200401 Jan PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 8, 2004
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, January 8, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in
the County Court House, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC to hold a public
meeting.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Ken Dull, Chairman Dexter Hayes, Planning Director
Walter Conlogue, Vice Chairman Baird Stewart, Senior Planner
David Girardot Sam Burgess, Planner
Frank Smith Debbie Grymes, Administrative Secretary
Michael Keenan Holt Moore, County Attorney
David Adams
Robin Robinson
Members Absent:
Chairman Ken Dull opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing.
Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chairman Dull
proceeded with the approval of the minutes. Chairman Dull questioned a statement he
had made, pertaining to item three, of the November 2003 minutes. He recalled the
discussion and indicated that he was not questioning the need for more apartments in the
area. Chairman Dull asked the secretary to correct the misstatement. Mike Keenan
moved to recommend approval of the November 2003 minutes, with the correction as
requested. Walter Conlogue seconded the motion. The Board conditionally approved the
November 2003 minutes by a vote of 7-0.
Chairman Dull advised the public that the petitioner for item number two, case 5-512, has
requested to withdraw the petition. He asked if there is anyone present who would like to
speak. There was no public comment. Walter Conlogue moved to recommend approval
of the request to withdraw. David Girardot seconded the motion, which was
unanimously approved by the Board.
Chairman Dull proceeded with the first hearing item.
Item 1: Special Use Permit: Request by Stroud Engineering for Palm Beach
Development Group for a Special Use Permit for a 2 story 18 unit High Density
development in an R-15 Residential District located at 1050 Dunhill Lane behind the
Amerihost Inn & Suites at Monkey Junction (5-513, 01/04).
Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning and related information.
Chairman Dull asked the petitioner to come forward.
1
Cindee Wolf presented the request. She explained she has been the agent from the
beginning of the project and was coming back before the board with a revised plan. The
new plan includes a wider two story eighteen unit building. The entrance at Dunhill
Lane, which presented a problem in the previous plan, has been eliminated. All of the
existing vegetation and pond will remain undisturbed. Ms. Wolf stated that the revised
plan consists of an eight-foot fence, additional shrubbery for buffering and landscaping
and adequate parking.
Mike Keenan asked what type of fence is proposed.
Cindec Wolf replied that the fence would be solid wood, providing one hundred per cent
opacity.
Robin Robinson asked if the proposed units are apartments or condos.
Cindee Wolf responded that the units are designed as condos for individual sale.
Walter Conlogue commented that the two major concerns with the public appear to have
been resolved with the revised plan.
Chairman Dull asked if there were any other speakers in favor of the petition. Chairman
Dull asked if there were any speakers in opposition to the petition.
Herbert Speight, a resident of 915 Brewster Lane expressed his concern regarding the
hours of operation of the swimming pool, the proposed buffer at Chilmark Court and the -
construction schedule on holidays and weekends.
Cindee Wolf explained that the swimming pool would have limited hours of operation.
The buffer yard at Chilmark Court is required to be six foot high, however the proposed
buffer yard will consist of trees and shrubs varying in height from three to six feet with
an under story, providing one hundred percent opaqueness.
Chairman Dull advised that the county ordinance addresses working hours of operation
and noise limitations.
Holt Moore concurred with Chairman Dull.
Chairman Dull closed the public comment segment of the hearing and asked the Staff for
their findings and recommendations.
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.
M
A. The subject property is located within the Myrtle Grove VFD.
B. The site will be served by City water and County Sewer.
2
C. Access to the site is from Carolina Beach Road, which is classified by the New
j Hanover County Thoroughfare Classification Plan as an Arterial road.
I
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. High Density Development
is permitted by Special Use Permit in the R-15 District.
B. A site plan which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance has been submitted
and reviewed.
C. County engineering has indicated that the existing detention pond shown on the plan
has sufficient capacity to meet the County Storm water Regulations. Storm water
requirements and water and sewer will be further reviewed when construction plans
are submitted.
D. All required landscaping and buffering can be accommodated.
3. The Board musffind that the use will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. The subject property is zoned R-15 residential and is adjacent to an existing
commercial district occupied by the Ameri-host Suites.
B. High Density development is permitted within the R-15 district provided the land is
' classified developed or urban transition and there is access to a major or minor
arterial. The subject property is classified developed and access is provided from
Carolina Beach Road.
C. The nearby Brewster Place Subdivision is zoned R-10 Residential with a density of
3.3 dwelling units per acre.
D. The required landscaping and buffering is-sufficient to protect the Brewster Place
Residents.
E. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property values.
F. The subject property is a transitional property between higher intensity commercial
uses and the medium density R-10 Brewster Place Subdivision.
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 site is classified as developed by the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan
and is within the urban growth boundaries. The purpose of the developed class is to
provide for continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban
areas. Urban services are already in place or scheduled within the immediate future.
B. Housing policies in the comprehensive plan state that "The County and City shall
continue to support and enhance a broad range of affordable housing programs and
increase affordable rental housing."
3
Staff Comments:
1) NCDOT Driveway pen-nits are required. One existing driveway on Service Road shall j
be closed, The 3 parking spaces along new entrance shall be removed, Additional
roadway improvements may be required when adjacent property to the south is
developed.
2) Staff continues to recommend a secondary access on Dunhill Lane, which was
provided with the 3-story building, and a smaller footprint on the site.
Beverly P a resident of 5611 Chilmark Court asked to come forward. Ms. Perry
questioned if there would be any limitations on the time frame to sell all of the condos,
and if not sold would the remaining condos be rental properties.
Cindee Wolf responded that it is the developer's intention to put the condos on the
market as soon as possible, there would however be no control over the new owners
renting their condos.
Mike Keenan stated'that the revised plan was much better with the changes in the
building height and the increased buffering, and he considered this to be a good plan.
David Girardot agreed and also had no problem with the secondary entrance being
closed.
Mike Keenan moved to recommend approval as submitted. Walter Conlogue seconded
the motion, which carried by a unanimous vote.
Item 2: Special Use Permit: Request by Design Solutions for Little Sandpiper
Learning Center Inc. for a Special Use Permit for a Child Daycare Facility for 100
children in an R-15 Residential District located at 6336 Myrtle Grove Road south of
Sentry Oaks Subdivision (5-512, 01/04).
Item number two was not heard.
Item 3: Rezoning: Request by Ester Lea for Charles Foy to rezone approximately
3.09 acres of property located in the 7700 block of Market Street north of Mercer
Marine from R-15 Residential to B-2 Highway Business (Z-771, 01/04).
Baird Stewart explained that Mr. Charles Foy, the property owner had contacted him and
advised that he was not making the rezoning request and that the petitioner did not
represent him in the request. Ester Lea is malting the rezoning request.
Frank Smith asked why the case was being heard if the owner has not consented to the
rezoning of his property.
Dexter Hayes responded that the request should be looped at as the best zoning of the
property based on the community interest and that it is not required that the property
owner consent to a zoning change.
4
Holt Moore concurred with Dexter Hayes and added that even though it is not legally
required that the property owner make or consent to the request, the Board may request
the property owner's input before making their final decision.
Chairman Dull asked the Staff if they had received any comments from Mr. Foy at this
time.
Baird Stewart advised that Mr. Foy lives in New York and was unable to attend the
meeting, but had telephoned him and stated that he is not interested in rezoning or selling
his property at this time.
David Adams questioned the advantage of the rezoning.
Baird Stewart explained that the rezoning of this parcel could affect the setback and
buffer requirements of the next case to be heard and evaluated.
Chairman Dull suggested hearing the case and then malting their decision, the remaining
Board members agreed.
Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning and related information.
Chairman Dull asked the petitioner to come forward.
Ester Lea, owner of the adjacent parcel located at 7770 Market Street, presented the
request. She stated that the subject property is bound on the north, south and west by B-2
Business Districts and has no existing road frontage. Ms. Lea felt that with the current
zoning the only feasible use of the property would be single family residential, the
narrow width and long length, in additional to the existing wetlands at the rear of the
parcel, would inhibit any residential subdivision development plan under the current
regulations. She stated that the parcel would be most valuable as a sale to an adjacent
property owner. As an adjacent property owner of a growing business, Ms. Lea
explained that her purpose is to allow the highest and best use of her own land. She felt
that the development of her property was being unfairly impacted by the restrictions
resulting from the R-15 Residential zoning. Ms. Lea stated that the rezoning of the parcel
to B-2 Business, would not only have no adverse effect on the property, but would
increase the property value and flexibility for development. The approximate eight
hundred feet of wetlands and class four soils at the rear of the property would remain
undisturbed and would provide a natural buffer.
Chairman Dull asked if there were any speakers in favor or in opposition to the petition.
There were no other speakers. Chairman Dull asked the Staff for their recommendations.
STAFF SUMMARY:
Esther Lee is requesting a rezoning of a 3.09 acre parcel of land located in the 7700 block
of Market Street from R-15 residential to B-2 Highway Business. The owner- of record
Mr. Charles Foy has not responded to correspondence sent by County Staff.
5
The subject property is a long narrow parcel approximately 120 feet wide by
approximately 1130 feet long. Approximately half of the northern boundary is adjacent to
an existing B-2 district established in 1984. The southern boundary is also adjacent to an
existing B-2 Highway Business District established in 1997. The front part of the parcel
is adjacent to a B-2 District established later in 1997. While staff did not support the
rezoning of the large parcels to the north and south of the subject site it was noted in the
later petition, that part of this parcel should be rezoned. At the time the larger parcels
were rezoned staff cited several concerns including the depth of the zoning,
inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan, and affects on traffic flow on Market Street.
In acknowledging that commercial zoning surrounds most of the subject property, there is
a transitional area of wetlands and class IV soils along the back 800f feet. If left
undisturbed, this area could provide some additional buffering and protection for the
residential property to the north. Therefore, staff recommends that the B-2 zoning
District should only, extend to the SHOD Boundary or no further than the district
line to the north.
Chairman Dull questioned if the rezoning request was being driven by the planned
community development proposed for the adjacent property and asked if the subject
property is currently being used for any purpose.
Dexter Hayes responded that the property is currently vacant.
Mike Keenan stated that the setback requirements imposed on the abutting business
properties on the north and south sides of the parcel would be less stringent if the subject
property is rezoned from residential to highway business. Mr. Keenan strongly felt that
the property owner should be represented at the hearing.
Frank Smith acknowledged that after hearing both sides, the Staff's recommendation of
the extension of the B-2 zoning boundary line, would be a sensible choice.
Mike Keenan stated that he understood the Staff's recommendation, but reemphasized the
significance of the property owner's representation.
Robin Robinson stated that it is important to remember that the property owner was given
the opportunity to be heard and represented. She felt that it is the Board's responsibility
to look at the request being presented and to determine if this is the best land use of the
property.
David Girardot expressed that he thought it is outrageous to impose the Board's will on
someone who does not want it. Mr. Girardot stated that it is ridiculous to rezone a
citizen's property without their consent; such action is a usurpation of private property
rights.
Walter Conlogue questioned how the property could be accessed and what the value of
moving the boundary line back to the SHOD line would be to the property owner.
6
Cindee Wolf responded that she was unable to find any recorded access easement to the
property, however a private access could probably be obtained.
Frank Smith commented that the proposed rezoning could increase the amount the
neighbors might be willing to pay for the property.
Mike Keenan stated that it is the owner's right to hold out for the best price if he decides
to sell the property, as well as his right to retain the property for his own use. Mike
Keenan moved to recommend denial of the request. David Girardot seconded the
motion.
Walter Conlogue considered it an injustice to deny the request. He agreed with the
Staff's recommendation to move the boundary line to the SHOD line and felt that the
parcel would be more valuable as commercial property.
Chairman Dull stated that he would like to hear from the property owner, but also agreed
with Robin Robinson that the property owner had been given the opportunity to be heard
and represented.
The motion to deny the request failed by a vote of 2-5. Board members Ken Dull, Walter
Conlogue, Frank Smith, David Adams and Robin Robinson voted in opposition.
Walter Conlogue moved to recommend approval of the request to include moving the B-
2 boundary line back to the rear of the abutting parcel number five per Staff
recommendations. Frank Smith suggested that the motion include moving the boundary
line back to the B-2 line to the north as well. Walter Conlogue agreed. Robin Robinson
seconded the motion.
The Board voted 5-2 in favor of the recommended motion, with Mike Keenan and David
Girardot opposed.
Mike Keenan stated that he would like the Board to look into and consider the rights of
the property owner. Based on the Board's recommendation regarding this case, Mike
Keenan resigned as a Planning Board member and excused himself from the meeting.
Chairman Dull called for a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 p.m.
Item 4: Special Use Permit: Request by Design Solutions for Ogden Twelve LLC for
a Special Use Permit for a 156 unit apartment complex and 21,600 s.f. commercial
space within an existing B-2 Highway Business District at 7720 Market Street on the
east side adjacent and north of Mercer Marine (S-511, 12/03).
Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning and related information.
I
Chairman Dull asked the applicant to come forward.
7
Cindee Wolf explained that the item was presented to the Board last month as a sketch
plan review. She stated that although they still do not have a pure mixed-use
development plan, they feel the plan provides a good use of the property. Ms. Wolf
explained that the site plan the Board has in their package does not reflect the rezoning
request for the adjacent property to the north, which was just heard. The plan shown
tonight takes into consideration the approved rezoning of the adjacent northern parcel
from R-15 Residential to B-2 Highway Business. Ms. Wolf stated that they were
requesting approval tonight with the condition that they obtain a modified buffer yard
approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustments.
Baird Stewart clarified that the buffer yard requirement is one-half the width of the
building setback. The minimum buffer yard is twenty feet. The proposed plan does not
meet the forty-five foot buffer requirement based on the setbacks. However the
landscape ordinance allows the petitioner to request an adjustment or variance to the
required buffer from the Board of Adjustments.
Cindee Wolf added that they would explain to the Board of Adjustments that Mr. Foy's
property, adjacent to the north, consists of eight hundred feet of wetlands at the rear of
the parcel. This would serve as part of the required buffer in addition to what the
proposed plan will provide.
Frank Smith questioned how the Board could review a site plan that does not meet the
technical requirements of the ordinance.
Cindee Wolf acknowledged that they recognize that if the adjustment were not granted,
the plan would have to be brought back before the Planning Board for further review.
David Girardot asked how the proposed plan would be affected if the County
Commissioners do not approve the previous rezoning request.
Cindee Wolf responded that if the County Commissioners do not approve the request to
rezone Mr. Foy's property back to the SHOD line, the proposed plan would require some
adjustments.
Chairman Dull questioned the differences between the plan received in their package and
the plan being shown tonight, as well as if the Staff had seen the revised plan.
Cindee Wolf replied that the changes were not significantly different. The revisions
included one of the buildings being turned around and shortened; the setbacks are
accurate, with only the buffer yard having been modified. Ms. Wolf suggested that the
plan that was received in the package be used for the Board's review and
recommendation.
David Adams asked if there is a plat delineating the wetlands and if the Corps of
Engineers has signed off on any 404 wetlands on the property.
I
8
Cindee Wolf responded that the wetlands plat is included in the package and to the best
of her knowledge the Corps has signed off on onsite existing wetlands, however they did
not extend beyond the property to determine the wetlands on other adjacent parcels.
Chairman Dull asked if there were any speakers either in favor or in opposition to the
petition.
Attorney Lonnie Williams, Jr. spoke on behalf of Robert Howell. Mr. Howell owns the
parcel south of and adjacent to the proposed development. He expressed two main
concerns pursuant to the proposal, which included the increased density and traffic
problems associated with the one hundred and fifty six residential units proposed, as well
as the incompatibility of a residential development surrounded by existing commercial
businesses. If granted, Mr. Williams asked that the Board impose a specific condition to
the special use permit. This condition would require that any buffer requirements
between Mr. Howell's property and the proposed development be the sole responsibility
of the applicant.
Chairman Dull offered the petitioner an opportunity for rebuttal.
Cindee Wolf stated that if the property were developed as commercial it would also
certainly increase the volume of noise, traffic and density. Ms. Wolf acknowledged Mr.
Williams concern regarding the buffer requirements. She stated that the buffer
j requirements of the ordinance are confusing and that the natural creek would provide
some buffering between Mr. Howell's property and the proposed residential
development.
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 Ogden VFD.
B. Proposed access to the site is from Market Street (US 17). Market Street is classified
as an Arterial Road.
C. Connection to County water and sewer is proposed. Water and Sewer construction
plans will be required.
2, The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the zoning ordinance.
A. The subject property is zoned B-2 Highway Business. Neighborhood Commercial
uses are permitted within the B-2 District. Residential uses are permitted by special
use permit in the B-2 District.
B. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted by right in the B-1
Neighborhood Business District.
C. Setbacks for the first 500 feet of the project are subject to the Special Highway
Overlay District requirements. A site plan meeting the setback and buffer
9
requirements of the ordinance has been submitted. Additional setbacks and buffering
may be required if the adjacent rezoning request to the north is not successful.
D. There are 156 proposed residential units. The overall commercial square footage
proposed is 21,600 square feet.
E. A traffic impact analysis has been submitted and reviewed for the project.
F. Storm water management will be handled through a combination of underground
infiltration and a pond. Detailed plans will be reviewed by County Engineering
during the Construction Plan phase.
G. The swamp forest area on the southeast portion of the property is entirely preserved
and a COD setback has been shown on the site plan.
H. There are a host of regulated and significant trees onsite. The project is subject to
landscaping and tree protection requirements of section 67 of the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Signage for the project is subject to the Special Highway Overlay District
requirements.
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. The buffer strips shown on the site plan meet the minimum requirements of the
ordinance, however, storm water management ponds are not permitted within the
buffer area.
B. The adjacent property to the north is vacant. The large property to the east is occupied
by one dwelling unit. The property to the south is occupied by two different
commercial businesses.
C. No evidence has been presented that the proposed project will negatively affect
adjoining 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 site is classified as resource protection by the New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan and is within the urban growth boundaries. The purpose of the
Resource Protection class is to provide for the preservation and protection of
important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources.
B. The property was rezoned from residential to highway business in 1997.
C. Housing policies in the comprehensive plan state that "The County and City shall
continue to support and enhance a broad range of affordable housing programs and
increase affordable rental housing."
Planning Staff Comments and recommended Conditions:
a. The developer shall make all improvements recommended in the Traffic Impact
Analysis.
b. Every effort should be made to preserve regulated trees. Transplanting of smaller
onsite trees should be considered to fulfill some of the landscape requirements.
c. County Fire Services requests bonding or installation of 6 fire hydrants.
10
d. Provisions should be made for additional access to the project to and from adjacent
properties that may be developed especially to the north. County Fire is also
concerned about connectivity issues.
NCDOT Comments:
1) Due to the volume of traffic generated, this will be forwarded to Congestion
Management in Raleigh for review upon submittal for a driveway permit.
2) Provide stub outs for interconnectivity to adjacent parcels.
3) Install directional crossover/left-over to restrict exiting left turns.
4) Based on the projected volumes, this development will probably require a traffic
signal warrant analysis.
5) The US 17 corridor is being studied for access management improvements. Any
driveway permit application will also be reviewed by the Regional Traffic Engineer.
Also, even if full movement or entering left turns are permitted now; they may be
restricted in the future.
Robin Robinson asked Mr. Williams to clarify what he is requesting the Board to require
as a condition of the special use permit.
Lonnie Williams. Jr. stated that because of the confusion pertaining to the buffer
requirements, it should be clearly stated as a condition of the special use permit that Mr.
Howell is not required to provide any buffer area between the parcels and that the burden
and expense of the buffer requirements is the responsibility of the applicants.
I
t Chairman Dull asked if Mr. Howell should be interested in redeveloping his property,
would this protect his rights for future development.
Cindee Wolf stated that Mr. Howell would not-have a buffer or setback requirement and
that they will provide all of the buffer requirements necessary.
Walter Conlogue moved to recommend approval of the petition with the following
conditions. These conditions include, a twenty foot buffer provided on the south side of
the property between Mr. Howell's property, all Staff recommendations be satisfied, the
Staff will be given the option to turn the buildings around, the DOT recommendations
will be satisfied and a cross access to Mr. Foy's property, parcel A, will be provided.
Chairman Dull asked that the recommendation include giving the Staff the administrative
leeway to approve any changes made to the two front buildings proposed.
Robin Robinson seconded the motion. The Board approved the recommended motion
with the conditions imposed by a vote of 5-1. Frank Smith was opposed.
Item 5: Rezoning: Request by David Sneeden for James Lanier, Jr. to rezone
approximately 1.83 acres of property located at 212 Porters Neck Road from R-15
Residential to B-1 Neighborhood Business (Z-772, 01/04).
i
Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning and related information.
11
Chairman Dull asked the petitioner to come forward.
David Sneeden represented the property owner in the request. He stated that rezoning the
narrow tract would be a natural extension of the adjoining B-1 Business District. Mr.
Sneeden explained some of the advantages that the proposed rezoning would allow.
These allowances included, a better location for the proposed driveway for the existing
development of the new shopping center adjacent and to the west, some flexibility in
location of the proposed mixed-use development, improved traffic flow at the Market
Street and Porters Neck Road intersection and the best use of the property.
Chairman Dull asked if there were any speakers either in favor or in opposition to the
petition.
Frank Smith asked Mr. Sneeden if he currently has the driveway permit at the Porters
Neck Road entrance.
Mr. Sneeden replied affirmatively, however added that they are seeking to move the
driveway farther east, away from the existing traffic light, which would better comply
with the proposed DOT changes at the Porters Neck Road intersection.
David Adams asked if the property contained any difficult soils and if the need for any
drainage or fill is anticipated.
Mr. Sneeden responded that no soil testing had been done on the property. There are
some wet soils at the rear of the property, but no drain or fill is anticipated.
STAFF SUMMARY:
The petitioner is requesting a rezoning of 1.83 acres of property from R-15 Residential to
B-1 Neighborhood Business. The subject property is located to the east of a larger B-1
district established in 1995 and expanded slightly in 2002. The expansion of the B-1
district in 2002 abuts the southeast corner of the subject property. Most of the adjacent B-
1 district is currently under construction for a new grocery and retail center. This corner
contains approximately 9 acres and has over 1,000 feet of frontage on Market Street and
500 feet of frontage on Porters Neck Road. The subject property lies just outside the
Special Highway Overlay District, which requires additional building and parking
setbacks from Market Street.
The Porter's Neck area is a fast growing part of the county. Other rezoning requests
nearby have been approved expanding this developing regional node south to the CP&L
site. Much of this recent activity has occurred in anticipation of the proposed interchange
for the 17 By-Pass. Part of the interchange project will include improvements to the
intersection of Market Street and Porters Neck Road. According to the NCDOT plans
there will be dual left turn lanes and one through/right lane on Porters Neck Road
heading west to Market Street. I
12
There are several nice residential homes with mature vegetation on the north side of
Porters Neck Road and Staff is concerned about encroaching further into this established
residential area. However, the south side of Porters Neck Road is not as extensively
developed and Staff recommends that the Board should avoid allowing commercial
zoning to creep further down Porters Neck Road. Since the 0&I Office and Institutional
District is typically used as a transition between commercial uses and residential uses,
Staff recommends rezoning the subject parcel O&I office and institutional. This
designation will establish the boundary for commercial zoning and act as a reasonable
transition while also protecting the established homes on the north side of Porters Neck
Road.
David Adams asked how the Staff recommendation would impact the petitioner's
request.
Baird Stewart explained that with the recommended O&I Office and Institutional
rezoning the property could continue to be utilized for the driveway and office, but no
retail stores would be' permitted.
David Sneeden responded that the Staff recommendation to rezone to 0&I Office and
Institutional would impose greater buffer and setback requirements on the eastern side of
the parcel. The setback requirement would range from sixty to eighty feet under the 0&I
zoning classification.
David Girardot commented that he thought the Staff recommendation makes better sense,
offering a better transitional use of the property, which he found favorable.
Chairman Dull stated that with the amount of setback required by the ordinance, this
would deem approximately sixty-five feet of undevelopable property at the rear of the
parcel. In this particular type of case he felt it would make better sense to extend the B-1
district.
David Girardot moved to recommend rezoning the parcel to 0&I Office and Institutional.
David Adams seconded the motion.
Chairman Dull stated that he felt this defeats the purpose of tonight's hearing and that it
might be better to consider a conditional use or special use for the property. Chairman
Dull still considered this parcel to be a natural ending point to the B-I District at this
location.
After discussing the proposed design of the new development and the location of the
driveway, Frank Smith suggested extending the B-1 line halfway thru the property, and
rezoning the remainder of the parcel 0&I.
j David Sneeden agreed that the split zoning would allow the best use of the property in
relation to the uses proposed for the new mixed-use development.
13
Robin Robinson moved to recommend a substitute motion to rezone and extend the B-
lneighborhood Business District line across the parcel to Porters Neck Road, with the
balance of the parcel rezoned to O&I Office and Institutional.
David Girardot and David Adams withdrew their recommended motion and second
respectively.
Walter Conlogue seconded the substitute motion, which was unanimously approved by
the Board,
Item 6: Special Use Permit: Request by Design Solutions for DMWGP, LLC to re-
authorize a Special Use Permit for a 60 unit Personal Care Facility in an R-15
Residential Zoning District located in the 7200 block of Darden Road (5-473, 11/00).
Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning and related information.
Chairman Dull asked the petitioner to come forward.
Cindee Wolf came forward and presented the request for the re-authorization of a special
use permit. Ms. Wolf stated she had presented the previous request, when the special use
permit was originally approved in the year 2000. She explained that the facility is a
government-funded project, providing sixty apartment units for the elderly. The required
paperwork and the ongoing process to provide sewer to the area have contributed to the (I
construction delays. No permits were issued prior to the expiration period of the existing
special use permit, which expired in 2002. Ms. Wolf stated that the landscape and storm
water requirements are all within the current regulations and that she is requesting to re-
authorize the approval of the special use permit.
Robin Robinson asked if there were any other changes to the proposed plan.
Cindee Wolf responded that the building and the parking have remained the same.
However, the building has been shifted around to accommodate the current requirements
for the storm water pond.
Chairman Dull asked if there were any other speakers in favor of the petition. Chairman
Dull asked if there were any speakers in opposition to the petition.
Dave Carter of 224 Derry Court expressed his concerns regarding increased traffic,
property values and the safety of the children with the elementary school nearby.
Ruth Clav of 7300 Darden Road suggested reducing the number of units proposed for the
facility. She felt that if the number of units were reduced this would be a beautiful idea,
however in an inappropriate location.
Nancy Buecker of 236 Wendover Lane expressed her concerns for flooding in the area as
well as the negative impact commercialization will have on this quiet rustic
neighborhood.
14
Chairman Dull offered the petitioner an opportunity for rebuttal.
1 Cindee Wolf stated that she could appreciate the residents' concerns if this was a
commercial development. The proposed development is apartment homes for the elderly,
most of whom do not drive. This will be a quiet residential living facility for those fifty-
five years old and older, and should impose no negative impact to the existing
neighborhood.
Dave Carter stated that it was irrelevant that most of the residents do not drive, as they
will have friends and family that do drive, in turn generating more traffic in the area. Mr.
Carter felt that the developer was given a period of time to develop the plan and that he
had allowed the time to expire and therefore it should stay expired.
Chairman Dull closed the public comment segment of the hearing and asked the Staff for
their findings.
CASE HISTORY:
The petitioner is requesting a re-authorization of a Special Use Permit granted by the
Board of New Hanover County Commissioners in December 2000 for a 60 unit Personal
Care Facility. The project is intended to provide affordable living for people age 55 and
older. Attached is a letter of explanation describing the status of permitting for the project
and the reasons for the delay in the development of the site.
In November 2000, the petitioner requested 120 units on 10 acres of property with access
from both Middle Sound Loop Road and Darden Road. Based on concerns from
neighbors about density, runoff, and traffic the Planning Board voted 4-1 to recommend
denial. The petitioner presented a revised site plan with 60 units and access only to
Darden Road. The Board of Commissioners voted 5-0 to approve the amended Special
Use Permit.
Chainnan Dull asked if sewer was currently available at the site and questioned the status
of the traffic circle discussed with DOT for this area.
Cindee Wolf acknowledged that the sewer is close, however it is still not yet on line.
Dexter Hayes stated that during his last discussion with DOT and the Board of Education
they were still pursuing the idea of a traffic circle to alleviate the traffic congestion at the
elementary school.
Walter Conlogue stated that he thought we were looking at something that just simply
expired and was previously approved by the County Commissioners in 2000.
Walter Conlogue moved to recommend re-approval of the special use permit as originally
approved by the County Commissioners. David Girardot seconded the motion.
15
Chairman Dull commented on the concerns for traffic and agreed that the residents do
have visitors who drive and that this is a legitimate point. However, Chairman Dull
stated that he drives by the Gordon Road Independent Living Facility almost daily and
feels that this facility has a less intense impact on the traffic than a residential
development would impose. Chairman Dull stated that he agreed with reauthorizing the
special use permit.
The Board voted 6-0 in favor of the recommended motion.
Other Items of Business:
Sam Burgess gave an update on the Technical Review Committee's activity during the
month of December 2003. Mr. Burgess stated that the committee met once during
December, at which time two projects were reviewed and approved. The projects
included Avalon West and Forest Creek @ Porters Neck Plantation. Mr. Burgess advised
the Board that the next Technical Review Committee meeting is scheduled for January
14, 2004.
In other business, Frank Smith asked if there had been any response from the County
Commissioners regarding the Planning Board's request for a work session concerning the
Capital Facilities Review Process. Dexter Hayes responded that it is his understanding
that the Commissioners plan to schedule the work session prior to the next meeting. Mr.
Hayes advised the Board that as soon as confirmation of the date is received he would
forward the information to the Planning Board members.
Chairman Dull stated that Mike Keenan has served the Planning Board well and that his
expertise has been a valuable asset to the Board, and added that if he is listening or
watching, he sincerely hopes that he will reconsider his resignation.
Being no further business, David Girardot moved to adjourn the meeting. Robin
Robinson seconded the motion, which the Board unanimously approved. The meeting
adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
Dexter Ha s, Planning irector
j
16