200606 June PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 1, 2006
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 1, 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 Dave Weaver, Acting Planning Director
David Adams Sam Burgess, Planner
Sue Hayes Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist
Robin Robinson Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner
Frank Smith Holt Moore, Assistant County Attorney
Sandra Spiers Chris O'Keefe, Senior Planner
Chairman Walter Conlogue opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public
hearing.
Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Walter Conlogue proceeded with the approval of the April and May 2006 minutes.
Robin Robinson made a motion to approve the minutes and David Adams seconded the
motion. The board approved the April and May 2006 minutes by a vote of 6-0.
Walt Conlogue announced that item #7-a request by Winner LLC for Muddy Waters
LLC to consider a Special Use Permit for a high density residential development at 105
and 125 Battleship Road had been withdrawn from the agenda. Mr. Conlogue welcomed
Jane Daughtridge.
Item 1: Text Amendment - Request by Planning staff to create an administrative
process for traffic plan review on non-residential projects generating 100 peak hour
trips or 10,000 square feet (A-352, 6/06).
Chris O'Keefe outlined the proposed procedures for the traffic impact review process.
Section 69.18: Traffic Impact Review Process
69.18-1 Applicability - Any non-residential project that generates more
then 100 trips during peak hours or has a total footprint square
footage of 10, 000 sq. ft. shall require a traffic impact review.
69.18-2 Procedures for Review
1
a. Referral of projects for review - During standard zoning review, if it is
determined that a non-residential project generates 100 peak hour trips or
more or proposes total footprint square footage of 10, 000 sq. ft. or more,
the application shall be referred to the Planning Department for
additional review.
b. The Planning Department shall initiate a coordinated review of the traffic
data among planning staff, NCDOT and Wilmington MPO staff to
evaluate if a formal Traffic ImpactAnalysis (TIA) will be required.
c. Traffic impact analysis If the coordinated review determines a need for
TIA, the scope shall be outlined and shall follow the Traffic Impact Study
Standards (adopted May, 2005)
d. Minimum Desirable Level of Service (LOS) for roadways in New Hanover
County shall be Level D.
e. The results of the Traffic Impact Analysis will determine if the project
moves forward, is deferred or reduced in size and impact. Projects
resulting in a Level of Service (LOS) of E or F on the project's access
roadway or at the closest controlled intersection may be denied.
69.18-3 Appeals
Applicants seeking appeal of the staff decision to require TIA for projects
under this section may file for appeal as outlined under Article XII: Board of
Adjustment, Section 121 of the ordinance.
Mr. O'Keefe stated that various sections of Article V would need to be modified to
reference the new Traffic Impact Review process and the County's building permit
application would need to be modified to state that a Traffic Impact Review will be
performed on any non-residential project which met one of the following criteria:
Will the project generate 100 peak hour trips or more?
Will the project contain a total footprint square footage of 10, 000 sq. ft or more?
Several Board members recommended modified language to the teat amendment.
Frank Smith inquired what individuals would comprise the Traffic Impact Review team
and what criteria would be used to evaluate projects.
There was discussion that projects with poor levels of service (LOS) would require traffic
mitigation to improve the roadways. There was further discussion regarding what
agencies would constitute the review team and scoping team. It was stated that both
teams would be a coordinated effort between members of the Planning staff, NCDOT,
and MPO.
David Adams stated that the proposed TIA review process needed more clarification
regarding the make-up of the review team and their authority.
2
Walt Conlogue made a motion to send the teat amendment back to the Planning
Department for additional review including clarification of the TIA team members. Sue
Haves seconded the motion. The Board voted 6-0 to send the teat amendment back to the
Planning Department.
Frank Smith inquired what parts of the Unified Development Ordinance were not adopted
by the County. A discussion ensued regarding the differences between the City's and the
County's development review processes.
The Board stated that Frank Smith is to meet with Chris O'Keefe to discuss possible
changes to the teat.
Item 2: Text Amendment - Request by the New Hanover County Water
Development Task Force to amend the Subdivision Regulations to require the
installation of water distribution systems to all new subdivisions (A-351, 6/06).
Chris O'Keefe gave an overview of the teat amendment and stated that the following teat
would be added to the current county subdivision regulations:
Water distribution systems shall be installed in all new subdivisions.
Matt Davis Deputy Fire Chief for New Hanover County stated that this teat amendment
has been brought forth by a recommendation of the Water Task Force. Mr. Davis stated
that the installation of dry water lines in all new subdivisions is a good preventative
safety measure.
The Board agreed that this amendment is good idea. Frank Smith added that there may
be potential problems in the future if water and sewer does not reach proposed
communities that have paid for the dry water lines.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Robin Robinson
seconded the motion. The board voted to recommend approval of the item by a vote of 6-
0.
Item 3: Rezoning - Request by Withers & Ravenel for BHC Properties, LLC to
rezone approximately 4.7 acres of property located at 205 and 217 Middle Sound
Loop Road from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential (Z-841, 6/06).
Jane Daughtridge presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information.
Cindee Wolf Withers & Ravenel representing the property owner stated that the rezoning
request is reasonable because of the negligible differences in density between R-15 and
3
R-10 zoning. Ms. Wolf stated that the area is suitable for R-10 zoning with the recent
acquisition of water & sewer services. Ms. Wolf stated that the property is adjacent to
commercial services and R-10 zoning is often used as a transition between residential and
commercial development. Additionally, Ms. Wolf stated that the project would follow
the CAMA Land Use Plan and be environmentally sensitive.
Harold Chapel, owner of BHC Properties presented a site plan and stated that his project
is environmentally sensitive. Mr. Chapel also stated that he informed adjacent property
owners of his development plan in efforts to address any concerns.
No one spoke in opposition of the item.
Jane Daughtridge provided the staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located on Middle Sound Loop Road, approximately 1,000 feet
southwest of its intersection with N. Market Street (U.S. 17). Adjacent property to the
west of the subject property is occupied by a church. To the east, a topsoil/mulch yard is
operating on vacant land. Across Middle Sound Loop Road, older single-family homes
line the roadway. The surrounding property is zoned R-15 Residential consistent with a
zoning transition pattern from R-20 further east.
Average Daily Traffic on Middle Sound Loop Road increased only about 3% between
2001 and 2005, suggesting relative stability in existing development patterns. Level of
Service (LOS) is shown as C& D, also indicating a range of stability.
Rezoning this site would result in a potential change in density from 2.9 to 4.4 units per
acre (approximately 50%). Most of the surrounding area is subdivided in accordance with
R-15 zoning. West of the site along N. Market Street, is zoned B-2 Highway Business.
Further east, the zoning pattern transitions to R-20 Residential. There is one pocket of R-
10 zoning about 1/2 mile southeast of the subject property associated with a 34-acre
subdivision approved in 1969.
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the Watershed Resource Protection
classification as applying to areas within 1/2 mile of the 100-year floodplain for the
various creeks. The purpose is to protect those creeks from "pollutant laden storm water
runoff from impervious surfaces within the watershed." The protection strategy is to
minimize new impervious surfaces, retrofit protection measures to improve water quality
of runoff from existing development, and to promote low impact best management
practices for development and redevelopment.
Based on the substantial increase in density, this proposal would appear to be inconsistent
with both the protection strategy for this land class and the established adjacent
development patterns.
4
Staff's recommendation is that the request to rezone this property from R-15 to R-10 be
denied.
There was discussion regarding the discrepancy between Ms. Wolf's and the Planning
Staff's density calculations. Ms. Wolf stated that her calculations were based upon the
performance residential model and the Planning Staff's were based on conventional.
Several Board members expressed concern about rezoning a section of land to R-10 in
the middle of R-15 zoning and potentially leading to further R-10 rezoning requests.
There was also concern regarding the protection of the watershed.
Cindee Wolf stated that the project would be low-density development, following best
management practices, with less than 25% impervious surfaces. Additionally, Ms. Wolf
argued that her rezoning request exemplifies the premise of transition land classification.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the item. David Adams seconded the
motion. The Board voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the request
Item 4: Rezoning - Request by Kenneth Palmer for Freedom Property Investors to
rezone three tracts of land totaling approximately 4.4 acres of property located at
2007, 2013, & 2017 Farley Drive from AR Airport Residential District to B-2
Highway Business District (Z-842, 6/06).
The applicant withdrew his rezoning request.
Item 5: Special Use Permit - Request by Long Leaf Wood Products to consider a
Special Use Permit to expand an existing Debris Recycling Facility in an Al Airport
Industrial District located at 2829 N. Kerr Avenue (5-560, 6/06).
Jane Daughtridge presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information. Ms. Daughtridge stated that
this is a request to modify an existing special use permit (S-487) by removing a 6,000
cubic yard per quarter cap that is currently in place.
Brian Hutchison applicant and President and Operator of Blue Horizons stated that he is
applying for another special use permit to operate a vegetative debris recycling center and
is requesting that no cap be placed on the permit by the County due to the frequency of
hurricanes and storms. Mr. Hutchison stated that the State would determine if any cap
would be placed on his operation.
Jane Daughtridge provided the findings of fact:
5
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. The existing special use permit authorizes an vegetative recycling
operation, not to exceed 6,000 cubic yards of material per quarter
B. The existing operation has exceeded that limit during storm events and
desires to assure compliance with the permit.
C. Vegetative recycling operations exceeding 6,000 c.y. of material per
quarter require a waste management permit from the State of North
Carolina to assure compliance with state rules.
D. The property accesses N. Kerr Avenue via a 60 ft. wide private access
easement
E. Fire Service is available from the Wrightsboro VFD.
F. The property is not located in a flood hazard area.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. The operation is prohibited from emitting smoke, dust, or creating glare or
other visual hazards in the Al zoning district.
B. Off-street parking requirements are met according to the requirements of
Article VIII of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance.
C. The facility and its appurtenant uses must satisfy the requirements of
Article VI, Section 69.13-1(3)
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. Other industrial uses are in the area.
B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property
values of residents who live nearby.
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 2006 Land Use Plan Update identifies this area as Transition.
B. Policies in the Comprehensive plan support location of industrial uses
outside of environmentally sensitive areas.
C. The property is zoned Al Airport Industrial.
6
Joseph Philpott, adjacent business owner expressed concerns about granting a special use
permit to allow for increased debris recycling given the poor condition of the access road.
Mr. Philpott stated that the access road cannot handle heavy industrial traffic and was
concerned for public safety. Mr. Philpott recommended that the road be paved with
asphalt.
Jerry Hockett, adjacent business owner expressed concerns about the speed of the truck
traffic generated by Mr. Hutchison's business and the poor condition of the access road.
Jane Daughtridge provided the staff conditions:
Suggested Conditions:
1. Petitioner must secure all necessary permits from NCDENR and
remain in compliance with all applicable rules relating to the
state permit.
2. Petitioner should make application to the Division of Waste
Management for necessary permits within 60 days of issuance of
this Special Use Permit modification.
3. A copy of said Waste Management Permit should be returned to
the Planning Department for inclusion in the file upon issuance
by the state.
4. The new order removes Finding 2.(C) of the original order
granting a special use permit. All other standards noted in the
order granting S-487 should remain in effect.
5. Petitioner must assure proper maintenance of the private access
road for safe and adequate ingress and egress for patrons of the
site.
There was discussion regarding current maintenance of the access road. The Board
suggested that the business owners work together to maintain the road. The Board stated
that staff condition #5 be removed from the conditions because the petitioner does not
own the access road.
Robin Robinson made a motion to recommend approval of the item with the inclusion of
staff conditions 1 through 4. Sandra Spiers seconded the motion. The Board voted 6-0 to
recommend approval of the item with conditions.
Item 6: Special Use Permit - Request by Captain Dolan Little on behalf of Cape
Fear River Boats to consider a Special Use Permit for commercial marina with
floating structures to accommodate alcohol sales on a floating barge moored in the
Cape Fear River adjacent to 106/108 South Water Street (5-561, 6/06).
Jane Daughtridge presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information.
7
Carl Marshburn owner of Cape Fear River Boats stated that he is requesting a special use
permit to serve alcohol on his barge. Mr. Marshburn stated that he has been serving
alcohol responsibly for 18 years without an infraction.
Terry Rose, adjacent property owner representing the residents and business owners of
the J.W. Brooks Building spoke in opposition to the request citing safety and noise
concerns associated with alcohol in open space. Mr. Rose questioned whether the barge
complies with the intended uses of the Riverwalk. Mr. Rose expressed concern that there
is no evidence to demonstrate how the barge would withstand a hurricane.
Jane Daughtridge provided the staff findings:
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. The existing operation has two floating structures; a floating barge and
riverboat, Henrietta III.
B. Fire service is provided by the City of Wilmington.
C. Water and sewer is provided by the City of Wilmington.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Water dependent uses are permitted by right in the City of Wilmington
ordinance in the Historic District.
B. Off-street parking requirements are met within the petitioner's
property located in the City of Wilmington jurisdiction. The county's
parking requirement is 2 spaces per floating structure to be provided
on shore.
C. Only the water area is within the county's zoning jurisdiction. A
minimum of 2,000 sq. ft. of gross land area contiguous and above
mean high water shall be provided for each floating structure on-shore.
The applicant's on-shore property is reported as 8,580 sq. ft.
D. Floating structures shall not be located within 15 feet of the water
ward extension of all adjacent property lines.
E. Each floating structure shall be provided with permanent water and
sewer systems, and other standards as specified in 72-31.5.
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.
8
A. The Wilmington waterfront allows water dependent uses in association
with the Riverwalk.
B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease
property values of residents who live nearby.
4. The Board must rind 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 2006 Joint CAMA Plan Update only applies the classification
system to land areas. This area is water.
B. Policies in the Plan support commercial uses "...within close
proximity to the markets they serve..."
C. The Riverboat operation is part of the City of Wilmington's Historic
Urban Waterfront concept, approved through the Division of Coastal
Management.
There was discussion regarding whether the floating structure was defined as a structure
or vessel. Jane Daughtridge read the County's zoning ordinance and it was determined
that both a vessel and floating structures are subject to the permitting process. The Board
inquired if parking regulations and noise ordinances fell under city or county jurisdiction;
Holt Moore, Assistant County Attorney, stated that it would likely be cooperation
between both.
David Adams stated that he believes that the County does not have jurisdiction over this
matter. Dr. Adams stated that the applicant has obtained the appropriate permits including
a Section 10 Permit of the Rivers and Harbors Act and a CAMA Permit. Additionally,
Dr. Adams stated that he thought it dangerous to make a decision that would set a
precedent for commercial use on the seaward side of the Riverwalk without knowing
public opinion.
Terry Rose, adjacent property owner stated that he did not receive any notice of a public
hearing regarding the development of the riverboat and barge along the Riverwalk.
The Board stated that the Riverboat and barge was part of the original Riverwalk plan.
Holt Moore Assistant County Attorney stated that the Board should assume that the
County has jurisdiction over this item and is subject to county zoning ordinances.
There was discussion among the Board to clarify that the Board was to decide whether
the Riverboat and barge complied with County ordinances and not whether or not to sell
alcohol. It was stated that the State has authority over the sale of alcohol.
9
There was discussion regarding the Riverboat's hours of operation and whether to include
additional conditions on the special use permit including alcohol restrictions.
Frank Smith made a motion to recommend approval of the item with the staff's
conditions. Sandy Spiers seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-2 (Adams and Hayes)
to recommend approval of the item.
Item 7: 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 of the Cape Fear River, directly south of the USS North Carolina Battleship (S-
546,1/06).
The applicant withdrew his request.
Item 8: Text Amendment - Request to add "Barber/Beauty Shop" as a
permitted use in the I-1 Industrial District (A-353).
Chris O'Keefe stated that the staff is requesting that Barber/Beauty Shop be added to the
table of permitted uses for I-1 zoning district. Mr. O'Keefe stated that barbershops and
beauty shops would fall within the purposes of I-1 zoning districts. Additionally, Mr.
O'Keefe stated that the 2006 CAMA Plan Update supports the idea of incorporating light
industrial into mixed use area as well as placing commercial uses within close proximity
to the markets they serve.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Robin Robinson
seconded the motion. The Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the item.
Sam Burgess gave an update on the Technical Review Committee's activity for the
month of May 2006.
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed three performance residential
developments:
1. Williamsburg Place at Northchase (Phase II) - The TRC voted 5-0 to re-
approve 12 units and granted waivers for sidewalks and street jog
requirements.
2. Porters Pointe - The TRC voted 5-0 to agree with the NCDOT's
determination that the Hughes Circle could not meet the criteria of a public
street and that the street should become private.
10
3. Vineyard Plantation - The TRC voted 4-0 to release the first 20 lots of the
project and requested County legal to draft a letter to the developer of
Waterstone requesting that a surety be posted so that construction on the
roundabout at Porters Neck and Edgewater Club Roads could begin.
Sam Burgess stated that the neat TRC meeting will be held at June 7, 2006 at 2:00 PM.
Robin Robinson stated that she has enjoyed serving on the Planning Board, thanked the
County Commissioners, Board, and Planning Staff for the opportunity to work with them,
and stated that this was her last meeting. Ms. Robinson stated that she hopes that the
Planning Board will continue to find ways to improve traffic and improve the look of
commercial developments throughout the County.
Walt Conlogue and the Board thanked Robin Robinson for her service.
Being of no further discussion, Robin Robinson made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Sue Haves seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM.
David F. Weaver, Acting Planning Director
11