2012-06 June 7 2012 PBM
Page 1 of 31 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board June 7, 2012 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 7, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic
County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Melissa Gott, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Andy Heath, Vice
Chair Shawn Ralston, Planning Manager Dan Hilla Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Tamara Murphy Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Anthony Prinz Nicole Dreibelbis, Current Planner Richard
Collier Steve Still, Senior Zoning Compliance Official Absent: Troy Barboza Chairman Melissa Gott opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led
the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Gott reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of the May Planning Board Meeting Minutes Dan Hilla made a motion to approve
the May 2012 Planning Board meeting minutes as drafted. Andy Heath seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the May 2012 Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Rezoning
Request (Z-920, 06/12)-Request by Dean Exline on behalf of Seabreeze Seafood Inc. to rezone 2.48 acres at 1026 State Avenue, 1068 and 1074 South Seabreeze Road from B-2 Highway Business
to R-15 Residential. The site is identified as Conservation on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map and is within the Seabreeze Area Plan. Sam Burgess presented the staff presentation
and provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Mr. Burgess also showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property
and the surrounding area. Mr. Burgess explained the subject property is located in the southern portion of the County in the Seabreeze community just north of the Snows Cut Bridge near
the southeastern elbow of South Seabreeze Road. Access to the three contiguous parcels is from Seabreeze Road South and State Avenue. The parcels contain approximately 2.48 acres, which
includes property that may be marsh or submerged waters emanating from the Intracoastal Waterway. Nearby land uses are few and include a home north of the petitioner’s property and a
dilapidated building that was
Page 2 of 31 once a seafood house and is a part of the subject property. Softspray Lane and Seabreeze Sound are major streets that intersect with South Seabreeze Road. Seabreeze Sound
was organized, developed and approved by the County 4-5 years ago. There is no level of service along South Seabreeze Road, but the nearby service road, River Road, has a level of service
of A and the level of service along Carolina Beach Road in this area is C, which indicates free flowing traffic. The background of a portion of the subject property is the Intracoastal
Waterway. There are plans to remove the dilapidated seafood house structure if the property is rezoned. Mr. Burgess stated the property is currently zoned B-2 Highway Business, which
is the County’s most intensive commercial use district. The district has been in existence since the early 1970s and has not been modified since its creation. Land uses within the district
have been handicapped for development use due to the economically challenged area, along with with the 100 year flood line and the VE or high velocity zone located adjacent to the Intracoastal
Waterway and spreading toward the southeastern elbow of Seabreeze Road South. Several docks and piers are located nearby and extend out into the Intracoastal Waterway. The 2006 CAMA
Land Use Plan identifies the area as Conservation, which is characterized as providing for effective long term management and protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural
resources, while also protecting the rights of the property owner. Management of these areas may be required for a number of reasons including natural, cultural, recreational, productive,
or scenic values, but are primarily within the flood prone area. Density within the Conservation area is limited to 2-1/2 units per acre. Mr. Burgess reported that in July 1988, The
Seabreeze Plan, A Heritage Renewed was crafted and adopted by the County. Residential and property owner concerns from the plan included the loss of waterfront commercial activities
from the area that was once a thriving beach resort for blacks during the 1940s and 1950s. Other residential concerns based on the plan at that time included housing conditions, development
pressures, lack of recreational areas and lack of shopping facilities. Since the plan was adopted, eventful residential and commercial activity has not materialized largely due to the
economic constraints of the area and also apathy; however, a residential neighborhood known as Seabreeze Sound has been created nearby. Project development on the 36 lot neighborhood,
Seabreeze Sound, has been slow to fully develop due to the economic turndown of the previous years, but has enhanced development of the area by consolidating a number of small parcels.
Mr. Burgess stated staff was encouraged by the petitioner’s request to rezone the B-2 district to R-15 for a couple of reasons. First, the existing area of the B-2 Highway Business does
not lend itself to such an intensive use considering the natural environment constraints that exist nearby. Those constraints include the property being located in a VE zone and adjacent
to a Primary Nursery Area (PNA). The proposed downzoning of a portion of an existing commercial district would actually decrease any land intensity concerns in the future. Second, it
is encouraging that subtle activity is beginning to emerge in an area that has been depressed for a long period of time. This activity may provide a positive rippling effect on other
nearby properties. He stated staff would like to recommend that a sliver or remnant piece of B-2 Highway Business property adjacent and south of the petitioner’s property, the Carl Biggs
property, also be rezoned to R-15 Residential as well. The petitioner’s request does not encompass the entire area of the B-2 portion that has been in existence for a while and staff
would like to request that remnant B-2
Page 3 of 31 piece that extends into the marsh in the Intracoastal Waterway also be captured in the rezoning. The petitioner is amenable to including that remnant B-2 district. Mr. Burgess
reported Mr. Biggs, a resident of Vienna, Virginia, also had no issue with rezoning the sliver of B-2 on his property to R-15. Chairman Gott asked why the northwest corner of tract 14
wasn’t included in the request. Mr. Burgess explained that particular area is actually a portion of the Seabreeze Road right-of-way and is maintained and controlled by NCDOT. He noted
a piece of a remnant parcel in that area as well. Chairman Gott opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. James Spicuzza, spoke on behalf of the applicant, stated he had
the opportunity to meet many of the residents of the area and speak to staff regarding the potential to rezone the subject property. He noted the Seabreeze community in that area remains
depressed in some ways with no growth or development on the property. Subject lots to the north and south have residences on them so it seemed logical that residential zoning be obtained
on these infill lots. The opportunity for the Seabreeze community would be to have three new homes contributing to the tax base and providing construction jobs, services and even potential
customers to businesses that may eventually come to the B-2 area. One of the difficulties of B-2 zoning there is the area’s severe flood issue so you most likely will not see a business
on a ground floor. The elevation must be 14’ or 16’ high, which does suit itself for residential construction, but would not be suitable for a restaurant or retail business with an entrance
on the ground floor. Mr. Spicuzza commented being able to locate three additional houses between two existing homes would be very conducive for the property and a benefit to the Seabreeze
community. Mr. Spicuzza completed his presentation by stating his sellers own 20 water and sewer taps and are in a position to assist anyone who wanted to come forward with a B-2 opportunity
in the community. He also noted county staff is willing to work with anyone to enhance the business community, but unfortunately, that opportunity hasn’t been there over the last 25-30
years. Carl Biggs, the owner of lot #1, acknowledged he would support the motion to rezone the lots for three homes, but would be concerned about density if the proposal was for more
than three homes in the future, such as ten homes. Dean Exline, the petitioner, commented the proposal would be good for the area, the water and sewer are there, and the area has been
blighted for years for various reasons. He expressed hope the rezoning would help the area. Mr. Burgess reported staff had received two comments from adjacent property owners in support
of the proposal and one person had expressed concerns or opposition regarding the request. Barbara Dinkins, an area resident, stated she and her husband, Clyde, operated a “bed and fix
your own breakfast” business nearby and were really delighted that someone wanted to build something in the area. She noted that most things that had wanted to come to the area were
Page 4 of 31 voted down because of the Primary Nursery Area so the property is just lying there. As stated by Mr. Biggs, they may also be opposed to many residences being placed there.
During opposition, Thomas Congleton, an adjacent property owner, expressed appreciation for the staff and stated he wasn’t necessarily for or against the rezoning, but did have some
concerns regarding collateral damage caused by reducing the value of his B-2 property with the additional setbacks required for the 2-3 sides of his property adjacent to the proposal.
Setbacks for B-2 adjacent to B-2 are different for B-2 to R-15 Residential. He explained his lot is small so he suggested the petitioner absorb that setback variance so he could preserve
his property value. He also expressed concern that the rezoning would be a performance type of arrangement where the property may sit undeveloped again for years rather than homes being
constructed in a timely manner, noting the nearby development that was not completed. He commented commented that in general, a B-2 zone associated with a marine environment with waterfront
access is a very limited asset in this county and in the state and he would like to see a more progressive approach to finding a way to develop it so there are more jobs in the area.
A business in that unique environment would generate long term jobs as opposed to homebuilding, which generates short term job opportunities. In response to Mr. Congleton’s concerns
about timely construction if the property is rezoned, Chairman Gott explained there is no time frame to build after a property is rezoned. The property could sit vacant for another twenty
years; however, the applicant hopes that does not happen. She asked staff to address his setback concerns following the public hearing. During rebuttal, Jim Spicuzza stated the parties
that are purchasing the lots intend to build homes and are not rezoning in hopes to resell the property. There will be four homes on four individual lots constructed on the property.
Chairman Gott closed the public hearing. Sam Burgess stated there would be setbacks in accordance with the zoning ordinance and would be based on the height of the structure Mr. Congleton
may choose to build in the future. He commented staff was looking at several options to re-shape the remaining portion of the commercial district and get some of it out of the flood
zone. Mr. Congleton may be amenable to a possible R-15 rezoning of his property as well. Mr. O’Keefe stated the easiest remedy for Mr. Congleton would be to seek an adjustment to the
setback rules from the Board of Adjustment. The setback rules would render Mr. Congleton’s lot unbuildable so it is possible the Board of Adjustment would grant a reduction in setback.
Another possibility may be to push the B-2 line back onto the petitioner’s property providing a ribbon of B-2 between the residentially zoned land and Mr. Congleton’s property, giving
him relief from that setback; however, that would be difficult. Based on Mr. Spicuzza’s comments regarding the number of lots, that may not be provide enough land for the petitioner
to achieve their goals for the property.
Page 5 of 31 Anthony Prinz asked if given that B-2 is in place on Lot #5 and on the property being requested for rezoning, what would the setbacks be for Property #5 and could a development
today meet the setbacks with the existing B-2 surrounding that parcel. Mr. O’Keefe explained there is no setback requirement for B-2 against B-2 zoning. The lot is narrow and would have
some challenges, but there would be no setback required. Mr. Prinz asked if there were easements associated with Park Drive that would create a further hindrance. Mr. Burgess stated
staff was not aware of any easements associated with Park Drive that would create a hindrance. Mr. Prinz stated the County also zones rights-of-way when rezoning parcels and a small
portion of Lot #14 appears to reside within the right-of-way for Seabreeze Road. He stated concern that if they leave that B-2 and someone next to Mr. Exline or across the street wants
to rezone to R-15 as well, a small sliver of his property would remain B-2. He asked Mr. Exline if he would be amenable to that small section within the right-of-way being rezoned to
R-15 as well. Dean Exline stated he didn’t think that would be a problem with that small section being rezoned R-15 as well. Mr. Prinz stated concern about creating a remnant of B-2
zoning in the right-of-way. Dan Hilla stated he thought Mr. Congleton has a valid point with his comments about the setbacks. He asked Mr. O’Keefe to elaborate on the problems that may
be caused by moving the R-15 zoning line back five to ten feet on the applicant’s property. Mr. O’Keefe explained the petitioner is hoping to build four homes on the 2.49 acres with
R-15 zoning, which allows 2.5 units per acre. They may be able to accomplish that with a little less land, but the petitioner would need to address that issue. Mr. O’Keefe noted his
comments were based on the maximum allowable density in the zoning district, the land that would be available to build on, and how much land we request they leave out of the R-15 area.
Anthony Prinz commented that one option is to seek a variance of the setbacks from the Board of Adjustments. He asked Mr. O’Keefe if changing the B-2 zoning that surrounds Parcel #5
would be considered a hardship for which staff might recommend approval of a variance. Mr. O’Keefe stated he did think staff might recommend approval of a variance. He speculated it
would create a hardship for Mr. Congleton, whose goal is ultimately to build a commercial enterprise on the site. Chairman Gott asked if it was as simple as taking three feet all the
way around Mr. Congleton’s lot and keeping it B-2 to eliminate the setback or if one foot all the way around would be enough setback.
Page 6 of 31 Mr. Burgess stated the setback would be based on the height of the building, but there would also be a 20 foot buffer requirement that would wrap around the property. Chairman
Gott stated that adding a sliver would not fix the situation. Richard Collier noted the buffering was probably more of an issue than the setbacks. Mr. Burgess stated staff felt it would
remain a challenge due to the buffer requirement. Mr. Collier commented those setbacks would not apply if the property was B-2 to B-2, which is why Mr. Congleton has expressed concern
that a burden would be placed on him. Mr. Congleton stated appreciation for the board’s questions and offered his thoughts on the buffer and the considerations required within that buffer.
On a business to residential zoning, he would be required to plant a specific landscaping buffer in that 20’ setback zone to screen the R-15 and protect it with the assumption being
that the R-15 has priority or preferential use and the commercial property has the minimum use. Residents can use the buffer in an R-15, but B-2 can’t use the buffer. He also noted it
is unfortunately a very small lot. Mr. O’Keefe commented that Ms. Dreibelbis had pointed out a similar, but different case where a variance was granted, but had also pointed out that
perhaps the Board of Adjustments would not view that type of situation kindly to grant a variance since it would be a commercial use abutting next to a residence. He commented perhaps
that is not a way to look at the situation. While that avenue is available, Mr. O’Keefe stated he would like to change his prediction of the likelihood that a variance would be granted
to not so likely. He explained that creating a separate parcel of B-2 land seems to get around the setback issue and also brings the petitioner into the fold for creating that setback.
It is fairly complex and would need to be worked out over a long period of time. Mr. O’Keefe stated the avenues for avoiding the setback requirement are complicated and perhaps should
not be considered in the deliberation. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from B-2 to R-15. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. Chairman Gott asked if the
motion included staff’s revision to the zoning district to include all of parcel #14. Mr. Prinz clarified that the motion included staff’s recommendation to include all of Parcel #14
and a portion of Parcel #1 that is included in the existing B-2 district. Tamara Murphy renewed the second of the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of Rezoning
Request Z-920. (Andy Heath voted against approval). Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-921, 06/12) -Request by Joshua Mihaly on behalf of Shellington Properties, Inc. to rezone 1.63 acres at
7627 and 7633 Market Street from R-15 Residential to CD(O&I) Conditional Office and Institutional in order to develop a professional office park. The site is identified as Transition
according to the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map and is within the Market Street Corridor Plan.
Page 7 of 31 Nicole Dreibelbis provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Ms. Dreibelbis also showed maps, aerials, video,
and photographs of the property and of the surrounding area. Ms. Dreibelbis reported the proposal includes two parcels, 7627 Market Street (.71 acres) and 7633 Market Street (.92 acres),
for a combined acreage of 1.63 acres. Adjacent property owners were notified of the rezoning request. The zoning in the area includes R-15 Medium Density Residential, which expands north
across Bertha Road. To the west toward the Greenview Drive border, the zoning begins to transition to B-1 Business and to the south across Market Street. To the east, the zoning transitions
to an existing Office and Institutional district. Immediately east of the subject properties is an existing office park. Ms. Dreibelbis stated according to traffic counts taken December
2011, the portion of Market Street fronting of the subject properties carries a level of service of F, meaning traffic counts exceed the capacity of the roadway. As part of the conditional
rezoning request, the applicant did submit a traffic impact worksheet, which indicates the proposed development of the site would impose an AM peak of 22 trips and a PM peak of 21 trips.
Ms. Dreibelbis stated the property is currently in a vegetated state. The proposed CD (O&I) request will accommodate a three phase office park, containing three two-story buildings,
totaling 14,400 square feet of gross floor area of office space and a one story, 2,200 square foot accessory building. Phase I includes construction of one of the two story buildings
and the accessory structure, complete with installation of sixteen (16) parking spaces. Phase II will include the construction of the second two-story building and the parking accommodations
required to service the additional structure, as well as the future parking required for the third two-story building, which will be constructed in Phase III. Ms. Dreibelbis pointed
out a church located immediately west of the subject properties and the existing buffer on that property, which includes a fence and existing vegetation. Ms. Dreibelbis stated in conclusion,
staff feels the Findings are positive based on the 1.63 acres being located in an area identified as Transition, the ability to satisfy the ordinance requirements for both an Office
and Institutional designation and a conditional district, and the potential to minimize the traffic with the development of the office park; however, staff is recommending one condition
be placed on the conditional permit, which is the inclusion of a 20 feet access easement for the development of a pedway consistent with the Market Street Corridor Plan. Anthony Prinz
asked why sidewalks are not required along Market Street when there is infill development, noting his observation that none of the new developments along Market Street have sidewalks.
Sam Burgess stated sidewalks are typically required in residential zoning districts of R-10 and R-15 and are exempt in the R-20 district, if he was strictly speaking about residential
developments.
Page 8 of 31 Mr. Prinz explained he was referring to the new State Employees Credit Union, etc. Mr. O’Keefe stated since the adoption of the Market Street Corridor Plan, staff has been
trying to amass these pedestrian easements along the frontage, but has not tried to require the construction of the facility for several reasons, the first of which is there isn’t an
engineered plan for where the sidewalks should be to provide the best connection. Mr. Prinz commented it seemed counterintuitive to require a sidewalk in R-15, but not require a sidewalk
in a commercial zoning district. Mr. Burgess stated the County is heading in that direction with the adoption of the corridor plan, essentially obtaining incremental areas now for sidewalks
in the future. Mr. O’Keefe added the County is also participating in a greenway planning effort with the City of Wilmington and the Metropolitan Planning Organization that once it is
adopted will help determine where these improvements should be required. Chairman Gott opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Joshua Mihaly stated he represented Shellington
Properties on the project located at 7641 Market Street, which is currently zoned R-15. He explained their request to rezone the property to Conditional District O&I for a proposed office
park, noting they feel it is consistent with the adjacent properties and will not have any impact on the values of those properties. Mr. Mihaly noted they had provided a site plan that
works with the ordinance and provides good efficiency, while working around some of the trees. The driveway has been located on the south end of the subject property as requested by
NCDOT. He also stated, in April, the Board of Adjustments granted a 10 feet variance on the side buffer along the church, which proved to be the best way to approach the plan to save
some of the trees and provide for the request by the NCDOT. Mr. Mihaly commented that because the site is impacted by the Special Highway Overlay District, the buildings must be kept
100 feet off the right-of-way line and there is a 37-1/2 feet setback to the parking setback. The building was pushed back and the driveway was run down the south end of the site. He
pointed out two significant trees they would like to keep to create a courtyard area. The building in Phase II was pushed back along the boundary of the second lot. He noted as stated
by Ms. Dreibelbis, the project will be divided into three phases. He stated they tried to be thoughtful to the rear adjacent residential property owners. There is a 20 foot buffer and
a 30 foot rear setback along the back of the property, which has been kept to 74 feet to address the rear adjacent properties. Mr. Mihaly commented overall, they believe the site and
the proposed rezoning is consistent with the future Land Use Plan, will fit in with the character of Market Street and the adjacent properties, and will not deter from the value of the
adjacent properties. He offered to answer questions. Chairman Gott asked Mr. Mihaly if he had read the Findings of Fact presented by staff and agreed with those Findings and the recommended
condition of the right-of-way at the front of the property.
Page 9 of 31 Mr. Mihaly stated the petitioner’s agreement with the presented Findings of Fact and the recommended condition of the 20 foot pedestrian easement, as long as it remains
a pedestrian easement. Mr. O’Keefe asked if a pedestrian and cyclist easement was acceptable to the petitioner. Mr. Mihaly confirmed that a pedestrian and cyclist easement was acceptable
to the petitioner. He commented their greatest concern was ensuring they were not setting aside an easement for the possible future widening of Market Street. No one from the public
spoke in opposition to the request. Chairman Gott closed the public hearing. Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the condition set by staff of a twenty
foot access easement across the front of the property. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-921 with one condition:
A twenty foot access easement across the front of the property. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the special use permit for Rezoning Request Z-921. Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z-919, 06/12)-Request by Bill Schoettelkotte on behalf
of Ridgewood Health Investors, LLC to rezone approximately 37.2 acres at 8704 Market Street from B-1, Business, B-2 Highway Business and R-15 Residential to EDZD Exceptional Design Zoning
District. The site is identified as both Transition and Watershed Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map and is within the Porters Neck Small Area Plan and Market
Street Corridor Plan. Sam Burgess presented the staff presentation, noting the rezoning request is for an exceptional design project. The Exceptional Design Zoning District requirements
specify that characteristics of the proposed project be evaluated by staff for conformity with the intent and criteria of the zoning ordinance. He explained the staff presentation would
consist of a visual depiction of several base maps displaying the proposed area and land uses; a series of pictures of the site and nearby neighborhoods; a brief explanation of the EDZD
scorecard, which included the Core Requirements or pre-requisites of the project and the total points earned to determine the density that is under consideration for the rezoning; the
presentation of the six Findings based on the petitioner’s submission of the project; and a recommendation with conditions. Mr. Burgess stated the 37.2 acres subject property fronts
Old Market Street, which blends in as you proceed around the northwestern elbow into Futch Creek Road. The adjoining landowners were notified in accordance with the ordinance and are
a part of several neighborhoods, including Grayson Park, Abbey Glen, and Plantation Landing. The existing zoning districts
Page 10 of 31 located in the area include B-1, B-2 Highway Business, and further inland away from Market Street, most property is zoned R-15. Mr. Burgess identified several outparcels
on the conceptual plan designated for future commercial or office type use, noting the bulk of the apartment and townhome campus is located deeper into the rear of the property. A manmade
pond is also located in the lower right corner of the property. Mr. Burgess reported the level of service map indicates a LOS of D along Business Highway 17 heading northeast from the
Porters Neck area into the Scotts Hill area of Pender County. A LOS of D indicates a decrease in traffic flow and the ability for drivers to maneuver successfully during peak hour times.
He noted Old Market Street functions essentially as a service road for several residences. Mr. Burgess stated the six core requirements were met by the applicant and included smart location,
proximity to water and wastewater, no significant species and ecological communities onsite, wetland and water body conservation and preservation, floodplain avoidance, and stormwater
management practices. The applicant also met several
additional requirements to increase the number of points they could accrue to determine the potential number of units they could have, including points for bike and pedestrian access,
diversity of uses, certified green building, minimum energy efficiency, and water efficient landscaping, which totaled 14 points and earned them 267 units, which equates to 7 units per
acre. Mr. Burgess noted there is a safe haven for pedestrian and bike access along Old Market Street to the western end of the cul-de-sac or service road for several residential properties
and access all the way to the intersection with Porters Neck Road. Mr. Burgess presented the following Findings of Fact: 1) As to the suitability of the proposals for the general type
of function, the physical characteristics of the land, and relation of the proposed development to the surrounding areas and existing and probable future development. The subject property
consisting of 37.2 acres is located at 8704 Market Street (aka Old Market Street). With the exception of the property fronting Market Street, the project proposal is surrounded by established
neighborhoods (Grayson Park, Abby Glen, and Plantation Landing) and is zoned R-15 Residential allowing for a density of 2.5 units per acre. The 37.2 acre parcel contains a variety of
mature trees, a manmade pond, 404 wetlands, and a small cemetery located near the southwestern corner of the parcel. Topography ranges from almost 50’ near Market Street to approximately
16’ near the manmade pond located in the southwestern portion of the parcel. According to NCDENR, the parcel does not contain any federal or state significant species, or any species
currently tracked by the NC Natural Heritage Program.
Page 11 of 31 The conceptual plan displays amenities such as a pool, clubhouse, multi-use path, passive open space and multi-purpose field for the proposed community which will provide
venues for recreation and social engagement. Staff concludes that this proposal suits the function and characteristics of the land. However, despite the appropriate buffer of natural
vegetation proposed, the existing adjoining lower density residential development of the land may not be compatible with the housing fabric of the proposed apartment campus. 2) As to
the sufficiency of supporting evidence in the application showing that the proposed location can meet the basic criteria for exceptional design. Evidence provided by the petitioner is
sufficient to show that the project if built according to the plan as proposed can likely meet the core requirements for exceptional design. Specific requirements such as bike & pedestrian
access, green building certification and Low Impact Development (LID) techniques will be confirmed confirmed when the final plan is discussed and reviewed by the County’s Technical Review
Committee (TRC). There are two job providers within a ½ mile walk (hardware facility & fencing company) and limited commercial options within walking/biking distance. Commercial and
professional services have increased near the Porters Neck/Market Street node. Staff concludes that the support evidence is adequate to show that the proposed location can meet the criteria
for exceptional design. Commercial and professional services exist within a ½ mile walking/bike distance meeting the smart location criteria. The lack of a safe haven to travel to such
services may be a little problematic. Based on the successful demonstration of the Core Requirements and a total of 14 points earned, the project is eligible for 8 units per acre or
a potential of 297 lots. The conceptual plan displays 267 lots/units. 3) As to the relation to major roads and mass transit facilities, utilities, and other facilities and services.
One platted and recorded street access (Old Market Street) is available to serve the 267 unit project. Two vehicular access entrances from Old Market Street are displayed on the proposal.
Grayson Park subdivision located adjacent and southwest of the project could provide pedestrian connectivity. No mass transit is available but WAVE Transit shows service to the area
in future plans. The project proposes to include a multi-use path within the project. The project is close to a host of services based on the Market Street Corridor Plan (Porters Neck/Market
Street Activity Node) from the site west along the Old Market Street corridor to its cul-de-sac. Accomplishing a pedestrian/bike connection from the cul-de-sac to Porters Neck Road will
strengthen satisfaction of the intent of the proximity to jobs requirement as well as offering a transportation alternative to future and existing residents along Old Market Street and
Futch Creek Road. The required traffic impact analysis indicates required improvements at US Highway 17 17 at Market Street to Futch Creek Road/Stephens Church Road (peak hour signal
timing along US 17 in the future as necessary), US 17 at U-Turn Median Break (signal timing along US 17 in the future as necessary), and left turn lanes at the project driveways on Futch
Creek Road. Driveway permits will be required (see TIA approval letter).
Page 12 of 31 Public water and sewer are located nearby. The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) has provided a letter supporting capacity for the project. A Low Impact Development
(LID) stormwater management plan is required of all projects. Staff has reviewed a preliminary plan with a cover letter which appears to offer adequate LID techniques. Final approval
is required through the TRC process if the rezoning is approved. Staff concludes that inter-connectivity within the surrounding area can be strengthened with a bike/pedestrian connection
into Grayson park subdivision. 4) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications,
contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments, or for amendments in those proposed. The entire 37.2 acre property shown on the New Hanover County
tax records belongs to Ridgewood Health Investors, LLC. Staff concludes the petitioner on behalf of Ridgewood Health Investors, LLC maintains control of the property. 5) As to the suitability
of plans proposed or the suggestion of conditions. The proposal includes a conceptual plan which demonstrates a broad array of positive design features. The proposed 267 units are expressed
as apartments clustered in a series of buildings that will contain one, two, and three bedroom designs. A multi-use path for foot traffic and bikers surrounds the apartment campus in
addition to a multi-purpose field and clubhouse area. These features promote physical exercise and social interaction. Staff concludes that the proposed site plan is suitable to express
the intentions of the petitioner and in general the satisfaction of required elements. 6) As to the consistency with the County’s adopted Land Use Plan and other adopted plans for development
in the vicinity, and suggesting how the rezoning might be reasonable and in the public interest if approved. In September, 1989, the County adopted a neighborhood plan called Porters
Neck … Facing the Future. At the time, concerns raised and documented in the plan from nearby residents included environmental and aesthetic issues pertaining to groundwater quality
and the natural pastoral fabric of the area. Transportation concerns included road maintenance, inclusion of pedestrian walk-ways, and bike routes. Many residents preferred low density
projects. Since 1989 growth in the Porters Neck area has been tremendous and adherence to low density single family development has created a sprawling auto centric environment. The
2006 Land Use Plan includes policies and land classifications that express the County’s goals and strategies for steering growth to areas suitable for development while protecting the
fragile ecosystems that sustain our quality of life. Several strategies encourage the adoption of exceptional design standards to mitigate the negative impacts of development patterns
resulting from our current zoning.
Page 13 of 31 Staff concludes that the proposal challenges the 1989 Porters Neck Plan to keep density low, but complies with the expressed goals of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The petitioner
proposes to establish the creation of a pervious road surface over the two bridges displayed on the conceptual plan to mitigate impact of the wetland buffers and water quality. Based
on the layout of the project, recreational areas, decreased impervious surface ratios, and minimal impacts proposed based on LID techniques, Staff feels that the project proposal is
reasonable since it meets the core elements and point system requirements. To enhance justification of the Exceptional Design project and criteria, staff recommends that a pedestrian/bike
connection be made at the cul-de-sac at Grayson Park Drive and the enhancement of pedestrian/bike access from the western end of Old Market Street to Porters Neck Road. Staff also suggests
the creation of a fund by the petitioner to contribute to a safe pedestrian crossing (ped head) from the eastern right-of-way of Porters Neck Road to the western right-of-way. These
future improvements will provide ability for the future residents of Futch Creek Village and surrounding neighborhoods to access the variety of services offered within the Oak Landing
shopping center. These recommendations can be reviewed at the TRC level. Mr. Burgess reported several concerns and suggested conditions were incorporated by staff after the printing
of the staff write-up. First, staff recommended limiting the potential uses on the outparcels that front Old Market Street and are a part of the EDZD rezoning request to professional
office type uses. Second, in regard to the 3-4 parking areas on the conceptual plan that actually abut the adjoining properties, a minimum 20 foot buffer must be incorporated as a part
of a natural area between this apartment campus and the adjoining property, essentially providing a domino effect with the required parking and ensuring parking space adjustment would
need to be made to the plan. Third, staff suggested some type of impervious surface material be used on the two bridge crossings over the wetlands to mitigate or minimize any impact
on water quality. Mr. Burgess acknowledged staff had received a host of neighborhood concerns from Grayson Park, Plantation Landing, and The Reserve residents essentially revolving around
the proposed density of the project, traffic issues, and disrupting the natural scenic area of the neighborhood. There was also one question about why there has not been the establishment
of a new elementary school in the Porters Neck area as opposed to bussing children to the Holly Shelter Road facility. Other concerns were expressed as well. Mr. Burgess concluded the
presentation, noting the presence of many neighborhood residents who may wish to provide comment on the proposal. Chairman Gott asked Mr. Burgess to explain the process of the EDZD zoning
request as it pertains to the Commissioners and the review by the TRC. Mr. Burgess explained if the project is recommended by the Planning Board, the request will be forwarded to the
County Commissioners for consideration at their next regularly scheduled night meeting, most likely in July. If the Board of Commissioners approves the request, there is a second component
that would involve the petitioner being required to submit a more detailed site design to be reviewed by the County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC). At that time, the site plan would
be scrutinized and would contain all of the details not shown on the conceptual design, which only shows and highlights the basic footprint of the townhomes and the apartments, along
with the multi-use path, the parking areas, the pet waste stations and the access going into the particular campus.
Page 14 of 31 Chairman Gott asked Mr. Burgess to describe the items reviewed by the TRC. Mr. Burgess stated TRC review would include the height of the building structures, the approximate
heated square footage of each particular unit proposed, review by County Fire Services as it relates to Emergency Service delivery in and out of the project, NCDOT review in terms of
driveway permits since Old Market Street is a state maintained road, and County Engineering and Planning staff review of stormwater management and low impact development techniques to
ensure they aptly demonstrate control of stormwater and protect water quality in the area. School system staff would review the plan and indicate the school districts located in the
area. The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority office would review and confirm the capacity for proposed water and sewer for the project, and the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Office
(WMPO) would review any additional transportation concerns or issues as they relate to the site plan. plan. Several other nominal agencies would review the site plan and provide written
comment as well. Once those reviews and comments are received, County Planning staff would schedule a meeting of the TRC to review the site plan and any concerns or additional conditions
that may be imposed on the project. Chairman Gott asked the County Attorney to address the evidence the Planning Board is allowed to consider in making their recommendation on the project.
Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated an EDZD is a rezoning, which means it is a legislative action as opposed to a quasi-judicial action. There is not a companion special
use permit attached to it so it is not like the conditional rezoning heard earlier in the evening. EDZD does not have the two components of a rezoning and a special use permit for the
conceptual design. It is a rezoning although it is different from most rezonings in that certain fairly stringent requirements within the ordinance must be met by the petitioner before
he can move move forward. Those requirements are not the same type of requirements needed in a quasi-judicial action or in a special use permit. For example, there is not a requirement
that Findings be made that no public safety concerns exist, that there is no impact on the value of adjoining properties, or that it is in harmony with the community. In that way, it
is different from a quasi-judicial action that does require those Findings. Ms. Huffman stated the EDZD rezoning is also different from a regular rezoning because it can be approved
with conditions. Conditions can’t be placed on a straight rezoning. She explained the EDZD rezoning is legislative and is a discretionary decision made by the Commissioners, typically
thought to be appropriate to be upheld so long as it is reasonable and in the general public’s interest. She acknowledged the public interest of one body of people may be different from
the public interest of the whole New Hanover County. In conclusion, Ms. Huffman advised the board to remember the EDZD rezoning is a discretionary decision that does not require Findings
to be made, conditions can be attached to it, and any evidence can be considered in the decision. Expert opinion is not required. She stated it is also important for the public to remember
they have fifteen minutes to voice their concerns to the board so speakers should try to address different issues to ensure the board hears all of them.
Page 15 of 31 Dan Hilla asked staff how the number of units applied to the future offices or uses on the outparcels in the project, noting they appear to be applying for 267 units, which
he assumes are for apartments and townhouses. Mr. Burgess replied essentially at this time since there would be no division of land those parcels are not included under the 267 units
proposed. The outparcels are included in the 37.2 acres, but the total number of units, 267, does not include those outparcels. Anthony Prinz asked for clarification that the office
parcels were not included in the density calculations. Mr. Burgess confirmed the office parcels were not included in the density calculations, which equated to 7.1 units per acre. Mr.
Prinz thanked Mr. Burgess and Ms. Huffman for their thorough presentations, noting EDZD zoning requests are not heard often so a refresher on the procedures is helpful. He noted the
traffic count for Futch Creek Road in the report, but asked if any data had been collected for Old Market Street. Mr. Burgess deferred the question regarding collection of traffic data
for Old Market Street to the petitioner’s traffic engineer. Mr. Prinz asked in reference to Finding #6 in the staff report, it was his interpretation that staff’s position is that it
conforms with the CAMA Land Use Plan just in the fact that it is an EDZD and would require the petitioner to go through the extra steps to make their project more exceptional. He inquired
about the current land use classification on the parcel. Mr. Burgess stated most of the land use classification for the parcel is Transition, with Watershed Resource Protection existing
in the rear. Mr. Prinz asked how much of the rear of the property would be classified Watershed Resource Protection. Mr. Burgess stated a visual look at the Land Use Map would indicate
there may be a majority of Transition on this property. Richard Collier stated he had observed that also and thought Mr. Burgess had stated earlier there were portions of the property
in the Watershed, but he didn’t see it quite that way, noting it would be hard on that small scale to get down to this location. He commented there is high quality water NSA so there
is infiltration; but staff needs to clarify if it is classified as Watershed Resource Protection because that has another limitation on it in the CAMA Land Use Plan that is not in the
Transitional zone and he doesn’t see that applying in this plan. Mr. Collier reiterated the location of Watershed Resource Protection on the property needs to be clarified for the applicant
so they can meet all the rules.
Page 16 of 31 Chairman Gott opened the public hearing. She announced each side has fifteen minutes to present and asked that those minutes be used wisely, as mentioned by the attorney.
She apologized for not being able to allow everyone to speak, but time was limited to fifteen minutes for each side. Joe Taylor, an attorney with Murchison Taylor Attorneys in Wilmington,
stated he represented the owner of the property and the applicant. He explained the presentation will show the applicant has designed a project that meets the new Exception Design Zoning
District requirements not only in great detail, but also in the spirit with which the new ordinance was adopted. He explained it incorporates public and private spaces, reduces the need
for vehicular traffic, conserves the water bodies and in their opinion is an outstanding project. He noted a great deal of time and effort had gone into the project and they would like
to answer all the questions the board and the neighbors have. He introduced the project team and consultants, including Bill Schoettelkotte, the owner’s representative; Chris Boney and
Sara Gregory, architects with LS3P Associates, LTD (project designers); Phil Tripp of Tripp Engineering, (water/sewer and stormwater retention issues); Rynal Stephenson of Ramey Kemp
& Associates (transportation engineer who conducted extensive traffic studies of the area); and Jeff Siebold of Siebold Group Consulting, who has done substantial research on residential
developments, infill projects, apartments, and EDZD developments of this type and will be able to speak in great detail on the effects of these projects over the area. Chris Boney, of
LS3P Associates, LTD, stated staff had been exceptional to work with and he appreciated their efforts to make the project better. He provided a quick overview of the existing conditions.
Mr. Boney noted one of the main features of the exceptional design district is interconnectivity and site connectivity to existing uses. He provided diagrams reflecting a ½ mile radius
and and a one mile radius of the site and the mixture of uses that are there, noting each star represented a commercial node or use – a business, restaurant, church, store, etc. There
are a number of uses nearby for which the project will help provide connectivity. On the flood map, he pointed out the Futch Creek area and their proposed site, noting it also provided
a sense of the fabric of the surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial frontage along Old Market Street and its effects. On the illustrative site plan, the property is currently bifurcated
by an area of wetlands, which is a major design feature the developer will preserve by providing a buffer area around those 404 wetlands. The roads that go through that area are proposed
as pervious paving. He stated all of the parking and buildings have been pulled out of the buffer zone around the wetlands. The existing pond on the far side has been there for years
and is believed to have originally been a borrow pit. They propose to use it as an amenity for the apartment project. Mr. Boney explained their approach has been to cluster the multi-family
portions of the project at the center of the site away from the adjacent neighborhoods and try to make a neo-traditional design element with that. The townhomes on the perimeter of the
site are two stories in scale and are more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood homes. The apartment buildings in the center are three stories in scale. Mr. Boney pointed out
the location of the stormwater area, noting it is a multi-purpose amenity field which also doubles as a stormwater retention facility. He explained they are using geo-grid technologies,
sometimes referred to as milk crates because they are actually plastic structures buried beneath the ground. Sod is placed on top of the structures so you don’t see them, but it is a
very innovative low impact technique that has been used effectively in other locations. He noted the office parcels at the front portion of the site are
Page 17 of 31 currently zoned B-1 and B-2. They have not provided a great deal of detail on those except that they will not be developed past 75% impervious. He stated there are a number
of uses that could be done there, but they propose to limit those uses. Mr. Boney noted some of the features of the exceptional design district that have been incorporated include bicycle
storage racks at each building, multi-use paths around the site and at the commercial nodes at the front of the site as well, and a shelter at the front of the site. He explained that
eventually as the area developed, there could be a multi-use path that runs along the front of the property that the developer would develop as part of their project to connect into
future developments as they come along similar to the loop and the cross-city trail. He noted the commercial areas would be developed in accordance with TRC approval. There will be some
turf grass landscaped areas, but the majority of the site has been preserved as buffers and natural wooded areas, limiting the areas of turfgrass and vegetative disturbance. Mr. Boney
pointed out the 20 foot buffer that would be preserved around the perimeter of the site that would run against all of the adjacent neighbors. He also noted the proposed rain barrel locations
at each building and the stormwater LID techniques that would be used to collect all stormwater and put it into the stormwater retention system at the back of the site. He explained
the rain barrels would be used to collect rainwater from the roofs of the buildings to use for passive irrigation purposes. Mr. Boney reported the clubhouse would be a certified green
building and the remainder of the buildings would be built to energy star standards. Pet waste stations would be placed around the perimeter of the site to protect the wetlands and water
quality of the area. Mr. Boney presented a conceptual rendering reflecting the type of quality they propose to provide in keeping with the character of the area, explaining a masonry
or brick base is proposed for the buildings, with a Hardy shake type of shingle effect used above, as well as porches for all units, both screened and unscreened. He commented the intent
was to construct a very high quality project. Mr. Boney then addressed some questions that had been brought up earlier. He explained they will not place a fast food restaurant on the
outparcels, and listed several allowed uses the petitioner proposed to prohibit, including fast food restaurants, kennels, dry stack boat storage, electric substation, cell phone towers,
bars, cabarets, and discos, mobile home dealers, trailer parks, funeral homes, hotels, motels, fraternities, and circuses. Mr. Boney proposed the following uses be allowed in the project:
drugstores, convenience stores, restaurants other than fast food, miscellaneous neighborhood related retail, banks, dry cleaners, childcare centers, churches, offices and medical offices.
Mr. Boney stated belief the primary marketability of this project would be for medical office use use or general office use. In regard to traffic concerns, Mr. Boney explained that because
of the reduction in the overall density of the project, including the B-1 and B-2 zones, the traffic count for the proposed project would actually be less than allowable under the current
zoning district. The reduction would be approximately 2,000 trips per day based on the proposed uses versus the allowed uses. He stated in addition to that, the developer is proposing
other modifications to the Highway 17 and Old Market Street intersection in response to neighbor concerns, including, double right-turn lanes from Old Market Street onto Highway 17,
increasing the queuing in the stacking area by more than doubling it, and modifying the timing of the signal to greatly improve the situation.
Page 18 of 31 Mr. Boney reiterated there would be a 20 foot minimum buffer with vegetative screening around the perimeter of the site and all buildings would be set back a minimum of
30 feet from the property line. He stated Mr. Jeff Siebold was present to address the effect of the project on property values, noting Mr. Siebold had conducted a property value analysis,
which indicates there should not be a negative impact on surrounding property values. He commented because the developers are local, reputable, intend to hold the property and want to
have a positive return on their investment, they have a vested interest in keeping the quality of this project high. In response to concerns about groundwater contamination, Mr. Boney
reported CFPUA service for water and sewer will be extended to the project so there will be no impact by wells and septic fields on adjacent property owners. Stormwater will be addressed
with LID techniques. Light spillage will be contained using full cut-off fixtures for all parking areas. The buildings on the perimeter have been limited to two story townhomes of similar
scale to the adjacent houses and the three story apartments will be located in the center of the site. Mr. Boney commented the density of the project because it has been limited to 267
residential units and 100,000 square feet of commercial space, is effectively the same as what could have been constructed under the current zoning. He stated in conclusion, they are
very proud of the project and feel it will be a great asset to the county, will result in a decrease in traffic from the current zoning, will have added traffic controls and developer
sponsored road improvements that would not be possible under the current zoning situation, will have increased buffer areas and trees saved than what could be built under the current
zoning, will have similar density as current zoning, will have increased stormwater treatment, and would be a model project for the exceptional design zoning district. Chairman Gott
asked the audience to be respectful of all of the speakers and opened the floor for opposition. During opposition, Pam Latter, of 8915 New Forest Drive in Plantation Landing, asked the
board to carefully consider the request and the true effects of rezoning the parcel to EDZD. She noted the developer can create strong arguments and their own meaningful explanations
of how the project meets the ordinance; however, the fact remains that there will be tremendous negative impact on their existing cohesive upscale neighborhood and community. The residents
gathered together in the last six days and collected 582 signatures on a petition to share the sentiments that they do not care for the EDZD proposal. The outpouring of concern
shows that an overwhelming majority of residents feel this zoning change would be detrimental their community. She noted they are not opposed to development or to change, but this project
is not for their section of New Hanover County. Ms. Latter again asked the board to carefully weigh their decision and deny the rezoning request. Chairman Gott asked Ms. Latter to present
the petition to staff. Gerald Mancuso, an employee with GE/Hitachi, stated during the four years he has been a resident his home has devalued about 30%. He stated opposition, expressing
concern the proposed development will result in a reduction in home values and questioned if there was
Page 19 of 31 sufficient capacity in the infrastructure. He worried about who would be responsible for making the changes to the roads in the area to handle the increased capacity. Relative
to the sewer system, he estimated that new pumps would be required to move the sewage and he knows where that ends up in his neighborhood in Sagewood. All of these things will have an
impact on the residents’ quality of life. He was also concerned if there would be the clientele to fill the capacity of these apartments, considering the number of apartment complexes
in the area and those under construction. Several complexes always have vacancies. Mr. Mancuso also stated concern about the effect on traffic caused by the zoning change across Highway
17 and other recent area rezonings. He cited concern that the apartment complex may fail or become a HUD funded complex so the developer could recoup his investment at the expense of
the area residents. He stated overall he was worried about property values going down and infrastructure costs going up and urged the board to be concerned about providing good customer
service to the existing residents. Mr. Mancuso then noted the lack of discussion by the petitioner about the cemetery there and questioned the viability of the existing nearby businesses
cited by the developer. He welcomed the board’s judgment not to approve the rezoning request. Conor Regan, a resident of Vineyard Plantation, opposed the project and stated he didn’t
think many residents in Vineyard Plantation were aware of the rezoning request and noted that was unfortunate because the proposed plan would destroy his neighborhood. He disagreed with
the statement that the plan is acceptable because it is bike and pedestrian accessible particular given the path ends at the Exxon station. If you want to continue to the Harris Teeter
shopping center, you have to cross six lanes of traffic at a busy intersection. Adding this development will exacerbate that problem by increasing the traffic on that road. While they
may install another turn lane onto Highway 17, they are ignoring the fact that you have to make a U-turn to go back into Wilmington. They haven’t explained how they will fix that problem.
Human nature will result in people travelling down Futch Creek Road, making a right onto Riesling, cutting through Vineyard Plantation, which is not a City or County road to cut through
a very narrow exit between two homes to come out at the traffic circle located at Porters Neck Road and the road that goes down to Figure Eight Island. The only other option is to go
down Futch Creek Road to Porters Neck Road. Mr. Regan asked the board not to decide the issue tonight, but allow for additional public comment due to the magnitude of the issue and the
number of residents affected. Cindy Whalen, a retired teacher residing at 8803 Brentwood Court in the Sagewood section of Plantation Landing, spoke in opposition stating concern about
the effect on the schools in the area. She stated she was alarmed about the negative impact the zoning proposal would have on the quality of education of neighborhood children and their
neighborhood schools of Blair, Ogden, and Eaton caused by the influx of nearly triple the number of children from the proposed apartment complex. Ms. Whalen noted all of these schools
are over capacity and there are no plans for new buildings or classrooms in New Hanover County Schools. She asked the board not to approve the rezoning request because it does not reflect
responsible growth and is not reasonable at this site. Joanne Cress, 8879 Plantation Drive, spoke in opposition stating one month ago her daughter, Alyssa, was almost killed at the intersection
at the U-turn right above Futch Creek Road. She explained it took a total of 25 minutes for emergency responders to come to the accident because
Page 20 of 31 their cell phones were registering Pender County instead of New Hanover County. She expressed concern about putting more life threatening accidents at that U-turn. Chairman
Gott expressed sympathy for Ms. Cress’s injured daughter. John Molchan, a member of the advocacy committee of Porters Neck, also spoke in opposition and supported the Vineyard resident’s
statements about the short notice of the rezoning request and that many other people in the immediate area would have a lot to say about this request. He encouraged the board to visit
this area to see the traffic situation first hand. He commented the staff had done an excellent job on the detail of the development. Mr. Molchan also stated this type of development
would be ideally placed in another location in the area, for example adjacent to Lowe’s, where there is an access road and plans for other development, or access from there to Oak Landing
would also make sense. Lynn Fullerton-Stinson, of 8638 Grayson Park Drive, stated she would reiterate everything said by the previous speakers and noted in reference to all the green
aspects of the project and the bike path that would connect to their neighborhood, Grayson Park Drive is not a city or county road. She commented it would be unfair to dump a bunch of
bikers onto their road. Jack Geist, 858 Wine Cellar Circle in Vineyard Plantation, stated they are building 96 homes on the third phase of their neighborhood so he would like to board
to take that into consideration. Doug Stein, of Plantation Landing, stated he owns Lot #37 on the adjacent property owners map. He commented when he moved into his home, he moved into
the part of the neighborhood known as the forest with a lot of greenery and trees. Based on the conceptual site plan, there will be a big parking lot in his backyard. He asked the board
if they would be comfortable with a 20’ buffer. Mr. Stein commented the lights and the runoff will be right into his backyard and asked the board to take that into consideration. During
rebuttal, rebuttal, Mr. Boney stated some great points were raised and addressed traffic concerns, noting the proposed zoning will result in less traffic that what could be built there
today under current zoning. Unfortunately, everything can’t remain forested and undeveloped. The county is going to develop and they feel this is an improvement on the current zoning
situation and could be a long-term benefit for the county. In regard to sewer improvements, the developer will pay for all sewer pump station improvements for the project. The cemetery
is located in the corner behind the existing lake and access would not be cut off. The U-turn at the light is a tragic situation, but the developer’s traffic engineers are working with
NCDOT on potential improvements and will make adjustments as allowed by NCDOT. He commented related to schools, generally there are statistically fewer school children residing in apartment
complexes than in single family residential neighborhoods, but the schools will be impacted by the current zoning as well. Mr. Taylor also noted the applicant has no desire to connect
to Grayson Drive. Staff has made that recommendation, but the petitioner would be happy not to connect to the Grayson Drive area. Mr. Taylor commented that market studies show there
is additional demand for apartment complexes in the area.
Page 21 of 31 During opposition rebuttal, Matt Palese, a resident of Plantation Landing, stated this is not the normal not-in-my-backyard opposition. There are a number of residents
from many areas who are concerned that while the developer has put together an exceptional plan, but has not taken into account the need to work with the people who already live there.
Last December, residents met with the developer, but he made the decision to remove the request. Everyone received letters stating they would get together again when he decided to reapply.
Mr. Palese stated they never heard from the developer again and have had no input in the process. He stated the residents had presented honest, sincere concerns. They are active, involved
residents and good neighbors to each other. Mr. Palese stated everyone knows this high density project will have a negative impact on hundreds of homes in that area. When they asked
the developer in December about buffers, the developer indicated he would give them a 20’ buffer. When asked whether the construction would be clear cut or if the trees that are hundreds
of years old would be left in place, the developer indicated he would plow the area down and build. Mr. Palese said they were very concerned then and they are very concerned now. He
stated they don’t have the resources the developers have, but they do have the determination to plead their case before the board. He stated they would ask very politely for the board
to take into consideration the residents’ quality of life. They have already taken a big hit in their property values. He thanked the board for their time and asked them to put themselves
in the residents’ position. Larry Metheny of 8830 Brentwood Court asked staff about the points awarded for the project. He disagreed with the points awarded for Proximity to Job Opportunity
within ½ mile, noting the three businesses listed included Scotts Hill Baptist Church; a small community church, Black Dog Fence Company, which is struggling and doing odd jobs; and
the hardware store, which to his knowledge none of them are hiring anyone. He respectfully asked staff to review the points system and commented if they reviewed the other six items,
they would probably come to a different conclusion. Mr. Metheny added he had seen some red-headed woodpeckers coming out of that development and he thought they are on the endangered
species list. Mark Margagliotta, of 8904 Tilbury, stated the attorney had said this is a reasonable situation, but it’s not reasonable to the residents. One item of contention is the
list of items that could be put there in the future. The residents are local and their reasonability should be considered, not the County’s. Mr. Maggliotta stated he thought the project
would be bad for the residents. Chairman Gott closed the public hearing. Chairman Gott asked the traffic engineers to specifically address the road improvements being proposed by the
petitioner and who would be paying for those improvements. Rynal Stevenson, with Ramey Kemp and Associates, stated his company had prepared the traffic impact analysis for the project,
noting the TIA report had been submitted to the WMPO and the NCDOT for review and their comments have been received and are included in the Planning Board members’ packets. Mr. Stephenson
reported NCDOT and the WMPO is requiring the developer to construct left turn lanes and a separate right turn lane on Old Market Street or Futch Creek Road at the access points to the
development. There are also requirements to adjust the traffic signal timings up at
Page 22 of 31 US 17 at the signalized intersection as well as at the signalized U-turn to the North. The develop has approached the NCDOT about going above and beyond their requirements
which is almost never heard of for a developer to do and address some of the residents’ concerns about difficulty getting out onto US17, making that right hand turn from Old Market Street.
The developer is proposing to widen that intersection to provide two right turn lanes onto US17. Chairman Gott stated she had visited the area and in the morning and in the evening traffic
you have to sit through multiple lights to get out onto the road. She asked how the proposed improvement will solve that problem given the plan to dump more cars onto the road there.
Mr. Stephenson stated the requirement to adjust the signal timings will provide more green light time to the side street in order to provide more time to get more cars out onto US 17
during each cycle. The developer is proposing to add another right turn lane, which will essentially get double the number of cars through the light during each cycle. Those two things
would improve that situation dramatically over what can be expected otherwise. Richard Collier asked if there were examples of two right turn lanes in town that have improved those types
of situations. Mr. Stephenson explained it is kind of unique, but is the super street concept or Michigan left, which is catching on in this area. He feels that type of concept will
be seen more often along this corridor. Mr. Collier commented there are double right turn lanes at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street and down at Wrightsville Beach. Mr. Stephenson
stated double right turn lanes are very common, particularly as part of a super street. He noted the reason for the double right turn lane design is to help capacity and traffic flow.
The number of movements is limited at the intersection, which in turn limits the number of allocations of green time at a signal so you don’t have to spread it around to more movements.
That in theory keeps the traffic queues low and the delays low. Chairman Gott commented that currently only 7-8 cars can get through the light at a time and asked if adding the turn
lane would allow 16 cars to go through. She also asked how that number would be impacted by dumping thousands of more cars out onto the road. Mr. Stephenson stated he could give an exact
number of cars that could get through the light, but adding the double right turn lane would in theory double the number of cars that could get through. If you increase the green time,
you would just get more cars through so instead of 6 per lane, you may get 10 per lane depending upon how long the green light time was adjusted. In response to Chairman Gott’s question
about how long the green time would be extended, Mr. Stephenson explained that adjustment is required by NCDOT and they will work with NCDOT to make that adjustment in the field as the
traffic is added to the intersection. The adjustment doesn’t require a lot of infrastructure and can be done as the development builds out.
Page 23 of 31 Anthony Prinz stated he is only aware of one other dual right turning lane onto a super street and that is at Waterford in Leland. He asked Mr. Stevenson for the distribution
figures heading in the opposite direction toward the private section of Futch Creek Road. Mr. Stephenson responded 15% -20% of traffic was heading back in that direction toward Futch
Creek Road. He commented the proposed improvements, by providing the additional capacity, reducing the delay times, and the queuing most of the traffic would still be sent out onto US17
rather than back down Futch Creek Road through the neighborhoods to Porters Neck Road. Anthony Prinz asked if Mr. Stevenson had any figures on the delay in the morning and evening at
the proposed dual right turn. Mr. Stephenson explained the dual right turn lane came up after the TIA was completed and submitted and was proposed in response to neighbors’ concerns
so they haven’t submitted a full blown analysis of it to determine what the reduction in delay would be. He noted there would be some delay. Without any improvements at all, there would
probably be 16-20 cars stacked up there trying to turn right. By addressing the green time, the delay was reduced significantly back down to the levels of today, 6-12 cars. Mr. Prinz
commented the bottom line is there would be an improvement and noted he drives that way every day and the signal needs to be adjusted now. He asked for confirmation that Mr. Stevenson
was expecting a significant improvement if the second right turn lane was added. Mr. Stephenson responded absolutely expecting a significant improvement with the addition of a second
right turn lane. Chairman Gott asked Mr. Burgess to confirm the traffic improvements would be vetted out during the Technical Review Committee review. Sam Burgess confirmed the traffic
improvements would be vetted out during the TRC review. Tamara Murphy asked if anyone had considered extending the queue for the U-turn on Market Street because while we are improving
the intersection with the double right turn lanes, we aren’t really doing anything but extending the green for the U-turn. She commented there may not be enough storage to hold all the
vehicles that are coming out onto US 17 and making that U-turn. Mr. Stephenson responded that was a good question and they did look at that and were recommending to adjust that timing
as well. With the timing adjustment to provide more green for that U-turn movement, there is sufficient existing storage there to handle the traffic. He explained NCDOT has acknowledged
the timing needs to be adjusted at the U-turn. Richard Collier asked for the figures on the number of vehicles during the AM and PM peak hours. Mr. Stephenson replied there are approximately
460 vehicles in the morning and the majority of those vehicles, just over 300, are inbound to the project and 150 are outbound from the project.
Page 24 of 31 He stated the key there is that the majority of vehicles are inbound to the project, minimizing the effect of the right turns onto US 17 in the morning. These numbers flip-flop
in the afternoon, with the majority of traffic coming into the project. He clarified the figures he was providing would be for the full build-out of the project, including the outparcels.
Mr. Collier asked how the AM and PM peak trips would be affected if 65 single family residential units were built by right on that site. Mr. Stephenson explained in general a multi-family
unit will generate 65% -70% of what a single family would because there are fewer school age children and people living in a multi-family unit, resulting in a reduction in trip generation.
Chairman Gott asked for clarification about the ownership of the townhome buildings and limitations on the commercial uses on the outparcels. Mr. Boney stated the townhomes would be
rental properties, not individually owned. He noted no consideration had been given to selling those units. Chairman Gott asked if there was an estimated rental payment per month for
the units that would be needed for the project to be profitable and provide positive cash flow. Bill Schoettelkotte stated based on what comparable neighborhoods are getting, the estimated
rental payment would be $800 -$1,300 per month for all residential units depending on the number of bedrooms. Chairman Gott asked Mr. Schoettelkotte if he was comfortable with the County
limiting the uses on the front commercial portion of this tract to those specific uses included in Mr. Boney’s presentation and further restricting that no fast food restaurant would
be placed on that parcel. Mr. Schoettelkotte agreed with the county limiting the uses on the front commercial portion of the tract to those specific uses included in Mr. Boney’s presentation
and restricting that no fast food restaurant would be placed on that parcel. Andy Heath asked for clarification on the average size of the outparcels. Mr. Boney replied the average size
of the outparcels was two acres. Mr. Heath noted that was basically 12 acres of the site and asked if the petitioner intended to retain those tracts or if the tracts would be sold. Mr.
Boney stated for the time being they would retain those tracts, but noted he couldn’t say what they would do five years in the future. Mr. Heath commented the density was based on the
entire 37 acres and if the 12 acres was sold, by his calculations that would be 10 units per acre.
Page 25 of 31 Mr. O’Keefe stated the Exceptional Design District does not require the property remain in unified ownership so as long as it abides by the approved site plan, it would
not violate what is approved tonight. Mr. Collier clarified that 100,000 square feet was the limitation on the commercial. Mr. O’Keefe explained the entire 37 acres was included in the
density calculations. Mr. Prinz commented it was his impression earlier that those 12 acres were not included in the calculation for the residential density and asked for clarification.
Mr. O’Keefe stated the whole project includes those 12 acres and the density is calculated on the acreage of the whole project. Mr. Prinz commented you can essentially double count,
building commercial density on the 12 acres associated with the commercial, but also use that same land area to calculate the residential land density. Mr. O’Keefe explained the goal
is really to promote the mixing of the commercial uses with the residential so we don’t want to reduce the residential opportunities by allowing the commercial component to exist within.
Mr. Prinz stated this is 7 units per acre and questioned the maximum density allowed by EDZD. Mr. O’Keefe stated the maximum density for 14 points would be 8 units per acre. Dan Hilla
asked what maximum number of points can be earned in EDZD. Mr. O’Keefe stated this was the maximum number of points they tried to achieve, but the total number of units that can be earned
in EDZD is 22 units per acre. Chairman Gott expressed surprise that over 800 units could be put on this parcel if the maximum number of points had been achieved by the applicant. Mr.
Collier asked Mr. Boney if any thought had been given to putting any parking under the buildings at all to eliminate some of the outlying parking areas, noting that would make the 2-story
townhouses 3-story, which granted would require a trade-off of what adjacent residents would rather see. Mr. Boney replied they had decided against putting parking under the buildings
because they they felt it would push the height of the buildings too high for the adjacent neighborhood. They determined it would be more compatible to keep all of the surface parking
outside of that footprint. Mr. Collier asked in regard to the building locations if there was a way to push the buildings to one side and put the parking behind them so that the parking
lots in those two cases are not
Page 26 of 31 directly backing up to the adjacent neighbors or if additional buffering could be added, maybe not in feet but in types, for example fences or hedges that could protect
against headlights, noise, etc. which are concerns of the adjacent neighbor #37 and the other neighbors too. Mr. Boney stated originally there were additional units shown against the
perimeter instead of parking, but those units were removed in the final application to reduce density and provide more buffers around the wetlands and more greenspace. He stated they
would certainly be amenable to discussing other ways of buffering and other options that may be available there. Chairman Gott commented that her concerns about opacity and the types
of buffers that could be used had been answered. She noted adjacent residents have a choice of seeing either a dwelling or a parking lot there. She explained something will eventually
be built there, whether it is a single family home with a fence in the back yard or a parking lot with a fence. She explained she was think of creative ways to buffer, but she also knows
those issues will be worked out at TRC. Ms. Murphy offered the possible solution of relocating some of the parking and decreasing the size of the amenity field, noting parking can be
placed on some of the underground storage. That would provide more of a buffer for the adjacent property owners than placing the parking right up against the property line. Mr. Boney
stated they could look at that possibility, noting one design of the property had a large, open retention system in the rear of the property, which was essentially an open ditch, and
was essentially a dry retention, which over time becomes a muddy mess. He explained he didn’t believe the Geogrid system they would be using is traffic-rated so you can’t park vehicles
on top of it. He noted there are systems that are traffic-rated with varying degrees of success. This is a more innovative system and more accepted LID technique than some of the other
systems people can typically park on. Mr. Boney stated in regard to parking, they believe the County’s requirements for parking are a little more than what the applicant believes is
necessary for this type of project, noting parking requirements are more stringent in the County than the requirements in the City of Wilmington. Therefore, they would be amenable to
a slight reduction in parking within reason to help move some of the parking away from the neighbors. Mr. Collier asked how many parking spaces per unit were included in the plan. Mr.
Boney stated the average was 1.5 parking spaces per unit for example in the City, while the County’s requirement is one parking space per bedroom. The majority of the units are two bedroom
units so the average is pretty close to two parking spaces per unit. Mr. Collier asked if any of the parking areas would be pervious pavement or any design such as that. Mr. Boney acknowledged
it was too soon to determine that, but there had been several discussions with Ms. Ralston, as well as Mr. Iannucci Iannucci with County Engineering about ways to
Page 27 of 31 handle stormwater. Currently, those discussions are centered around those areas within 100 feet of the wetlands areas and doing all pervious type of paving in those areas
and then transitioning to more traditional types of paving. He commented they were open to adding additional pervious type parking facilities and other things if that would help. Mr.
Collier stated the staff report mentioned the bridges would allow water to go through them and asked Mr. Boney to clarify the plans for those bridges. Mr. Boney explained the current
wetlands are not substantial wetlands, but are pocketed 404 wetlands with no significant grade change. Two road crossings are currently planned through the wetlands and one of them is
proposed as a vehicular road crossing, while the other would be maintained as a pedestrian mixed-use type of trail. He noted Mr. Iannucci had mentioned recharging the wetlands so that
more water flows into them. Mr. Boney commented in reality there is not really enough grade there to construct a bridge that would have any meaning so a pervious solution might be more
acceptable. He noted they would be willing to talk to staff about the various options. Mr. Collier asked for clarification on the length of the crossing. Mr. Boney clarified that the
crossing would be approximately 500 feet to span the 100 foot buffer zone that has been established around the wetlands. He explained that none of the roadway is actually in a 404 wetland
so the bridge itself would not impact any wetland. Those pervious areas would be in the buffer zone around the wetlands. Dan Hilla stated buffers are one of the concerns he has with
the project, and noted for the record, he is a supporter of the EDZD and feels it is a great idea. He commented the developer had in general done a good job of keeping the project away
from adjacent properties, with the exception of two areas where it appears the buildings come close to the 20 foot buffer zone proposed. Mr. Hilla asked if there was any possibility
the applicant could increase the buffer in those areas to help calm the fears of the adjacent property owners, especially on the south side and north side where those townhome buildings
are located. Mr. Boney stated there was certainly a possibility to increase the buffer, noting when you go much beyond twenty feet it would begin to impact the County’s requirements
for parking. He suggested two things: 1) reduce the parking count required by the County if there is a mechanism for that purpose; or 2) provide a 6 foot wooden fence in the areas where
the parking is closest to that 20 foot buffer. Chris O’Keefe clarified in regard to unified ownership, if the outparcels were sold, the County would require a unified control agreement
to be in place in which the purchaser agreed to all of the concepts in the approved Exceptional Design Zoning District proposal. Mr. Collier asked staff about the access into the Grayson
Landing Court cul-de-sac, noting Mr. Boney had stated the applicant would rather not build it and the public had said they really don’t want it. He questioned if it was a requirement
for the EDZD proposal to provide interconnectivity or if it could be taken off the table at this point.
Page 28 of 31 Mr. Burgess stated the connection could be reconsidered, but it strengthens the case for interconnectivity if there is a ped or bike connection down Grayson Park Drive.
Chairman Gott asked how much flexibility the County had in regard to the parking space requirement if the board decided to allow the item to go forward to the Commissioners, but wanted
to increase the buffer to reduce the impact on the single family residential adjacent properties. Shawn Ralston explained they would need to know the actual structure of the units, noting
if the units were 3 bedroom rental units, you would have to assume there could be three different cars for each unit. The requirement is currently two spaces per unit. Historically,
there have been issues with apartment complexes in the County not having enough parking. While the parking requirements may be excessive in some places, they are in-line for apartment
complexes. Chairman Gott asked if the board could require a condition to increase the buffers for those areas as much as possible that the developer couldn’t avoid when the project goes
through TRC. County Attorney Huffman stated the board could add any condition they wished to their recommendation and the County Commissioners will decide if they want to include that
condition in their decision. She asked Chairman Gott to clarify the terms she was seeking so she could assist with the wording of the condition. Chairman Gott stated she didn’t mind
if the parking was abutting the single family residential areas, but wanted to ensure the buffer was as large as possible. Noting she realized the minimum buffer is 20 feet, but would
like a condition requiring the buffer to be increased as much as possible when the final plan is reviewed by the TRC. Mr. O’Keefe commented staff is aware that the site plan is tightly
designed to incorporate the features that satisfy the EDZD goals; however, staff has seen apartment complexes where two spaces per unit is not adequate. While this is an Exceptional
Design project where where one of the goals is to get people not to drive, the connections unfortunately are not there yet so staff is hesitant to reduce the parking requirements. Mr.
Boney commented that the developer’s experience is that 1.8 spaces per unit is sufficient for this type of development, which would create a net reduction of approximately 50 parking
spaces and allow some of that flexibility the board is seeking. Anthony Prinz stated his concern with that suggestion is who the market is for the complex, noting it seems the marines
are seeking the Porters Neck area to live and commute to Camp Lejeune and New River and it is common knowledge they tend to have more than one vehicle per person. They have a car and
a motorcycle and their spouse has a car. In essence, if that is the market as it seems to be for the apartment complex behind Food Lion and adjacent to Lowe’s Home Improvement, 1.8 may
be a little shy of what you will actually need.
Page 29 of 31 Mr. Collier questioned the proposed use of what appears to be an overflow parking area below the outparcel on the southeast side, noting he hoped it was not intended for
boat, RV, and camper storage, but is purely intended for what you wish it to be. He also asked if a gate could be installed so that the needed security lighting does not come on if the
parking lot is not in use and a switch is trigged only when someone enters the gate, noting he was sure they Mr. Boney stated he was certain a creative way could be found to accomplish
that request. Some of the buffer areas will be easier to address than others, for example the parking lot could be pulled back an additional ten feet from the property line without much
impact. In other areas where the units are clustered, it may be difficult to increase the buffer. Chairman Gott also questioned if residents would park their vehicles in that parking
lot on the office parcel, which is quite a distance from the residential units. Mr. Boney explained explained they believe there is more parking than is necessary for the residential
units. Chairman Gott commented that she is trying to eliminate the parking that abuts Grayson Drive and is also located near the top of the plan so an increased buffer can be provided
against Plantation Landing and against Grayson Park, eliminating any impact on the single family dwellings. She stated her concern is that if those parking spaces are eliminated, they
will have to rely on those parking spaces on that distant office outparcel. Mr. Boney stated belief they could manage the site plan to reduce the parking in those two locations and asked
if Chairman Gott wanted the buffer to be increased to 20 feet plus the depth of the parking spaces. Chairman Gott stated affirmatively that she would like the buffer increased to 25-30
feet and leave Leyland Cypress trees for example in that area so that cars are not visible by the residents. Mr. Boney stated they could do that or could also have a 20 foot buffer plus
a fence. He noted a 30 foot buffer in each of those locations would require a lot of work on the site plan, but they could make it happen. Mr. Collier commented if the buffer for the
two parking areas on the north and south sides could be increased to 30 feet, the board would feel more comfortable about it, depending on the buffer itself. In regard to the overflow
parking area, a 20 foot buffer with a fence may be okay since it wouldn’t be used as frequently or parked in everyday all day. Mr. Boney stated the applicant could be amenable to eliminating
a garage on the north end in order to shift that parking and meet a 30 foot buffer in that area. Mr. Collier commented the applicant and staff had put together a well laid out plan,
noting he also realized the plan was detrimental personally to some of the neighbors. He thought staff had followed the letter of the zoning ordinance and exceeded it in some cases.
While the plan is not perfect, in his opinion the Planning Board is looking out for all of the individuals. That is why
Page 30 of 31 they spent so much time debating buffers, building heights, etc. He noted similar things have happened near his neighborhood as well. He advised the development team to
continue working with the neighbors to make sure everyone has some input in the plan. Mr. Collier explained while the residents can’t drive the whole decision, but the things being implemented
using this zoning district is certainly better than if this was a medium density multi-family project, where the rules are not there to protect the wetlands and provide the buffers against
the wetlands that protect the water quality, which is the concern with Futch’s Creek. He noted it was unfortunate that he and almost everyone in New Hanover County lost 30% of their
property value, but he didn’t think a well-built community would affect the property values another 30%. Mr. Collier stated he hoped the discussion had provided the residents with a
better understanding of the details of the proposed development. Mr. Collier commended the developers on putting together the plan, but noted if they have not included the citizens enough,
he would not commend them on that because he feels the residents should be included in the discussions. Anthony Prinz stated he thinks the project is an exceptional project and that
Mr. Boney’s firm does exceptional work and if this project was located behind Food Lion or Lowe’s Home Improvement or the State Employees Credit Union, the meeting would have been finished
half an hour ago and the board wouldn’t be arm wrestling with the issues of buffers, etc. He commented that was because it would be more consistent with everything around it. In those
cases, it is virgin land without existing homeowners with concerns about parking, stormwater, etc. With that being said, he couldn’t say he supports the project in its current location.
He stated he has concerns with the access, not that we can get it to work on a traffic model and widen the roads to accommodate the capacity that is needed for the additional traffic.
He He stated certainly we can do that, but he doesn’t feel the project fits with the context of the surrounding neighborhoods to go out there and continually widen those roads, specifically
Old Market Street, which under this plan would be widened to a three lane highway. Mr. Prinz stated he doesn’t think the project is consistent with the surrounding uses, which was the
first finding. He noted staff seemed torn about that issue as well. Based on the parcel map and the proposal, he felt the project was significantly different from the existing uses.
Mr. Prinz commented he wasn’t sure it was consistent with the CAMA Land Use Plan either. The staff report didn’t state clearly that the proposal to include multi-family housing and office
types of uses was consistent with the vision of our CAMA Land Use Plan. He noted it is certainly contrary to the vision in the Porters Neck Plan, which if wrong and out of date, should
have been changed by now. Mr. Prinz noted in regard to the diversity of uses, which is the biggest concern to him from a technical zoning compliance standpoint, he felt they were grasping
at straws. He didn’t think a house of worship or a hardware store would provide a substantial opportunity for employment. He doesn’t believe it is within the intent of the ordinance
to encourage mixed-use, walkability, and namely mitigate one of the main concerns of the residents, which is everyone driving in their car. He stated the intent of that is to provide
opportunities for people to walk to and from their destinations on a daily basis; therefore, he would not support the rezoning request as is. He would, however, support the project in
a different location. Mr. Prinz also expressed great concern that the residents had received a letter in December that the project was not moving forward and no additional neighborhood
meetings were held prior to the June public hearing.
Page 31 of 31 Chairman Gott asked if anyone had additional comments or questions. Hearing none, she called for the wishes of the board. Richard Collier made a motion to recommend approval
of the project subject to certain conditions. We would like as a first condition to limit the uses on the office and retail to the list that was presented at the beginning of the report
by the applicant and specifically exclude any fast food restaurant at all. We also would like for the increase in the buffers in the parking areas as previously discussed on the north
and south, moving them towards a 30 foot buffer and that buffer to be 90% opaque. We also want to limit or exclude boat parking, trailer parking, RV parking, and any type of storage
of utility type vehicles in the overflow parking area. We would like to have the lighting in that overflow parking area controlled in some manner when not being used so that the lights
are not on. The traffic improvements brought forth by Mr. Stephenson, specifically the two right turn lanes to enter onto Highway 17 be implemented into the plan; work with the DOT in
adjusting the signal timing at the right turn lanes and also at the U-turn on Highway 17. Dan Hilla seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of Rezoning
Request Z-921. (Anthony Prinz voted against the rezoning request). Technical Review Committee Report Sam Burgess announced the TRC did not meet during the month of May. Chairman Gott
commented work was being done on several ordinance amendments and the board was scheduled to hold a work session in June; however, she had spoken with Chris O’Keefe and felt the work
session should be postponed until the new Planning Board members are appointed for the August meeting. She explained the July meeting would be the last meeting for her and Mr. Collier
because their terms will expire on July 30, 2012. Richard Collier made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Dan Hilla seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to adjourn the meeting.
Chairman Gott adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.