200802 Feb PBM
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
February 7, 2008
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 5:30 p.m.
in the Assembly Room of the Old County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public
meeting.
Planning Board Present: Staff Present:
Melissa Gott, Chair Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director
Sandra Spiers, Vice Chair Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner
David Adams Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist
Richard Collier Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner
Sue Hayes Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
Jay Williams
Ken Wrangell
Melissa Gott opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam
Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sue Haves made a motion to approve the January minutes. Richard Collier seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the minutes.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-879, 2/08) - Request by LS3P for Michael White (Old
Wilmington Shipyard, LLC, et al) to rezone approximately 25 acres located at 1550
Point Harbor Road in the Conservation Land Classification from I-1 Light
Industrial to RFMU Riverfront Mixed Use District.
Richard Collier recused himself stating that his employer is involved in the project.
Ken Wrangell made a motion to allow Mr. Collier to recuse himself from the item.
Sandra Spiers seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to allow Mr. Collier
to recuse himself.
Jane Daughtridge showed slides of the property and of the surrounding area Ms.
Daughtridge also provided information pertaining to access, levels of service, zoning,
current uses, soil types, flood zones, and utility information. Ms. Daughtridge provided
the following staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located in the western portion of the county in an area classified
as Conservation on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The property is accessed
from Point Harbor Road, a local street near the intersection of US Highway 421 and
1
Parsley Street (Isabel Holmes Bridge). Neither traffic counts nor levels of service are
available for Point Harbor Road, however, service along US Highway 421 in this vicinity
was shown at LOS B in 2005, meaning traffic flows at a stable pace. Traffic counts along
US Highway 421 increased by approximately 19% between 2003 and 2005.
The subject property is currently zoned I-1 and the location of Point Harbor Marina as
well as a landscaping operation. Properties south of the site continue to be utilized for
marine industries. West of the site is the county shooting range. North of the site is the
Holmes bridge, with additional industrial uses moving northward along the US 421
corridor. East of the site is the City of Wilmington. The property is influenced by the
airport transitional and conical zones. These zones are formulaically created, based on
FAA standards to limit obstructions to runway access, airspace, lighting or reflection,
navigational signals and radio communications in the vicinity of the airport.
In the mid-1990's this property was rezoned under a split zoning of Conditional B-2 and
R-15 for a more limited concept to mix residential and commercial uses on the marina
site. After a series of time extensions and modifications over the years, the property was
rezoned backto I-1(Z-559) in January of 2005.
The subject property is located within the Cape Fear River watershed drainage area
which is classified C(SW). The property is totally within the 100 year special flood
hazard area. Soils are primarily shown as Urban Land, which is not classified or
described in the Soil Survey. Public water and sewer service is not currently available in
the vicinity.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the proposed project is the first application for RFMU
designation and recommended approval contingent on access. Mr. O'Keefe provided the
following land use plan considerations:
Land Use Plan Considerations:
This rezoning petition is the first project to be reviewed under the county's new RFMU
standards. It proposes a change from I-1 light industrial use to RFMU in order to allow
association of residential and commercial development with the existing marina
operation. The RFMU enjoys options for greater height and lot coverage in exchange for
mixed uses, public access, reduced surface parking, and sensitive treatment of
environmental resources in a limited and specific eligible area on the west side of the
river across from downtown Wilmington.
The current site is developed as a marina with offices, rowing club, marine businesses
and a landscaping business. Over many years the site has been used for maritime
industrial purposes, leaving the area contaminated with petroleum products and metals. A
remediation plan for cleaning up the site has been under way for several years, thus
reducing negative environmental impacts when the final remediation is completed. The
marina has recently applied for permits from DCM to add dry stack storage and to
perform maintenance dredging. These activities would be allowable under current zoning.
2
The owners desired to introduce residential components to the existing industrial
operations, and so the Riverfront Mixed Use zoning district seemed the most appropriate
alternative to address health, safety, and welfare concerns. A portion of the property
fronting along US Highway 421 North is not part of this rezoning proposal and will
remain I-1. That portion is heavily influenced by a DOT right-of-way stub of Point
Harbor Road (the old US 421/17 roadbed). The applicant has requested abandonment of
the stub. NCDOT has not reached a final decision on abandonment at the time of this
writing. The abandonment request has a direct impact on the RFMU portion of the
project as it relates to the street access entrance and "Building D" as shown on the
proposed site plan.
The proposal envisions a mixed development on approximately 25 acres with a wet and
dry slip marina expanded to include 220 condo units in 6 buildings, with first floor retail
and structured parking. Most of the structures are 3 story condos over parking. The tallest
of the buildings is 7 stories over parking. Maximum height, including parking, is shown
as 118 feet. Non-residential uses (not including the dry stack) are estimated at 16,000
square feet of retail, restaurant, and office uses, or just under 4% of the project. The dry
stack facility includes 200 dry slips in a building 80 foot tall with a footprint of about
25,200 sq. ft., bringing the non-residential component total to more than 9%. The dry
storage facility is designed to visually complement the planned community. The marina
shows 55 wet slips, including transient dockage, with an area of possible future
expansion for an unspecified number of additional wet slips.
Highlights of the proposal include a public pedestrian plaza at the marina and pedestrian
access along a shoreline promenade. Preservation of wetlands and addition of landscape
trees will also contribute to a public benefit. The applicant proposes to incorporate as
many of the newly devised Low Impact Development (LID) best management practices
as possible. These would include concepts such as pervious pavers, rain gardens, water
reuse and xeroscaping as well as LEED certified sustainable site design standards for
construction.
Infrastructure to support the project is not yet in place. The applicant intends to bring
public water and sewer to the site via a directional bore under the Cape Fear River to tie
into services on the City side. Negotiations with the County Manager and others seem to
present an opportunity for partnership to advance the county's interest in providing
services northward along the industrial corridor. The applicant indicates that voluntary
annexation into the City is likely to be requisite to approval of the service connections,
but the project will not be feasible until capacity is available in the Northside W WTP and
the new utility authority will be the entity charged with accommodating the needs of the
project.
The proposal is located just south of the Isabel Holmes Bridge on the east side of US 421,
about 800' south of the signalized intersection of US 421 and North Third Street. A
traffic impact analysis (TIA) indicates trip generation of approximately 3,100 vehicles
per day, with peak hour traffic around 150 vehicles per hour. The figures include
3
consideration of a 120 room hotel, not included in the RFMU rezoning, and about 25% of
the peak hour trips are credited to that use. The TIA recommends ingress/egress proposed
as a right in/right out configuration which would route traffic on southbound US 421 to a
right turn into a new roadway that would circle back under the Thomas Rhodes bridge
and bring traffic back northerly along Point Harbor Road to the site. Northbound traffic
on US 421 would make right turns into and out of the site. The right in/right out only
option is the preferred method by all agencies and the applicant because safety is
enhanced and Level of Service is maintained at Level D under that scenario as opposed to
deteriorating to Level F under existing conditions. The TIA recommends construction of
a right turn lane on US 421, improvement of Point Harbor Road, and restriping to
eliminate left turns.
The entirety of the project is located within the 100 year flood plain in an AE (EL 9), and
all structures must be built to meet the county's floodplain management standards for all
uses. A condition of the TRC required the developer to create an evacuation plan with
the director of emergency management, Warren Lee. The entities have met to discuss this
requirement and will be developing hazard disclosures and information on evacuation
routes to be provided to each buyer. Providing weather radios for each residential unit
was also suggested and favorably received by the applicant.
The project lies within the Airport transitional and conical zones, meaning all structures
or other obstructions over 75 feet require additional review to assure compliance with the
Airport Height Ordinance prior to issuance of building permits. In this case, the height
elevations are well above the overall allowable height of the RFMU, so no special
authorizations are anticipated.
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Conservation
class 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 flood prone
areas.
In order to promote the highest and best use while preventing a negative impact on
water quality, site specific flexibility and creativity is desirable. The application of
regulations regarding issues such as density, buffers and impervious surfaces should
enhance this flexibility. The use of incentives such as density credits and performance
criteria is encouraged.
Generally, estuarine areas of environmental concern (AEC's) as defined by the State of
North Carolina and adjacent lands within the 100-year floodplain have been classified
as Conservation.
Conservation areas should be preserved in their natural state. Woodland, grassland and
recreation areas not requiring filling are the most appropriate uses. Exceptions to this
standard are limited to water-dependent uses (i.e., uses that cannot function elsewhere),
shared industrial access corridors, and those exceptional development proposals which
4
are sensitively designed so as to effectively preserve the natural functions of the site. The
following guidelines clarify these Conservation area objectives and development of
property should be limited to the following uses:
1 Water dependent uses - may include: utility easements, docks, wharves, boat
ramps, dredging, bridge and bridge approaches, revetments, bulkheads, culverts, groins,
navigational aide, moorings, pilings, navigational channels, simple access channels and
drainage ditches. In some instances, a water-dependent use may involve coverage of
sizeable land areas with limited opportunities to integrate the use with the site's natural
features. This would require reclassification of the site. By contrast, water dependent
uses which can be designed to preserve a site's natural features may not require
reclassification. This would be the preferred type of development.
2 Shared industrial access corridors - as discussed in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' The Wilmington Harbor: Plan for Improvement, would provide necessary
access to the channel of the Northeast Cape Fear River for industries located on high
ground while minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of such access.
3 Exceptional developments preserving natural features are projects which are
sensitively designed to be in harmony with the site's natural features and natural
functions, and provide a balance with the highest and best use of the property. Such
projects minimize erosion, runoff and siltation; minimize impervious surfaces impacts
and protect estuarine resources; do not interfere with access to or use of navigable waters;
do not require extraordinary public expenditures for maintenance; ensure that ground
absorption sewage systems, if used, meet applicable standards; and should be aware of
and not damage historic, architectural or archeological resources.
The plan goes on to describe uses considered appropriate for conservation area and then
provides the following guidance:
In no case, with the exception of the Wilmington National Register Historic District and
the Riverfront Mixed Use District (1108), shall residential density in the Conservation
class be permitted to exceed 2.5 units per acre or greater than 25% impervious surface
coverage, regardless of the existence of public urban services. Residential densities and
impervious surface coverage may be required to be as low as 1.0 unit/acre or 15% or
less respectively, depending on the environmental constraints within a particular area.
While certain Conservation areas may be served by public sewer in order to eliminate
septic system pollution, this should not be misconstrued as an incentive to facilitate
increased development density."
The exception for development in the RFMU was approved in December 2007 and
certified by the CRC in January, 2008. The exemption is similar to the City's exception
for the Historic District or projects developed under their exceptional design criteria.
This proposal largely meets the RFMU standards outlined in the ordinance. Waivers will
be needed from the TRC for the 50% non-residential ground floor provision; for Building
A which does not incorporate more than one use; and for the 2-sides/12 foot sidewalk
requirements. The ordinance anticipates the need for waivers in these circumstances and
also authorizes TRC to allow for alternatives to strict compliance with prescribed
5
landscape requirements. An actual landscape plan will be submitted at the time building
permits are requested.
In accordance with the ordinance, this preliminary plan proposal was reviewed by the
Technical Review Committee (TRC) on January 9, 2008 with the following comments
and recommendations forwarded for your consideration:
(1) That the TIA and associated amendments be reviewed and endorsed by the
City/County MPO and NCDOT
(2) That a secondary access leading into the project by displayed on the plan
(3) An emergency evacuation plan be created and reviewed by Emergency
Management since the entire site is within the 100 year flood zone
(4) A suitable method and location of disposing of solid waste be created and
identified
(5) Conduct a meeting with County Fire Services to resolve any issues they may
have regarding fire protection
(6) Provide and update status report on the road that is proposed to be abandoned
(7) That remediation of the contaminated areas on site be fully addressed by the
appropriate agency
(8) Indicate on the site plan the uses planned for the project in accordance with
59.9-3 of the zoning ordinance, and
(9) That the site plan be presented back to TRC after the Planning Board reviews
the plan on February 7a'.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff feels this proposal embraces the spirit and intent of the RFMU requirements.
The waivers requested are minimal and reasonable within the context of the project as
a whole. The applicant has been responsive in seeking solutions for all issues raised
during the review to date. Staff is concerned that secondary ingress and egress to
southbound Highway 421 North will not come to fruition. Provided access can be
assured, Staff recommends approval.
Sue Haves asked what would be the impact if the NCDOT does not grant the road
abandonment.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the Planning Board should consider that upon making a
recommendation or the petitioner may drop Building D from the site plan.
Chris Boney, architect with LS3P Associates representing 5 Points Development gave a
powerpoint presentation which highlighted key elements of their mixed use plan
including residential, office, and retail uses. Mr. Boney highlighted some additional
features including: a riverwalk, marina, dry stack boat storage, boat house, water taxi
service, possible hotel, and parking which would be located under buildings. Mr. Boney
addressed issues of access and traffic; environmental remediation; evacuation plans; solid
waste disposal; and water and sewer. Mr. Boney stated that the plan would incorporate
low impact development best management practices including sustainable design and low
6
impervious surface ratios. Mr. Boney felt that the proposed project would be a benefit to
the area and would not negatively impact historic downtown because of its northerly
location.
Dave Adams asked the petitioner to elaborate on the water and sewer plans as well as the
evacuation plans.
Chris Bonev stated that there is an existing water line that will serve phase one of the
project which requires minimal service. Mr. Boney added that for subsequent
development phases, water and sewer lines would be extended across the Cape Fear
River and over an unused right of way that runs underneath Highway 421. Mr. Boney
stated that they are working with Emergency Management to develop a flood and
evacuation plan.
Doug Springer. Executive Director of Cape Fear River Watch complimented the
petitioner on their site design and stated that the project seems reasonable. Mr. Springer
questioned Mr. Collier recusing himself from this item and not the Land Use Plan
Amendment (LUP-12) which was heard in November 2007.
Sue Haves asked Mr. Boney to explain how this project can be defined as a sustainability
project.
Chris Bonev stated that they are committed to using sustainable techniques and best
management practices wherever possible including: rain gardens, bioretention areas,
recycled materials, low flush toilets, rainwater collection for irrigation, and light emitting
diode (LED) technology. Mr. Boney added that the project is subject to meeting the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources' (DENR) stormwater treatment
standards which may impact the degree of sustainable techniques utilized. Mr. Boney
stated that a combination of conventional and sustainable practices would be utilized.
Sue Haves complimented Mr. Boney's project and wished him success.
Dave Adams made a motion to recommend approval. Jay Williams seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project.
Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-880, 2/08) - Request by Matt Nichols for River Bluffs
Development Corporation to rezone 237 acres located at the west end of Chair Road
in the Wetland Resource Protection, Natural Heritage Resource Protection, Aquifer
Resource Protection, and Conservation Land Classifications from R-20 Residential
to PD Planned Development District for a continuing care retirement community.
Jane Daughtridge showed slides of the property and of the surrounding area Ms.
Daughtridge also provided information pertaining to access, levels of service, zoning,
current uses, soil types, flood zones, and utility information. Ms. Daughtridge provided
the following staff summary:
7
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located in the northwest portion of the county in an area classified
as Wetland & Aquifer & Heritage Resource Protection and Conservation on the 2006
CAMA Land Classification map. The property is accessed from Chair Road, a two lane
local street which intersects with Castle Hayne Road about one mile to the east. Neither
traffic counts nor levels of service are available for Chair Road, however, service along
Castle Hayne Road in this vicinity was shown at LOS D in 2005, meaning high density
traffic flows at a stable pace. Traffic counts along Castle Hayne Road increased by
approximately 23% between 2003 and 2005.
The subject property is currently zoned R-20 low density residential. The property is
influenced by the airport transitional zone. Airport zones are formulaically created, based
on FAA standards to limit obstructions to runway access, airspace, lighting or reflection,
navigational signals and radio communications in the vicinity of the airport. Additional
review or requirements are necessary if heights exceed 75 feet.
The subject property is located within the Little Creek watershed drainage area which is
classified C(SW). The property is not within the 100 year flood zone. Soils are a broad
mix of Class I and II classifications with a small area of Class IV Dorovan soil. Public
water and sewer service is not currently available in the vicinity.
Chris O'Keefe recommended approval of the rezoning stating that the plan appears to be
environmentally sensitive. For public safety and connectivity reasons, Mr. O'Keefe
urged the petitioner to provide a connection between Chair Road and Rockhill Road. Mr.
O'Keefe also requested that the petitioner leave the remaining public portion of Chair
Road, public to provide for a future collector system. Mr. O'Keefe provided the
following land use considerations:
Land Use Plan Considerations:
This rezoning petition envisions a planned development which will include a continuing
care retirement concept as well as limited commercial activities.
The site is located at the end of Chair Road and is currently vacant, wooded land with
many mature trees, particularly in the western portion of the project. Most of the acreage
is on the west side of I-140, with approximately 2,000 feet of frontage on the Northeast
Cape Fear River. Steep slopes along the river bank and rapid drop-off in water depths
characterize the site on the west side. About 23 acres of wooded land is on the east side.
The Master Plan shows 207 single family units, 47 multi-family units, 300 retirement
units, and 15.17 acres of commercial use for a country store and an RV/boat storage
facility as an amenity for the property owners within the development. The 300
retirement units will be divided among patio homes and townhouses for the independent
and assisted stages of the continuum of care. The skilled nursing facility will include 30-
40 beds for use only by the contractual residents of the continuing care facilities. Thirty-
8
five percent or about 77.5 acres will be reserved for recreational and open space. The
developer has indicated that a boardwalk will be installed along the entire river bluff to
provide pedestrian access to the water for the use and enjoyment of the community.
The retirement portion is on 65.69 acres and includes a continuing care concept whereby
residents can initially live independently but as circumstances change, they can transition
to assisted living and ultimately to skilled nursing care under the terms of their continuing
care contract. A more typical single family development with about 194 lots and 47
condominium units dominates the westernmost portion of the property, giving the
proposal a multi-generational aspect for aging in place. The master plan shows walking
paths interconnecting the traditional and continuing care tracts. A clubhouse to serve the
entire development is also shown on the plan.
The infrastructure to support the project is not yet in place. Applicant proposes to connect
the development to county water and sewer when capacity becomes available. The final
plan requires that the formal subdivision process will be followed and the applicant will
have to show provision of adequate water and sewer or septic prior to approval of plats.
A traffic impact analysis (TIA) indicates trip generation of approximately 3,712 vehicles
per day, with p.m. peak hour traffic around 218 vehicles per hour. This TIA was a
preliminary document that did not include the entire project area and so an update is
under way. At the time of this writing, staff has not received the additional information.
Based on recommendations from the Traffic Impact Analysis, the development would be
required to construct a new 125 foot southbound turning lane along Castle Hayne Road.
No additional comments have been received from NCDOT or the MPO at this time.
The location is included in a small area plan produced for the Wrightsboro community in
1991. At that time, traffic, drainage, parks and litter were the predominant community
concerns. Improving safety and reducing traffic delays along Castle Hayne Road was an
objective in the plan. It also encouraged the county and NCDOT to require more than one
access road to new and existing developments. Among other objectives expressing a
desire for better drainage maintenance, public sewer, parks and library facilities, a final
objective was to maintain the moderate growth rate that Wrightsboro had experienced
over the past decades and to continue the established pattern of single family zoning in
the area. Scattered ruins on part of the property indicate past uses of the site, but no
evidence of significant historic structures exist.
This project encompasses three of the four Resource Protection land classification sub-
classes. The majority is either Wetland or Aquifer Resource Protection. Very small areas
along the shoreline are classified as Natural Heritage Resource Protection or
Conservation. The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the
Resource Protection class as to provide for the preservation and protection of important
natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources. The Resource Protection
class has been developed in recognition of the fact that New Hanover County, one of the
most urbanized counties in the State, still contains numerous areas of environmental or
cultural sensitivity which merit protection from urban land uses.
9
The protection strategies developed for each of the subclasses is intended to be more in
tune than previous plans with the specific resource being protected and not a one-size-
fits-all approach. The following paragraphs summarize the nature of the resource, the
threat to the resource, and the focus of protection strategies.
1 Aquifer Resource Protection - This subclass occurs in the Northwest part of the
County North of Smith Creek, and is the area where the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee
Aquifers secondary recharge occurs. The impacts that the resource is being protected
from is diminished recharge of the aquifer and contamination of the aquifer by
inappropriate land uses. The focus of strategies to protect this Resource Protection
subclass is encouraging larger lot development if septic systems are used to prevent cross
contamination of wells, extension of water and sewer service to curtail septic system use,
prevention of uses that pose risk of spill of hazardous materials, and encouraging
development practices that promote sustained recharge.
2 Wetland Resource Protection - This Resource Protect subclass is primarily in the
northeastern part of the county. The impact from which protection is needed is loss of
wetland areas to development. The primary resource protection strategies focus on
encouraging preservation of wetlands and wetland functions.
3 Natural Heritage Resource Protection - This subclass of Resource protection
areas are predominantly in the northwest corner of the County with smaller segments
scattered elsewhere. These are areas identified by the NC DENR Natural Heritage
Program as generally unique habitats that warrant special attention and protection. The
threat to these areas is loss of habitat or fragmentation of habitat that may be crucial to a
particular natural community identified as important. The focus of strategies for this
subclass is to better identify these areas and develop specific protection strategies.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff feels that connection of Chair Road and Rockhill Road along the west side of I-140
would significantly enhance public safety concerns and connectivity opportunities in this
area. Staff strongly urges arrangements to provide such a connection. The remaining
public portion of Chair Road should not be transitioned to private ownership but should
remain public so as to provide future opportunity to create a functional collector system
for residents in new subdivisions along the river. The plan appears to be sensitive to each
of the resource protection subclasses. Limiting impervious surface, preservation of trees
and thoughtful placement of stormwater infrastructure will minimize wetland loss and
impacts to the aquifer. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning.
Matt Nichols an attorney with Shanklin and Nichols representing the applicant provided
an overview of the proposed project, River Bluffs and emphasized the benefits of a
planned development. Mr. Nichols stated that there is a need for elderly care in the
community and explained the concept of a continuing care facility, detailing the three
levels of care in their proposed plan. Mr. Nichols showed the residential section of the
plan and noted additional plan elements including rv/boat storage and a country store that
may include fuel. Mr. Nichols also stated that they have held two public meetings where
they addressed the neighbors' concerns.
10
Sue Haves questioned whether some of the interior lots had street access.
Burrows Smith explained that there is access to all of the lots; some through easements or
small alleys. Mr. Smith stated that they were using smaller lots in some cases to preserve
trees and open space.
Emerson Whitted neighborhood resident, expressed concern regarding increased traffic
and requested that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Chair Road and Castle
Hayne Road. Mr. Whitted stated that the area experienced a high rate of septic failure
and that the area greatly warranted public water and sewer.
Doug Springer, the Executive Director of Cape Fear River Watch complimented the
developers for their consideration to the environment but added that consideration should
also be given to the preservation of historical and archeological significance of the area
Captain Joseph Bridger, an adjacent property owner spoke in opposition to the
commercial component of the planned development stating that it is not desired, nor
compatible with the area Captain Bridger expressed concern about the safety and
potential for fuel spills if the proposed country store was to have a fuel station. Captain
Bridger stated that development plans were misrepresented to the community and
amenities such as a pool, marina, tennis courts, ball fields, and park like settings were
promised and not shown on the proposed site plan. Captain Bridger stated that the
developers needed to be careful not to destroy any historical artifacts.
Luther Whiffed neighborhood resident and representing St. James Church expressed
concern regarding traffic. Mr. Whitted urged the Planning Board to convey to the County
Commissioners the need for public water and sewer in their area.
Burrows Smith owner and developer of the proposed planned development addressed
some of the neighbors' concerns explaining that the country store is envisioned to
provide minor services to the residents and a fuel pump is still to be determined. Mr.
Smith explained that the proposed rv/boat storage area will be screened and buffered and
will provide residents with a designated area to store their recreational vehicles. Mr.
Smith stated that the proposed development would bring a water line down Chair Road,
which existing residents could tap onto and that public sewer would be one more step
closer to actualization. Mr. Smith added that they would study the history of the area to
avoid damaging any artifacts during excavation.
Ken Wrangell confirmed that the intersection of Chair Road and Castle Hayne Road was
included in the traffic scope and asked what mitigation measures were proposed to
improve the intersection.
John Grant traffic engineer with Ramey Kemp Associates stated that a right hand turn
lane has been identified to date. Mr. Grant stated that he is updating the traffic study with
newer data and then will submit to NCDOT.
11
Matt Nichols stated that the traffic study is being revised; the scope of the study is being
discussed with the DOT; but the data for AM and PM peak hour trips and average daily
trips is accurate for Chair Road.
James Tyler adjacent property owner expressed concern regarding stormwater and
requested that runoff be handled so that his property would not be negatively impacted.
Mr. Tyler also expressed concern regarding the width of Chair Road and felt that it was
too narrow in its present state to accommodate increased traffic.
Captain Joseph Bridget, felt that it was a dangerous combination to locate a gas station
near wetlands and within a flood prone area.
Luther Whined added that Chair Road is in bad condition; it has pot holes; drainage
issues, and needs to be repaved.
Dave Adams asked the petitioner if there would be any type of water access located
within the development given the steep, eroding bluff. Dr. Adams also stated that an
archeological study would provide him with piece of mind.
Burrows Smith stated that water access would be determined during the site plan review
with the Technical Review Committee (TRC). Mr. Smith added that he has a solid
reputation for being a sensitive developer toward the environment and cultural history.
Richard Collier asked the petitioner to elaborate on the project's plan for water and
sewer, roads, and traffic. Mr. Collier asked the petitioner if he would consider
eliminating plans for a fuel pump given the opposition. Mr. Collier also asked the
petitioner how much wetlands are located on the site.
Burrows Smith explained that several new private developments in the area in
conjunction with the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority are creating a new regional lift
station which will serve his project among others. Mr. Smith stated that there is only a
slim chance that a fuel pump would be included in the country store and that the idea was
generated from the results of a marketing study. Mr. Smith added that all the roads are 80
foot rights of way and there is approximately 6 acres of wetlands.
Sue Haves asked the petitioner if the proposed development would be gated. Ms. Hayes
felt that there were too many unanswered questions including whether or not water access
would be provided; lack of promised recreational amenities; gated community or not; and
undetermined presence of historical artifacts.
Burrows Smith stated that he did not plan to gate the development; that there would be
extensive walking trails; and a clubhouse. Mr. Smith stated that the site plan at this phase
is only intended to provide general information to satisfy a rezoning request and that
more details outlining amenities would be provided on later site plans.
12
Chris O'Keefe stated that this project is in the master plan phase and is subject to the
Technical Review Committee (TRC) for a more detailed review but reminded the
petitioner and Planning Board that whatever is agreed to (or not agreed to) will be
enforced.
Sue Haves asked if the Planning Board could place conditions on the petition including
prohibiting a gas station; reinforcing the eroding bluffs; and availing sewer to the existing
Chair Road residents.
Chris O'Keefe stated that conditions may be placed on the petition but that the petitioner
may withdraw his request if the conditions are too severe.
Dave Adams stated that he thought that the petitioner stated that a sewer line would be
installed along Chair Road in which existing residents could tap onto.
John Tunstall with Norris, Kuske & Tunstall, explained that the sewer line would be a
forced sewer main which would require a second lift station or pressure system for
existing residents to tap onto and utilize.
Melissa Gott asked for clarification as to whether conditions could be placed on this
proposal given that it is a rezoning request.
Chris O'Keefe explained that since the rezoning request includes a master plan,
conditions could be place on the item.
Sandra Spiers made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Ken Wrangell
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-1 (Hayes) to recommend approval of
the item.
Item 3: Special Use Permit Modification (5-13) - Request by Ken Shanklin for Tim
Ward to modify the site plan for special use permit 5-13 to relocate piers, eliminate
the boat ramp and modify the clubhouse footprint in the R-15 Residential Zoning
District at 1512 Burnett Road in the Conservation Land Classification.
Jane Daughtridg_e showed slides of the property and of the surrounding area. Ms.
Daughtridge provided information pertaining to access, levels of service, zoning, current
uses, soil types, and flood zones. Ms. Daughtridge showed the current approved site plan
of September 2005 and briefly outlined the proposed changes including adjustment of the
building footprint and combination of two docks into one. Ms. Daughtridge explained
that the since the proposed changes were deemed to be a major change from the approved
plan, the applicant has been instructed to submit it for major modification to the existing
permit.
Chris O'Keefe provided the following findings of fact:
13
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the modification will not materially endanger the
public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the
plan as submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is located within the Myrtle Grove VFD.
B. Private water and septic serve the site.
C. All utilities will be underground.
D. The subject property is located in a 100-year floodplain VE zone.
E. The site is located in a Primary Nursery Area.
F. The site is located in SA shellfishing waters.
G. The site is located in an R-15 Residential Zoning District.
H. The site is approximately 2.9 acres in size with 240 feet of waterway frontage.
1. Access to the site is from Silver Ave. and Burnett Road, local streets that deliver
traffic to Carolina Beach Road, a major arterial thoroughfare.
J. A Special Use Permit was issued in 1971 for expansion of an existing marina. The
original site plan has been altered by administrative approvals over a long period of
time. The current valid site plan was administratively approved in September of 2005.
K This current modification proposes elimination of the boat ramp, combination of the
two piers shown on the September 2005 plan into one 24' wide pier plus 8' walkway
with 60' wide flare and expanded floating T to overall 145' on the location of the
existing pier; and shifting of the clubhouse northward as well as adding a 10-foot
covered deck on two sides of the structure.
2. The Board must find that the modification meets all required conditions and
specifications of the zoning ordinance.
A. The proposed location of the clubhouse facility is in a Special Flood Hazard Velocity
zone, and must meet the elevation requirements set out in the flood code for such
structures. No enclosures are allowed below flood elevation except under standards
specified in the flood ordinance. The proposal shifts the clubhouse northward toward
the Tucker-Burnett Subdivision homeowners' common lot, leaving a setback of 20
feet from the property line.
B. According to the Major Permits Coordinator for Coastal Management, the applicant's
prior dredging proposal received objection from Marine Fisheries because of the
primary nursery area impacts. A variance from DMF would be required in order to
dredge. The applicant wishes to eliminate the ramp and expand the width of the
existing pier in order to utilize a forklift for dropping of boats rather than launching.
C. A marina requires a special use permit and site-specific site plan to operate in a
residential district.
D. Parking must meet the requirements of the current zoning ordinance for the combined
range of uses of the property.
E. Buffering must meet the requirements of the current ordinance.
F. Night lighting must be contained on site per the ordinance.
G. Existing stormwater permit needs to be reviewed to consider if changes are needed
14
based on the proposed modification of impervious area to the clubhouse.
H. Existing CAMA permit needs to be modified if this requested modification is
approved by the county.
3. The Board must find that the modification will not substantially injure the value
of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. Marinas in Residential zoning districts require special use permits in order to evaluate
and mitigate negative impacts on surrounding residential quality of life.
B. The applicant intends to deliver boats to the water via a forklift. The use of a forklift
was authorized by the Board of Adjustment in January, 2007 (ZBA-793)
C. Widening the pier structure will facilitate use of a forklift to deliver boats to the
water.
D. Deliver of boats to the water via forklift is often associated with dry stack storage of
boats. Stacked storage of boats, on any sort of racks or structures, is not part of the
approved site plan for S-13 (1971) and shall not be construed to be part of or implied
by this modification request. Applicant has formerly made application for approval of
dry stack storage of boats, but has withdrawn each request before the County
Commissioners have had an opportunity to evaluate and rule on the request.
E. The 1971 minutes of approval couched parking within the context of "larger parking
spaces for cars with boat trailers."
F. Boating is not a public necessity, but increased public access to the water is an
important goal in coastal counties.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if modified
according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the
area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of
development for New Hanover County.
A. The New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as Conservation.
The purpose of the class is to provide for effective long-term management and
protection of significant, limited, or irreplaceable natural resources while also
protecting the rights of the property owner. Water-dependent uses are appropriate.
B. With limited exceptions, the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan prohibits dredging in a
primary nursery areas and open shellfishing waters; therefore, removal of the boat
ramp would be in harmony with the area and consistent with the land use plan.
C. The immediate surrounding area is populated with residential uses.
Staff Comments:
1. If approved, the modification order should clearly specify all desired conditions,
clarifications, and reference to the current and valid site plan. Such action should
state that it supersedes and vacates all prior plans and conditions. The new order
would then become the only valid county authorization associated with S-13.
Since the history of this project has been contentious and speculatively debated
through the years, staff feels that clearly establishing the details of approval
15
would be an important step to resolve matters and create predictability for all
parties.
2. Zoning enforcement staff would like an official clarification as to the county's
position on use of the clubhouse for sit-down food service for members only
versus the general public. A condition on the 1971 approval requires that "sales
and services connected with the operation of the clubhouse facility shall be
incidental to the marina's operation." To date the interpretation has been that the
clubhouse is a private club associated with the marina, and food service would
only be allowed for members and their invited guests. Removal of this or any
condition requires amendment of the special use permit through normal channels
via Planning Board and County Commissioners.
3. Acknowledgement of all conditions should be added to the notes of the site plan.
Ken Shanklin, an attorney with Shanklin and Nichols, representing the applicant, entered
several documents into the record; one of which sustained that a valid CAMA permit has
been issued for the marina. Mr. Shanklin explained that some modification to existing
special use plans are deemed major and thus require County Commissioner approval.
Mr. Shanklin stated that his client, Tim Ward is attempting to consolidate the site plan by
removing the existing boat ramp and widen the existing pier.
Tim Ward the petitioner, outlined his request to modify the existing special use permit.
Mr. Ward stated that he would eliminate the need for dredging by widening and
lengthening the existing pier and provided details regarding his request to modify the
clubhouse. Mr. Ward stated that his proposal is based from the design of the Watermark
Marina which has been approved by CAMA and is in use in New Hanover County. Mr.
Ward showed photos of Watermark Marina to illustrate his design concept.
Chris O'Keefe asked the petitioner if he agreed with the Planning staff's Findings of Fact
and if the clubhouse deck will be ten feet wide.
Ken Shanklin stated that he agreed with the Planning staff's Findings of Fact
Tim Ward stated that he agreed with the staff's Findings of Fact with the exception of
staff comments. Mr. Ward confirmed that the clubhouse deck will be ten feet wide.
Sue Haves asked Tim Ward if the restaurant would be exclusively for members.
Tim Ward could not say definitively that the clubhouse would only be used by members,
although that was its intent. Mr. Ward added that he would comply with the orders of the
Board of Adjustment.
Chris O'Keefe summarized that Tim Ward stated that he could not specify who would
use the clubhouse. Tim Ward nor his attorney objected to that statement.
16
Sue Haves asked what types of regulations were in place to mitigate noise from marina
equipment in residential areas. Ms. Hayes also asked Tim Ward if he intended to ask for
dry stack boat storage.
Chris O'Keefe stated that requirements could be placed on special use permits to control
noise but that the ordinance does not specify a particular noise regulation.
Tim Ward stated that forklifts with noise abatement accessories exist and that he is
considering such items. Mr. Ward added that he would like an enclosed boat storage
facility ultimately because it would be the quietest alternative and provide the best
facility.
Bill Raney an attorney representing adjacent property owner Violet Ward and her son
David Ward stated that his clients oppose the modification because of environmental
concerns and that the proposal is not in harmony with the area Mr. Raney submitted a
summary of his argument into the record. Mr. Raney summarized his argument stating
that there are too many unknown variables to make a recommendation to the County
Commissioners including whether the clubhouse would be public or private; unknown
impervious surface calculations; and the plan does not show how the boats will be stored.
Mr. Raney added that the proposal would: endanger the health and safety of the
surrounding community; is not a public necessity; would substantially injure the value of
adjacent properties; is not harmonious with the neighborhood; and the forklift path is
located in the middle of a conservation area.
David Ward neighborhood resident spoke in opposition stating that the new proposal is
too close to Violet Ward's pier. Mr. Ward stated that the petitioner is exaggerating the
Board of Adjustment's statement that a forklift could be used in a marina because it is
defined as a piece of equipment by considering using a "mammoth piece of machinery."
Mr. Ward added that it would too dangerous for the residents to swim if a fuel dock is
built.
Jay Williams asked David Ward to clarify a few questions regarding the photos he
submitted.
Ken Shanklin stated in his rebuttal that an administrative law judge has upheld the
CAMA permit and that his client is only requesting a slight modification to an existing
special use permit. Mr. Shanklin added that he believes that the proposed redesign
complies with the CAMA Land Use Plan.
Tim Ward added to the rebuttal that the amount of impervious surface would altered by
the removal of the boat ramp; that he exceeds the riparian setbacks; that CAMA does not
have any concerns regarding the newly proposed structure; and that he would through
any issues that the County has with the clubhouse. Mr. Ward added that the proposal
would provide water access.
17
Bill Raney asked that Kim Altman and Joseph Malik speak during his five minutes of
rebuttal.
Kim Altman a neighborhood resident stated that the proposal will be noisy and dangerous
and disrupt their quality of life.
Joseph Malik Bradley Drive resident who lives directly behind the Cross Creek Marina
stated that noise abatement does not work without stiff penalties and denial of use for
noise which exceeds the thresholds. Mr. Malik stated that once noise is established in a
neighborhood, it is virtually impossible to control.
Mike Giles the Cape Fear Coast keeper for the North Carolina Coastal Federation stated
that there would be significant safety issues regarding putting boats into the water at the
proposed location due to boat wake, strong currents, and tidal influence. Mr. Giles added
that the Coastal Resources Commission is looking into the issuance of CAMA permits
for boat docks in shallow water because boats destroy shellfish areas at low tide.
Sue Haves expressed concern regarding forklift noise and negative effects this marina
could have on shellfish and the primary nursery area. Ms. Hayes asked if noise
abatement controls could be added as conditions to the special use permit.
Melissa Gott reminded Ms. Hayes that the Board of Adjustment had ruled that a forklift
was considered a piece of equipment and could be used at a marina to move boats.
Chris O'Keefe stated that noise abatement conditions could be added to the special use
permit if the Board recommended approval.
Dave Adams expressed concern regarding the uncertainty of certain elements of the plan
including: private or public use of the clubhouse; water depths; and amount of
impervious surface. Dr. Adams also asked the petitioner where the boats would be stored.
Kevin Walker with Atlantic Diving who built the Watermark facility stated that the
locations have similar water depths. Mr. Walker added that Watermark launches at least
1000 boats, sometimes only into a couple feet of water.
Tim Ward stated that the boats would be put into boat stands/boat cradles which are low
level, unfixed units.
Melissa Gott asked the petitioner if they had an expert who could answer Dr. Adams'
question regarding the new amount of impervious surface.
Ken Shanklin stated no, that his engineer was attended another meeting.
Richard Collier asked the petitioner if he has obtained state stormwater permits for the
approved or proposed plan and asked the petitioner to provide a summary of the
18
clubhouse expansion. Mr. Collier also asked the petitioner to explain the status of the
required CAMA permit.
Tim Ward stated that to date, he has obtained a stormwater permit for the approved 2005
plan, not the proposed plan and provided details of the proposed stormwater system. Mr.
Ward stated that he proposes to add a 10 foot covered deck around the clubhouse and
wanted to shift the clubhouse to the north to accommodate the forklift path. Mr. Ward
explained that he anticipates the reinstatement of the CAMA permit pending the ruling of
the Coastal Resources Commission.
David Adams asked the petitioner if he could clarify or consent to certain restrictions for
the use of the clubhouse. Dr. Adams felt that the clubhouse has morphed into a
commercial restaurant given the site plan expansion
Tim Ward asked the Board not to limit the use of the clubhouse to only members but
would agree to hours of operation.
Melissa Gott stated that she felt that the clubhouse was a minor element of the plan given
its size.
Jay Williams stated he believes that the original Special Use Permit #13 did not intend to
allow for the sale of food; thus the proposed clubhouse falls outside the boundaries of the
existing permit. Mr. Williams also stated that he feels that the Board is not getting the
whole story because the size of the proposed boat dock necessitates a much larger
operation than what the petitioner is suggesting. Mr. Williams stated that his rationale for
not supporting the modification is based on water and nursery deterioration caused by
boats in the shallow water.
Ken Wrangell asked the petitioner how he proposed to protect both people and boats
from wake.
Tim Ward explained that larger boats know that they are responsible and liable for their
wake and are cognizant of their speed when approaching a fueling station. Mr. Ward
stated that he would install a VHF radio and some type of sign if permissible. Mr. Ward
added that there are other marinas located along the Intracoastal Waterway.
Sandra Spiers stated that she believes that the location is suitable for a marina but that she
is voting against the proposal because there are too many unanswered questions and that
the proposal shown does not reflect the petitioner's intentions. Ms. Spiers added that
attractive dry stack storage could probably be appealing.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the modification to the special use
permit. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-1 (Gott) to
recommend denial of the modification.
19
There was discussion regarding whether reasons should be stated in the motion
supporting the Board's recommendation for denial. It was decided that since the
Planning Board is a recommending body, that indicating reasons for approval or denial
are at the discretion of the Board.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the County Commissioners have asked the Planning Board and
staff to discuss whether the area around the battleship should be removed from eligibility
of the River Front Mixed Use (RFMU) district. Mr. O'Keefe also stated that the County
Commissioners have also requested through the County Manager that the Planning Board
and staff consider changes to the existing fee schedule for Planned Developments. Mr.
O'Keefe distributed a handout outlining the current fee schedule.
It was decided that both of these items would be discussed at the March 6, 2008 regular
Planning Board Meeting.
Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity
for the month of January:
1. Anchor's Bend - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve a one-year preliminary extension
for 205 lots and townhomes with the original terms.
2. Point Harbor Marina- The TRC voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the
project with nine requirements; the project will return for additional TRC review
on February 13, 2008.
3. Coral Ridge - The TRC voted 4-0 to continue the item until it was determined if
a traffic impact analysis was required; that a better road stub alignment be created
with Gabriel Street in Lehigh Estates; and that road stubs be looked at to the west
and south to promote interconnectivity.
4. River Road Re-Alignment - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve the re-alignment of
River Road with requirements.
5. Mason Landing Yacht Club (Phase 2) - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve the
project for 14 lots with conditions.
Mr. Burgess stated that the TRC will meet next on February 13, 2008.
Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval. Richard Collier seconded the
motion. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Chris O'Keefe
Planning Director
20