200807 July PBM
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
July 3, 2008
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, July 3, 2008 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:
David Adams Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director
Richard Collier Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner
Melissa Gott Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist
Sue Hayes Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner
Jay Williams Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
Ken Wrangell
Absent:
Sandra Spiers, Vice Chair
Melissa Gott opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing.
Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sue Hayes made a motion to approve the June minutes. Dave Adams seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the minutes.
Old Business: Rules of Procedures
Jane Daughtridge outlined the proposed changes to the Planning Board Rules of
Procedures. Ms. Daughtridge stated that the following procedures would be removed
from the Rules of Procedure:
II. E. The Subdivision and Site Plan Review Committee: The Chairperson or his
designee and at least two other appointed members of the Planning Board
shall meet with the Planning Director every two weeks as necessary for the
purpose of reviewing subdivisions and site plans as required in the
Development Regulations of New Hanover County. The committee shall
meet on the Wednesday following the regular first Thursday meeting and then
two weeks following as necessary.
III. H. Teat Amendment: Teat Amendments and new ordinances shall be reviewed
at a special work session held during the last month of each quarter. The work
session shall be held jointly with the County Commissioners at a mutually
1
agreed time and place. No formal action will be taken at any work session.
(Amended 9/2/99)
Richard Collier made a motion to approve the changes and Jay Williams seconded the
motion. The Planning Board vote 6-0 to update the Rules of Procedure.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-883, 5/08) - Second Continuation from May 1 meeting.
Request by Don Joseph for multiple property owners to rezone approximately 2.75
acres located at 7031-7047 Market Street in the Transition Land Classification from R-
15 Residential to B-2 Highway Commercial District. The action would open the range
of uses to a broad array of intensive commercial activities.
Donald Joseph, the agent for the petitioners requested a continuance until the August
Planning Board meeting to meet with the ten families involved in the rezoning and
address the outstanding issues.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the Planning staff has consistently maintained that a straight
rezoning was never appropriate for the proposed properties because of access issues.
Mr. O'Keefe acknowledged Mr. Joseph's efforts to create a viable project suited for
conditional zoning but suggested that the project be revisited upon completion of the
future Market Street corridor plan. Mr. O'Keefe recommended that the Planning Board
take action on the rezoning and if denial is recommended, then the properties will be
subject to a twelve month waiting period.
The Board asked Mr. Joseph if he had firm plans for the properties and to summarize his
proposal to help the Board make a determination.
Donald Joseph explained the difficulties in creating a single plan among five families
citing differences of opinions.
Melissa Gott asked Mr. Joseph if he would have his proposal ready by the next Planning
Board deadline.
Jane Daughtridge stated that the deadline was next week, July 10, 2008.
Ken Wrangell asked staff if was logical to continue the item for nine months or until the
completion of the Market Street Corridor plan.
Chris O'Keefe concurred with Mr. Wrangell's suggestion stating that the corridor plan
would provide beneficial information to Mr. Joseph's project.
2
Jay Williams questioned whether it was prudent to permit such a long continuance and
worried that the board might be establishing a dangerous precedence.
Melissa Gott asked if the nine month time frame for the Market Street corridor study
was firm.
Chris O'Keefe confirmed that the contract specified that the study was to be completed
in nine months.
Sue Hayes was doubtful that the petitioner would be able to utilize the study's findings
and incorporate them into his plan as soon as the study was released, thus made a
motion to recommend denial.
David Adams seconded the motion stating that he could not recommend approval of
the rezoning and would not set a precedence of granting prolonged continuances. Dr.
Adams asked the petitioner if he would like to withdraw his petitioner given the board's
position.
Donald Joseph withdrew his petition.
No vote taken.
Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-887, 7/08) - Request by LS3P Associates for Michael
White to rezone approximately 5.7 acres at 1400 block of Point Harbor Road from 1-2
to RFMU in the Conservation land classification. The change would create a mixed use
commercial and residential development on the west bank of the Cape Fear River.
Jane Daughtridge stated that the petition is invalid and would not be heard at the
present time because of outstanding issues.
No vote taken.
Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z-888, 7/08)- Request by Mike Nadeau for SENCA, LLC to
rezone 9.22 acres in the 9100 block of North Market Street from R-15 Residential to B-
2 Highway Business District in the Transition land classification. The change would
allow for a broad range of commercial uses adjacent to the Fender County line and a
conditional O&I district.
Jane Daughtridge showed maps and photographs of the property and of the
surrounding area. Ms. Daughtridge provided information pertaining to land
classification, access, levels of service, utilities, zoning, and water quality. Ms.
Daughtridge provided the following staff summary:
3
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located in the northern portion of the county in an area
classified on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map as transition. Access is anticipated
to be from New Hanover Medical Park Drive, a local road that intersects with North
Market Street which is a major arterial divided roadway. Level of service on Market
Street in this segment has been rated FF, meaning traffic volume exceeds capacity. The
location is subject to the county's Special Highway Overlay District, which protects
gateway vistas primarily through a requirement for additional setbacks and buffering.
The subject property is south of the Pender County line. Pender zoning adjacent to the
subject property along the northern boundary is B-3 along the highway and R-20C at the
rear of the property. South of this property is zoned CD(O&I) to accommodate a future
medical complex for the hospital. To the east is the Salem Woods residential
subdivision. Across Market Street is a mini storage facility.
The subject property is located within the Futch Creek watershed drainage area which
carries a water quality classification of SA and HQW (High Quality Waters) and is listed
on the 303(d) impaired waters list. Over the past four years, water quality in upper
Futch Creek has experienced a decrease in water quality, most likely due to the increase
in development in this area. Portions of Futch Creek are included within the limited
area the remains open to shellfishing in New Hanover County, however the Division of
Water Quality has indicated that Futch Creek will likely be completely closed to
shellfishing due to diminished water quality. All measures should be taken in the
construction process to ensure that erosion control measures are met to prevent the
runoff of sediment into Futch Creek. Staff also recommends that Low Impact
Development (LID) techniques be incorporated into the stormwater design of the site to
ensure that water quantity and water quality goals are met.
The property is not influenced by flood hazard and no areas of 404 wetlands are
indicated. The site is in a primary recharge area for the principal aquifers or a shallow
water table sand aquifer containing fresh over salty water. Public utilities are planned
for this area.
Chris O'Keefe recommended approval of the rezoning petition stating that the area is
suitable for highway business uses based on its transition classification outlined in the
County's land use plan; access considerations; and future utilities.
Mr. O'Keefe provided the following land use plan considerations:
Land Use Plan Considerations:
4
This rezoning requests a change from medium density residential expectations to
highway business use. The change would significantly expand and intensify the range of
uses allowed.
Between 2003 and 2005, average daily traffic volume on Market Street increased by
about 8%. The addition of "superstreet" improvements in 2006 was anticipated to
improve the flow of traffic in this area.
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Transition class as
providing for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be
provided with necessary urban services. The location of these areas is based upon land
use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in land utilization and public service
delivery. In this case, services are to be installed in that area and access is available from
a local street as well as the arterial.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends approval.
Mike Nadeau representing SENCA properties LLC, provided an overview of the approved
development plans to date and stated that the rezoning would accommodate SENCA's
future plans for additional commercial and office space. Mr. Nadeau stated that the
property abuts B-3 and O&I districts and not residential districts. Mr. Nadeau also
stated that a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for a hypothetical build-out of
the entire 240 acres; the TIA was approved by the NCDOT and MPO and traffic
improvements would be implemented in phases throughout the development of Scotts
Hill Medical Center.
Dave Adams stated that he was sad to see the land obliterated because it is a unique
landscape but is pleased to hear that some of the land will be used less intensive uses,
such as retirement residences.
Mike Nadeau stated that the developer has gone to great lengths to preserve the
landscape noting that the total impervious surface of the conditionally zoned B-1 district
is less than 50% and the natural topography of Scotts Hill Medical Drive has been
preserved.
Ken Wrangell asked if Pender County's B-3 district mirrors New Hanover County's B-2
district.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the districts are similar; B-3 districts require additional
setbacks from the street and B-2 districts combined with the special highway overlay
district (SHOD) would preserve the streetscape and provide a fairly consistent
appearance along Market Street.
5
Sue Hayes questioned rezoning the property to a more intense use given the FF level of
service.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the superstreet probably improved the level of service but
could not say definitively. Mr. O'Keefe stated that if more than 100 peak hour trips
were anticipated, a traffic impact analysis would be required to determine if any traffic
improvements were necessary. Additionally, Mr. O'Keefe reminded the Board that this
area falls within the scope of the upcoming Market Street Corridor plan.
There was discussion regarding to what extent did the superstreet improve the flow of
traffic along Market Street and it was approximated that the level of service would
currently be a B or C level.
Jay Williams stated that he was surprised by the staff's positive recommendation given
the many negatives and asked staff if a conditional rezoning was considered. Mr.
Williams stated that he would like the ability to place conditions on the rezoning given
its proximity to Futch Creek.
Mike Nadeau stated that a conditional rezoning would limit the development potential
given the width of the property and plans to develop the adjacent Pender County
parcels.
Chris O'Keefe confirmed that a conditional use rezoning was not recommended because
it would limit the development potential given the narrow width of property.
Richard Collier agreed with Mr. Williams' suggestion of a conditional rezoning and
wondered why this piece of property was not originally included in the earlier
conditional rezonings.
Melissa Gott asked why the petitioner was requesting B-2 zoning rather than B-1 or O&I.
Mike Nadeau explained that the B-2 zoning was required to facilitate their development
plans with property located in Pender County. Mr. Nadeau assured the Board that
sediment and erosion runoff would not be an issue since the development is uphill of
Futch Creek.
Richard Collier asked Mr. Nadeau if the 60 foot right of way along the Pender County
line would connect to Scotts Hill Road and reiterated the concern that controls be
established over this development and that this not be a straight B-2 rezoning.
Mike Nadeau stated that there are plans to connect the 60 foot right of way to Scotts
Hill Loop Road and it would be difficult to agree to conditions since there are no definite
plans for the proposed B-2 area.
6
Melissa Gott felt that it might be problematic for the property to be conditionally
rezoned given that half of the project spills over into Fender County. Ms. Gott asked if
the petitioner might voluntarily place conditions on his development such as agreeing to
low impact development practices.
Jane Daughtridge stated that the petitioner would not be held accountable to any
conditions on a straight rezoning.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning. Jay Williams seconded
the motion. The Planning Board voted 3-3 with Hayes, Williams, and Adams voting to
recommend denial of the petition and Collier, Gott, and Wrangell voting against the
motion.
Item 4: Conditional Rezoning Request (Z-889, 7/08)- Request by Withers & Ravenel for
Greenhouse Properties to rezone 0.81 acres at 6005 Carolina Beach Road at the corner
of Manassas Dr. from R-15 Residential to Conditional O&I for a veterinary use in the
Transition land classification adjacent to the Battle Park Subdivision.
Jane Daughtridge showed maps and photographs of the property and of the
surrounding area. Ms. Daughtridge provided information pertaining to land
classification, access, levels of service, zoning, utilities, flood zones, and water quality.
Ms. Daughtridge stated that the applicant has agreed to condition the rezoning for the
use of a veterinary practice and office with indoor kennels.
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located in the southern portion of the county in an area
classified on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map as transition. Access is anticipated
to be from Manassas Dr. near its intersection with Carolina Beach Road which is a major
arterial divided roadway. Level of service on Carolina Beach Road has been rated F,
meaning traffic volume exceeds capacity.
The subject property is south of the Sanders Road intersection which has evolved into a
commercial node. The west side of Carolina Beach Road has also stripped out into
commercial districts along the divided highway frontage while the east side remains
residential. The subject property is part of the Battle Park subdivision and is currently
vacant and wooded. Adjacent property is all zoned R-15. To the south is the County's
Battle Park site. To the north and east is the remainder of the Battle Park Subdivision
and is developed with residential uses. Further north is more R-15 residential
development up to Christa Apartments.
The subject property is located within the Seabreeze watershed drainage area which
carries a water quality classification of SA and HQW (High Quality Waters). The property
7
is not influenced by flood hazard and no areas of 404 wetlands are indicated. The site is
in a shallow water table sand aquifer. The applicant plans to utilize private well and
septic system since no public services are available in this location.
As a condition for rezoning, the applicant proposes that the use of the property would
be a veterinary practice and office with indoor kennels. A companion special use permit
will bind the proposed use and restrictions to this property.
Chris O'Keefe recommended approval of the item with conditions, based on the
project's consistency with the adjacent area. Mr. O'Keefe provided the following land
use considerations and staff findings of fact and comments:
Land Use Plan Considerations:
This conditional rezoning petition proposes a change from moderate density residential
zoning to a conditional use Office & Institutional designation for the purpose of
developing a veterinary office and clinic.
The ordinance describes the situations in which conditional districts might be
considered, and notes that this procedure is intended primarily for use with transitions
between zoning districts of very dissimilar character (e.g. R-15 and B-2) where a
particular use or uses, with restrictive conditions to safeguard adjacent land uses, can
create a more orderly transition. It is not intended as a routine substitute for the
general rezoning procedure, or for frequent use, because creating a large number of
such specialized districts can lead to excessive administrative complexity and great
difficulty in maintaining consistent and predictable land use policies. The ordinance also
advises that this option is intended only for firm development proposals, and shall not
be used for tentative projects without definitive plans.
Between 2003 and 2006, average daily traffic volume on Carolina Beach Road increased
by about 8%. Average Daily Traffic on Manassas Drive showed a 50% decrease during
the same period. No Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for this project because traffic
generation estimates were below the 100 peak hour trip threshold.
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Transition class as
providing for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be
provided with necessary urban services. The location of these areas is based upon land
use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in land utilization and public service
delivery. In this case, services are not present and access is anticipated from a local
street rather than the arterial. There is a median break at this intersection on Carolina
Beach Road. The Tarin Woods Subdivision has been preliminarily approved east of
Battle Park with streets that will accommodate potential interconnectivity to Manassas
Drive via Appomattox Drive.
8
The site is just north of property purchased by the county with recreation bond funds in
1992 for use as a public park. The Parks and Recreation Department has programmed $1
million for park improvements and about $500,000 for a library on the site. It is unclear
at this time whether the county will implement the park plan.
Based on the foregoing, this proposal could be consistent with the established
residential character of the immediately adjacent area if the office were operated on an
outpatient basis. Staff recommends approval with conditions as listed in the next
section.
PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE COMPANION SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health
or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted
and approved.
A. Private well water will serve the property.
B. A private septic system will serve the project
C. The property would access a local public street.
D. Traffic counts decreased on Manassas Dr. between 2003 and 2006 but
increased on Carolina Beach Road by about 8% in the vicinity of this site
between 2003 and 2006.
E. Traffic circulation system will be awkward with respect to proximity of
the driveway to the intersection with Carolina Beach Road and the
limited stacking capacity at the median break proposed on Manassas Dr..
F. Fire Service is available from the Myrtle Grove FD.
G. The property is not located in a flood hazard area.
H. Stormwater retention is not shown on the site plan. The parcel is under
one acre but would still be subject to review under the County's storm
water ordinance.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications
of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. The property is zoned R-15 Residential District. This request is made
concurrent with conditional rezoning to CD(B-1) Conditional Business
District.
B. The proposed veterinary use is allowed by special use permit in 0&1
districts.
C. Office & Institutional uses are viewed as transitional uses between
residential and higher intensity uses.
D. Petitioner proposes 20 off-street parking spaces which exceeds the
requirement of 12 spaces.
9
E. Stormwater management is influenced by the water quality classification
of the watershed.
3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property
values of adjacent parcels.
B. Stormwater management must perform in compliance with the
requirements of the County stormwater ordinance.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed
according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the
area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of
development for New Hanover County.
A. The 2006 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Transition, which provides
for future intensive urban development on lands that have or will have
urban services. This site does not have those services.
B. The residential character in this area is clearly delineated.
Staff comments:
1. Placement of the building at the front of the lot and as far away as
possible from the adjoining residential use is a positive design feature.
2. Staff recommends a condition that no kennels for overnight boarding
of animals will be allowed.
ACTION # 2 NEEDED:
(Choose one)
1. Motion to Recommend Approval (with or without conditions)
2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or
documentation (Specify).
3. Motion to Recommend Denial based on specific findings in any of the 4
categories above, such as lack of consistency with adopted plans or
determination that the project will pose public hazards or will not
adequately meet requirements of the ordinance.
Jay Williams asked staff to clarify what is meant by "kennels."
Chris O'Keefe stated that outdoor kennels would be prohibited but that indoor kennels
would be permitted.
10
Cindee Wolf landscape architect with Withers & Ravenel representing the petitioner
provided an overview of the site plan including the stormwater plan, tree and soil
survey, traffic generator, and grading plan. Ms. Wolf stated that the petitioners would
commit to a one-story, low country building design; plan to use the building for
veterinary purposes or professional business activities only with no outside storage; and
stated that operational hours would be Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m.to 12:00 p.m. Ms. Wolf also stated that the plan is
consistent with the county's plan for transition land classification and is in harmony with
the area.
Dave Adams thought proposed plan for an underground infiltration system was
appealing but asked what plans were in effect in the event it overflowed.
Cindee Wolfe stated that the underground infiltration system is designed to the
county's standards of a 25-year storm. Ms. Wolf explained that she does not anticipate
overflow given the permeable soils, but that in the event the infiltration basin was to fill
up, water would follow the normal drainage pattern, toward the corner of Carolina
Beach Road and Manassas Drive.
Christian and Debbie Bolz, the petitioners, stated that while practicing veterinary
medicine in Wilmington, they have come to recognize the need for a veterinary office in
the Monkey Junction area. The Bolz's stated that the proposed building design is in
character with the neighborhood.
Gayle Tabor, Battle Park resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning stating that
approval might lead to more requests to locate businesses around their neighborhood.
Ms. Tabor reminded the Board that neighborhood residents had to fight the County to
keep Battle Park a park. Ms. Tabor also expressed concerns about poor drainage that
resulted in standing water after storms and increased traffic that would negatively
impact her quality of life.
Lois Kelly, adjacent property owner expressed concern that the petitioner's request
would permit other professional activities in addition to veterinary uses and increase
traffic.
Paul Mason, Battle Park resident, did not oppose the rezoning as long as it was strictly
limited to a veterinary practice. Mr. Mason expressed concern about traffic and safety
given the recent development on the west side of Carolina Beach Road.
Cindee Wolf stated in her rebuttal that traffic issues may be mitigated by the proposed
interconnectivity through Appomattox Drive and that the stormwater plan is designed
to a 25-year storm.
There was further discussion regarding drainage and kennels.
11
Sue Haves asked the petitioners if they would agree to lighting conditions, hours of
operation, and solely veterinary uses and not other professional uses.
Cindee Wolf agreed to hours of operation of Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and
Saturday 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.; that no lights would shine outside of the property and
referred to her lighting plan; and to limit the use to solely a veterinary practice.
Richard Collier made a motion to recommend approval of rezoning from R-15 to CD
(0&1). Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of the conditional rezoning.
Richard Collier made a second motion to recommend approval of the special use permit
with the following conditions:
1. No outdoor kennels;
2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday and 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. on Saturday;
3. Permitted uses are limited to a veterinarian practice and boarding is permitted
with indoor pens only;
4. Outside lighting is limited per site plan notes (Hayes)
5. Building design shall be a low-country design and located off Carolina Beach
Road (additional condition per Ken Wrangell)
David Adams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of companion special use permit with conditions.
Item 5: Special Use Permit (5-583, 7/08)- Request by Tom Johnson for Rockford
Partners, LLC to permit a community boating facility having 53 slips in the Northeast
Cape Fear River to serve the Sunset Reach Subdivision, located at the terminus of
Rockhill Road in the Conservation land classification.
Jane DauRhtridRe showed maps and photographs of the property and of the
surrounding area explaining that the applicant is requesting a special use permit to
establish a community boating facility to serve a new 53 lot residential subdivision along
the Northeast Cape Fear River. Ms. Daughtridge provided information pertaining to
land classification, access, levels of service, and zoning.
Chris O'Keefe provided the following land use plan considerations:
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the modified use will not materially endanger the public
12
health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as
submitted and approved.
A. The subject property will be accessed via pedestrian and golf cart easements
between lots 1 and 2 and lots 18 and 19 on Alvernia Drive South, a new local street
in the Sunset Reach Subdivision.
B. The docks will be served by water and a pump out facility.
C. Fire service will be provided by the Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department
D. Stormwater is not applicable to the docks.
E. Water depths have been shown on a map separate from the site plan.
F. The site is located in a primary nursery area.
2. The Board must find that the modified use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the zoning ordinance.
A. The project is located within the Northeast Cape Fear River.
B. Community boating facilities are allowed in R-20 zoning districts with a special use
permit under certain conditions.
C. The facility will serve a 53-lot subdivision called Sunset Reach, with slips available
only to lot owners, consistent with Sec. 72-37 of the zoning ordinance.
D. A total of 53 boat slips will serve the exclusive use and enjoyment of property
owners in Sunset Reach subdivision, in accordance with the definition of community
boating facility included in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
E. Off-street parking will be accommodated at home sites in the subdivision. Three
additional parking spaces will be provided near the southernmost access to allow for
loading and unloading.
F. One 23-foot access easement and one 20-foot access easement is provided and
conferred to each owner for access to the community boating facility.
G. No commercial activities are proposed or allowed for the facility.
3. The Board must find that the modified use will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. No evidence has been presented at this time that the proposed use will injure the
value of adjoining or abutting property values.
B. The community's deed restrictions disallow individual docks and piers.
C. According to the applicant, the US Army Corps of Engineers delineated the property
line based on mean high water. Although the pier appears to cross the adjacent
property not owned by the applicant, the waters of the state cannot be claimed by
the adjacent owner.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the modified use if
developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony
13
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 this location Conservation
B. The 2006 Joint Land Use Plan encourages recreational access to estuarine and public
trust waters.
C. Surrounding land uses include very low density residential and vacant land.
Staff Comments: The board typically includes a condition that there be no overhead
lighting on the facility.
David Adams asked staff for clarification as to the Board's scope for the proposal.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the Board is to consider the pier structures, access to the pier,
and the parking.
Jay Williams asked staff to explain the relevance of the Army Corp of Engineers'
delineation of the property lines.
Jane DauRhtridRe explained that the petitioner's proposal appears to encroach onto
adjacent property to the south and that the petitioner must provide evidence that there
is no high ground (e.g., marsh, hummocks, etc) in the area of encroachment before
Coastal Management will issue a permit.
Sue Hayes asked if the proposal would prevent the adjacent property owner to the
south from building a pier.
Jane DauRhtridRe stated that the proposal should not preclude the adjacent property
owner from constructing a pier.
Tom Johnson an attorney representing the petitioner, Rockford Partners stated that the
pier structure would be located below mean high water line thus the adjacent property
owners have no claim. Mr. Johnson stated they have worked with County Fire Services
and Zoning to meet fire safety and parking requirements as well as County Legal in
regards to the neighborhood covenants. Mr. Johnson stated that the project would
incorporate low impact development where appropriate and meets a recommendation
of the CAMA plan which calls for water access.
David Adams asked the petitioner to elaborate on the access to the dock via golf carts.
Tom Johnson stated that there are two golf cart pathways located on opposite ends of
the dock, each with a golf cart pass-a-round. Mr. Johnson stated that golf carts are not
permitted on the dock and there is an area designated for golf cart parking. Mr. Johnson
14
anticipated that people would use small hand carts to carry their gear from the golf
carts to their boats.
Jay Williams asked the petitioner if there were any restrictions against people staying
overnight on their boats.
Tom Johnson stated not at the present but that perhaps overnight stays might be
addresses in dock rules and regulations that are to be drafted in the future.
Steve Morris with Land Management Group stated that he is currently completing the
environmental assessment that is required by Coastal Management to build a dock. Mr.
Morris further stated that during the permitting process, CAMA will determine whether
the project encroaches onto adjacent property.
David Adams stated that he had a philosophical issue with the petitioner performing an
environmental assessment at the same time as findings of no significant impact (FONSI).
Steve Morris stated that no dredging would be required because the proposed dock is
to be located in deep water.
Tom Johnson stated that he accepts staff's conditions and requests approval.
Sue Hayes questioned whether this proposal violates the CAMA land use plan since it is
to be located in a primary nursery area.
Chris O'Keefe stated that while the CAMA plan seeks to protect primary nursery areas,
the proposal does not violate the land use plan because it does not require dredging and
is not a commercial marina.
Jay Williams made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit with the
condition of no overhead lighting. Ken Wrangell seconded the motion.
David Adams expressed concern that people would have to walk 800 feet to their boats
carrying their gear and would feel better if there was a midpoint access.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval.
Chris O'Keefe recognized David Adams for his service on the Planning Board.
The Planning Board took a brief recess.
15
Item 6: Text Amendment (A-371, 5,08) - Continued from May meeting. Request by
staff to amend Article II. Definitions and Article VI. Supplementary District Regulations
to define and specify standards for senior housing options. The change would define
and differentiate between active adult retirement communities, continuing care
communities, assisted living/personal care facilities, and nursing homes.
Jane Daughtridge stated that this text amendment was continued from the May
Planning Board meeting and modified at a work session in June. Ms. Daughtridge
outlined the following distinctions between the three levels of senior housing options:
Active adult retirement/independent living facilities would be permissible through a
petition for high density development which would require a special use permit and a
public hearing; Continuing care retirement/life care communities would be permitted by
right but with standards and not require a public hearing; Assisted care/personal care
facilities would also be permitted by right but with standards and not require a public
hearing; and finally, Nursing homes/rehabilitation centers would still require special use
permits and public hearings as is presently the case.
Ms. Daughtridge also explained that several Planning Board members expressed
concern regarding language in the proposed amendment that permitted buildings to
exceed 35 feet in height as long as their setback was equal to its height. Ms.
Daughtridge stated that this issue was addressed at the June work session and it was
determined that buildings would be permitted with standards up to 50 feet in height
when the setbacks equal the height; any buildings exceeding 50 feet in height would
require a special use permit.
Ms. Daughtridge outlined the following modified text amendment:
Section 23. DEFINITIONS
SENIOR LIVING OPTIONS
Active Adult Retirement Community or Independent Living Facility -A housing
development that may contain a variety of housing types designed for and restricted to
occupancy by households having at least one member who is 55 years of age or older,
living independently. Facilities and services would typically include features such as:
security; lawn and building maintenance; wellness, fitness, or spa services and facilities;
central meeting areas; programmed recreation or social facilities and activities;
communal garden spots; AARP Universal Design or other similar characteristics. Minimal
supportive services may also be offered to residents in senior apartment facilities.
16
Continuing Care Retirement or Life Care Community - A residential community that
accommodates changing lifestyle preferences and health care needs and offers several
levels of assistance, including all of the following: independent living, assisted living and
nursing home care. It provides a written agreement or long-term contract between the
resident and the provider community which offers insurance of a continuum of housing,
services and health care, most commonly all on one campus, and frequently lasting for
the resident's lifetime.
Assisted Living or Personal Care Facility-A managed facility providing personalized
supportive services (personal care) to seniors who need help with the activities of daily
living. These facilities make available at a minimum, one daily meal and housekeeping
services, and also provides personal care directly or through a formal written agreement
with a licensed care agency or hospice. Personal care services are services typically
provided to individuals with infirmities or limitations and commonly includes assistance
with eating, bathing, dressing or walking as well as medication management, personal
laundry service and other individualized services. Personal care would not normally
include general transportation, social or recreational offerings nor exercise, salon or spa
services, although any of these services could be offered in addition to personal care.
Nursing Home or Rehabilitation Center - A licensed facility for chronic or convalescent
patients who have remedial ailments or other ailments for which continuing medical
and nursing care are indicated but who do not require general hospital care.
(Commentary: these categories and definitions are composites from several sources,
including the NC General Statutes, the NC Department of Health and Human Services,
retirement-living.com, seniorhousing.org, senioroutlook.com. The attempt is to clarify
the broad range of housing options emerging in today's aging society in order to avoid
confusion about uses or terminologies not described in our current ordinance.)
SECTION 69.4-1
SENIOR LIVING OPTIONS
Certain senior living options will be permitted by right when the prescribed standards
outlined below are followed. Proposals which do not care to follow these prescriptions
or which desire to maximize possible density allowances within specific zoning districts
may alternatively be considered under normal special use permit requirements for high
density development. Any "bonus" features outlined in this section may not cross over
into a regular special use permit request for high density development.
Active Adult Retirement Community or Independent Living - Since this type of
development is most commonly a simple matter of segregating residents based on age
and not physical limitations, development proposals in this category shall not be
differentiated from other residential subdivisions or special use high density residential
proposals.
17
Continuing Care Retirement or Life Care Community -Since this type of development
provides a variety of residential units that accommodate older adults through the
continuum of changing needs, development proposals in this category shall be
permitted with standards as described below:
1. Minimum lot size: 20 acres
2. Parking requirements: 1.5 spaces per independent or assisted living unit plus
1 per employee on the largest shift at all facilities.
3. Density: Maximum density shall not exceed 8 living units per acre, not
including nursing home beds.
4. Maximum impervious area for the total development may not exceed 40% of
the net acreage.
5. Commercial uses in the nature of small, neighborhood shops may occupy up
to 2% of the net acreage.
6. Maximum height may not exceed 35 feet for single family structures or when
buildings are placed within 50 feet of single family residential lots or parcels.
7. Except as noted in item 6, above, maximum height may exceed 35 feet, up to
50 feet, when setbacks are increased to equal the proposed height of the
building. Heights greater than 50 feet may be considered for projects
approved under the special use permit process.
8. Public water and sewer must serve the site.
9. Open Space and improved recreational area shall be provided at a rate of
35%. Improved recreation space shall be appropriate for seniors at all stages
of lifestyle transition, such as ADA accessible walkways, gardens, and parks.
10. Vegetative buffers of not less than 20 feet are required for all proposals.
11. Traffic impacts and required road improvements must be reviewed and
approved by the MPO and NCDOT. Frontage on an arterial or collector street
is required unless located in a Planned Development as described in Section
53.5-2 (7) (O) b.
12. All other local state or federal permits or authorizations.
(Commentary: This category includes built-in "bonus" features such as reduced
parking standards; high density without the time and expense of a special use
permit review as long as prescribed conditions are part of the proposal; option for
increased height; and option for minor commercial uses to be included. Projects
which do not conform to the prescribed standards may still apply for a special use
permit for high density development under the other existing provisions of Sec.
69.4 The impervious limits and open space requirements are the same as high
density standards in R-15 districts when special use permits are required.
Permitted density bonus is 75% of the maximum high density with SUP in R-15.
Twenty acres is roughly the size of the Brightmore complex in the city.)
18
Assisted Living or Personal Care Facility - Since this type of development provides
residential units to accommodate seniors in need of assistance with the activities of
daily living, development proposals in this category shall permitted by right under the
following conditions:
1. Minimum lot size: 5 acres
2. Parking requirements: 1.25 spaces per living unit plus 1 per employee on the
largest shift.
3. Density: Maximum density shall not exceed 13 living units per acre.
4. Maximum Height shall be limited to 35 feet when buildings are placed within
50 feet of single family residential lots or parcels.
5. Except as noted in item 4 above, height may exceed 35 feet, up to 50 feet,
when setbacks are increased to equal the proposed height of the building.
Heights greater than 50 feet may be considered for projects approved under
the special use permit process.
6. when rear and side yard setbacks are increased to equal the proposed height
of the building.
7. Public water and sewer must serve the site.
8. Maximum impervious area shall not exceed 50% of the net acreage.
9. Open Space and improved recreation space shall be provided at a rate of
20% of net acreage.
10. Vegetative buffers of not less than 20 feet are required for all proposals.
11. Traffic impacts and required road improvements must be reviewed and
approved by the MPO and NCDOT. Frontage on an arterial or collector
roadway is required.
12. All other local state or federal permits or authorizations.
(Commentary: This category includes greater built-in "bonus" features such as
greater reduction of parking standards; higher density without the time and
expense of a special use permit review as long as prescribed conditions are part of
the proposal; option for increased height; and option for minor commercial uses to
be included. Projects which do not conform to the prescribed standards may still
apply for a special use permit for high density development under the other
existing provisions of Sec. 69.4 The impervious limits and open space requirements
are the same as high density standards in R-10 districts when special use permits
are required. Permitted density bonus is 75% of maximum under high density SUP
in R-10 districts.)
Nursing home/rehabilitation center - Since this type of development provides
residential care in a licensed institutional setting, the provisions of the ordinance
outlined in Sec. 72-9 of the ordinance apply. The number of beds approved should
correspond to the number of beds allocated to the applicant by an approved certificate
of need.
19
(Commentary: The name of this use changes slightly from "nursing home and personal
care facility" to Nursing home/rehabilitation center. There has been considerable
debate about the scope of "personal care" in the current definition, and several parties
have suggested projects that bear no similarity to a licensed facility providing
personalized assistance to residents with limitations, but they wish to be approved as
personal care facilities under the highly institutionalized standards for this use
category. Therefore, we have shifted personal care into a new category which more
appropriately aligns that term with assisted living. The ordinance adequately deals
with this type of development. Except for the change in name and tying the approval
to the number of beds in the certificate of need, this use and its standards would
remain the same as now.)
Sue Hayes pointed out a typo under section 69.4-1 "Assisted Living" (6.).
Staff acknowledged the typo and stated that it would be corrected.
Jay Williams suggested that the language in section 69.4-1 "Assisted Living" (11.) be
clarified to indicate that arterial or collector roads would not be required for assisted
living facilities when part of a continuing care system. Mr. Williams' suggested the
following modification: development proposals not a part of a continuing care
retirement or life care community, in this category shall be permitted by right under the
following conditions."
Jane DauRhtridRe accepted Mr. Williams' change and thought it was great.
Sue Hayes made a motion to recommend approval with the changes; Jay Williams
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the
item.
Item 7: Text Amendment (A-372, 6/08)- Continued from June meeting. Request by
David Ward to amend section 72-31(6) of the zoning ordinance to allow dry stack
storage in residential districts only as part of a new development and to remove the
term "abutting" from the setback requirements.
Jane DauRhtridRe provided background on the text amendment stating that the item
was deferred from the May Planning Board meeting to a work session held in June.
Bill Raney an attorney representing David Ward distributed materials to the Planning
Board that summarized his client's arguments for the text amendment. Mr. Raney
stated that the recently adopted text amendment regarding dry stack storage in
residential districts is flawed and that the intent of creating an adequate setback
between dry stack facilities and residential homes was lost and misinterpreted. Mr.
Raney proposed deleting the word "abutting" from the current language to rectify the
20
problem. Mr. Raney also explained that the proposed text amendment requests a
prohibition of dry stack storage only in existing residential developments and not new
residential developments.
David Ward, the petitioner stated that the proposed amendment would not completely
eliminate dry stack storage in existing residential districts because the ordinance stills
permits dry stack storage through conditional use on parcels of at least 5 acres. Mr.
Ward added that it the proposed amendment only curtails the establishment of dry
stack storage on small parcels of land.
Pat Wall, Burnett Road resident spoke in support of the amendment stating that it will
spare other neighborhoods from having to endure what their neighborhoods has had to
go through.
Tim Ward Burnett Road property owner, spoke in opposition to the text amendment
stating that the text amendment would severely limit the ability to establish dry stack
storage since that 95% of waterfront property in New Hanover County is zoned
residential and given the costs to acquire at least 5 acres of waterfront property, the
number of units would have to be maximized to make the project financially feasible.
Mr. Ward also stated that it is more fuel economical for a family to drive out to their
boat that is housed in a dry stack storage facility than to tow their boat to the water and
back. Mr. Ward also stated that the text amendment should be invalidated because
according to the "Planning Board Rules of Procedure" text amendments must be heard
at a joint work session between County Commissioners and Planning Board members.
Melissa Gott stated that the "Planning Board Rules of Procedure" were modified at the
June work session and that text amendments no longer require to be heard at a joint
work session.
Sharon Huffman Assistant County Attorney, agreed with Melissa Gott and stated that
the text amendment should be interpreted under the current rules.
Bill Raney stated in his rebuttal that if an existing neighborhood desires a dry stack
storage facility and have the necessary land, they are not prohibited from doing so; they
may apply for the facility through the conditional use rezoning process. Mr. Raney
added that he did not think that most existing neighborhoods would want a dry stack
storage facility though.
David Ward stated in the rebuttal period that of the counties in North Carolina with
zoning, none allow dry stack facilities in residential districts.
Tim Ward stated in his rebuttal that you cannot say for certainty that existing
neighborhoods would not want a dry stack storage facility. Mr. Ward stated that dry
stack storage can be attractive by limiting its height and restricting commercial uses.
21
Mr. Ward argued that flexibility should be left in the ordinance and not to establish
blanket rules.
Sue Hayes asked if staff supported removing the term "abutting" from the present
language.
Jane Daughtridge stated that if the Planning Board's intent is for dry stack storage to be
setback according to any residential property line than to remove the word "abutting";
if the intention is to simply setback dry stack storage from any viable residential
property line directly abutting, then leave the word "abutting."
Chris O'Keefe stated that a vote was not taken at the works session and it should be
decided tonight, whether to remove the word "abutting."
Jay Williams stated that he felt the intention of the amendment was to protect
residences from dry stack storage facilities that may distort the definition of a
residential line, such as private roads or common lots.
David Adams stated that he thought the Planning Board had reached a consensus
regarding removing the word abutting.
Richard Collier stated that if it is the consensus of the board to remove the word
"abutting," he could go along with it but is concerned with the second part of the
amendment which proposes only allowing dry stack storage to new developments. Mr.
Collier felt that a "one size fits all" approach like this was ill advisable and stated that
there could be an existing neighborhood that would like a dry stack storage facility in
the future and did not want to completely prohibit it.
Ken Wrangell asked staff to elaborate on the provision that allows existing subdivisions
to establish dry stack storage through conditional use rezonings.
Jane Daughtridge explained that a residential neighborhood could apply for a
commercial rezoning but would have to provide strong evidence as to the
appropriateness of locating a commercial marina among a residential neighborhood.
Ms. Daughtridge added that dry stack storage only permissible with commercial
marinas and because most of the county's eastern coast is residentially developed with
community boating facilities, it would require a scenario in which a neighborhood
wanted to change their community boating facility to a commercial marina.
Sue Hayes made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment. Jay Williams
seconded the motion.
Richard Collier asked Ms. Hayes to amend her motion to remove the word "new"; Ms.
Hayes did not accept Mr. Collier's amendment.
22
The Planning Board voted 4-2 (Gott and Collier) to recommend approval of the text
amendment.
Item 8: Text Amendment (A-373, 6/08)- Brought forward from the June 18`h work
session. Request by staff to amend Section 59.4-2 of the zoning ordinance to clarify
the applicability of the Conservation Overlay District (COD).
Chris O'Keefe provided an overview of the text amendment stating that there has been
some confusion and misinterpretation regarding the conservation overlay district
language. Mr. O'Keefe explained that staff wanted to clarify that all divisions of land,
not only subdivisions, on record as of December 1, 1984 shall be subject to the
conservation overlay district if they are partially or wholly located within a conservation
overlay district. Mr. O'Keefe also stated that the amendment intended to clarify that
only single family lots recorded prior to December 1, 1984 shall be exempted from the
conservation overlay district.
Mr. O'Keefe outlined the following changes:
New wording is underlined. Deleted language is struck through.
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
59.4-2: Applicability-The development and improvement of property, including the
gubd~g,' '^n division of land, shall be subject to these performance controls if the parcel
of record is located wholly or partially within a COD and if conservation resources, as
specified in Section 59.4-3 are associated with the parcel on record as of December 1,
1984, the effective date of this ordinance. However, the following uses on lots of record
as of December 1, 1984 shall be exempted from these controls:
(1) The development of one single family home detached structure, one residential
duplex, or the location of two or fewer mobile homes on a parcel or lot of record
as of December 1, 1984.
(2) Commercial, industrial, office or institutional development on lots of record as of
December 1, 1984 and involving a land disturbance of less than 1 (one) acre in
area.
(3) The development or guladi iginn division of a parcel of record as of December 1,
1984 that meets both of the following conditions:
(A) No part of the development or subdivision shall be located within
a distance equal to or less than the setback distance (specified in
23
Section 59.4-5) of any conservation resource or space existing on the
parcel or on a contiguous parcel of record.
(B) No part of the development or subdivision shall be located on any
portion of the parcel that is part of the upper drainage basin for any
conservation resource or space on the parcel or within the specified
setback on a contiguous parcel of record.
There was discussion of what an "upper drainage basin" is and it was suggested that
staff may consider removing (3B).
Richard Collier made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment as
presented. David Adams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to
recommend approval of the text amendment.
Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity for
the month of June.
1. Palm Grove - The TRC voted 3-0 to approve a one-year preliminary extension
with all existing terms and conditions for the 73 lot division.
2. Village at Motts Landing (Phase 1) -The TRC voted 3-0 to preliminarily reapprove
the project for two years with all existing terms and conditions for the 170 lot
division.
3. Harbor Landing - The TRC voted 3-0 to preliminarily approve the plan with
conditions. The project contains 108, 2-bedroom units with amenities.
4. Nautical Greens - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve a one year preliminary
extension with all original terms and conditions. The project contains 35 single
family lots.
5. Fowler Tract - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve the preliminary plan. The project
contains 18 lots.
6. Tidalwalk - The TRC voted 3-1 to continue the project until alleys were replaced
rights of way and other access issues could be resolved. The proposed
preliminary plan contains 207 units.
Mr. Burgess stated that the Technical Review Committee will meet next on July 9, 2008.
Melissa Gott appointed Richard Collier to serve as TRC Chair and Sue Hayes will be the
alternate in case of conflicts.
24
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director
25