200708 Aug PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AUGUST 2, 2007
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, August 2, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the
Human Resources Training Room at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230
Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting.
PLANNING BOARD PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Sandy Spiers, Chair Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director
Melissa Gott, 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
Sandy Spiers opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess
led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
David Adams stated that he did not receive the minutes.
Sue Haves made a motion to approve the July minutes. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted 4-0 to approve the minutes.
Item 1: Rezoning (Z-869, 8/07) - Request by James D. Smith, Attorney for William F.
Canady to rezone approximately 1.5 acres located west of Market Street, between
Sweetwater Drive and Country Haven Drive in the Transition land classification from R-15
Residential District to 0&1 Office & Institutional District. The applicant owns adjoining
O&I property.
Jane Daughtridge presented slides of the property and provided information pertaining to land
use, zoning, access, level of service (LOS), water shed/water quality, soil type, water and sewer,
and fire services.
Ms. Daughtridge provided the following staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located off Market Street in the northern portion of the county and is
classified as Transition on the 2006 land classification map. Primary access for the proposal will
be from Country Haven Rd on the southern portion and Sweetwater Dr. on the northern portion.
The access roads are local public roads and no Level of Service has been designated. Both streets
intersect with Market Street, which is classified as a major arterial with LOS F in this location
meaning traffic counts exceed design capacity. The Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD)
applies on this the easternmost portions of the subject property.
The subject property is currently zoned R-15 and is bordered on the west by Country Haven
residential subdivision. North of the subject property is also zoned R-15 with residences in place.
To the east, the applicant owns 8001 Market Street (Canady Exterminating) directly adjacent
which is zoned O&I Office & Institutional and property to the south is part O&I and part CD(B-
2).
The subject property is located within the Greenview watershed which carries a water quality
classification of C(S W). It is within the primary recharge area for the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee
aquifers. The property is not located in a flood hazard area.
Soils are Class III, Murville and Leon soils. These soil classes are generally indicative of wet
conditions.
Public water and sewer are available in the vicinity. Fire protection is provided in this location
by the Ogden Volunteer Fire Department.
Chris O'Keefe provided the following land use considerations:
Land Use Plan Considerations:
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Transition Class as
providing for "continued intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be
provided with necessary urban services.
This rezoning petition proposes a change from the moderate density residential zoning to an
office & institutional district, expanding an existing O&I zoning district. The site has reasonable
access through and existing office park and is consistent with adjacent land uses to the south and
east.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the above analysis, staff feels that this proposal is consistent with the policies of the
land use plan. Several residents from the Country Haven neighborhood have called with
concerns about specific uses on the tract. However, O&I zoning is considered to be a transition
district between residential and other higher intensity uses. This parcel is an extension of an O&I
district and is across the street from O&I zoned property. Staff recommends approval of the
zoning change.
Kelly Shovelin, an attorney representing William Canady stated that the rezoning request is to
extend an existing O&I district to accommodate for an office expansion. Ms. Shovelin stated
there are plans to locate an office on the parcel adjacent to Sweetwater Drive but currently no
2
plans for development on the parcel adjacent to Country Haven Drive. Ms. Shovelin stated that
the rezoning is consistent with growth in the area.
David Adams asked if a drain pipe was located across the property and the direction of
stormwater flow.
Kelly Shovelin stated that a drainpipe is located between the two parcels and did not know which
direction the water drained.
Donald Caison, President of the Country Haven Home Owners Association and developer of
Country Haven spoke in opposition to the rezoning of the parcel adjacent to Country Haven
Drive because the lot is restricted to residential use by subdivision covenants. Mr. Caison
thought it illogical to rezone the parcel to Office & Institutional if it is restricted to residential
use. Mr. Caison submitted the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of the
William F. Canady Subdivision and Country Haven Subdivision, Section 1 into public record.
Mr. Caison stated that the petitioner should at least modify his rezoning request to exclude the
parcel adjacent to Country Haven Drive. Mr. Caison stated that Country Haven Drive is a
private street for the use of Country Haven residents only.
Edward McCormick Country Haven Drive resident expressed concern regarding the poor
drainage and flooding on Country Haven Drive.
There was discussion regarding the direction of stormwater drainage.
Kellv Shovelin stated in her rebuttal that she was unaware of the restrictive covenants for the lot
adjacent to Country Haven Drive but would like to proceed with rezoning the parcel adjacent to
Sweetwater Drive at least.
William Canady stated that he is more interested in rezoning the lot adjacent to Sweetwater
Drive. Mr. Canady stated that he would not utilize Country Haven Drive for ingress or egress.
Chris O'Keefe stated that O&I districts permit residential uses.
Maggie McCormick, Country Haven Drive resident, expressed concern regarding an increase of
traffic generated by another commercial business given the difficulty of turning into Country
Haven Road from Market Street.
Jay Williams read the following from the Country Haven subdivision, section 1 covenants:
3
All lots shall be used for single family residential purposes only. No business, trade,
vocation or occupation shall be permitted to be conducted at or pursued from any office,
formal or informal, on any lot. However, this restriction shall not restrain Declarant in
any way from pursuing its rightful business of developing, marketing, and selling any and
all lots (book 1344 page 183).
Sue Haves thought it illogical to rezone the lot adjacent to Country Haven Drive to O&I if it was
restricted to only residential use.
Chris O'Keefe suggested that only the lot adjacent to Sweetwater Drive be rezoned to O&I.
William Canady agreed to only rezone the lot adjacent to Sweetwater Drive.
Melissa Gott asked Mr. Canady if he would be satisfied with rezoning only the lot adjacent to
Sweetwater Drive to O&I zoning.
William Canady accepted that only the lot adjacent to Sweetwater Drive be considered for
rezoning.
David Adams made a motion to recommend approval that the lot adjacent to Sweetwater Drive
be rezoned to O&I. Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval.
Item 2: Rezoning (Z-870, 8/07) - Request by Withers & Ravanel for Louise Stevens to
rezone 9.25 acres from R-15 Residential District to R-10 Residential District at 4451 &
4453 Gordon Road in the Transition Land Classifications. The change would result in a
density change from 2.5 units per acre to 3.3 units per acre.
Jane Daughtridge presented slides of the property and gave an overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning, access, and level of service (LOS). Ms. Daughtridge provided the following
summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
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 an urban arterial road according to the Wilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Range
4
Transportation 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 which is
classified C(SW) and is listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. The property is not
influenced by flood hazard although drainage appears to be an issue on properties to the south.
The site is in a primary or secondary recharge area for the principal aquifers. Public water and
sewer are present in the vicinity.
This same proposal was submitted earlier this year but subsequently withdrawn from
consideration.
Chris O'Keefe provided the following land use plan considerations:
Land Use Plan Considerations:
This rezoning petition proposes a change from lower density R-15 Residential to R-10
Residential designation; R-10 zoning is the County's highest density and is eligible by special
use permit. Such action would result in the following possible density scenarios:
Units (Performance) Units (Hi 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.
Sue Haves asked why the item was withdrawn from the County Commissioners agenda.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the although the Planning Board recommended approval of the item,
the developer wanted to further research the area's drainage situation given the neighborhood's
concern.
5
Jay Williams inquired whether it would be an issue that the southwest corner of the property was
located in an airport residential (AR) zoning district.
It was stated that the corner of the property would be considered part of the rezoning and would
not be subject to any special AR regulations because it is located in the fringe of the AR district.
Cindee Wolf landscape architect stated that the project was withdrawn before being heard by the
County Commissioners so that a drainage study of the area could be performed. Ms. Wolf stated
that the drainage study found sections of the pipes to be undersized and drainage ditches clogged.
Ms. Wolf stated that the proposed rezoning and subsequent development would not impact the
current drainage problem. Ms. Wolf felt that the rezoning was appropriate for the area because
of the availability of water and sewer; it is located in a transition area, fronts an arterial road; and
the power lines would act as a physical border between the R-10 and AR zoning. Ms. Wolf
added that they have no interest in a high-density development.
No one spoke in opposition.
Jay Williams asked Ms. Wolf to show the location of the power lines.
Ken Wrangell asked Ms. Wolf to elaborate on the project's stormwater plan.
Cindee Wolf stated that stormwater overflow would be directed through pipes going east to west
and that no additional drainage would be generated by the proposed development.
Jay Williams made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Melissa Gott seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the item.
Consideration of Item: 5
Chris O'Keefe asked the Board to consider continuing item #5, (a teat amendment A-352 to
create a traffic impact review process for large non-residential development projects) and
schedule a public work session to further discuss the amendment.
Melissa Gott agreed that a work session should be scheduled to discuss the proposed teat
amendment.
David Adams asked the Board to confirm that there was not anyone present wishing to speak
immediately about the issue.
No one from the public indicated an immediate need to speak about the proposed teat
amendment; interested parties gave their names and would be notified once the work session was
scheduled.
6
Jay Williams made a motion to continue item #5, (a text amendment A-352 to create a traffic
impact review process for large non-residential development projects) and schedule a public
work session to further discuss the amendment. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted unanimously to continue the item and schedule a work session.
Item 3: Rezoning (Z-871, 8/07) - Request by Watertree Properties NC, LLC (Dean
Satrape) to rezone approximately 42 acres located along the Northeast Cape Fear River
near Brentwood Dr. in the Conservation Land Classifications from I-2 Heavy Industrial
District to R-15 Residential zoning district. The change would allow residential uses.
The petitioner requested that the item be continued.
Jay Williams made a motion to continue the item. Sue Haves seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted unanimously to continue the item.
Item 4: Rezoning (Z-872, 8/07) - Request by Stroud Engineering for Schroeder Builders,
LLC to rezone approximately 2 acres located at 5664 and 5670 Carolina Beach Road in the
Urban Land Classifications from O&I Office and Institutional District to B-2 Highway
Business District. The change would allow a wide range of commercial uses.
Jane Daughtridge presented slides of the property and gave an overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning, access, and level of service (LOS). Ms. Daughtridge provided the following
summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located in the southern portion of the county just south of Monkey
Junction in an area classified as Urban on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The
property is accessed from Carolina Beach Road which is a principal arterial road according to the
Wilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. Level of service has been rated
F along this segment, meaning dense traffic exceeds the design capacity of the roadway. Julia
Drive, a private local street will soon be improved along the northern portion of the subject
property and could serve as primary access to this site.
The subject property is currently vacant but zoned for office & institutional use. Surrounding
property to the west is zoned for residential uses while properties along Carolina Beach Road to
the north are zoned for conditional highway business. Additional O&I is adjacent to the south.
7
The subject property is located within the Motts Creek watershed drainage area which is
classified C(SW). The property is not influenced by flood zone. Soils are class III Leon and Lynn
Haven soil, generally indicating wet conditions. The site is a primary recharge area for the Castle
Hayne and Pee Dee aquifers. Public water and sewer are present in the vicinity.
Chris O'Keefe provided the land use plan
Land Use Plan Considerations:
This rezoning petition proposes a change from Office & Institutional zoning to higher intensity
commercial use. B-2 requires a minimum district size of 5 acres and this property is
approximately 2 acres, however, adjacent property to the north is currently zoned CD(B-2),
making this an extension of an existing B-2.
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Urban class as providing
for continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban areas. Policy 4.3 of
the Land use Plan goes on to say that commercial development should be clustered around
identified nodes at major intersections and that the quality of life in nearby residential
communities should not be jeopardized.
B-2 is the County's least restrictive commercial zoning district and is not intended to serve as a
transition to residential areas. Extending commercial zoning further from the identified
commercial node at monkey junction serves to further commercial sprawl which can cause
traffic problems on already overburdened roadways. Based on the foregoing analysis, this
proposal would appear to be inconsistent with the land use plan and nearby residential
development therefore staff recommends denial.
Jimmy Fentress, with Stroud Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant Schroeder Builders.
Mr. Fentress stated that water and sewer would be extended from the subdivision to the
immediate west of the subject property, Sycamore Grove. Mr. Fentress also stated that a
proposed public right of way with a deceleration lane would provide access to the property. Mr.
Fentress stated that he is concerned that the Planning staff has recommended denial and would
like to address their concerns as well as the neighbors.
Al Middleton adjacent property owner asked the applicant what specific types of commercial
uses were envisioned for the property and what improvements for slated for Julia Drive.
Charles Mullen adjacent property owner spoke in support of the rezoning. Mr. Mullen stated
that there are natural boundaries along John Henry Drive and Lobos Lane that would act as
natural buffers between residential and business. Mr. Mullen stated that he had intended to
rezone his property to commercial also and felt the B-2 rezoning was appropriate given the
recent conditional B-1 rezoning on the other side of Carolina Beach Road. Mr. Mullen stated
that the proposal is consistent with the County's Land Use Plan.
8
Jimmy Fentress stated that in addition to Lobos Lane acting as a natural barrier, he would
comply with the County's setback and buffer requirements. Mr. Fentress asked if staff would be
more receptive to a conditional use and if so would withdraw his application and return with a
list of uses that are acceptable to all parties.
Chris O'Keefe informed the petitioner that he would have to wait 12 months to resubmit an
application if he withdrew it but that the Planning Board could grant a continuance instead.
Jay Williams stated that he was surprised by the staff's recommendation for denial given that
Lobos Lane and John Henry Drive provide interconnectivity and act as natural buffers between
residential and commercial.
Sue Haves commented that to rezone the O&I district would take away the transition between
residential and commercial.
Sandra Spiers informed the petitioner that when a rezoning is near a residential neighborhood, it
is helpful to specify the exact use when going before the County Commissioners.
Jimmy Fentress stated that he would prefer to identify a list of uses amenable to all parties
instead of a site plan.
Richard Collier asked staff to confirm that conditional use districts require specific plans; if the
project met the minimum size requirements for a B-2 district; and if this would be a catalyst for
additional B-2 requests for parcels immediately south of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Collier
recalled the Board stating previously that conditional districts should not be substitutes for
unsuccessful rezoning requests.
Chris O'Keefe confirmed that the goal of a conditional use district is to link the land to a site
plan but added that there are some petitions which include a short list of uses specific for the site
plan. Mr. O'Keefe stated that the property would qualify for B-2 rezoning since the property is
adjacent to a conditional B-2 district. Mr. O'Keefe agreed with Mr. Collier's remarks that
conditional use districts should not be substitutes for unsuccessful rezoning requests. Mr.
O'Keefe further stated that the staffs' recommendation for denial attempted to set an edge to the
commercial sprawl; tonight's testimony reinforced the notion that requests for additional
commercial districts would continue.
Melissa Gott stated that there must be a transition between residential and commercial areas and
that the current O&I district serves that purpose. Ms. Gott advised the petitioner if he was to be
successful, to prepare a very detailed plan with a very limited list of uses.
9
Dave Adams made a motion to continue the item until the September Planning Board meeting.
Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously to continue the item
until the September Planning Board meeting.
Item 5: Text Amendment (A-352, 4/07) - Request by staff to amend Article VI, Creating
Section 69.18: Traffic Impact Review Process and Section 72.39 Large Non-Residential
Development Projects making commercial projects of greater than 25,000 sq. ft. gross floor
area subject to special use permit.
Jay Williams made a motion to continue item #5, (a teat amendment A-352 to create a traffic
impact review process for large non-residential development projects) and schedule a public
work session to further discuss the amendment. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted unanimously to continue the item and schedule a work session.
Item 6: Text Amendment (A-358, 4/07) - Request by staff to amend Sections 23-62, 23-62.1,
and 72-37 relating to conditions for community boating facilities and private residential
boating facilities as neighborhood amenities to residential subdivisions.
Jane Daughtridge provided the background of the proposed teat amendment stating that the
amendment is intended to clarify the definitions and standards of a "community boating facility"
and a "private residential boating facility."
Ms. Daughtridge proposed the following underlined language be added to the definitions section
of the zoning ordinance:
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.
23-62.1: Private Residential Boating Facility - A private non-profit boating facility,
including a dock, pier and/or launching ramp on common area property having water
frontage; the use of which is intended to serve more than one but less than five
residential lots or residential units. The right to use such a facility must be conferred by
10
an easement appurtenant to the residential lots it is intended to serve and deed
restrictions or restrictive covenants shall be conveyed in the chain of title for any
riparian lots, stating that no individual docks/piers will be allowed. 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 ofresidential lots or residential units served
Ms. Daughtridge also explained that specific conditions have been consistently attached to
special use permit applications for community boating facilities by the Planning Board and thus
should be mandated into the County's zoning ordinance. Ms. Daughtridge proposed that the
following underlined conditions be adopted into section 72-37:
Community Boating Facility - 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) Based on the size and configuration of the subdivision served additional off-street
parking wi4 Abe pfavided required at a ratio of one space per boat slip.
(3) The number of boat slips may not exceed the number of residential lots or dwelling units
within the individual subdivision 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 enioyment 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 shall be conveyed in the chain of title on the
riparian subdivision lots stating that no individual docks/piers will be allowed
Ms. Daughtridge provided the Board with a copy of the City of Wilmington's regulations for
community boating facilities for their consideration. Ms. Daughtridge explained that the County
and City are working together to standardize their regulations since there have been occasions in
which the landward development is in the City but the County has water jurisdiction.
Dave Adams suggested moving language from the definitions section to the special use section
of the zoning ordinance; made punctuation edits; asked that a sentence be added to protect the
public's right to access and navigate public waters and prevent the encroachment of boating
facilities, piers, etc; and change section 72-37(2) to read, "Based on the size and configuration of
the subdivision served, additional off-street parking may be required at a ratio of no more than
one space per boat slip."
11
Jay Williams suggested editing section 72-7 (6) to permit the lease of boat slips only if parking is
provided.
Jane Daughtridge commented that the City of Wilmington's ordinance only allows for the sale or
lease of boats slips in a marina and prohibits commercial activity in a community boating
facility.
Sue Haves felt that more traffic would be generated around a subdivision with the sale or lease of
boat slips.
Several Board members objected to the sale of slips but felt that the lease of boat slips is a
private issue that subdivision covenants should address.
Ken Wrangell suggested discussing the proposed amendment at the upcoming worksession.
No one from the public spoke.
Sue Haves made a motion to continue the item until the worksession. Ken Wrangell seconded
the motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously to continue the item.
Item 7: Text Amendment (A-360, 8/07) - Request by staff to amend Section 51 of the
Subdivision ordinance increasing maximum dollar amounts for Guarantees of
Improvements from $100,000 to $8 million.
Sam Burgess provided the following background of the item:
Section 51 Background
Section 51 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance places a monetary cap of $100,000 and 25%
improvements complete on any final plat phase of a preliminarily approved residential or commercial
subdivision where a developer/subdivider/builder wants to post a Standby Letter of Credit,
Performance Bond, or cash in lieu of constructing the improvements.
This amendment to Section 51 was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in March, 2003.
Until recently, the process of requiring a $100,000 monetary cap with 25% of completed
improvements worked well with the development community.
12
However, with the recent rezoning approvals of two new large Planned Unit Developments (PD),
Planning staff anticipates that projects of that size will command greater surety estimates than 100,000
dollars. This increase would be due not only to the size of the project, but also the cost of construction
materials, off-site road improvements, and extending existing utilities to the site.
Knowing that the $100,000 monetary cap may pose a problem in the future for large scale type
projects, Planning staff is recommending a Text Amendment to Section 51. The new provision would
allow developers of approved preliminary projects consisting of 100 acres or more to post a surety up
to $8,000,000 with 25 % improvements complete.
Mr. Burgess presented the proposed text amendments options:
Option #1
51-1 (2) Except in the case of Minor Subdivisions, subdividers of approved preliminary
proiects containing 100 acres or more may provide a financial guarantee in lieu of
constructing improvements for any final plat phase of the project if the total cost of the
improvements and administration does not exceed $8,000,000 dollars and 25% or more of the
total value of improvements within the subdivision have been installed. Developers with
approved preliminary projects consisting of less than 100 acres may provide a financial
guarantee in lieu of constructing improvements provided that the total cost of the
improvements for any final plat phase of the project does not exceed $100, 000 dollars and 25
% or more of the total value within the subdivision have been installed The surety limit
stated in this section shall be adjusted annually in accordance with an appropriate established
index as approved by the City and County Attorney.
Option # 2
51-1 (2) In the case of a phased development or a subdivision approved under a Planned
Development District (PD) zoning designation, subdividers may provide a financial
guarantee in lieu of constructing improvements provided that the total cost of such
improvements and administration does not exceed $8,000,000 and 25% or more of the total
value of improvements within the phased development or PD. The surety limit stated in this
section shall be adjusted annually in accordance with an appropriate established index as
approved by the City and County Attorney.
Option # 3
51-1 (2) In the case of a phased development or subdivision approved under a Planned
Development District (PD) zoning designation, subdividers may provide a financial
guarantee in lieu of constructing improvements provided that the total cost of such
improvements and administration does not exceed 25% or more of the total value of
improvements within the phased development or PD. The surety limit stated in this section
shall be adjusted annually in accordance with an appropriate established index as approved by
the City and County Attorney.
13
Alternative Proposal submitted by Jay Williams
51-1 (2) Except in the case of Minor Subdivisions, subdividers of approved preliminary
proiects may provide a financial guarantee in lieu of constructing improvements if the
total cost of platted but not constructed improvements does not exceed
. Said financial guarantee shall be in the form of an irrevocable letter
of credit payable on demand to the County in an amount of not less than 125% of the
total cost of platted but not constructed improvements.
Michael Lee, commercial real estate attorney, asked to see a copy of Jay Williams' proposal.
Melissa Gott thanked Jay Williams for his research on the topic and was partial to Brunswick
County's policy on guarantees of improvements.
Jay Williams stated that his proposal is modeled after Brunswick County's policy and has not
heard of any issue of incompletion of improvements. Mr. Williams also stated that he received
feedback from stakeholders in the community who said that they favored Brunswick County's
policy as well.
Sam Burgess stated that the developer should have some degree of improvements in place so that
the County will not be responsible for the completion of the improvements if the developer
should default on their bond.
Richard Collier favored the proposal that mirrored Brunswick County's policy. Mr. Collier
suggested that developers be required to obtain a letter of credit for 125% of the estimated
construction improvements instead of requiring 25% of actual construction improvements in
place prior to final plat approval.
There was discussion among the Board and Staff regarding the differences between letters of
credit and performance bonds; the proposed $8 million cap; and variations of the proposals.
Michael Lee commercial real estate attorney, commented on the differences between bonds and
letters of credit. Mr. Lee stated that bonds are easier to obtain than letters of credit but are more
difficult to collect the funds. Mr. Lee stated that there should not be a cap placed on the surety.
Sue Haves made a motion to continue the item and discuss it further at a work session. Dave
Adams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-2 to continue the item (Gott and
Williams).
14
Item 8: Text Amendment (A-361, 8/07) - Request by staff to amend Section 111 of the
zoning ordinance to require applicants to conduct a community information meeting prior
to submission of requests for Planned Development, Riverfront Mixed Use, or Condition
Use District zoning actions.
Jane Daughtridge provided the background for the item stating that the impetus for the
amendment grew out of public outcry during the relocation of River Road. Ms. Daughtridge
explained that most urban communities require public meetings and that the proposed text
amendment is similar to the City of Wilmington's ordinance.
Ms. Daughtridge provided highlights of the following proposal:
Sec. 111-2.1. Required community information meeting before consideration.
Before an application will be accepted as complete for a zoning amendment for
proposals involving Planned Development, Riverfront Mixed Use District, or Conditional
Use Zoning District, the petitioner must include a written report of at least one (1)
community information meeting held by the petitioner. The community meeting shall be
held prior to submission of the application for map amendment. The primary purpose of
the meeting is to explain the upcoming proposal and field questions from people in the
surrounding area.
At a minimum, written notice of such a meeting shall be given to the adjacent or
immediately affected property owners (usually considered to be property owners or
leaseholders within 100 feet of the subject property) and any organizations entitled to
notice based on a standing written request on file with the Clerk to the Planning Board.
The meeting should focus on information exchange between an applicant and the specific
invitees but should be open to the general public as well.
The report shall include, among other things:
1. a listing of those persons and organizations contacted about the
meeting and the manner and date of contact;
2. the date, time and location of the meeting;
3. a roster of the persons in attendance at the meeting;
4. a summary of issues discussed at the meeting; and
5. a description of any changes or adjustments to the rezoning petition
made by the petitioner as a result of the community meeting.
In the event the petitioner has not held at least one (1) meeting pursuant to this
subsection, the petitioner shall file a report documenting efforts that were made to arrange
such a meeting and stating the reasons such a meeting was not held. The adequacy of a
meeting held or report filed pursuant to this section shall be considered by the Planning
15
Board in its decision and by the County Commissioners, as appropriate but shall not be
subject to judicial review.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend approval. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The
Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend approval.
Item 9: Text Amendment (A-362, 8/07) - Request by staff to amend Section 71-1 of the
zoning ordinance to add language establishing a policy on resubmittal of denied special use
permit applications.
Jane Daughtridge provided background on the item and explained that the proposed text
amendment stemmed from a past case which appeared before the County Commissioners three
times. Ms. Daughtridge explained that special use permits are not subject to waiting periods like
rezoning petitions. Ms. Daughtridge outlined the following text amendment:
Section 71-1(10)
Resubmittals. An application for a special use which has been previously
denied may be resubmitted only if there has been a change in circumstances as
determined by the planning director or the director's designee.
Evidence presented in support of the new application shall initially be limited to
what is necessary to enable the planning director to determine whether there has been a
substantial change in the facts, evidence, or conditions of the case and shall include:
1. Circumstances affecting the property that is the subject of the application which
have substantially changed since the denial; or
2. New information available since the denial that could not with reasonable
diligence have been presented at a previous hearing.
If the planning director deems the evidence substantially changed, the
proposal may be resubmitted as a new application.
Appeal of the planning director's decision may be made to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Sue Haves asked if there should be a limit on the number of resubmissions.
Jay Williams asked if the meaning of "substantial change" should be more clearly defined to
include "that is likely to affect the outcome."
16
Jay Williams made a motion to recommend approval. Sue Haves seconded the motion. The
Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend approval.
Item 10: Text Amendment (A-363, 8/07) - Request by staff to amend Section 111 of the
zoning ordinance to establish a policy and procedure relating to continuances of rezoning
cases.
Jane Daughtridge provided the background on the item explaining that for various reasons
applicants request continuances that consequently cause a variety of problems for the public and
Planning staff. Ms. Daughtridge explained that continuances cost the department money in
advertising, staff time, fuel, and printing.
Ms. Daughtridge outlined the following amendment:
REQUEST:
Add the following language and also modify Section 111-3(4) and (5)
Sec. 111-3 (6) All requests for continuances of proposals and petitions involving a
change of zoning shall be subject to the following policies:
1. If an applicant requests that an item be delayed for consideration on the Planning
Board agenda, the request must be in writing to the Planning Director and must include
the reason(s) for the requested delay. If the request is received
a. prior to notice being sent to the newspaper for advertising,
the Planning Director may remove it from the agenda and calendar it for the next
meeting. No additional fee will be required. Only one administrative continuance
is allowed per permit application.
b. after notice has been sent to the newspaper, the item will remain on
the agenda and the planning board will act on the request for continuance of the
item at the meeting. The board is under no obligation to grant a continuance. If
continued, a fee of $300 will be charged and the item will be rescheduled for the
next upcoming meeting of the board or some other date certain. If the applicant
fails to appear at the meeting or fails to pay the additional fee by the publication
deadline, the proposal will be deemed withdrawn and a new application process
will be required.
2. If an applicant requests delay of consideration from the Board of County
Commissioners agenda, the request must be in writing to the County Manager,
copied to the Planning Director, and must include the reason(s) for the request. If the
request is received
17
a. prior to notice being sent to the newspaper for publication, the
Planning Director will remove the item from the list of planning items being sent
for the Manager's agenda and calendar it for the neat regular night meeting. The
Planning Director will immediately cause correction of the signage posted
noticing the public hearing. A fee of $100 will be paid to the NHC Planning
Department to offset the cost of fuel and staff time to correct the signage.
b. after notice has been sent to the newspaper, the item will remain on
the agenda and the Commissioners will act on the request for continuance of the
item at the advertised meeting. The Commissioners are under no obligation to
grant a continuance and may choose to hear the item and act on it. If continued, a
fee of $300 will be paid and the item will be rescheduled for the neat regular
hearing meeting or some other date certain. If the applicant fails to appear at the
meeting or fails to pay the additional fee by the publication deadline, the proposal
will be deemed withdrawn, and a new application process will be required.
Sue Hayes suggested editing the amendment to refer to the department's current fee schedule
instead of listing a dollar amount since fees are subject to change.
Jay Williams asked if continuances are re-advertised.
Jane Daughtridge stated that continuances are re-advertised.
Sue Hayes made a motion to recommend approval with the change from dollar amount to current
fee schedule. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board unanimously voted to
recommend approval.
Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity for the
month of July:
1. Stones Edge - The TRC voted 4-0 to re-approve the preliminary project for two years for
67 lots with the original preliminary terms and conditions.
2. Myrtle Landing - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve the project for 140 units with
requirements.
Sam Burgess stated that the TRC would meet neat on August 8, 2007.
The Planning Board scheduled a work session for August 23, 2007 at 12:00 pm.
Hearing no further business, Sand,, SSpiers adjourned the meeting at 8:30.
18
19