200709 Sept PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 6, 2007
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, September 6, 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
Sand Spiers opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the
reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sue Haves made a motion to approve the August minutes. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted 6-0 (Gott arrived after the vote) to approve the minutes.
Item 1: Rezoning (Z-873) - Request by Jesse Yates and John Thompson to rezone approximately 4
acres located at 5111 and 5119 Carolina Beach Road in the Urban land classification from CD(0&1)
and R-15 to B-2 Highway Business District. The change would allow a wide range of commercial uses.
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 in the southern portion of the county in an area classified as Urban on the
2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The property is accessed from Carolina Beach Rd. which is a
principal arterial road according to the Wilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan.
Level of service has been rated E along this segment, meaning traffic is moving at the design capacity of the
roadway.
The subject property is currently developed with houses. Directly adjacent to the east is another residential
lot which is currently zoned R-15. Thereafter, the zoning pattern transitions to CD(B-2) in association with
the Lowe's/Walmart commercial complex. To the west is Willoughby Park residential community which
was taken into the City as a satellite annexation several years ago. Across Carolina Beach Road is older
residential property, and slightly north is the Conditional Use B-2 district associated with the Monkey
Junction Self-Storage project recently amended.
-over-
The subject property is located within the Mons Creek watershed drainage area which is classified C(SW).
The property is not within the 100 year flood zone. Soils are class II Stallings with only moderate
limitations for septic systems. Public water and sewer are present in the area
Chris O'Keefe provided the following land use considerations:
Land Use Plan Considerations:
This rezoning petition proposes a change from Conditional Use Office & Institutional and R-15 Residential
to B-2 Highway Business District on approximately 4 acres of land. The CD(O&I) portion (1.65 acres) was
conditionally zoned in August of 2002 for professional offices or a barber/beauty shop, using the existing
structure for those purposes. The R-15 portion (2.4 acres) of the proposed change has an occupied
residential dwelling near the road but vacant land extends along the property boundary with Willoughby
Park development to the northwest and then terminates on the north at a boundary with Lowe's Home
Improvement store.
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.
Rezoning these parcels isolates one remaining residential parcel between the existing Monkey Junction
commercial district and the subject property. This parcel is already an anomaly since property to the north
is zoned for office use. For these reasons Staff would recommend approval of this rezoning request
expanding the Monkey Junction commercial node northward.
Jesse Yates the petitioner, stated that he is requesting the B-2 zoning so that he may operate an automobile
sales lot on the property and cannot do that under the current zoning. Mr. Yates stated that the area is
appropriate for B-2 zoning given the surrounding commercial area. Mr. Yates stated that the proposed
business would not impact the adjacent neighborhood (Willoughby Park). Mr. Yates further added that the
current zoning is not the best use of the land.
Warren Rice President of the Willoughby Park Home Owners Association spoke in opposition to the
rezoning stating that the B-2 zoning is not appropriate given the proximity of homes to the proposed
rezoning. Mr. Rice stated that a car lot would generate traffic and shine bright lights onto their
neighborhood throughout the night. Mr. Rice was also concerned with what types of businesses could
locate there after the car lot given the unrestricted B-2 uses.
Donald Potts, Willoughby Park resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning stating that B-2 zoning would
negatively affect the quality of life for the Willoughby Park residents; would generate noise and traffic; and
would lower their property value.
Peggv Farrell, Willoughby Park resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning stating that the rezoning would
negatively impact a much greater population than it would benefit. Ms. Farrell stated that the rezoning
would exacerbate the traffic and deteriorate the quality of life for the large senior population residing at
Willoughby Park.
Nancy Mize, Vive President of the Willoughby Park Home Owners Association spoke in opposition to the
rezoning and thought it illogical to negatively impact an entire community for one person.
David Umeda, Willoughby Park resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning stating that their quality of life
and property values will be negatively impacted.
Neil Simmons, Willoughby Park resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning stating traffic concerns. Mr.
Simmons stated that he was amenable to the O&I zoning because it provides a buffer between their
residences and the commercial area.
Jesse Yates stated in his rebuttal that commercial zoning would have a positive impact on adjacent
residential property values and cited Manhattan as an example. Mr. Yates also stated that Willoughby Park
residents should have had the foresight when they decided to purchase their homes adjacent to a Walmart
that more commercial growth would follow.
Warren Rice stated in his rebuttal stated that in Manhattan, commercial districts are not located near
residences. Mr. Rice stated that he did not object to the current O&I zoning but opposes unrestricted
commercial (B-2) zoning next to Willoughby Park.
Jerome Fox Willoughby Park resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning and stated that as a businessman
himself, he would never locate a structure that would harm others. Mr. Fox stated that he does not object to
business; only to those which are obtrusive.
Sue Haves commented that the B-2 zoning is inappropriate for the location and is opposed it. Ms. Hayes
stated that the Willoughby Park residents need a buffer.
Melissa Gott inquired what was the opinion of the property owner who is located between the proposed
rezoning and the CD (B-2) district (5123 Carolina Beach Road).
Jesse Yates explained that the owner, Salvatrice Weaver, does not live on the property and is currently
renting the property.
Dave Adams expressed concern regarding rezoning the property to B-2 and subsequent construction given
the delicate condition of Salvatrice Weaver. Dr. Adams also thought that the petitioner had a poor business
proposal given the narrow width of the property.
Sandra Spiers proposed a compromise and suggested that the property be rezoned to O&I instead of B-2;
Ms. Spiers asked staff to list some of the possible O&I uses.
Jane Daughtridge listed a few O&I uses including: wholesale nursery & greenhouse, neighborhood
drugstore, banks, barber, printer, and funeral home.
Jay Williams, agreeing with the Board's comment stated that B-2 is the wrong choice for the area,
Willoughby Park needs a buffer.
Melissa Gott asked Planning Staff why they support the B-2 rezoning. Ms. Gott also inquired the difference
between this case and a prior case, similar to this, in which the Planning Staff recommended denial of a
proposed B-2 rezoning along Carolina Beach Road.
Chris O'Keefe explained that the property connects with a larger commercial node, thus conforming to the
Planning Staff's efforts to cluster commercial development in the Monkey Junction area. Mr. O'Keefe
stated that the zoning ordinance requires sufficient buffer and Ms. Weaver might be pleased by the rezoning
given a commercial rezoning would increase the value of her property. Mr. O'Keefe further explained that
-over-
the Planning Staff recommended denial of a previous request for B-2 rezoning further south along Carolina
Beach Road because of the need to curb commercial sprawl along Carolina Beach Road.
Ken Wrangell asked the petitioner if he would like to consider withdrawing his petition and submitting an
application for O&I zoning.
Jesse Yates expressed concern regarding the restrictions imposed by the conditional use O&I zoning district.
Dave Adams explained to the petitioner that the recommendation for O&I zoning would allow him to any of
the permitted O&I uses.
There was Board discussion regarding the one-year waiting period for rezoning requests. It was stated that
if Mr. Yates withdrew his application, a one-year waiting period would be imposed on the property, thus,
prohibiting any petitions for rezoning. It was also stated that Mr. Yates could request a continuance until a
date certain and modify his petition.
Jesse Yates stated that he would like to proceed and asked the Board to vote on his petition. Mr. Yates
further stated that the Willoughby Park residents must recognize that they have chosen to reside near a
commercial area and they could purchase his property if they want to retain a buffer. Mr. Yates stated that
he hoped that the Planning Board would follow the Planning Staff's recommendation and not succumb to
political pressure.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the petition. Dave Adams seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted 6-1 (Gott) to recommend denial of the petition.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the petitioner would need to formally appeal in writing to the Clerk to the Board
of County Commissioners to request that his petition be heard before the Commissioners.
Item 2: Conditional 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
Conditional Use District CD(R-15) for recreational amenities associated with a residential
subdivision. (Continued from August meeting to revise to CD)
Chris O'Keefe stated that the petitioner has been working with Planning Staff to address project issues.
Tom Johnson an attorney for the petitioner, stated that the residential portion of the proposal is awaiting
Technical Review Committee approval and requested a continuance until the October Planning Board
meeting.
Melissa Gott made a motion to continue the item until the October Planning Board meeting. Jay Williams
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to continue the item.
Item 3: Special Use Permit (5-578, 9/07) - Request Ward & Smith, PA for GLT Properties and
Blacher Properties, LLC to place a 130 bed nursing home facility on 15.13 acres in the R-15
residential zoning district at 611 Piner Road and 5635 Wood Ridge Road in the Transition Land
Classification.
Jane Daughtridge presented slides and site plan of the property. Ms. Daughtridge provided an overview of
the site's history, land use, zoning, access, and level of service (LOS).
Chris O'Keefe provided the following findings of fact:
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located
where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is located within the Myrtle Grove Volunteer Fire District.
B. Public water and sewer are located in the vicinity.
C. A portion of the subject property along the northern property boundary is located in a 100-year
floodplain.
D. Primary access to the site is proposed to be from Junction Creek Drive (a private street in Junction
Creek Business Park) to S. College Road, an identified urban major arterial. Secondary access will
be to Piner Road from Clayton Horn Dairy Road, an unpaved private right of way.
E. Traffic generation as submitted by the applicant indicates trip generation under 100 peak hour trips
per day, therefore, no Traffic Impact Analysis was required by the county for this review.
F. Interconnectivity to the adjacent residential subdivisions via Wood Ridge Road and Mallard
Crossing Drive is not proposed.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning
ordinance.
A. The site is located in an R-15 Residential Zoning District. A Special Use Permit allows a hospital or
nursing and personal care facility in these districts under certain conditions outlined in Section 72-9
of the ordinance.
B. The proposed lot size is 15.13 acres, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 2 acres.
C. The proposed site plan shows the structure setbacks at more than 100 feet from property lines on the
west, north and east. The ordinance calls for a minimum of 50 foot setbacks for side and rear yards
and a front yard which is 25 feet greater than the normal for the R-15 (therefore, 50 feet). The south
setback, which functions as a side setback, is influenced by an existing 40 foot drainage easement
which traverses the property and sets the building about 20 feet from that easement.
D. Off-street parking is shown at 108 spaces, which exceeds the requirements of Section 81-1 of the
ordinance.
E. Buffers to screen the non-residential use from residential uses must meet the minimum requirements
of Section 67-4(2) of the ordinance, which says the buffer must be 50% of the required setback, or in
this case, 25 feet. (The site plan shows only 20 feet of buffer along the eastern boundary.) Other
provisions of Section 67 also apply.
F. Stormwater is proposed to be provided by under-pavement infiltration basins and must meet the
requirements of the County's Stormwater Ordinance. (Site Plan says "City")
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. Surrounding properties are residential or Office & Institutional in nature.
-over-
B. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property values.
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 New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies this location as Transition and
Conservation. The Transition Class is intended to provide for "continued intensive urban
development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The purpose
of the Conservation class as providing for effective long-term management and protection of
significant, limited or irreplaceable natural resources while also protecting the rights of the property
owner. Management of these areas may be required for a number of reasons, including natural,
cultural, recreational, productive or scenic values, but are primarily flood prone areas.
Staff Comments:
1. Staff feels the findings are positive, provided site plan corrections are made to reflect the
discrepancies above.
2. In accordance with Section 71-1(4) of the ordinance, SUP, if issued shall become null and void if
construction or occupancy of the proposed use as specified is not commenced within 24 months
of the date of issuance. Limited 6-month extensions are possible under the provisions outlined in
the ordinance.
3. Any federal, state or other local rules as well as general provisions of the zoning ordinance must
be followed.
Tom Johnson an attorney with Ward and Smith representing the petitioner asked Cindee Wolf to present
the plan details.
Cindee Wolf landscape architect with Withers & Ravenel provided the site plan details including: primary
and secondary access; stormwater management through detention ponds; public water and sewer; and
emergency services access. Ms. Wolf stated that the nursing home facility is appropriate for the area and
would provide a necessary service for the Monkey Junction area. Ms. Wolf added that adjacent property
owners were sent site plans and project narrative.
Jim Swartwout adjacent property owner expressed concern regarding stormwater drainage, mosquitoes,
interconnectivity, buffer, and dumpster placement.
Don Huovinen, adjacent property owner expressed concern about stormwater drainage and noise from
HVAC units and dumpsters.
Brannon Smith a representative for adjacent property owner Dannen Properties, expressed concern
regarding access from Piner Road given the new median.
Tom Johnson stated in his rebuttal that they will control the mosquito population; will leave as much
vegetative buffer as possible; will control stormwater run-off by directing it away from residencies; primary
access would be provided through Junction Creek office park (off of College Road); and will maintain a
quiet environment.
Don Huovinen pointed to the location on a map where storm water backs up and stated that the proposed
nursing facility will exacerbate the situation.
Tom Johnson stated that the storm water detention system was designed by an engineer in accordance with
current regulations.
Richard Collier expressed concerned that storm water would flow toward Seabreeze; inquired if the
dumpster could be moved away from the Wood Duck Forest residents; and inquired why Mallard Crossing
Drive was not connected to the proposed site.
Cindee Wolf addressed Mr. Collier's concerns and stated that the storm water would not flow towards
Seabreeze, but toward the Cape Fear River; noise from the dumpster could be managed through screening,
buffering, and day-time trash pick-ups; and Wood Duck Forest residents did not want Mallard Crossing
Drive to connect with the proposed site.
Tom Johnson stated that there is a contractual arrangement for access through Junction Creek Park.
Chris O'Keefe suggested that the Planning Board condition that Junction Creek be the primary access for
the project.
Tom Johnson agreed to that condition.
Sue Haves asked Cindee Wolf if she would accept the condition that there be two access driveways for the
nursing facility. Ms. Hayes also asked for assurances against dumpster noise.
Cindee Wolf agreed to dual access points for the project and stated that dumpster noise would be controlled
through proper timing of trash pick-ups.
Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the item based on positive findings of fact and with
the following conditions:
1. Waste pickup is conducted between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM;
2. Primary access to the project be provided from College Road and secondary access from Piner Road;
3. Mallard Crossing Drive and Wood Ridge Road remain unconnected to the nursing facility;
4. and the inclusion of Planning Staff's comments.
The petitioner agreed to the conditions.
Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
item with conditions.
Item 4: Modify Special Use Permit (5-004, 1/77, Mod. 9/07) - Request by Stuart Smith to modify an
exiting commercial marina permit on 2.02 acres at 2107 Middle Sound Loop Rd. in the Conservation
and Watershed Resource Protection land classification. Add a clubhouse and 3 residential building
lots.
-over-
Jane Daughtridge presented slides and site plan of the property. Ms. Daughtridge provided an overview of
the site's history, land use, zoning, access, and level of service (LOS).
Ms. Daughtridg_e provided the following history:
Harrelson's Marina has been in existence at this site since the early 1950's, catering to small and large size
boats. The Middle Sound area, including Harrelson's Marina was zoned R-20 on May 18, 1970, at which
time the marina became a non-conforming use since a Special Use Permit was not obtained by Mr.
Harrelson. The marina operated as a full service boat yard. Early in 1976, Mr. Harrelson applied for a
special use permit to make his operation conform and to add a restaurant. After opposition from the
surrounding community, that request was withdrawn. Later that year, he requested a Special Use Permit to
expand his existing operation. In January of 1977, the New Hanover County Commissioners approved a
special use permit for expansion of the marina. The site plan presented for the expansion of the marina is
crudely drawn and focused its attention on the additions rather than the existing conditions, so little is
known about the original operation. Additionally, the file contains no official site plan representing the final
approved project, so the draft version is used in conjunction with the permit itself and minutes of meetings
to interpolate the approved operation. In mid-1990, the permit was modified to accommodate changes to the
Oakwinds Marina portion of the permit to include 27 additional slips and an office building on the south
side of the water body. A minor change relating to the signage was administratively approved in 1997.
A special use permit runs with the land and is binding on the original applicant, their heirs, successors, and
assigns. Minor changes may be approved internally.
The portion of the original marina which enjoys road frontage on Middle Sound Loop Road changed
ownership in 2005, and the new owner wishes to redesign this portion of the marina and also "unbind" some
of the land area in order to establish 3 disassociated residential lots, leaving one 27,560 sq. ft. lot to
accommodate parking and a clubhouse for the commercial marina while retaining 30 wet slips along the full
riparian area of the original operation. Residential lots will relinquish their riparian rights.
Chris O'Keefe provided the following findings of fact:
Preliminary Staff Findings for addendum to 5-004, 1/77
1. The board must find that the modified use will not materially endanger the public health or
safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and
approved.
A. The subject property is accessed via Middle Sound Loop Road, which is identified as an urban
collector road on the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan with Level of Service A&B.
B. Public water is in the vicinity.
C. Public sewer is subject to the Northeast Interceptor moratorium.
D. The site is located in a special flood hazard area.
E. Storm water controls must comply with state and county regulations.
F. A proposed 3-story clubhouse amenity will contain restrooms, offices, storage and meeting area.
The building will be subject to limitations and construction standards for flood hazard areas.
G. The modification eliminates boatyard operations and maintains the facility without haul-out
repair and maintenance services.
2. The Board must find that the modified use meets all required conditions and specifications of
the zoning ordinance.
A. The site is located in an R-20S Residential Zoning District. The district is intended for low
density single family residential use and does not permit mobile homes, duplexes, residential
clusters, attached residential or high density residential uses.
B. Commercial marinas may be allowed by special use permit in this district under conditions
outlined in 72-31 of the ordinance.
C. No outstanding violations of this portion of the existing permit have been noted by code
enforcement officials.
D. Proposed off-street parking is shown at 46 spaces. The requirement for the 30-slip marina is 30
spaces. The proposed clubhouse/amenities building requires additional parking to be in
compliance with 72-31 of the ordinance. Based on the parking formula and the shared parking
provisions of Section 80-3.1, the clubhouse uses cannot exceed 3,200 sq. ft. of floor area.
E. A CAMA major permit is required from the Division of Coastal Management and has been
applied for.
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 that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or
abutting property values.
B. Riparian rights of the 3 future residential lots will need to be deeded to the marina.
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 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 as Watershed Resource
Protection and Conservation. The Resource Protection Class is intended to provide for the
preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational
resource. Watershed Resource Protection sub-class focuses on minimizing new impervious
surfaces and to promote low impact best management practices for development and
redevelopment. The Conservation Class is intended to provide for effective long-term
management and protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural resources while also
protecting the rights of the property owner. Management of these areas may be required for a
number of reasons, including natural, cultural, recreational, productive or scenic values, but are
primarily flood prone areas.
B. Surrounding properties are the remainder of the original commercial marina and single family
residences.
Staff Comments:
1. Staff feels the findings are positive.
2. Staff suggests an added finding that dry storage is not appropriate in this location.
-over-
Stuart Smith, developer for the property gave a presentation outlining the proposed plan for the marina Mr.
Smith stated that the proposal would significantly improve the natural and physical environment and bring
the marina into compliance. Mr. Smith showed slides of the adjacent area to illustrate how the proposed
facility would blend in with the surrounding area.
Bruce Bowman, an architect with BMS Architects provided an overview of the site plan. Mr. Bowman
highlighted the plan's green features; provided building and amenity details; summarized parking details;
and provided a status report of various review agencies.
Chris O'Keefe expressed concern that the site plan had changed from a three-story to a four-story structure
and asked the petitioner to provide the updated plan before the Commissioners' meeting.
Stuart Smith stated that he would provide an updated site plan but stressed that the building foot print had
not changed.
Dave Adams asked the petitioner to correctly label on their site plan that the basin is not part of the
Intracoastal Waterway.
Bruce Bowman stated that the zoning ordinance allows for one residential unit.
Chris O'Keefe agreed and added that since the petition is for a special use, all requested uses must be
included on the plan.
No one spoke in opposition to the item.
Sandra Spiers asked the petitioner for details regarding the exiting concrete pad.
Jay Williams asked the petitioner for more detail regarding the property lines of the three proposed
residential lots and the boat ramp. Mr. Williams asked Planning Staff if the newly presented proposal for a
fourth floor, residential apartment would prevent the Board from voting on the proposal tonight.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the Board could vote tonight based on the information the petitioner presented but
cautioned the petitioner that he may have to resubmit plans to the Planning Board if Zoning staff does not
approve the plan.
Dave Adams asked for additional details regarding the boat ramp.
Stuart Smith explained that the boat ramp is for the private use of the owner of lot #2 and it would be the
property's owner's discretion whether to allow the marina to use it in case of emergency. Mr. Smith further
added that CAMA has prohibited the marina to operate a boat ramp.
There was discussion regarding how to proceed given the site plan changes. The Board agreed that the
petitioner's presentation tonight would be sufficient and entered the following changes in public record:
1. The building will be 4-stories
2. The building will contain one residential unit
3. The building footprint would be 2,960 square feet
Richard Collier made a motion to recommend approval of a modification to Special Use Permit (S-004)
including the changes entered in public record and Planning Staff's comment that dry stack storage is not
appropriate in this area. Mr. Collier added to his motion that the site plan must be amended to reflect the
changes before the October 1, 2007 County Commissioners' meeting.
Melissa Gott seconded the motion.
Sue Haves amended the motion to state that "dry stack storage is not permitted in the area."
Stuart Smith agreed to the conditions.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the item with conditions.
Item 5: Special Use Permit (5-579, 9/07) - Request by Generation Builders to place a community
boating facility in an R-15 residential zoning district on Whiskey Creek for Masonborough Plantation
Subdivision off Donnelly Lane in the Conservation land classification.
Jane Daughtridge presented photographs and site plan of the property. Ms. Daughtridge provided
background information including the site's land classification, zoning, access, and level of service (LOS).
Ms. Daughtridge explained that the landward property fell under the City of Wilmington's jurisdiction and
the water, under, the County.
Chris O'Keefe provided the following findings of fact:
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the modified use will not materially endanger the public health or
safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and
approved.
A. The subject property is accessed via Donnelly Lane to Masonboro Sound Road, which is
identified as an urban collector road on the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan with Level
of Service A&B.
B. The landward portion of the project is within the City of Wilmington municipal boundary.
C. City Water and Sewer serve the area.
D. Fire service will be provided by the City of Wilmington
E. Storm water will be regulated by the City of Wilmington.
F. The facility is designed to accommodate 24 ft. and smaller boats stored in slips with lifts.
2. The Board must find that the modified use meets all required conditions and specifications of
the zoning ordinance.
A. The site is located within the City's planning jurisdiction on the landward portion but
Whiskey Creek remains in the County's jurisdiction, so county rules apply to the boating
facility.
B. The facility will serve a 22-lot subdivision within the City of Wilmington.
C. Community Boating Facilities are allowed by Special Use Permit in the R-15 Residential
Zoning District.
D. Off-street parking will be accommodated at home sites in the subdivision.
-over-
E. A 10-foot pedestrian easement will be provided and conferred to each owner for access to the
community boating facility.
F. Applicant states that riparian rights of waterfront lot owners will be deeded to the
subdivision's dock association.
G. No commercial activities are proposed or allowed for the facility.
H. A CAMA permit will be required from the Division of Coastal Management
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. Other private docks and community boating facilities are located along Whiskey Creek.
C. Whiskey Creek experiences a significant fluctuation in water body width and a severely limited
channel width at low tide. Careful design is necessary to avoid navigational conflicts for other
users of the creek.
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 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. Surrounding properties to the east and west have docks.
C. The 2006 Joint Land Use Plan encourages recreational access to estuarine and public trust
waters.
D. The waters of Whiskey Creek are classified as SA(Shellfishing); HQW(High Quality Waters)
303(d) impaired water quality.
E. Surrounding land uses include single-family housing, some with docks and piers.
Staff Comments:
1. Staff suggests that approval of the project be made subject to the City's standards
for community boating facilities since the subdivision it will serve is located within
the city's jurisdiction. The City's standards are as follows:
(a) The right to use a community boating facility must be conferred by a properly recorded easement
appurtenant to the residential lot(s) it is intended to serve.
(b) No commercial activities of any kind shall be allowed within the confines of the facility.
(c) A community boating facility may be allowed in tidal waters in lieu of private individual docks
provided they meet the following criteria.
(d) Community boating facilities shall be designed and maintained without dredging in any SA waters,
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Primary Nursery Areas (PNA).
(e) Use of facilities will only be allowed by residents of the subdivision in which the community boating
facility is constructed and such use may not be transferred to a non-resident or commercially let to a non-
resident of the subdivision.
(f) One boat slip may be allowed per residential unit up to a maximum of ten (10) boat slips per
community boating facility.
(g) Waterfront properties included within the subdivision are prohibited from constructing private docks.
(h) A platted subdivision may not be further subdivided and qualify for an increased allowance of boating
facilities over that entitled to the original platted subdivision.
(i) A maintenance plan shall be approved by the City that includes best management practices to prevent,
control, or minimize the entry of any substances that can be toxic to aquatic biota, pose a threat to human
health, or degrade water quality. Such substances that shall be controlled include, but are not limited to paint
chips or sandings, oil and grease, fuel, detergents, sewage and fish waste.
0) Community boating facilities are required to adhere to the following restrictions and best management
practices:
(1) Facility uses are limited to mooring, landing, and storage of boats.
(2) The number of boats maintained on the site may not exceed the number of mooring slips
permitted.
(3) No boat maintenance and no boats with heads are permitted at any community boating
facility.
(4) Exterior storage on the site is prohibited.
(5) No underwater hull cleaning is permitted.
(6) Manage boating activities to decrease turbidity and physical destruction of shallow water
habitat by restricting boater traffic in shallow water areas; establishing and enforcing no wake
zones to decrease turbidity, shore erosion and damage.
(7) No impervious surfaces will be allowed in association with a community boating facility.
Kellv Stuart, with Generation Builders, stated that the subdivision has been platted and they are asking that
the four waterfront lots relinquish their riparian rights to the home owners association in exchange for a slip
in the 7-slip community boating facility. Ms. Stuart stated that they have secured the necessary permits
including a CAMA permit for the boat lifts and dock and are finally seeking a special use permit from New
Hanover County. Ms. Stuart stated that they have held community meetings with the neighbors and have
addressed their concerns.
Jay Williams asked if the County or City would enforce the conditions.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the intention is for the City of Wilmington to take over water jurisdiction for this
area but in the meantime, the County will enforce the conditions of the special use permit. Mr. O'Keefe
added that conditions relevant to the City of Wilmington have been included in the staff's conditions.
Jay Williams made a motion to recommend approval with staff comments. Melissa Gott seconded the
motion.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the item with conditions.
Item 6: Text Amendment (A-352, 4/07) - Request by staff to amend Article VI, Creating Section
69.18: Traffic Impact Review Process. (Continued from July Meeting)
Jane Daughtridge outlined the proposed traffic impact analysis process (TIA). Ms. Daughtridge stated that
the proposed text amendment would require commercial projects that generate either 100 peak hour trips or
-over-
1000 vehicle trips a day to perform a traffic impact analysis. Ms. Daughtridge explained that a scoping
meeting would be required to determine the parameters of the TIA; a professional traffic engineer would be
hired by the developer to perform the TIA; the study would be submitted to the Planning Department for
review; the applicant will be notified within 30 days of receipt of the final TIA.
(Proposed text amendments are in italics)
Section 69.18 Traffic ImpactAnalysis -Before a nonresidential project is submitted for site plan review, the
applicant shall prepare a Traffic Impact Worksheet.
(1) Where the worksheet indicates traffic generation of 100 peak hour trips or 1, 000 vehicle trips per day,
then the applicant will be required to perform a Traffic ImpactAnalysis based upon the most current edition
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.
(2) The applicant and/or his traffic engineer shall request a scoping meeting with the Planning Director or
his designee, the MPO Coordinator and an NCDOT Traffic Engineer to determine the scope of the Traffic
Impact Analysis study.
(3) All Traffic Impact Analysis studies shall be prepared by a licensed engineering firm that has relevant
experience to perform the requirements defined in the scoping process, and shall be signed and sealed by a
qualified professional engineer.
(4) The completed study will be submitted to the Planning Director or his designee for review and approval.
(5) In considering the results of the traffic impact analysis, the Planning Director, after collaboration with
the MPO Coordinator and NCDOT, may accept the recommendations of the TIA or may require additional
improvements based on identifiable cumulative impacts or special public safety situations. The
collaboration shall follow procedures already established by the MPO for communication with all parties.
(6) The applicant will notified within 30 days of receipt of the final TIA.
(7) Mitigation measures required as part of the TIA acceptance shall be included in the final site plan
submitted for review.
(8) Disputes- Within 10 working days of a decision on required mitigation measures, an applicant may
dispute the decision through the County Commissioners in the form of a letter stating the reasons for appeal
and including documentation in support of the appeal. In hearing disputes, the County Commissioners may
request an independent study by an outside source, chosen by the County and paid for by the applicant, to
resolve questions of traffic impact and appropriate mitigation thereof.
There was no public comment.
Richard Collier commended the Planning Staff for capturing the ideas expressed during the work sessions
and for crafting the text amendment language.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Jay Williams seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the item.
Item 7: 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. (Continued from July Meeting)
Jane Daughtridge asked the Planning Board if they felt that their comments from the past work sessions
were captured in the following text amendment:
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 fight to use stieh ° f4eil t- ""'°t be
of ' inn shall w . °"F-i- -Pa i- a'-:i t'^-P -P-R-a--P° of the f ilit_, (Moved to list in 72-37)
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. Boat slips are allowed only for
the use and enjoyment ofproperty owners within the subdivision. Slips may not be sold or transferred to
non-owners. The right to use such a facility must be conferred by 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 of residential lots or residential units served
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, public use of public waters, and conservation resources.
(2) Based on the size and configuration of the subdivision served, additional off-street parking w-i41
maybe pfevided required at a ratio of no more than one space per boat slip.
(3) The number of boat slips may not exceed the number of residential lots or dwelling units within the
asseeiated de elepmeit individual subdivision served.
(4) The right to the use of the facility must be conferred by an easement appurtenant to the residential lot
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). No commercial activities of any kind shall be allowed
within the confines of the facility.
(6) Boat slips are allowed only for the use and enjoyment ofproperty owners within the subdivision.
Slips may not be sold or transferred 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
-over-
Jay Williams stated that he is comfortable with the proposed language.
Sue Haves stated that the text amendment looks very good. Additionally, Ms. Hayes suggested that the
County look into creating additional requirements for preserving water quality due to deteriorating area
water conditions.
There was no public comment.
Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment. Richard Collier seconded the
motion.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the text amendment.
Sue Haves made a motion to ask Planning staff to review the City of Wilmington's ordinance to determine
if some of their requirements are appropriate to preserving County water quality. Dave Adams seconded the
motion.
Ken Wrangell added that the City of Wilmington's requirements are valid and that we can potentially
upgrade the County's ordinance.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to ask Planning Staff to review the County and City's water quality
requirements.
Item 8: 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 (Continued from July Meeting.
Sam Burgess thanked all involved parties for their work in drafting the financial guarantees text amendment.
Mr. Burgess provided a summary of the following proposed text amendment:
51-1 (2) Guarantee of Improvements
Except in the case of Minor subdivisions, subdividers of approved preliminary projects containing 100 acres or
more may provide a financial guarantee not to exceed $ 8,000,000 in lieu of constructing improvements under one
of the following two options:
1) A £mancial guarantee in the form of a Performance Bond, Irrevocable Letter of Credit or cash
security in an amount equal to 25 % or more of the total value of improvements within the
subdivision have been constructed or installed or
2) A £mancial guarantee in the form of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in an amount not less than 125 %
of the total cost of improvements, not exceeding $ 8,000,000.
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 anv £mal
plat phase of the project does not exceed $ 150,000.
The surety limit stated in this section shall be adjusted annually in accordance with an appropriate established index
as approved by the City or County Attorney.
51-1 2(a) Cost Estimates
The subdivider shall furnish bona fide estimates of the subject improvements for verification by the County
Engineer. Upon approval of cash, performance bond, or irrevocable letter of credit, the subdivider shall deposit with
the County the amount specified by the County Engineer. The subdivider shall obtain a performance bond or
letter of credit from a surety financial guarantee company authorized to do business in North Carolina.
51-1 2(b) Release of Financial Guarantee
Financial guarantees in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or cash may be reduced
by the Countv Engineer if a portion of the proiect improvements have been installed, inspected and
approved. An addendum or amendment to the original performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit shall
be required.
Sandra Spiers stated that a majority of the Planning Board had recommended during the work session,
eliminating the 100 acre threshold requirement for any major subdivision.
Jay Williams stated that there is not a substantial difference between major subdivisions under 100 acres and
those above 100 acres. Mr. Williams stated that developments under 100 acres would not have the option of
completing 25% of the improvements.
Several Planning Board members felt that the proposed language did not reflect the comments presented at
the work session and asked staff for clarification.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the proposed amendment reflects staff's recommendations and added that
Planning Staff did incorporate the Board's recommendation that the surety cap be increased.
Mr. Williams felt that the proposed amendment was unfair to developments less than 100 acres and
recommended that all major divisions be allowed the same options.
Michael Lee an attorney with Smith Moore suggested eliminating the 100 acre threshold requirement and
distributed a modified proposal to the Planning Board.
Tyler Newman, a representative from the Home Builders Association suggested eliminating the 100 acres
threshold requirement because there are very few 100 acre + tracts of land left in New Hanover County.
There was Board discussion regarding editing the proposed amendment.
Sue Haves asked Planning Staff why they support the 100 acre threshold.
Sam Burgess explained that the original intent of the amendment was to provide flexibility for large
developments, greater than 100 acres but through the process, the amendment has been diluted. Mr.
Burgess added that Staff feels that if the 100 acre threshold is eliminated, the County would be at a greater
risk in the event a developer defaults.
-over-
Chris O'Keefe stated that the amendment was originally designed to accommodate planned unit
developments which require a minimum of 100 acres.
Sandra Spiers stated that the work sessions involving the public, revealed that the County's existing
subdivision regulations were particularly difficult on smaller developers. Ms. Spiers stated that the intention
of the amendment was to treat all major developments equally.
Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment with the omission of,
"containing 100 acres or more" in section 51-1 (2) and the deletion of section 51-1 3. Jay Williams
seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-1 (Hayes) to recommend approval of the item with changes.
Item 9: Text Amendment (A-364, 9/07) - Per legislation - allow Amateur Radio antenna up to 90 ft. with
minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the purpose of the county.
Jane Daughtridge stated that there is new legislation adopted effective October 1, 2007 prohibiting the
restriction of amateur radio antennas or support structures of heights up to 90 feet unless posing a health,
safety, or aesthetic issue.
Ms. Daughtridge outlined the following text amendment:
BACKGROUND: The Legislature recently adopted a provision for reasonable accommodation of amateur
radio antennas. The bill becomes law as of October 1, 2007. It says we cannot restrict amateur radio ("ham")
antennas or support structures up to heights of 90 feet "unless the restriction is necessary to achieve a clearly
defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective of the county."
Our ordinance now allows these structures as permitted in all districts up to 70 feet.
In light of the legislation, Staff raised the issue at the August 23, 2007 Planning Board Workshop to see if
there are immediate concerns or specific compelling public objectives to limit these antennas as the
legislation becomes effective on October 1, 2007. The Planning Board expressed some concern for potential
aesthetics and for having structures that may not meet the local wind code, but since time is of the essence,
the suggestion for the time being is to create a separate provision in the table of permitted uses for
amateur radio antenna as a permitted use up to 90 feet.
Options: 1. Simply change Table of Uses to 90 ft.
2. Keep limitations and define the health, safety or aesthetic objective
for doing so.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ADD TO Article V - TABLE OF PERMITTED USES
(Under Transportation, Communication, Utilities Heading)
Amateur Radio Antennas up to 90 feet P (permitted) in all districts
Jay Williams suggested that the County consider adopting radio antenna/support structure regulations
regarding safety, proximity to homes, etc in the future.
Sue Hayes made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment. Melissa Gott seconded the
motion.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the text amendment.
Jay Williams made a motion to ask Staff to consider appropriate limitations on radio antennas to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of New Hanover County's citizens. Sue Hayes seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to request Planning Staff to consider appropriate limitations on
radio antennas.
Item 10: Text Amendment (A-365, 9/07) - Section 59.7-4(7)(b) and Section 59.7-6(1). Clarify the action
to be taken to revert expired conditional use districts.
Chris O'Keefe asked the item be continued until a later date so that staff may have more time to prepare.
Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity for the month of
August:
1. Westview at River Oaks - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve 28 lots with requirements.
2. Zoysia Place - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve 23 lots with requirements.
Sam Burgess stated that the TRC would meet next on September 12, 2007 and will discuss clarifying road
inter-connectivity, cul-de-sac pavement requirements, and the connection of a public road to a private road.
The Planning Board elected new officers.
Richard Collier nominated Melissa Gott for Planning Board Chair. Jay Williams seconded the nomination.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to elect Melissa Gott as Planning Board Chair.
Richard Collier nominated Sandra Spiers for Planning Board Vice-Chair. Jay Williams seconded the
nomination. The Planning Board voted unanimously to elect Sandra Spiers as Planning Board Vice-Chair.
Chris O'Keefe thanked Sandra Spiers for her service as Planning Board Chair.
Hearing no further business, Melissa Gott adjourned the meeting at 9:00 pm.
-over-