2014-01 January 9 2014 PBM
Page 1 of 27
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
January 9, 2014
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, January 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting.
Planning Board Present: Staff Present:
Richard Collier, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Dan Hilla, Vice Chairman Kenneth Vafier, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Lisa Mesler Benjamin Andrea, Current Planner
Tamara Murphy Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Ted Shipley, III
David Weaver
Absent:
Andy Heath
Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing.
Kenneth Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Richard Collier reviewed the procedures for the meeting. He then reported that Item 1
is a procedural change to the special use permit requested by staff and is not specific to any
project.
Item 5: Special Use Permit Request (S-617, 1/14) – Request by ACI Pine Ridge, LLC to
develop a mixed use development on a 37.9 acre parcel located at the 100 block of Porters
Neck Road. The property is currently zoned B-1, Business District, and classified as
Transition and Wetland Resource Protection Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use
Plan.
Chairman Richard Collier announced the public hearing for Item #5 would be continued to the
February 6, 2014 Planning Board meeting due to a notification error. He apologized for the
inconvenience and asked those in attendance to leave any comments or submit them in writing.
Item 1: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (A-416, 1/14) – Request by Staff to add
Section 13: Calculation of Time and to amend Section 44: Extension or Enlargement of
Non-Conforming Situations, Section 50: Table of Permitted Uses, Section 53.2: I-1 Light
Industrial, Section 53.3, I-2 Heavy Industrial, and Section 71: Special Use Permits Issued
by the Board of County Commissioners to address regulations regarding industrial uses
and Special Use Permit regulations.
Chris O’Keefe presented the following staff report.
Mr. O’Keefe provided a brief history of the amendment process.
Page 2 of 27
Amendment Time Line:
• October 2, 2011 – Text Amendment adopted by Board of Commissioners
establishing a special use permit requirement for certain heavy industries that
wished to locate in the county
• November 1, 2013 – Planning Board Work Session during which staff presented
proposed changes to clarify the special use permit process
• December 20, 2013 – Draft Version of proposed change shared
• December 23, 2013 – Public Hearing announced through Press Release
• December 29, 2013 – Public Hearing Advertisement in Star News
• January 3, 2014 – Agenda Package posted and link provided
• January 9, 2014 – Planning Board meeting
• February 3, 2014 – Board of Commissioners meeting
Mr. O’Keefe summarized the proposed changes to the ordinance, which are intended to
adjust the processes and procedures to add clarity and consistency:
1. Section 13: Calculation of Time
• Include a description of how days will be counted.
2. Section 23: Definitions:
• Remove definitions for Limited, General, and Intensive Manufacturing and add
individual uses to table.
• Retain Artisan Manufacturing Definition
3. Table of Permitted Uses:
• Remove Limited, General, Intensive Manufacturing from Table of Permitted
Uses
• Add 86 new uses that correspond with all of the 4-digit NAICS industry
categories within the manufacturing business sectors (NAICS 31, 32, and 33) to
the Manufacturing Category of the Table of Permitted Uses (Each of the 86 uses
added to the table was evaluated to determine how it would be permitted under
the current definitions within the Ordinance, and then the table was populated to
specify if and how each of the uses would be permitted in each zoning district)
• Move Solar Farms to the Transportation, Communication and Utilities Category
and add Fuel Bulk Storage Facilities and Electricity Generating Facilities to this
category (both of which are currently found in Section 23: Definitions, of the
Ordinance)
• Allow 8 uses that previously required a SUP in I-1 to be permitted by right in I-1
and I-2.
• Allow 1 use that was not permitted within B-2 to be permitted with a SUP in B-2
and permitted by right in I-1 and I-2
4. Section 44: Extension or Enlargement of Non-Conforming Situations:
• Replace text with date that ordinance was adopted to clarify how industries or
businesses that were in active operation under the current use as of October 2,
2011, would be considered. Language included in I-1 and I-2 Sections.
Page 3 of 27
5. Section 53.3-4.1 Review of External Effects:
• Remove the review of external effects from I-2 section and include a description
of framework staff may utilize to request information considered useful for their
review of proposals in Section 71: Special Use Permits Issued by the Board of
County Commissioners. Section recognizes the validity of other permitting
processes.
6. Section 71: Special Use Permits Issued by the Board of County Commissioners
• Establish 45 day review period/application deadline;
• Establish 1:00 PM deadline to allow for completeness review prior to the end of
the day;
• Encourage a pre-application conference;
• Establish framework for requesting additional information/review of external
effects;
• Describe application requirements;
• Explain applicant’s burden to present evidence.
Mr. O’Keefe concluded the presentation and offered to review the proposed changes line by line
at the board’s request.
Chairman Collier entertained questions from members of the board.
In response to a question from Chairman Collier, Chris O’Keefe clarified the proposed
application deadline would be 45 days prior to the Planning Board meeting and staff would have
15 days in which to request additional information from the petitioner if needed. An application
must be complete in order to be accepted. A checklist of required items is included in the
application.
Chairman Collier asked if the four-hour review period to determine completeness of the
application on the submittal deadline day was a valid time frame to which staff could commit.
Mr. O’Keefe acknowledged if staff was in-house to review the application and ensure each item
on the checklist was addressed, four hours would be a realistic time frame. However, if there was
a gray area, staff would need to enter into a dialogue with the petitioner regarding whether the
requirement was met.
Chairman Collier stated he liked many items in the amendment, but would rather require
applications be submitted 55 days prior to the Planning Board meeting to give staff ample time to
evaluate the application for completeness and provide a 45 day review period.
David Weaver questioned the need to include the four hour time frame to review the application
for completeness, noting he felt there would be confusion if staff determined the application was
complete, but then notified the applicant that more information was needed.
Mr. O’Keefe explained the intent is to provide a clear expectation for a petitioner that once their
application is accepted, they can be certain their application will be considered at the next public
Page 4 of 27
hearing. In addition, it will ensure staff has a complete application package to review and
evaluate.
Chairman Collier opened the public hearing for those in support of the proposed amendment.
Hal Kitchin spoke in support of the County’s proposed refinements to the special use permit
process, stating he was immediate past chair of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce and
current Chair of the Cape Fear Future Foundation. He initially noted it was important to
understand the proposal was not an attack on the special use permit itself, but a genuine effort on
the County’s part to make the special use permit process more clear, more fair, and more user
friendly. He stated they support it because they believe it will make the community stronger in
the long run. Over the last nine months, they have been working with the county’s staff and
leaders to express their concerns over the existing special use process. Their primary concerns
are:
1) The current procedure doesn’t clearly define who does and who does not have to
obtain a special use permit;
2) The current procedure does not define what information an applicant will be
required to submit;
3) The current procedure does not clearly define how long it will take for an
application to be brought before the Planning Board for at least an initial
consideration.
Mr. Kitchin noted the bad news is these are serious problems; the good news is that all of these
problems are fixable. He stated belief that staff’s proposal, while not perfect, would go a long
way toward addressing those concerns. He commented they have been told and they believe that
the open ended and undefined nature of the current process is scaring off potential new
businesses and is deterring potential expansion of existing businesses. They have also been told
that the intention in 2011 was to create a system by which the people’s elected representatives
and their designees on the Planning Board would be given an opportunity to pick and choose
which industries got to come here or expand here. However, they believe the unintended
consequence of the process created in 2011 is that we are not able to pick and choose. Instead,
businesses that otherwise would have wanted to come here or to expand here are choosing to go
elsewhere – either to communities that have no special use permit requirements or to
communities that have special use permit requirements that are easier to understand and comply
with. He felt most importantly if the current process isn’t clarified, it will not just be the “dirty
industry” that is scared away, but also the clean advanced manufacturing that everyone would
agree is a great fit for our community. There is no way that result was intended by the county
planners and community leaders when the changes to the zoning ordinance were initiated in
2011. Mr. Kitchin noted he understands the concern of many neighbors in regard to one
particular industrial user. Even at the Chamber of Commerce, there are members who don’t like
to prospect of Titan Cement being in the community and there are some who would be fine with
it. None of us knows what the future holds for Titan Cement; however, it seems likely that
someday Titan Cement will be before this board requesting a special use permit. Nothing
proposed by the staff tonight will change that requirement or the fact that ultimately any business
seeking a special use permit will have to prove to the Planning Board and to the Commissioners
that it is entitled to receive such a permit. Mr. Kitchin stated the proposed changes are not about
Page 5 of 27
one company or industry. He felt the proposed changes will provide the opportunity to pick and
choose which industries come to this community. He concluded his presentation and asked those
members of the audience in support of the proposed amendment to stand up, noting they like
other residents also care about their community and its future. On behalf of the community
leaders present, Mr. Kitchin thanked the staff for its hard work and the Planning Board for their
consideration and urged them to take action by recommending the staff’s proposal to the county
commissioners.
Robin Spinx, a resident of Wrightsville Beach, stated she represented the Coalition for Economic
Advancement and herself. She is an industrial site selection consultant and her job is helping
industries find locations all over the country. She offered to answer any questions the board may
have in regard to how the process may or may not impact the process she uses every day. She
agreed with the environmental lobbyists that the Cape Fear River and our other natural resources
are some of the most significant assets in the community, but noted there was disagreement
between them about how to protect it. She stated belief that manufacturing and tourism can
coexist here like they have for many years. Five of the top six taxpayers in New Hanover County
are intensive manufacturing industries, yet we always have had a great tourism economy that is
not impacted by what is already here. The area still has a growing film industry and a growing
service industry so she didn’t think there had been much impact. She reported earlier at the
annual economic forecast, a federal reserve bank economist had stated the way to protect an
economy from the most significant downturns is to have a diverse economy. Ms. Spinx also
noted charts presented by Woody Hall which reflected the less significant impact of the 2009-
2010 economic down turn on Wilmington, which has a diverse economy, compared to the more
tourism based locations of Myrtle Beach, SC and Asheville, NC. She stated the coalition in
particular believes that maintaining and growing that diverse economy that includes all of the
sectors ought to be the goal and urged the board to approve the proposed changes to the SUP that
clarify the process. She explained the changes proposed spell out the information required and
outline the time frame that is date certain. As it reads today, the process is very open ended; and
therefore, uncertain with no clear path. She agreed with Mr. Kit chin’s earlier comments and
stated the County would never know about the businesses that eliminated this area because of
that uncertainty and risk before anyone knew they were looking. Ms. Spinx thanked the board for
going through the process and recognizing the need.
Scott Satterfield, CEO of Wilmington Business Development, a 60-year old economic
development organization that contracts with the City of Wilmington, New Hanover County, and
Pender County for locating business and industry in this area. They are located at 1739 Hewlett
Drive, Wilmington, NC 28405. He briefly spoke about the site selection process. He cited the
example of Verizon Wireless, which they located here in 2003-2005. They started with several
hundred locations and very quickly whittled down that project to 5-7 sites by looking at
communities which provide the most risk. Ambiguity, lack of clarity, and undefined time lines
create risks, which are a community’s greatest enemy when it comes to bringing new jobs, new
tax base, and investment to an area. Mr. Satterfield advised that the current SUP process has
risks. While we can’t eliminate all risks, we can provide clarity and a clear understanding of the
process, and eliminate infinite time lines. He stated he hoped the Planning Board would consider
the important changes proposed because they will help New Hanover County remain competitive
to bring meaningful jobs to all people, bring new investment and add to the tax base.
Page 6 of 27
Connie Majorette spoke on behalf of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce and presented a
resolution adopted by their board of directors on Wednesday, January 8, 2014, stating support for
the proposed special use permit text amendment to the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Majorette provided a copy of the resolution signed by Chairman Ricky Godwin.
Bill King stated he is a native of Wilmington, a manufacturing leader in New Hanover County,
and Chairman of the Board of Wilmington Business Development. He offered support for the
proposed changes to the special use permit developed by county staff. The ambiguous language
in the current ordinance around the process for obtaining a special use permit represents risk for
any business looking at the county for expansion or growth. Mr. King agreed with the previous
speakers that the proposed text amendment addresses many of the key concerns the business
community has with the special use permit.
Chairman Collier then opened the opposition portion of the public hearing.
Mike Giles of the N. C. Coastal Federation located at Wrightsville Beach agreed with much of
Mr. Kitchin’s and the other speakers’ comments, noting we all want a vibrant, healthy economy
with a blend of industry. He noted he had submitted written comments to staff. He reminded the
Planning Board of the commitment made by staff and county management at the November
Planning Board work session that no substantial changes to the special use permit text would be
considered until the comprehensive planning process was completed and then only when needs
were identified and changes were identified would they be considered.
Mr. Giles expressed three concerns in Section 71. In subsection 3, which requires the applicant to
address the issues included on page 10; i.e., air, water, noise, surface water, and groundwater.
Many people don’t realize there are is no federal, state, or local permit for groundwater
extraction out of our aquifer, which is where our drinking water and water used by industry
comes from. He felt the applicant should be required to list every potential external impact on
that list in Section 71 instead of just traffic, site plan, etc. He felt the permit language on page 10
is too expansive and represents significant policy changes by the county. There are some
problems here with state preemption and the legislators effect to prevent local governments from
doing more than the state requires, but that limitation doesn’t have to be set in this ordinance and
shouldn’t be so broadly worded. The proposed changes to the text creates the presumption that
the permit will be issued and appears to be designed to limit staff’s and the public’s ability to
require further analysis. He noted the potentiality that New Hanover County would be designated
as a non-attainment area for sulfur dioxide was what brought forth the original special use permit
process. The federal air permit doesn’t look at how many smokestacks are in the area. It looks at
what’s emitted from those smokestacks so the local review of air permits is needed to ensure that
industries that emit pollutants from smokestacks aren’t congregated and would affect our
attainment for sulfur dioxide. There is no permit or federal, state, or local review for
groundwater. Mr. Giles recommended that the entire list of potential external impacts be required
to be submitted by the applicant, not requested by staff.
Laura Parks of 101 Spring Creek Lane and a lifelong resident of New Hanover County spoke in
opposition to the proposed text amendment. She noted there appeared to be some very
Page 7 of 27
incongruent, inconsistent, and oxymoronic efforts related to the proposal. She felt the proposed
changes are not a subtle tweaking or minor revision to the SUP process, but are a wholesale
gutting. There are opportunities within the new language to drive a truck through. The
inconsistencies in these two documents will potentially undo the good work put forward in the
SUP adoption in 2011. This proposal has no meaning because there is no plan, future, charter or
comprehensive input or oversight that can occur if the damage is done to our community with the
adoption of these text amendments as written. She stated we don’t want to lose that control,
oversight or power. She stated New Hanover County residents collectively are the fourth largest
taxpayers and is the impact zone which will bear the rewards or the burdens of what is allowed to
come here. The residents are the primary and most important recipient of everything decided by
the boards. If the boards see fit to proceed with the gutting of the SUP’s intent which is to retain
that power within our local community to make sure that single largest heavy impactor of heavy
industry isn’t held to a standard of oversight that we have some control over, the boards are no
longer needed. If the boards can’t assist the residents in proactively being guardians and
protectors of quality development that impacts us as citizens, the boards have no place and are an
expensive, bloated, irrelevant entity.
Pris Endo, on behalf of the Cape Fear Chapter of the Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to the
proposed amendment. She stated that considering the public input and support for the special use
permit in 2011, they would request the Planning Board offer the same transparency in the
revision process being considered now that was given to the development of the special use
permit in 2011. The timing of the process, the announcement of which she learned about on
Monday, four days prior led her group to question who or what was driving the changes being
presented. Federal and state regulations don’t cover problems in all communities. The special use
permit as it is now written is a necessary ordinance to protect New Hanover County from
development that would have damaging effects on its air, water, and land. If the ordinance is
rewritten, the public really needs to have time to study the revisions and comment on them.
Doug Springer of 4101 Cape Landing, Castle Hayne, spoke in opposition to the amendment. He
stated he was glad to see industry lining up and understanding the need for industry to be
regulated by the special use permit, which is the key to attracting industry here. He agreed that
people want to know what the rules are and clarity is great, but there are definite changes to the
content and intent of the special use permit ordinance contained in the proposed amendment. The
special use permit ordinance was approved unanimously by the County Commissioners and any
changes need to be reviewed very carefully. He pointed out the removal of Section 53-3, which
was moved to General Requirements. Mr. Springer stated he understood the need to move it, but
the text was changed, which totally changed the content and removed certain reviews. In
addition, in Section 71-1, it is presumed by the County if the petitioner has obtained a permit
from a federal, state, or local authority, the petitioner has the requisite approval for the subject
matter covered by the permit. That in essence takes away the more in-depth local review. Mr.
Springer expressed serious concerns about the changes to the formal SUP language, noting it is
not the same ordinance approved by the County Commissioners in 2011
Kemp Burdette, a native of New Hanover County, spoke on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch
and the Cape Fear Riverkeeper, which consist of approximately 1,000 members in the area. He
noted how unique New Hanover County is surrounded by the Cape Fear River to the west, the
Page 8 of 27
Atlantic Ocean to the east, and underneath by a fragile and important aquifer just a few feet from
the surface in many areas. The county is also the second smallest and second most densely
populated county in the state. New Hanover County also has some of the worst air quality in the
state. There are numerous examples of industrial contamination of our area’s natural resources,
including hexavalent chromium in groundwater contamination at Diamond Shamrock; arsenic,
copper, and chromium in groundwater at Southern Wood Piedmont; solvents in groundwater at
GE, arsenic, selenium, and others at the Sutton plant; Flemington, Takeda, Conoco, and a long
list of significant impacts that impact public health as well as the environment. These cases are a
stark reminder of what can go wrong at these facilities regardless of state and federal regulations.
He noted further recent actions by the NC General Assembly have dramatically weakened
existing environmental regulations and public health protections and they are likely more attacks
and weakening environmental regulations to come. New Hanover County’s special use permit is
an opportunity for our county to evaluate certain types of industry that could have enormous
impacts on our small and densely populated community and was carefully considered with
considerable participation from the public and a wide range of stakeholders over many months.
There were many public meetings, three planning board meetings, and a county commissioner
meeting where the SUP was approved in a 4-1 vote just over two years ago. Prior to that, no
significant changes had been made for forty years. Mr. Burdette expressed serious concerns
about the proposed changes to the SUP and to the process behind these changes. He noted the
public was made aware of these changes very recently. The most recent revisions are a
significant departure from the version presented at the agenda review session. Furthermore, these
changes seem to be driven entirely by a very small special interest group. The SUP is intended to
protect public health, safeguard citizen’s property values, and ensure the industrial development
in the county happens in a way that considers the harmony of the community. The SUP is not
meant to be a paper exercise with no real ability to ensure anything. Creating a system that favors
corporate profits over citizen protection is bad for the county now and in the future. The SUP is
not a burden on responsible industry, which should want citizens to understand the impacts of
their production and should operate transparently. If an industry can only operate by threatening
public health, depressing citizen property values, and existing in conflict with the citizens of the
county it is okay to tell them no thank you. Mr. Burdette strongly urged the board to table the
issue in order give the county ample opportunity to understand and participate in the issue and
allow the county to explain what these changes mean, why they are being proposed, and who is
driving the process. If we don’t create an open process that gives citizens an opportunity to be
involved, the end result will never be valid in their eyes and trust in the government will be
eroded.
Cheryl McGraw of 1543 Cameron Court requested that the board table the issue and follow the
same process used in the original SUP process with adequate notice being given to the public.
She commented the board had done a great job in considering all sides of the issue.
Dr. Robert Parr asked the board to delay the decision on the item to a future meeting. He noted
the proposed amendment was re-worked by many people during the public input process. The
proposal was re-written and notice was given over the holidays, but there had not been adequate
time for public review of the revisions. He felt most people didn’t understand the draft text
amendment proposed. He again suggested the vote be delayed to a future meeting. He pointed
out over 97% of the tax revenue in the county comes from individuals and businesses that do not
Page 9 of 27
pollute neighboring lands. The SUP will only apply if you have significant impacts on emissions,
noise, etc. that you can’t control on your property.
Michael Reed of 127 McDougald Drive in Castle Hayne asked the board to take more time to
review the proposed amendment before making a decision.
Donald Thaxton of 325 Englewood Drive in Wilmington proposed that time be included in the
ordinance for public scrutiny in addition to the staff review period. He felt it didn’t make sense to
adopt the amendment considering the shortcomings pointed out in the intent. He agreed with
many of the previous speakers and the intent, we need to evaluate risk in a realistic way,
Dr. Elizabeth Bauereis of 416 Black Diamond Drive in Wilmington stated she was formerly the
director of environmental affairs for a Fortune 100 industry, noting part of her job was obtaining
all permits. The special use permit was one she would have been happy to respond to because of
the certainty provided. She felt any industry that would object to the special use permit is
probably not an industry you would want to locate in your community. Ms. Bauereis noted she
wasn’t sure she objected to the revised amendment because she hadn’t had time to read the entire
document. She stated the public need to have input and asked the board to table the issue to a
future date in order to carefully consider the proposal.
Tracy Kellogg Broder of 120 Coppers Trail is a business owner. She asked for clarification on
the proof required that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety. She
expressed disagreement with earlier statements that heavy industry and the environment had
been working hand in hand because New Hanover County is one of the heaviest polluted areas in
the state as reflected on the EPA website. She felt it was important to address the public health
and safety issues and ensure the requirements are not vague.
Charles Robbins of 1317 Middle Sound Road stated he owns Cape Fear River Adventures, a
guide service. He stated disagreement that industry has coexisted in this area because there are
many superfund sites in New Hanover County that can’t be cleaned up because it is too
expensive. We now have the knowledge and science to have clean industry and do it correctly.
He cited instances of environmental damage in other areas of the country. Mr. Robbins stated
New Hanover County can’t afford to gut the regulations.
Chairman Collier opened the rebuttal portion of the hearing.
Hal Kitchin spoke in support of the amendment, noting everyone present appreciates the
importance of the decisions made by the planning board and the hard work done by the staff. He
commented that people on both sides probably agree with many statements made by those on the
other side of the issue. While 80% of the views expressed during the opposition time period was
factual and accurate, the fact remains that these text amendments can be read by anyone and are
available to the public. He offered to help answer questions on why they feel the changes are
needed. He commented the issue is important for the reasons stated by those on both sides of the
room.
Page 10 of 27
John Monroe of 1904 Bruton Court spoke as a member of the Coalition for Economic
Advancement and on behalf of his children and grandchildren. He stated support of the revised
SUP citing the need for jobs in the county. He noted over 4,700 young people graduated from
educational institutions in New Hanover County last year and many of them were looking for
jobs. The county also needs to increase the tax base. One industry currently here could create a
tax base equal to 2,000 homes. New businesses and industry bring in leaders with the expertise
and skills to lead the county. Mr. Monroe asked the board to support the amended SUP, noting
he likes reasonable regulation that is not excessive and felt the proposed changes were much
more reasonable and would send the message that New Hanover County welcomes responsible
industry.
Bill King stated the state does a good job as guardians and stewards of the environment. The
Title V regulation came out in the mid-1990s and brought forth a major air permit process for
industry. Since that time, the regulations have been changed multiple times. In 2011, the SO2
issue and non-attainment was driven by a change in the national ambient air quality requirements
in Title V. He noted industry in the area had moved quickly and invested millions of dollars to
reduce the SO2 emissions. He reiterated there are environmental stewards and guardians for this
and there are a lot of regulations that ensure environmental sensitivity.
Chairman Collier opened the rebuttal period for the opposition.
Dr. Robert Parr pointed out there had been plans to locate an oil refinery near the Cape Fear
River bridge which was supported by the state, but the citizens felt that wasn’t a good idea. He
also noted a coal tipple station was planned for the central part of Wilmington, which was
backed by the state and the developer, but the citizens were opposed to it. The citizens were
opposed to those industries because they couldn’t control their noxious emissions and keep it
from impacting other property. Dr. Parr stated those are two examples of why we need the SUP
ordinance.
Doug Springer stated he felt industry finally understood and saw the merit of the special use
permit; however, he felt they were enthused about the amendment because some of the proposed
changes alter the intent of the special use permit. He agreed the timelines needed to be tweaked
and the language needed to be clarified. He advised the board to take more time to look closely
at the proposed revisions.
Ellie Klein of 6809 Mayfaire Club Drive, a former federal strategic planner, stated it was
important to not only consider job creation, but also to learn from the past, for example, Camp
Lejeune. The state awarded a certain industry an air permit, but it didn’t make sense even though
it might have been legal. They may have appeared to meet certain requirements, but were able to
dance around others. Ms. Klein asked the board to use common sense, noting she originally
thought they should pass it tonight. However, after listening tonight, she felt there were some
real issues with the proposal and we need to consider the long term consequences because
economic development isn’t going to matter if we are sick or dead.
Mr. Robbins stated appreciation of the work done by the board and staff. He noted he is a heavy
volunteer with a charitable entity, a builder, and the operator of a guide service on the river. Most
Page 11 of 27
of his clients are from out-of-town. He lamented the county has a lot to be sorry about in its past,
but we’ve tried to change some of that. The view of the area from the water is beautiful. Mr.
Robbins felt the county leaders should make decisions they can be proud of and protect the
health of the area’s children. He felt that would be possible if the board tightened up the
language in the SUP amendment to protect the residents.
Sherry O’Daniel of 6227 Georges Lane stated she had attended the Planning Board work session
meeting in November. She expressed concern that the proposed SUP amendment had been
changed significantly from the version of the SUP amendment presented at the November work
session. She expressed hope that the board would provide the community with more time to
review and examine the proposed changes to the text amendment before making a decision.
Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and opened the board discussion.
Ted Shipley stated appreciation for the chairman’s governance during the public hearing. In
regard to the procedure, he suggested bifurcation of the issue by first addressing whether the
public had been given enough time to review the proposed amendment; and upon elimination of
that issue, moving forward with discussion on the text amendment itself.
Chairman Collier agreed with Mr. Shipley’s suggestion and asked staff to comment on the public
notification process and whether the public had been given sufficient time to review the proposed
amendment. He noted board members had been involved in the process for quite some time and
received the updated information on the proposed amendments. Chairman Collier expressed
appreciation for the many emails, both good and bad, received by board members, noting one of
the main concerns cited was the lack of time to review the proposed amendment.
Chris O’Keefe stated the outreach that took place for the amendment began with the draft
version discussed at the November 1st Planning Board work session. The Planning Board pointed
out several deficiencies in the amendment and asked for a considerable amount of work to be
done by staff to address their concerns. Staff didn’t open up a massive public outreach process as
they had done with the original version adopted in 2011 because the intent was to improve the
processes in the ordinance and not to impact the policies that were in place. Staff didn’t feel it
was the time to do that because the proposal didn’t involve making changes to the Table of
Permitted Uses. He noted staff is always open to invitations and comments from the public on
any issue. The first draft of the amendment went out on December 20, 2013 to the Planning
Board, the County Commissioners and the broad based steering committee for an effort the
county is heavily involved in to try to determine how the county’s economic development future
should look. That targeted outreach didn’t generate many comments, but staff felt it was a good
way to identify any glaring issues that may come out of the proposal. A couple of members of
that committee are present. In terms of when the general public had the opportunity to review the
amendments, it would be the same as the notification process for all planning board items. The
public can review the item when the agenda package is ready and is posted on the website.
Notice is sent to the sunshine list comprised of interested parties who have signed up for
planning related public notices. The planning board agenda was also published in the newspaper
on December 23, 2013.
Page 12 of 27
Mr. Shipley asked Mr. O’Keefe to confirm that input was sought from stakeholders on both sides
of the issue prior to the November 1st work session. He recalled seeing drafts of comments from
folks like Mr. Giles and Mr. Kitchin prior to the November meeting, noting he became a
planning board member in July 2013.
Mr. O’Keefe agreed with Mr. Shipley’s statement, noting comments had been received from
stakeholders throughout the summer.
Chairman Collier stated normal procedures had been followed in regard to the item and he felt
there had been sufficient time for everyone to be involved in the process. He acknowledged there
are changes to text in this particular ordinance. He sees them as more procedural. There does
appear to be a substantial change in that one section of the ordinance which required the
applicant to provide information on seven or eight items, but there is no regulatory body that
provides what they are required to meet. Mr. O’Keefe has been clear throughout the discussions
that the county can hold the applicant accountable to the federal regulations and permits and state
regulations and permits that are required when they are coming forward under review during the
special use permit process. Chairman Collier doesn’t agree that scenario is perfect, but for forty
years there were no rules. In 2011, we as we most often do tipped the scale to the other side with
more rules. This ordinance change is intended to adjust the ordinance to be reasonable for
everyone to understand what is required. He commented he does want everyone’s input in the
process, but felt sufficient time had been given for public input.
Mr. Shipley commented the board had originally met in November and had hoped to vote on the
proposed amendment at the December Planning Board meeting, but there were some changes.
Many people on both sides of the issue were given the opportunity to comment on the proposal.
The drafts were circulated for review and this meeting is the public comment period. Based on
our vote today, the item will proceed to the County Commissioners, which is the democratically
elected board which will make the decision.
Vice Chairman Dan Hilla thanked everyone for attending the meeting and commented he had
been involved in the SUP process from the beginning and did vote in support of it because it is
sorely needed in our community. He agreed with much of what was said earlier in the meeting,
but not everything. He stated if he thought in any way that the text amendment would weaken the
SUP, he would absolutely not be in favor of it. It was his opinion that the amendment simply
clarifies the procedure and removes the ambiguity especially for industries coming into the
community. Mr. Hilla stated he was currently in favor of the proposed amendment.
David Weaver addressed the possible need for further public comment. In his thirty years in the
public sector, he had found it was better to allow more time for public comment than cutting it
off. He felt the Planning Board might be shirking its responsibility to the County Commissioners
if we don’t allow adequate time for public comment. He would hate to see the Commissioners
receive the draft amendment and then have a lot of new substantive comments brought to them at
their public hearing. He doesn’t feel that is the way this process should work. He stated waiting
one more month to allow additional public comment wouldn’t hurt the process, noting that
technically and legally there is no need to do that; however, from a public policy/public
Page 13 of 27
involvement point of view, it would make a lot of sense. He reserved comments on the
amendment until the timing issue was resolved.
Tamara Murphy stated she had also been involved in the SUP process since the beginning. From
her understanding, the proposed amendment doesn’t adversely affect the SUP process as it stands
today. For that reason, she stated support of the text amendment.
Lisa Mesler stated agreement with Mr. Hilla and Ms. Murphy in regard to the proposed
amendment providing more clarity to the SUP process; however, like Mr. Weaver, she felt
additional time for public comment may be beneficial to give the public more confidence in the
proposed amendment and allay some of the obvious concerns.
Chairman Collier stated he liked the text changes and the clarity provided, but he agreed with
Mr. Giles and Mr. Springer that some of the limiting factors placed on some of the qualities are
going to difficult to meet, but they will be difficult to meet regardless due to the lack of rules and
regulations in place that staff will be overseeing. There are many opportunities to provide public
input. .
Chairman Collier stated he had received several negative emails, which didn’t address specific
concerns with the text amendment. He noted that four lines of text in the amendment may need
to be clarified. He likes the checklist in Section 3. Mr. Collier has always agreed that industry,
like other businesses, should be required to operate under a special use permit. Adding the
NAICS codes added more clarity to the ordinance.
David Weaver stated wasn’t sure he had heard enough from the public yet because he didn’t
think all members of the public had had the opportunity to thoroughly review the text
amendment. He inquired what harm would be done by delaying the vote for a month in order to
give the county commissioners a better product on which to make a decision.
Chairman Collier stated there was no issue with continuing the item; however, he would like to
know what would be gained by it.
Mr. Weaver explained there is nothing in the proposed amendment that says a company must
look at groundwater withdrawal. CFPUA has invested millions of dollars into a groundwater
system for public water supply in the county. A company could come into the county and not
require a state or federal permit for groundwater withdrawal and that company could severely
impact our public water system. Another example mentioned is the non-attainment issue. Air
quality regulators look at what comes out of one smokestack at a proposed company. They don’t
look at the number of smokestacks in the county, where they are located, and whether or not the
additional smokestack will kick us into a non-attainment status, which would be a death-nail to
future industry in the county. Mr. Weaver expressed concern that as presently written the
amendment does not require the applicant to address those types of impacts. He feels we need to
review those types of impacts thoroughly. He also cited the instance of raw material extraction
industries with heavy truck traffic that creates an impact totally beyond a typical traffic analysis
of vehicle trips per hour. Rail traffic would also be part of an impact analysis and may not be part
of the traditional vehicle analysis. He also felt there could be better clarity by extending the 45
Page 14 of 27
day period to a 55 days period. Mr. Weaver noted he would also like to see the Planning Board
set up as an appeal board if an applicant is concerned about being asked to provide information
on items that have nothing to do with his application, for example, things that may cost a great
deal of money and not be productive. He would like to see the Planning Board set up as an
appeal mechanism at the first meeting that the proposed special use permit comes out for a
hearing. He felt providing that process would be beneficial to the special use permit applicant.
Mr. Weaver also suggested limiting the ability of the planning board based on needing additional
information to continue a special use permit request to one month only unless the applicant
agreed to prevent the applicant from being placed in a never ending cycle of providing
information. He has seen that situation at the state and federal level. Mr. Weaver stated he
couldn’t support the amendment without those changes being made.
Chairman Collier stated the issue with ambiguity is prevalent in the section which requires staff
to determine if those other 7-8 requirements, such as sound vibration, are met. Unfortunately,
there will be someone who will sue because a company didn’t provide something that the code
requires.
Mr. Shipley stated nothing in the current draft would eliminate the ability to ask for those things
and then the board reject an applicant for not being able to provide one of those requirements.
The Planning Board has a statutory obligation for every special use permit that the use will not
material endanger the public health or safety if a special use permit is granted.
Mr. Weaver cited line 402, noting it could be a real problem with asking for information on
groundwater withdrawal for example.
Chairman Collier stated the planning board’s job is to protect both sides, while allowing an
atmosphere where both sides are allowed to operate.
Vice Chair Dan Hilla stated he agreed with the five days for staff to review the application as
opposed to the four hours proposed. He asked the county attorney if there was anything that
would prevent the county from requiring the applicant provide additional information if a permit
was issued by a federal, state or local agency to an industry.
Sharon Huffman stated there is nothing illegal or improper about having this particular language
in the ordinance; however, the Planning Board and County Commissioners need to make a
policy decision about whether this language in any way would tie the hands of the governing
body to ask for additional information. It should be considered that using that information in
making a decision would set the county up for litigation.
Vice Chair Dan Hilla stated he would like the ability to ask for any information they felt was
relevant to a particular application. If the wording doesn’t provide that, he would like to change
it; however, he was fine with the other language. He reiterated he felt it was impossible to
regulate tonight every possible permit that comes before the board in the future.
Page 15 of 27
Ted Shipley commented in regard to potential litigation and the prospect that the county would
be tying its hands by putting in this new language. It really boils down to how we expose
ourselves to future litigation in the county. The way the current ordinance is worded, someone
who is bottled up and being asked for a multitude of different studies is not being allowed their
ability or their right to be heard before this board. That is actually a much larger problem for
future litigation rather than someone who came before the board and wasn’t asked for something.
He felt the exposure in the future is much greater. He felt there would be twice as much litigation
over someone asking for an appeal to be heard in Superior Court.
Sharon Huffman agreed with Mr. Shipley that the way the ordinance presently reads sets the
County up for potential litigation and explained she was only addressing Mr. Hilla’s question in
regard to one particular phrase in the text amendment. She then clarified that overall, the
proposed text amendment greatly diminishes the prospects of potential litigation.
Mr. Weaver agreed that the specificity of the proposed ordinance greatly helps the process.
However, he was also very concerned that the proposed amendment would greatly tie the
County’s hands in terms of being able to evaluate a special use permit application.
David Weaver made a motion given the high degree of public statements that they haven’t been
part of the complex review process of this complex ordinance amendment to continue the text
amendment to the next Planning Board meeting and continue the public hearing.
During discussion, Chairman Richard Collier offered an amendment to the motion to continue
the text amendment for thirty days if they would be making modifications only to lines 397 to
415 of the revised text. He felt those lines contained the paragraphs that discuss sound vibration,
heat, discharge, glare, odor, etc., the statement regarding the presumption that the petitioner has
approval for the subject matter once a permit has been issued by a governing agency, and the
fifteen days which are the source of most of the concerns expressed by those on both sides of the
issue.
Chris O’Keefe stated the board also wanted to revisit the issue regarding the timing of the
application acceptance.
David Weaver amended the motion to restrict the modifications and public comment to Section
71-1, Paragraph 2 for thirty days. Chairman Collier seconded the amended motion. Vice Chair
Dan Hilla commented he was ready to move forward with a vote with a few minor
modifications. The Planning Board voted 4-2 to continue Text Amendment A-416 for 30 days
restricting modifications and public comments to Section 71-1, Paragraph 2. (Richard Collier,
Lisa Mesler, Tamara Murphy, and David Weaver voted in support of the motion). (Dan Hilla and
Ted Shipley voted in opposition to the motion).
Chairman Collier encouraged the public to send comments and concerns to staff during the next
thirty days.
Page 16 of 27
Item 2: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (A-417, 1/14) – Request by Cindee Wolf of
Design Solutions to amend Article II: Definitions, Article V: District Regulations Section
50: Table of Permitted Uses, and Article VIII: Provisions for Uses Allowed as Special Uses
Section 72: Additional Restrictions Imposed on Certain Special Uses to allow Recreation
Vehicle and Boat Trailer Storage Lots as a use permitted by right with supplemental
standards in the B-1, B-2, I-1, I-2, Office and Institutional, Airport Residential, and
Airport Industrial zoning districts, and by Special Use Permit with supplemental standards
in the PD, R-15, R-10, and R-7 zoning districts.
Ben Andrea presented the following staff report.
The proposed amendment is a result of staff meeting with Ms. Wolf and a client who
has an interest in developing a boat and RV storage facility in the county’s jurisdiction.
Upon evaluation of the ordinance at the time, it was determined there was not a use
defined in the ordinance that would accommodate such a request. As such, staff advised
Ms. Wolf to submit a text amendment request. The applicant’s suggested language was
included in the agenda package. Staff evaluated the language submitted by the applicant
and made some minor revisions, which were also included in the agenda package. He
then presented staff’s recommended language:
The goals of the proposed text amendment are to:
• Define a new use – Recreational Vehicle and Boat Trailer Storage Lots
• Allow the use to be permitted by right and Special Use Permit in certain zoning
districts or not permitted
• Create supplemental regulations for the use
The amendment would add a new definition to Section 23: Definitions in the zoning
ordinance. Staff has no suggested changes to the definition, which reads as follows:
Recreational Vehicle and Boat Trailer Storage Lots – A ground level parking
area on which recreational vehicles and boat trailers, with or without boats, can be
stored for a fee when not in use.
In Section 53, add a column to the Table of Permitted Uses for the new use.
Staff is recommending the use be permitted by right in PD, B-1, B-2, I-1, I-1, Office &
Institutional and Airport Industrial zoning districts. Staff also recommends the use be
permitted by special use permit in the R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7 and AR zoning districts.
The county zoning ordinance has two sections for supplemental uses: Section 72 for
uses permitted by special use permit and Section 63 for uses permitted by right. Staff
recommends adding similar language to each of these sections.
Article VII, Section 72: Additional Restrictions Imposed on Certain Special Uses
Page 17 of 27
72-46: Recreational Vehicle and Boat Trailer Storage Lot – A Recreational Vehicle
and Boat Trailer Storage Lot may be located by Special Use Permit in the Planned
Development, R-15, R-10, and R-7 zoning districts subject to the district requirements
and provided that:
(1) The use shall be subject to the Special Use Permit review process as prescribed
in Article VII, Section 71 of this Ordinance in all instances.
(1) The use shall be solely open-air and ground level. No enclosing or overhead
covering structures shall be installed.
(2) Access shall be from a public or private street right of way road classified as
arterial on the most recent FHWA-approved functional classification map for the
Wilmington urban area.
(3) A minimum buffer of twenty (20) feet shall be provided in accordance with the
provisions of Article VI, Section 62 of the Ordinance for common boundary(ies)
with residential zoning districts and/or uses.
(4) Buffer strips and Llandscaping for streetyards and interior parking areas shall be
provided in accordance with the provisions of Article VI, Section 62 of the
Ordinance for non-residential uses in residential districts.
(5) All site lighting shall be located so as not to shine or reflect directly onto any
adjacent residential zoning districts and/or uses.
(6) Repair, maintenance, or habitation of any recreational vehicle or boat stored in
the facility is prohibited.
Article VI, Section 63: Additional Restrictions Imposed on Uses Permitted by
Right
63.10: Recreational Vehicle and Boat Trailer Storage Lot – A Recreational Vehicle
and Boat Trailer Storage Lot may be located by right in the B-1, B-2, I-1, I-2, Office
and Institutional, Airport Residential, and Airport Industrial subject to the district
requirements and provided that:
(1) The use shall be solely open-air and ground level. No enclosing or overhead
covering structures shall be installed.
(2) Access shall be from a public or private street right of way.
(3) A minimum buffer of twenty (20) feet shall be provided in accordance with the
provisions of Article VI, Section 62 of the Ordinance for common boundary(ies)
with residential zoning districts and/or uses.
(4) Landscaping for streetyards and interior parking areas shall be provided in
accordance with the provisions of Article VI, Section 62 of the Ordinance for
non-residential uses in residential districts.
(5) All site lighting shall be located so as not to shine or reflect directly onto any
adjacent residential zoning districts and/or uses.
(6) Repair, maintenance, or habitation of any recreational vehicle or boat stored in the
facility is prohibited.
Mr. Andrea clarified that staff had added language to Section 63 and Section 72 to
reflect the zoning districts in which these uses may be permitted either by special use
Page 18 of 27
permit or by right. He concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from
the board.
In response to a question from Chairman Collier, Mr. Andrea clarified in Section 72-46, staff had
initially considered requiring a special use in Planned Development, but because such a use
determined it would be redundant to require a special use permit because such a use must be
indicated on the plan
David Weaver expressed concern that this type of use if not controlled and well maintained with
organized parking, will look like a junk yard. He felt that allowing enclosures would make it
look a lot better to surrounding residents. He stated that car sales and boat sales are not allowed
in any residential district and asked if there was a substantive difference between those types of
uses and the proposed RV and boat storage use. He noted at a car lot, there may be a megaphone
used to make announcements for people onsite. He commented if someone isn’t living onsite,
there may be people coming and going during all hours of the night, cranking boats and making
noise, and leaving trash around. Mr. Weaver expressed concern that this type of facility would
become an eyesore; and therefore, recommended these storage facilities not be allowed in
residential areas at all.
Ted Shipley agreed with Mr. Weaver. Noting staff had included some buffer, but people will
want to maintain and repair their boats, RV’s, etc. or live in them. He stated code enforcement
couldn’t be there at all times to enforce the ordinance. For that reason, he felt it would be a
nuisance to the next door neighbors and shouldn’t be allowed in the residential districts even
with a special use permit.
Lisa Mesler stated agreement with Mr. Shipley and Mr. Weaver, noting the recent struggle with
locating day care centers in residential neighborhoods. She expressed concern about locating
boats in neighborhoods, along with the traffic and maintenance with that use, and how that
would shape a community. Ms. Mesler felt it would have an impact on the property values so she
would not be in support of it.
Tamara Murphy commented that many HOA’s will not allow recreational vehicle and boat
storage on resident’s property and the county is unfortunately running out of space to develop
that type of storage. Ms. Murphy noted the amendment may need to be tweaked to limit
operational hours and add some requirements for the tenants, but she was in support of the
context and general idea of the amendment.
Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she had appeared before the board on a number of
occasions. She noted the need to interpret and define new uses from time to time in the
ordinance. While there are some boat and RV storage facilities in the county, they have located
in the only place interpreted for them to locate – those places where mini storage and
warehousing are allowed. New Hanover County is a prime recreation and boating destination and
the CAMA Land Use Plan promotes strategies to get to the water and those opportunities for
public water access, but there are many residential communities that restrict the storage of boats
Page 19 of 27
in homeowners’ driveways. The issue becomes where are those vehicles, boats and trailers going
to be stored safely and conveniently. Obviously to have easy access to them, they would need to
be stored close by in a secure location. A classic example of that is Inland Green, which has its
own storage corral. She ventured to say technically that is a nonconforming use for them to have
a corral in their residential community, but it is theirs and they control it.
Ms. Wolf stated she had come forward with the text amendment to document there is a use that
needs to be better defined and to determine where the use can be allowed. She commented that
she and the staff had worked together on the proposal. She expressed appreciation for the logical
changes recommended by staff and stated total agreement with those changes because the result
presented to the board is valid for what they are seeking to accomplish. Proximity to residence
and ease of accessibility to boat ramps are important factors when locating a boat/RV storage
facility. Ms. Wolf pointed out that convenience stores, kennels, and indoor/outdoor recreation
establishments are allowed in a residential district under a special use permit. She commented
Mr. Weaver had made several very valid points regarding limitations on hours, buffering, and the
care of the site. Those issues are site specific and can be handled by a special use permit. A
convenience store isn’t appropriate in certain places and certainly the added prescribed condition
that whatever the location is it is accessed on an arterial road. If it is located on an arterial road, it
is probably a corridor that is less than attractive for single family residential development
anyway. Ms. Wolf stated she felt enough care was built into the special use prescribed conditions
that will satisfy some of the concerns brought up by the planning board members. She noted that
limiting the locations by the special use permit gives all the same review over a petition that
comes in to look at the site specific, to see what is around it, to make sure it is located on a busier
road in a more conducive place for a commercial enterprise. She explained it will allow property
owners who have a residential piece of property, but don’t have a buyer for it, to enjoy some
economic gain without rezoning the property for a business or commercial use. Being able to use
the property as an at grade storage, basically as a parking lot, when given the buffers and other
prescribed conditions to protect the surrounding property owners, gives them a viable use of the
property on a temporary basis. If the property is on an arterial road, chances are it will eventually
become a transitional use, like an office building or small retail building. Ms. Wolf then offered
to answer questions from planning board members.
No one else from the public spoke in support of the proposed text amendment.
Chairman Collier closed that portion of the hearing and opened the opposition portion of the
public hearing.
Donna Girardot, of 127 Radnor Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment, citing
concerns about the inappropriateness of the amendment and the upcoming comprehensive plan
process. She felt the proposal would allow any land speculator to apply for a special use permit
in any R-7, R-10, or R-15 district in the county in anyone’s backyard regardless of where they
live. She stated she would not want to live next door to a grazing herd of campers, stretch RV’s,
and beached boats stranded on a sea of asphalt and felt it would be inappropriate. Residential
zonings need to be omitted from the text amendment for the reasons previously outlined by
planning board members. Ms. Gerardo commented that once again instead of waiting for the
public to decide what they want their community to look like and where they want their
Page 20 of 27
amenities to be located, approval of the amendment would be spot zoning, letting speculators and
our planners determine based on one rezoning request at a time what the remainder of the state’s
second smallest county will look like even before the comprehensive plan public meetings begin.
She explained we are just coming out of a recession and our homes have already lost a great deal
of their value. She stated the County Commissioners want to hear from the citizens regarding
what things are important to them, what they want the government to provide and not provide,
and what type and where they want their amenities.
Ms. Gerardo noted the City of Wilmington is one third through their comprehensive plan process
and to date, she has not seen anywhere where the citizens have asked to have recreational
vehicles, boats, or boat trailer storage in their neighborhoods. She quoted Jennifer Rigby’s
statements on December 7, 2013 regarding the comprehensive plan’s utilization of citizen input
in developing policies and subsequently updating the zoning ordinance. She also quoted Chris
O’Keefe’s statements on that same date that New Hanover County would not consider making
any major changes to the heart of the special use permit or any other zoning ordinances until the
comprehensive plan is complete and while some text amendments may be considered, those will
serve only to clarify the existing ordinance, not to change the meaning. Ms. Girardot commented
unfortunately the proposed text amendment does more than clarify the existing ordinance, it
changes the meaning and, by right, allows recreation vehicles, boats, and boat trailers in B-1, B-
2, I-1, I-2, O&I, Airport Residential, and Airport Industrial and also allows those uses by special
use permit in R-10, R-15, and R-7. Those are significant changes to the meaning and not merely
clarifications. The County’s comprehensive plan process hasn’t even started and won’t begin
until February 2014. Ms. Girardot stated County Parks Director Tara Duckworth is currently
drafting plans for county owned, undeveloped properties. There are discussions about boat
launching sites, ball parks, equestrian facilities, hiking trails, and dog parks. Ms. Girardot felt
there should be some correlation between where people store their recreational vehicles rather
than putting them helter-skelter around the county wherever a land speculator chooses. She
noted New Hanover County has never had a comprehensive plan. She asked the board to deny
the text amendment request and direct staff to include the item for discussion during the
comprehensive plan process.
Chairman Collier closed the opposition portion of the public hearing, noting no one else present
who wished to speak in regard to the item. He opened the rebuttal portion of the hearing.
Cindee Wolf stated appreciation for Ms. Girardot’s comments, however, noted the proposed type
of use has less impact than a convenience store, but similarly is appropriate in the vicinity of the
neighborhoods where it is convenient. She stated there is a major difference in the proposed use
versus a convenience store in regard to the aesthetic issues. Ms. Wolf commented the special use
permit does require the finding of fact that the use is consistent with planning documents. She
noted they don’t believe they are avoiding any process by requesting the text amendment now
instead of waiting until the comprehensive planning process is completed. She thanked the board
for consideration of her request.
No one spoke in opposition to the request during the rebuttal period.
Page 21 of 27
Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and asked for comments or motions from planning
board members.
Ted Shipley made a motion to amend the text amendment by deleting the special use permits in
all of the R residential districts in the table of permitted uses and recommend approval of the text
amendment as amended. David Weaver seconded the motion.
During discussion, Vice Chair Dan Hilla stated wholehearted agreement with the amendment,
noting he didn’t think there was any place in residential neighborhoods for RV and boat storage.
Ben Andrea stated the board might also strike the language in 72-46, which only pertains to
special use permits and would no longer apply if the special use permits were removed.
The Planning Board then voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment A-417 Article II: Section 23 Definitions as written, amending Article V: Section 50
Table of Permitted Uses, and eliminating R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, and AR zones from permitted
and special use permits for boat trailers and recreational vehicle storage, retaining modifications
to Article IV Section 63 and 63.10 Recreational Vehicle and Boat Storage Trailer lots as written
and eliminating Section 72-46.
Item 3: Zoning Map Amendment (Z-929, 1/14) – Request by Kenneth Orndorff of BRM
Associates #1, LLC to rezone 1.81 acres located at 5932 Carolina Beach Road from CD (B-
1) Neighborhood Business District to B-2, Highway Business District. The property is
classified as Transition according the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Ken Vafier provided the staff summary, including information pertaining to location, land
classification, access, level of service and zoning. Mr. Vafier also showed maps, aerials, video,
and photographs of the property and the surrounding area.
Staff Summary
The proposal is a general use rezoning of property located at 5932 Carolina Beach Road
from CD (B-1) to B-2, Highway Business District to consolidate the property into one
zoning district as a result of a previous action that split zoned the lot. The parcel fronts
Beau Rivage Marketplace and is located just south of Sanders Road.
Project History:
In November 2003, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners approved a
Conditional Use Rezoning from R-15, Residential District to CD (B-1) Business
District for Beau Rivage Marketplace, a mixed use development consisting of
residential, office and commercial uses. In October 2005, the Board of Commissioners
approved a request to add an additional 30,000 square feet of retail and an additional 58
dwelling units to the project.
The 2003 rezoning included a strip of land on the subject parcel for the purpose of
creating an access drive. The rezoning of the strip of land created a split zoning on the
Page 22 of 27
subject parcel with the strip being zoned CD (B-1) and the remainder of the subject
parcel zoned as B-2. In March 2007, the applicant requested an administrative approval
to the approved site plan in order to shift the access drive south on the subject parcel
approximately 150 feet toward the southern boundary of the parcel. The administrative
approval to shift the location of the access drive on the site plan was granted, however,
the request did not include a change to the zoning designation of the access drive as
approved in 2003 and recorded on the official zoning map.
This is a general use rezoning with no proposed development at this time. Factors
related to the specific development of the site will be addressed at the time of the
development proposal.
Nineteen neighboring property owners were notified of the rezoning request and the
request was advertised via newspaper, website, and the sunshine distribution list. Staff
did not field any inquiries from the public regarding the request.
Initially as the driveway was placed in the conditional district based on the metes and
bounds description indicating what property made up the rezoning; however, at this
time, staff does not feel there is any reason for the Conditional B-1 strip of property to
remain. Therefore, staff is supportive of consolidating the subject parcel into the B-2
district. The parcel is also consistent with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. For those
reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request.
Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ken Orndorff of BRM Associates, owner of the property, stated he had little to add to staff’s
presentation; however, noted by his calculations the actual area to be rezoned is approximately
one-tenth of an acre of the 1.81 acres site. Mr. Orndorff explained the rezoning would benefit
him with future development or sale of the parcel in regard to title issues.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the request; therefore, Chairman Collier closed the
public hearing and asked for comments or motions from the board.
Vice Chair Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning based on the
proposal being consistent with the land use plan and being reasonable and in the public interest
as submitted. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to
recommend approval of Zoning Map Amendment Z-929.
Item 4: Special Use Permit Request (S-615, 11/13) – Request by SEL Property Investors,
LLC to develop a community boating facility in conjunction with a single family detached
residential community on a 75.17 acre parcel on Masonboro Loop Road near Aqua Vista
Drive. The property is currently zoned R-15, Residential District, and classified as
Watershed Resource Protection and Conservation according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use
Plan.
Page 23 of 27
Ben Andrea presented the staff summary and provided information pertaining to location, land
classification, access, level of service and zoning. Mr. Andrea also showed maps, aerials, video,
and photographs of the property and the surrounding area.
Staff Summary
The subject property is zoned R-15 and is largely surrounded by R-15 zoning, with the
exception of an R-10 area to the west. Community boating facilities do require a special
use permit in all residential zoning districts.
The residential community of Masonboro Harbour lies directly to the south and some
other single family residential uses lie to the north and west of the property. The UNCW
Center for Marine Science is visible to the north of the site. The Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway lies to the east.
The subject of the special use permit request is the community boating facility towards
the east of the property. A preliminary plan for the residential development was
submitted to the Planning & Inspections Department on December 31, 2013 and has
been distributed to key agencies for comment prior to consideration by the County’s
Technical Review Committee. The street network was considered conceptual in nature,
but does correspond with the preliminary plan.
The facility would have direct access to the waterway via a proposed 40 feet wide canal.
Both the access canal and the basin would have to be created by dredging the existing
land to connect to an existing basin near the waterway.
A total of 64 parking spaces are proposed to serve the facility with a mixture of 35
vehicle spaces and 29 golf cart spaces. The use of signage and neighborhood covenants
will dictate that all spaces are time limited and temporary access to the facility.
Dedicated pedestrian paths and bicycle racks will be provided to encourage walking and
biking to the facility and the design of the residential neighborhood will encourage the
use of golf carts and other non-vehicular modes of transportation.
The community boating facility will consists of 75 slips of various sizes, including
nineteen 25’ slips, twenty 30’ slips, twenty-six 35’ slips, and eight 40’ slips. The
boating facility would also feature a canoe and kayak launch also exclusively for use by
community residents.
The project is subject to review and approval by a multitude of local, state, and federal
agencies through the CAMA Major permitting process. A scoping meeting was held
with representatives of these agencies on November 14, 2013. This special use permit
request was tabled at the November 12, 2013 Planning Board meeting to allow time for
the project scoping meeting and to make any necessary revisions that came about from
the meeting.
At the November 14, 2013 interagency scoping meeting, concerns were raised in
several areas and as a result, the project design was modified and plans were
Page 24 of 27
resubmitted to the Planning & Inspections office. The areas of concern and the revisions
made to address those concerns included the following:
Impacts to Coastal Wetlands – The original design of the project proposed impact
to approximately 3,151 square feet of coastal wetlands. NC DENR Division of
Coastal Management (DCM) Staff had particular concerns about the original
design of the bulkheads and breakwaters, their necessity, and the resulting
impacts to coastal wetlands. In response, the locations of the bulkheads and one
of the two breakwaters were revised and the impacted coastal wetland area has
been reduced to 1,284 square feet.
Impacts to Primary Nursery Areas – A riprap groin was originally proposed along
the northern side of the existing entrance channel to minimize sediment
accumulation and buffer wave energy within the channel. The proposed groin
would have impacted 3,768 square feet of Primary Nursery Area, a concern
expressed by several agencies. In response, the riprap groin was eliminated and
replaced with a vertical sheet pile jetty wall, which will have minimal impact to
the benthic environment of the Primary Nursery Area.
Adequate Tidal Flushing of Basin and Channel – Meeting attendees expressed
concern about the square corners of the original design as well as the basin and
channel depths, and how if these elements as designed could provide adequate
flushing of the channel and basin during the semi-diurnal mixed tidal events that
are experienced in southeastern North Carolina. Tapering the depths of corners in
the basin was suggested to improve water flow and encourage flushing, and the
plan was revised to taper the basin corner depths from -6’ mean low water
(MLW) to -5’ MLW. In accordance with DCM rules, the depth of the basin (-6’
MLW tapering to -5’ MLW in the corners) and channel (-6 MLW) will be less
than the depth of the adjacent waters (approximately -14 MLW within the
Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way). Additionally, a dredging maintenance plan is
proposed that will require maintenance dredging be performed when depths
within the authorized dredging areas reach -4’ MLW or shallower. Maintaining
channel and basin depths will ensure tidal flushing occurs as predicted and
designed.
The revised plan was submitted to the Planning & Inspections Department and was
included in the Planning Board package and was also submitted for the CAMA Major
Permit on December 17, 2013.
Notices for the public hearing were mailed to 120 nearby property owners and a sign
was posted on the property on December 20, 2013. Staff did receive a multitude of
inquiries about the project, but no specific opposition to the community boating facility.
A number of phone calls were received regarding the residential component of the
project and the potential traffic impacts that may cause. That issue will be evaluated as
the residential project goes through the TRC process.
Page 25 of 27
Mr. Andrea concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board.
Hearing no questions from the board, Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and
recognized the applicant.
Jeff Keeter, an attorney with Block Crouch Keeter Behm and Sayed, LLP spoke on behalf of
SEL Property Investors, owner of the 75.17 acres. He noted the principles of SEL Property
Investors are long-time local residents and well respected builder, Dee Logan, and the family that
has owned the tract for over 100 years, the Emmart family, were both represented at the meeting.
The property is the Aqua Vista Christmas Tree Farm, which will be developed into a single
family subdivision. They hope to incorporate a community boating facility for the benefit of the
owners in the subdivision. There may be concerns about traffic, but this boating facility is geared
exclusively to the residents of this subdivision, who will be buying the rights to use the boating
facility. The residents will hopefully access the boating facility through pedestrian traffic and
bikes; however, parking spaces will also be provided for cars and golf carts. He noted a
community boating facility is allowed in an R-15 zone with a special use permit. The proposal
will mimic what is already in place in Masonboro Harbour so the use is compatible and in
harmony with the community and will be an asset to the community and to the property owners,
who would like a place to park their boat and not have to drive down to a ramp to launch their
boat. The proposal also includes a canoe and kayak launch area. The boating facility will be
carved out of the high ground. No new dredging access into the Intracoastal Waterway will be
required. The boating facility will connect with a channel that has already been dredged and has
a dredge maintenance permit that has been in existence since 1981 and has now been assigned to
the development entity. He introduced Mr. Morrison.
Steve Morrison, an environmental consultant with Land Management Group, pointed out similar
uses nearby, as mentioned earlier by Mr. Andrea. The existing drainage permit originated by the
Emmart family in 1981 includes a 50’ wide entrance channel and the interior of the basin as well.
This plan will modify the inside of the basin by removing a section of high ground in the corner
and installing a boat ramp there and extending the upland cut into the basin from there for the
SEL property next door. This joint project will be an asset to the SEL property and the adjacent
property retained by the Emmarts.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the environmental aspects of the project and the CAMA permitting
process and review, expanding on the details provided by Mr. Andrea during the staff
presentation.
Dan Weeks, a landscape architect and land planner with of Paramounte Engineering, stated the
property is very unique with a tremendous bluff and a spectacular view of the waterway. He
noted the strong sense of stewardship and efforts made to allow the land dictate the master plan
design. The proposal as submitted to TRC is for 159 lots with a private community boating
facility consisting of 75 boat slips. The associated commercial uses for this type of facility will
be prohibited. Parking will consist of 35 standard 9’ x 18’ spaces and 29 golf cart spaces that fit
into the existing tree canopy. Mr. Weeks stated careful attention was paid to dedicated pedestrian
nodes, accesses, integrated open space and bike paths to promote a non-vehicular mode of
Page 26 of 27
transportation and a healthy lifestyle for the residents. As stated earlier by Mr. Andrea, the plan
was submitted to TRC on December 31, 2013 for review and approval.
Chairman Collier opened the opposition portion of the public hearing.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the special use permit.
During rebuttal, Howard Fineman, President of Masonboro Harbour Homeowners Association
representing 39 of the 120 lots notified, spoke in support of the project, noting their residents had
met and were in accord with the proposal. Mr. Fineman reported the HOA had worked closely
with Mr. Logan and the Emmart family, who were very cooperative during the process.
Bill Batoulis, a state certified real estate appraiser, stated he had researched the proposed
community boating facility and residential community at 5200 Masonboro Loop Road and
determined the proposed use of the subject property would not substantially injure the value of
surrounding properties. He also determined that the design and functionality of the proposed use
is typical, compatible, and in harmony with surrounding properties.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the special use permit request.
Jeff Keeter, stated the applicant would accept the conditions recommended by staff.
Chairman Richard Collier closed the public hearing and entertained discussion and motions from
the board.
In response to a question from Vice Chair Hilla, Mr. Keeter confirmed the boat slips would be
owned by lot owners, but there will be some community association aspects to the community
boating facility with the boat ramp and the kayak launch area. He reported the association
covenants he will be drafting will govern the private use of the facility and restrict the
commercial nature of the private boating facility.
Chairman Collier asked about the status of the TRC review of the project. He commented he felt
the project is in a great location and doesn’t endanger the public welfare, but noted that approval
of the special use permit not knowing the status of the subdivision plans gave him some pause.
He inquired if any information on traffic had been presented at an earlier Planning Board
meeting.
Mr. Andrea explained the request had been removed from the November Planning Board agenda
prior to the meeting; therefore, no information on the project had been presented to the board.
Mr. Weeks thanked the board for their patience and explained the project had been a very long
and involved process. He reported after the plan was completed and the CAMA permit
submitted, the plan was submitted to the TRC on December 31, 2013.
Vice Chairman Dan Hilla made a motion based on the findings of fact being positive to
recommend approval of the special use permit with the two conditions recommended by staff.
Page 27 of 27
Lisa Mesler seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of
Special Use Permit Request S-615 with two conditions:
1. The project is subject to the issuance of a CAMA Major Permit and any
conditions imposed by the permit, as well as all other applicable reviews,
permits, and approvals.
2. Revisions to the project that occur after the issuance of the Special Use Permit
that further minimize impacts to coastal wetlands, primary nursery areas,
shellfishing areas, or other conservation resources in order to receive a CAMA
Major Permit shall be considered minor revisions pursuant to Section 71-1(9).
Approval of the December 2013 Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Tamara Murphy made a motion to adopt the December Planning Board minutes as drafted. Vice
Chairman Dan Hilla seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the
December 5, 2013 Planning Board meeting minutes.
Technical Review Committee Report (December)
Ken Vafier presented the following report.
The County’s Technical Review Committee met once on December 18, 2013 to review
two preliminary site plans and one request for gates in a private community. All three
requests were approved by the Technical Review Committee conditionally. The details
are located in the TRC Report included in the Planning Board package.
Chairman Collier inquired how many people attended the December TRC meeting.
Mr. Vafier reported the meeting was attended by approximately 20-25 people.
Chairman Richard Collier adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.