200704 Apr PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 5, 2007
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, April 5, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in
the County Court House, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC to hold a public
meeting.
PLANNING BOARD PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Paul Boney, Chair Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director
Sandra Spiers, Vice Chair Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist
David Adams Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner
Melissa Gott Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
Sue Hayes
Jay Williams
Ken Wrangell
Paul Bonev opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing and led
the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ken Wrangell made a motion to approve the March minutes. Jay Williams seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the minutes.
Paul Bonev stated that Shanklin and Nichols, PA have requested that case Z-861, a
conditional rezoning to rezone approximately 16.2 acres located off N. Market Street at
Porter's Neck Road from B-1 Neighborhood Business zoning district to CD(B-2)
Conditional District Highway Business to locate a building materials and garden supplies
be continued for possible modifications to the site plan.
Sue Haves made a motion to continue item Z-861. Dave Adams seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 (Bonev abstained) to continue the item.
Item 1: Modify Conditional Rezoning (Z-838, 4/06; Modification, 4/07) - Request by
Shanklin and Nichols, PA for Mason Landing Yacht Club, LLC to modify existing
conditional district in the Resource Protection Land Classification located at or near
2029 Turner Nursery Road to add 7.69 acres from R-20S Residential District to the
existing CD (R-15) conditional Residential District.
Jane Daughtridge presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information.
1
Chris O'Keefe provided the following staff summary and findings of fact:
STAFF SUMMARY:
The property is located on Turner Nursery Road approximately'/4 mile east from Middle
Sound Loop Road. The current land use on the site is vacant land. Last year 11.46 acres
were conditionally rezoned for 25 residential units and the commercial marina with up to
60 wet slips. All of the surrounding properties are zoned R-20S. Properties west of
Middle Sound Loop Road in this general vicinity are zoned R-15 residential.
The proposed zoning change can be consistent with the county's policies for growth and
development provided the overall project density is limited to 2.5 units per acre and the
overall impervious coverage is limited to 25% as indicated on the site plan. Although
staff generally is not supportive of increasing density within close proximate to the
waterway, this request does appear to be consistent with the intent of the CAMA Plan and
the already approved adjacent CD-R-15 district. Staff recommends approval of the
rezoning.
PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS
1. The Board must find that the use as modified will not materially endanger the
public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as
submitted and approved.
A. The property is served by the Southside treatment plant and is within the
NEI moratorium area. Private sewer and private water will be provided by
the developer.
B. The property to be added is not in the 100-year floodplain.
C. Access to the property is from Mason Landing Road via Middle Sound
Loop Road.
D. Fire service is available from the Ogden Fire Department.
2. The Board must find that the use as modified meets all required conditions and
specifications of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. The modified site plan shows 43 residential units, the maximum number
allowed under Performance Residential in an R-15 could be 44.
B. The proposal increases the project area by 7.69 acres or 44% and the
number of units by 42%
C. The amount of recreational space (common area) for the original plan was
2.7 acres. The modified plan proposes 4.6 acres.
D. The amount of impervious surface for the original plan was 24.9%. The
modified plan shows impervious surface area at 23.4% for an overall
reduction.
2
E. The parking requirement is satisfied.
F. No buffering is required.
3. The Board must find that the use as modified 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 land uses nearby.
B. The land use on this new addition has been vacant land and one residence
within a Residential R-20S zoning district.
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 2005 CAMA update identifies this area as Conservation and
Watershed Resource Protection
B. Residential development at the proposed R-15 density occurs mainly in
the areas on the interior of Middle Sound Loop Rd. The existing R-20S is
established to foster an "exurban, low density lifestyle" where public
services are not available.
Ken Shanklin, an attorney representing the applicant provided an overview of the project
and showed slides of the site plan and photographs of the site. Mr. Shanklin stated that
they are requesting a modification to the existing conditional district to expand the
project's footprint and to retain the existing boat ramp for emergency purposes.
Cindee Wolf landscape architect, provided technical details of the project. Ms. Wolf
addressed lot size, streets and connectivity, storm water management, buffer, boat ramp,
and recreation area. Ms. Wolf stated that the proposal would create 18 additional
residential lots and eliminate 18 wet slips from the commercial marine use.
Sue Haves asked why the boat ramp was excluded on the approved plan but is now
included on the new proposal and what measures would be in place to prevent boaters
from using the ramp for non-emergency purposes.
Ken Shanklin stated that after discussions with neighbors it was decided that the boat
ramp should remain for emergency purposes only and that the boat ramp could be
chained off.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the boat ramp and boat facility are permitted under a special
use permit with conditions that state that the boat ramp is to be used only for emergency
purposes.
3
Malcolm Thaden, adjacent property owner and President of the Register Place Estates
Home Owners Association requested that a substantial vegetative barrier be constructed
between Register Place Estates and Mason Landing Yacht Club. Mr. Thaden felt that the
boat ramp should remain open and not solely used for emergency purposes. Mr. Thaden
expressed concern regarding the lack of fire hydrants in the Middle Sound Loop area and
recommended that developers be required to extend county water lines to fire hydrants.
It was stated that the project would be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee
(TRC) to address technical specifications.
Ken Shanklin stated that fire and buffer issues were resolved during an informal TRC
meeting; a dry hydrant system, which would pump water out of the sound for fire
protection and a larger vegetative buffer would be incorporated in to the plan.
There was discussion regarding the adequacy of the vegetative buffer. The petitioner
agreed to supplement the existing vegetative buffer with a two-row buffer, with a height
of up to 6 feet, and 50% visual opacity within one year.
Sandra Spiers made a motion to recommend approval of the item with the condition that
a 2-row vegetative buffer be installed. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning
Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the item.
Item 2: Conditional Rezoning (Z-861, 4/07) - Request by Shanklin and Nichols, PA
for ACI-Pine Ridge, LLC to rezone approximately 16.2 acres located off N. Market
Street at Porter's Neck Rd. in the Transition and Wetland Resource Protection
Land Classifications from B-1 Neighborhood Business zoning district to CD(B-2)
Conditional District Highway Business to locate a building materials and garden
supplies use.
This item was continued.
Item 3: Rezoning (Z-862, 4/07) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for Louise M.
Stevens to rezone approximately 9.25 acres in the Transition Land Classification at
4451 and 4453 Gordon Road from R-15 Residential District to R-10 Residential
District.
Jane Daughtridge presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information.
Chris O'Keefe provided the following staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
4
The subject property is located in the northern portion of the county in an area classified
as Transition on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The property is on the
westernmost segment of Gordon Road, west of I-40 and near the intersection with
Brierwood Drive. Gordon Road is a collector road on the thoroughfare plan. Level of
service has been rated A&B along this segment, meaning traffic flow is free and stable.
The subject property is currently single family residential. Adjacent to the east is
Brierwood Subdivision which is zoned R-10. The Airport Residential zoning district
abuts on the west side but the property is not within the airport approach zone.
The subject property is located within the Smith Creek watershed drainage area. The
property is not influenced by flood hazard. The site is in a primary or secondary recharge
area for the principal aquifers. County water and sewer are in place in the vicinity.
Land Use Plan Considerations:
This rezoning petition proposes a change from lower density R-15 Residential to R-10
Residential designation. Such action would result in the following possible density
scenarios:
Units (Performance) Units (High Density w/SUP)
R-15 23 94
R-10 31 157
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.
Based on the foregoing, this proposal would appear to be consistent with the strategies
for the Transition classification. Staff recommends approval.
Cindee Wolf landscape architect, representing the property owner stated that the
rezoning request is appropriate given that the property is located in a transitional land
classification; adjacent to a R-10 zoning district; is near I-40, and has water and sewer
capacity. Ms. Wolf further stated that her client has no intentions of a high-density
development but if that were to change, a special use permit would be required.
Ellen Sutliff Brierwood resident, spoke in opposition to the item expressing concern
regarding the lot size and felt that the rezoning would not increase her property value.
Ms. Sutliff expressed concern regarding drainage issues and destruction of hardwoods.
Ms. Sutcliff expressed concern if septic tanks were installed.
5
Adam Fisher adjacent property owner spoke in opposition to the rezoning citing drainage
issues, destruction of trees, and traffic. Mr. Fisher stated that the rezoning would not be
harmonious with the present non-urban setting that he enjoys.
Sharon Burger, Brierwood resident, spoke in opposition to the item citing drainage
concerns.
Cindee Wolf stated that the project would not utilize septic tanks; that traffic should not
be an issue because Gordon Road is rated a level of service "B." Ms. Wolf stated that
drainage would be managed through compliance with storm water regulations and
outlined the process. Ms. Wolf further stated that the project would be reviewed by the
TRC to address technical questions and that the residents could attend if so desired.
Sue Haves expressed concern regarding poor drainage and its negative effects on New
Hanover County residents. Ms. Hayes asked Planning staff for comment.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the County is considering a storm water program similar to the
City of Wilmington's but funding is an issue. Mr. O'Keefe stated that New Hanover
County has one of the strongest ordinances in North Carolina.
Paul Bonev also expressed concern regarding drainage in the county and explained that
older developments such as Mr. Fisher's were not held the same regulations as
developments today and consequently older developments have drainage issues. Mr.
Boney felt that drainage is something that should be considered in future planning.
Melissa Gott made a motion to recommend approval of the item based on consistency
with the County's land use plan and other appropriate matters.
Sandra Spiers seconded the motion and stated that she understands the drainage issue but
that the property is located in a transition area, along a collector road rated A&B and
would provide the county with affordable housing. Ms. Spiers further stated that she
believes the drainage to be adequate in Brierwood and that it would be protected against
new development by today's stricter stormwater standards. Ms. Spiers felt that the public
should appeal to the County Commissioners for a stormwater program to address
drainage issues like those of Adam Fisher.
Mr. Fisher stated that he was still concerned that the new development would exacerbate
his drainage issue.
Paul Bonev stated that Mr. Fisher would be protected by the newer, stricter stormwater
regulations and that future development would not alleviate his problems but would not
add to it.
The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the item.
6
Item 4: Text Amendment (A-358, 4/07) - Request by staff to amend Sections 23-62 and
72-37 relating to the dermition of and standards for Community Boating Facilities and
to amend Section 23-62.1 relating to standards for Private Residential Boating
Facilities.
Jane Daughtridge explained that the impetus for the text amendment was due to
increasing number of requests to associate lots that are not part of the riparian subdivision
in community boating facilities. Ms. Daughtridge stated that at the Planning Board's
request, language has been drafted in efforts to clarify the ordinance. Ms. Daughtridge
outlined the proposed text amendment:
(Proposed amendments are bold italics underlined)
Definitions
23-62: Community Boating Facility - A private, non-profit boating facility including a
dock, pier and/or launching ramp on property having water frontage; the use of which is
intended to serve only one subdivision or unified development having 5 or more
residential lots or residential units, and platted or developed under one name with a
common identity. The subdivision served must include riparian common area within its
platted and recorded boundaries. The right to use such a facility must be conferred by an
easement appurtenant to the residential lot it is intended to serve. No commercial
activities of any kind shall be allowed within the confines of the facility.
Special Use Permits
72-37: Community Boating Facilitv - These facilities may be permitted in the PD, R-
20S, R-20, R-15, R-10, RA, and B-1 Districts provided:
(1) It can be demonstrated that the project will have minimal impacts on water
quality, primary nursery areas, shellfishing grounds, and conservation resources.
(2) Off-street parking will be provided at a ratio of ones pace per boat slip.
(3) The number of boat slips may not exceed the number of residential lots or
dwelling units within the asseoialed de elopm°^t individual subdivision or
development served.
(4) The right to the use of the facility must be conferred by an easement appurtenant
to the residential project it is intended to serve.
(5) Commercial activities, including but not limited to sale of gasoline, oil. Marine
supplies and food stuffs, shall be strictly prohibited. (10/19/92)
(6) Boat slips are allowed only for the use and enjoyment of property owners within
the subdivision. Slips may not be sold or leased to non-owners.
(7) No overhead lighting shall be installed
(8) Deed restrictions or restrictive covenants must be conveyed in the chain of title
on any riparian lots, stating that no individual docks/piers will be allowed
Other recommendation:
7
Definitions
23-62.1: Private Residential Boating Facility - A private non-profit boating facility,
including a dock, pier and/or launching ramp on property having water frontage; the use
of which is intended to serve less than five residential lots or residential units. The right
to use such a facility must be conferred by an easement appurtenant to the residential lot
it is intended to serve. No commercial activities of any kind shall be allowed within the
confines of the facility. The number of boat slips may not exceed the number of
residential lots or residential units served
Jay Williams felt that condition #2 and #6 were contradictory and commented that
parking should be provided only if the boat slips do not solely serve property owners
within the subdivision.
David Adams suggested that condition #8 be changed to, "Deed restrictions or restrictive
covenants prohibiting individual docks or piers must be conveyed in the chain of title on
any riparian lots.
Ken Wrangell asked if the text amendment would prohibit the practice of using an
existing pier while proposing a new pier.
Jane Daughtridge stated that the proposal would require that existing piers be removed
when a new pier is constructed.
The Planning Board discussed combining conditions #2 and #6 to read,
"If slips are sold or leased to non-owners, parking must be provided at a ratio of one
space per boat slip."
Sue Haves expressed concern about leasing or selling boat slips within a community
boating facility to non-residents.
Jay Williams stated that boats slips parking must be provided if slips are sold or leased.
J.B. Piner spoke in opposition to the text amendment expressing concern about accessing
public trust waters that are hindered by docks constructed too closely to one another. Mr.
Piner advocated for 15-foot setbacks on both sides of a dock with the stipulation that a
variance could be granted by a County board. Mr. Piner felt that lots with riparian rights
should continue to be allowed 2 slips if space permitted and felt that slips could be sold
or leased only in a commercial dock not on a private or community dock.
Jane Daughtridge explained that the amendment would not change the definition of a
private residential pier; instead it would only change the ratio for a single facility that's
serves more than one lot.
8
J.B. Piner expressed his view of the differences in regulations between CAMA and the
County for docks.
The Board discussed the difficulty in enforcing dock regulations; whether slips in a
community boating facility could be leased or sold; and whether parking should be
required.
The Board suggested that, "parking may be provided at no more than one space per boat
slip."
There was discussion among the board regarding docks that obstruct public trust waters
and neighbors that waive their riparian rights to one another.
It was suggested that language be added to the ordinance to state that the County's policy
is to protect the public's ability to access public trust waters.
Paul Bonev asked Planning staff to further edit the text amendment and incorporate some
of the ideas expressed from the public hearing.
Item 5: Text Amendment (A-359, 4/07) - Request by staff to amend Section 34 of the
County's Subdivision Ordinance extending the review and approval period by the
County on Minor subdivision submittals from three (3) days to three (3) weeks.
Chris O'Keefe described the impetus for proposing the text amendment; provided the
background; and described the suggested modifications:
History
Since September 2000, the unincorporated area of New Hanover County has adopted a
number of new subdivision and engineering regulatory changes that have had a
significant impact on the time it takes to review and approve minor subdivisions. These
changes have included but are not limited to stormwater requirements, the dedication
and/or payment for recreational park space, tree mitigation, "dry" sewer installation and
certification along with sewer extensions and tap fees. Minor subdivisions are defined by
the Subdivision Ordinance as being (5) five lots or less and are reviewed administratively
by County Planning and County Engineering staffs. Presently, the County's Subdivision
Ordinance under Section 34 states that "within 3 (three) working days of its receipt of the
plat, the Planning Department shall either stamp the plan as an approved minor
subdivision, or notify the subdivider that the plat fails to conform to the definition of a
minor subdivision."
To determine an appropriate amount of time for subdivision review, staff from the City of
Wilmington Development Services Office and County Engineering staff were asked how
long it took to review and approve minor divisions. The City of Wilmington
Development Services Office indicated that the review of minor divisions "is rather
9
involved" due to the time it takes to complete all infrastructure improvements (ie, water
and sewer). Several years ago, the review process could be completed within 14 days.
City staff now indicates that time certain reviews are not possible on minor divisions.
Presently, the City's code indicates that there is no time limit for the review and approval
for minor subdivisions.
County Engineering staff has indicated that their review and approval period has
increased significantly. The review time period has increased due to adopted stormwater
regulations, "dry" sewer installation, easement issues, and the installation of water and
sewer.
Staff proposes the following modification to Section 34:
Minor subdivisions may be approved by the New Hanover County Planning Department.
The plat shall conform specifically with Section 47-30 of the North Carolina General
Statutes. Within three working weeks of its receipt of the plat, the Planning
Department shall either stamp the plan as an approved minor subdivision, or notify the
subdivider that the plat fails to conform to the definition of a minor subdivision.
Jay Williams suggested changing the amendment to "15 business days" instead of "3
weeks.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend approval of the item with the suggested
modification of "15 business days." Dave Adams seconded the motion. The Planning
Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the item.
Item 6: Text Amendment (A-352, 6/06) - Request by staff to amend Article VI and
Article VII establishing higher standards of review of traffic impacts for non-
residential development projects.
Jane Daughtridge provided the background and outlined the proposed traffic review process
for large commercial projects. Ms. Daughtridge showed slides of existing buildings that
were approximately 25,000 square feet to illustrate the type of projects that would be subject
to the new traffic review process.
Introduction
At the December 5u, 2005 New Hanover County Board of Commissioners' meeting, the
planning department received a directive from the commissioners to research methods of
regulating significant traffic impact projects. The commissioner's desire to initiate some
form of regulation was due to the enormous traffic generated by these types of land uses
and the critical state of the county's transportation infrastructure.
Some research was begun, but shortly thereafter, the Planning Department experienced
staffing changes. A workshop was held in May on the topic and a proposal to divert
projects for higher review was drafted.
10
At the June, 2006 Planning Board meeting, the draft was discussed and returned to staff
with a request for more details. Specifically:
1. There was a request to more clearly define the team outlined in 69.18-2(b) which
would be making the initial evaluation of whether or not a TIA would be
required.
2. There was considerable discussion of 69.18-2(e) relating to what the actual
criteria would be for determining whether the project was moved forward,
deferred, or reduced in size and impact, and more particulars were desired as to
an individual project's ability to reduce Level of Service to E or F.
3. It was felt the appeals process should include an appeal from denial of the project
based on the traffic impact and not just on the staff requirement for TIA.
4. The specific districts potentially affected by this provision were also of interest
to the board.
In the interim, the composition of the Planning Board changed.
At a more recent Planning Board workshop on January 19, 2007, staff asked if Planning
Board was still interested in pursuing some higher level process for traffic impact
review. Planning Board indicated it wanted to pursue as requested by Commissioners.
Subsequent to the workshop, current staff has met with Zoning Enforcement and the
MPO coordinator. As a result of those discussions, a more simplistic and straightforward
approach is being recommended by Planning Staff as shown in underlined italics below.
The MPO coordinator suggests requiring all non-residential uses that generate more than
100 peak hour trips to perform a Traffic Impact Analysis. Planning Staff agrees and
recommends this suggestion. Such a change would be consistent with the current
expectation for special uses. Certainly if 100 peak hour trips is a logical threshold for
TIA in those cases, it is a logical threshold for general inclusion in all nonresidential
projects. Such projects would be diverted from the normal site plan review while
Planning staff evaluates the TIA recommendations. Once reviewed, the project would be
re-routed back to the Inspections Department site plan review process.
1. It is anticipated that most applicants will quickly recognize when a TIA is
needed and will make contact with Planning Department prior to submission
of a site plan in order to work out the scope and perhaps even the TIA
recommendations.
2. Such preliminary attention on the part of the applicant will help avoid undue
delay in processing nonresidential site plans.
Additionally, since community concerns on large projects involve more than just
traffic generation or access aspects, it makes sense to create a size threshold for a
nonresidential project to become elevated to a Special Use. Elevating the approval will
allow the Commissioners to review the need for additional buffers, lighting limitations,
and perhaps even design standards for "big box" style projects in addition to the traffic
impact mitigation and other safeguards in the public interest.
11
(Proposed teat amendments are in underlined italics)
Section 72-39: Large Non-residential Development Projects
72-39.1 Applicability - Any non-residential project proposing gross floor area of 25, 000
sq. ft or more shall require a special use permit
72-39.2 Traffic Impact - The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Worksheet along
with the Special Use Application. Where the worksheet indicates traffic generation of
100 peak hour trips, a Traffic Impact Analysis shall also be required The application
will not be scheduled for a Planning Board agenda prior to submission of the TIA by
the published Planning Board deadline. In considering the results of the traffic impact
analysis, the Board of Commissioners may accept the recommendations of the TIA or
may require additional improvements based on identifiable cumulative impacts or
special public safety situations.
72-39.3 Additional Buffers - The Board of Commissioners may require greater buffers
where deemed appropriate to protect quality of life and property values of adjoining
residential property.
72-39.4 Lighting - The Board of Commissioners may require specific types or methods
of lighting to mitigate impacts on adjoining property.
72-39.5 Visual Impact - The Board of Commissioners may require specific building
design features, including but not limited to style, orientation, and materials, to assure
compatibility with the character of the area.
--AND--
Section 69.18 Traffic Impact - When a nonresidential project is submitted for site plan
review, the applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Worksheet along with the Building
Permit Application. Where the worksheet indicates traffic generation of 100 peak hour
trips, a Traffic Impact Analysis shall also be required The application will be diverted
to the Planning Department for review of the traffic impact analysis requirements. The
scope may be based upon cumulative impacts among several new or anticipated
developments in proximity to the proposal and may require a small area study to
evaluate those impacts. In considering the results of the traffic impact analysis, the
Planning Director may accept the recommendations of the TIA or may require
additional improvements based on identifiable cumulative impacts or special public
safety situations.
--AND--
Section 5. Table of Permitted Uses
Add under OTHER category
12
Large Non-residential Development Projects as S under all non-residential districts.
Paul Bonev expressed concern that the proposed 25,000 square foot threshold may be too
low to justify a special use permit. Mr. Boney also felt that the process would consume
considerable amounts of staff and Board time; have unintended consequences; and create
undue hardships for projects with minimal traffic impacts.
Sue Haves asked for an approximation of how many projects that are 25,000 square feet
or larger apply for building permits in New Hanover County annually.
Jane Daughtridge stated that the Zoning Department reported that there was not a
significant number of projects at or exceeding 25,000 square feet.
Jane Daughtridge cited examples of the square footages of several local businesses that
would be subject to the proposed requirements if built in the future. Ms. Daughtridge
stated that the Harris Teeter on College Road was 55,000 square feet and the Food Lion
shopping center on Carolina Beach Road and Independence was 46,000 square feet.
Sue Haves felt that 25,000 square feet was reasonable.
Jay Williams suggested including the number of access points as a possible determinant
for special use permit. Mr. Williams further stated that he concurs with Mr. Boney that
25,000 square feet seems too low and such a threshold would have unnecessary
consequences for projects such as small office complexes that would not have a
significant impact on traffic.
Paul Bonev expressed concern regarding section 72-39.5 Visual Impact, stating that the
definition of aesthetically appealing is subjective.
Melissa Gott also expressed concern regarding section 72-39.5 Visual Impact stating that
she worried that projects could be turned down based on appearance. Ms. Gott cited
large chain stores i.e., "Big Boxes" as types of projects that could potentially be turned
down.
Sandra Spiers also felt that section 72-39.5 Visual Impact is subjective and that 25,000
square feet is too low of a threshold.
Jane Daughtridge clarified that section 72-39.5 Visual Impact does not state that projects
can be turned down based on aesthetics but that projects could be required to have certain
external features.
David Adams expressed concern about making a recommendation of such magnitude
without having any public input.
There was Board discussion about holding a joint work session with the County
Commissioners to discuss the proposed amendment.
13
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend approval of the teat amendment but change
section 72-39.1 to "Applicability - Any non-residential project proposing gross floor area
of 40,000 sq. ft. or more shall require a special use permit." Jay Williams seconded the
motion. The motion failed by a vote 1-6 (Hayes).
Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney, stated that according to the Rules of
Procedure for the New Hanover County Planning Board, "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 agreed time and place. No formal action will be taken at any work session
(Amended 9/2/99)."
Paul Bonev recommended that a work session be held to further discuss the proposed
amendment. Mr. Boney stated that parties representing all aspects of the issue be invited
and encouraged public input.
Dave Adams suggested that an article be placed in the paper to solicit public input.
Chris O'Keefe provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity
for the month of March:
1. Gordon Road Station- The TRC voted 3-0 to preliminarily approve Phase III
for 23 units.
2. Alamance- The TRC voted 3-0 to preliminarily approve nine lots.
3. Cape Fear Business Park- The TRC voted 3-0 to approve 14 lots with
requirements.
4. West View of River Oaks- The TRC voted 3-0 to continue the item.
5. Porters Pointe - The TRC voted to continue the item until the April 1 lu,
meeting.
6. Vineyard West - The TRC voted 3-0 to approve a utility change from public
water to private wells.
7. Covil Crossing - The TRC voted to grant a second one year preliminary
extension for the 63 lot project.
8. Winds Harbor - The TRC voted to deny the request for a waiver from "dry"
water lines.
14
Paul Bonev stated that he was moving his residence outside of New Hanover County and
that he had informed William Caster of this. Mr. Boney stated that a replacement would
be appointed by the County Commissioners and that he would continue to serve on the
Planning Board until that time. Mr. Boney stated that he enjoyed serving on the Board.
Chris O'Keefe thanked Paul Boney for his service.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Chris O'Keefe
Planning Director
15