100-year floodplain.
D. Access to the site is from Castle Hayne Road, a major arterial.
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 O&I Office and Institutional Zoning District. A
veterinary clinic requires a Special Use Permit in an O&I zoning district.
B. Parking, street yard and setbacks satisfy the county zoning ordinance
C. The applicant is requesting a variance for the buffer yard requirements of 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. The abutting property to the south of the applicant's lot is a church in an R-20
Residential Zoning District.
B. The abutting property to the north of the applicant's lot is a rental residential
house.
C. The property across Castle Hayne Road is zoned O&I Office & Institutional, but
vacant.
D. In addition to the veterinary clinic, other offices are proposed for the same
building.
E. 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 Urban
Transition. The purpose of the Urban Transition class is to provide for
future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be
provided with necessary urban services. The location of these areas is
based upon land use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in
land utilization and public service delivery.
B. A few veterinary clinics already exist in O&I districts and neighborhood
districts in other areas of the county.
8
In response, Dr. Kerr stated that he withdrew his request for a variance for the buffer
zone.
Following a short discussion, Robin Robinson made a motion to recommend approval of
the item. Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously 7-0 to
recommend approval of the permit.
Item 6: Special Use Permit- Request by Lucille Piner to consider a Special Use
Permit for a cemetery in an R-15 Residential District at 5708 Myrtle Grove Road (S-
553, 03/06).
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning and related information.
Jimmy Piner spoke on behalf of the applicant, Lucille Piner. Mr. Piner stated that the
Piner family requests a special use permit to build a family cemetery on their property.
Mr. Piner stated that the cemetery would not adversely affect anyone and that they meet
all the criteria required of a special use permit.
There was no one present who spoke in opposition of the item.
Dexter Haves provided the 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. No public water or sewer will serve the site.
C. The subject property is not located in a 100-year floodplain.
D. Access to the site is from Myrtle Grove Road.
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 a cemetery in an R-15 Residential District if the proposed cemetery meets
health department regulations for cemeteries.
B. The zoning ordinance does not require any other regulations or conditions for
cemeteries.
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 uses exist in other residential districts in New Hanover County.
9
B. All the abutting and adjoining property owners are family members to the
applicant.
C. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property.
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 Resource
Protection. The purpose of the Resource Protection class is to provide for the
preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and
recreational resources. The Resource Protection class has been developed in
recognition of the fact that New Hanover County, one of the most urbanized
counties in the State, still contains numerous areas of environmental or cultural
sensitivity which merit protection from urban land uses.
B. Surrounding land uses include farming and single family residential.
Staff Comments:
1) Staff recommends the applicant register the proposed cemetery with the North
Carolina Cemetery Commission for the purpose of keeping records of the site.
2) Staff recommends a legal description of the site be recorded.
Robin Robinson asked Mr. Piner if he accepts the staff recommendations and Mr. Piner
agreed.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend approval of the item with staff
recommendations. Robin Robinson seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously
7-0 to recommend approval of the permit.
Item 7: Rezoning -Request by State Employees Credit Union to rezone 8.72 acres
from B-2 Highway Business District and R-15 Residential to B-2 Highway Business
District and O&I Office and Institutional at 535 Sanders Road and 5830 Carolina
Beach Road (Z-831, 03/06).
Steve Candler presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning and related information.
J.C. Hearne attorney for petitioner stated that they have changed their request from B-2
and O&I rezoning to B-1 conditional use. Mr. Hearne gave a brief summary of the plan
and stated that they agree with the staff recommendations to provide for interconnectivity
with Mott's Landing. Additionally, Mr. Hearne stated that their plan is in harmony with
the surrounding area
10
Burnett Sanders, Sanders Road resident, spoke in opposition of this item because of the
traffic it would generate. Mr. Sanders stated that there is too much traffic in New
Hanover County and that we need to find other solutions.
Dexter Haves provided the staff summary:
A small remnant of the petitioner's property located in the northwest corner of
Carolina Beach Road and Sanders Road is currently zoned B-2 Highway Business. The
balance of the property located along Sanders Road is zoned R-15 Residential. The
petitioner proposes to rezone the property to CD (B-1) Neighborhood Conditional Use
District to allow for the construction of a State Employees Credit Union. The Land Use
Plan classifies this area as Limited Transition.
The eastern portion of the property is vacant and wooded. The property abutting
to the north is Bowen's Chapel. The property on the southwestern corner, across Sanders
Road, is zoned B-2 and is currently vacant. Directly across Carolina Beach Road are
mini-storage units in a B-2 zoning district. A portion of the tract is bisected with a
Pocosin wetland community. The contours in this area show an 8-foot change in
elevation draining into a larger wetland and a small pond on the property abutting it to the
north. The western portions of the property contain a mobile home park with
approximately 33 units of affordable housing. The petitioner proposes to eliminate the
mobile home park. The property directly south across Sanders Road is the proposed
Beau Rivage Marketplace and has a CD (B-1) zoning. The far southwest corner of the
property is adjacent to a portion of the residential section of Beau Rivage. An adjoining
development to the north is proposed as Mott's Landing, a 654-unit subdivision with
clustered housing. The first phase of the subdivision is under construction now. A future
road connection through the petitioner's property was part of that approved plan.
Primary access to the petitioners' property should be from Sanders Road instead of
Carolina Beach Road.
In order to accommodate the wetland and topographic features of this site as well as the
need for improved access to the 283 town homes to the north and the intersection
improvements at Sanders and Carolina Beach Roads, staff recommends that the petitioner
proceed with the State Employees Credit Union. Any further development of the site will
require a new plan submission and review.
Dexter Haves provided the staff recommendations:
1. Provide interconnectivity to the Mott's Landing subdivision to the north of the
property.
2. Preserve the wetlands and COD area.
3. Participate in the costs of the required traffic improvements to Sanders Road
and the Carolina Beach Road intersection according to a Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA).
11
There was discussion among the Board and staff regarding improvements to Sanders
Road and trips per day generated by the project. The applicant accepted the staff
recommendations.
Robin Robinson made a motion to recommend approval of the item with the staff
recommendations. Sandra Spiers seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously 7-
0 to recommend approval of the CD (B-1)
Steve Candler gave an update on the Technical Review Committee's activity for the
month of February 2006.
The TRC reviewed four performance residential developments:
1. Myrtle Grove Cove
The TRC voted 4-0 to approve the project with the provision that acceptable septic
tank permits be submitted prior to approval.
2. Porters Crossing
The TRC voted 4-0 to approve the project.
3. Westbay Estates-Phase 6
The TRC voted 4-0 to re-approve the remaining 26 lots.
4. Nautical Green
The TRC voted 4-0 to continue the item because of an issue with connectivity to
Becker Woods road.
5. Watermark Landing 66 units
The TRC voted 4-0 to continue the item due to emergency service issues including
bridgeload and fire hydrant issues.
Steve Candler stated that the neat TRC meeting would be held on March 8, 2006 at 2:00
p.m.
The Board announced that they would hold a traffic work session on March 22, 2006 at
4:00 p.m.
Being of no further business, Sue Haves made a motion to adjourn and Sandra Spiers
seconded the motion, which the Board unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at
8:15 p.m.
Dexter Hayes, Planning Director
12