Loading...
2014-05 May 1 2014 PBM Page 1 of 16 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board May 1, 2014 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, May 1, 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 Donna Girardot Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Ted Shipley, III Benjamin Andrea, Current Planner David Weaver Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Absent: Lisa Mesler Tamara Murphy Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Richard Collier reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of March 2014 Planning Board Minutes Vice Chairman Dan Hilla made a motion to approve the March Planning Board minutes as drafted. Ted Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to approve the March 6, 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes. (Donna Girardot did not vote). Chairman Collier welcomed new planning board member Donna Girardot. Ms. Girardot thanked the chairman and expressed her gratitude for the commissioners’ consideration and confidence in her. Chairman Collier announced three public hearings were scheduled on the agenda; however, Public Hearing Item 3 would be addressed first. Item 3: Special Use Permit Request (S-619, 4/14) – Request by Inlet Watch Development Partners to develop a mixed use development on three parcels totaling 7 acres located at 7261 & 7275 Carolina Beach Road. The property is currently zoned B-1, Business District, and classified as Transition and Conservation Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Page 2 of 16 Michael Lee, attorney representing the applicant, made a formal request for a continuance of Special Use Permit Request S-619 to the next scheduled Planning Board meeting in order to provide the applicant with an opportunity to hold a community meeting to engage the area residents regarding the proposed project. While it is not a requirement of the ordinance, they would like to proceed with a community meeting prior to the public hearing. Chairman Collier asked if anyone in the audience in support of or in opposition to the request had any objection to the board continuing the item to a future date in order for the applicant to hold a community meeting. Ken Vafier offered a point of clarification in regard to the continuance request. The county zoning ordinance does not require a special use permit applicant to hold a community meeting; however, the county does highly encourage an applicant to do so. During discussions with the applicants, they agreed to hold a community meeting. The request is not due to a technical situation where notice of a “required” community meeting didn’t go out on time. Chairman Collier thanked Mr. Vafier for that clarification and noted a meeting is not required; however, the applicant has requested the additional time to hold a community meeting. He asked for a motion regarding the continuance request. David Weaver made a motion to continue Special Use Permit Request S-619 to the June 5, 2014 Planning Board meeting. Ted Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to continue Special Use Permit Request S-619 to the June 5, 2014 Planning Board meeting. Item 1: Special Use Permit Request (S-618, 4/14) – Request by American Towers, LLC to develop a telecommunications tower on a parcel located at 1300 N. Kerr Avenue. The property is currently zoned R-10, Residential District, and classified as Urban and Conservation Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Ben Andrea presented the following staff report.  American Tower, LLC, applicant, on behalf of Jerry Robbins, property owner, is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit to develop a telecommunications tower on a portion of a 28.16 acre parcel located in an R-10 Residential District.  The subject site is situated on a portion of a 28.16 acre parcel located at 1300 N. Kerr Avenue, just south of the intersection with Grathwol Drive.  The parcel is classified as Conservation Area and Urban according to the 2006 Wilmington-New Hanover County Joint CAMA Land Use Plan, however the tower site lies completely within the Urban classification area, which allows for land uses including mixed use, cluster, and higher density development.  Adjacent to the east of the site runs a utility easement and significant power transmission lines. The parcel currently hosts a manufactured home community, and some additional single family residential uses exist to the north, east, and south of the site. Page 3 of 16  Significant areas around the site remain undeveloped, partially due to the environmental constraints. There is an AE flood zone and floodway as a result of Smith Creek traversing the property.  The site is currently zoned R-10. The areas around the site are mostly zoned R-10 and R-15, and some MF-M zoning is to the south within the City of Wilmington.  A property survey was recently conducted. Access to the tower site from N. Kerr Avenue would be provided by an access easement, mostly over the existing improved manufactured home community access drive.  The site is located approximately 200’ from the closest residential structure.  The site consists of a 100’ x 100’ leased area. About half of this area serves as the required 25’ buffer around the site, and the rest contains the tower and equipment compounds. A nine feet (9’) tall chain link fence with barbed wire would surround the equipment area.  The Staff Summary for the case provided detailed Findings of Facts demonstrating that the proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance regulations as well as the land use plan. Additionally, Mr. Tom Johnson is prepared to give a presentation on behalf of American Towers, LLC.  In summary, staff has determined that the proposal does meet the ordinance requirements, specifically Section 63.5-1, which specifies specific standards and requirements for telecommunication towers.  Airport staff is aware of the proposal and has indicated no objection, particularly with the FAA issuing a statement determining the tower would be of no hazard to air navigation.  138 adjacent property owner notifications were mailed out to provide notices of tonight’s public hearing and a sign was posted on the property on April 17.  At this time, evidence submitted as part of the Special Use Permit application demonstrates that the project is consistent with Policies in the 2006 Wilmington-New Hanover County CAMA Land Use Plan, as well as the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.  Staff received one call in opposition to the request, citing concerns of decreasing property values as a result of the proposal.  Staff recommends approval of the request. Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Thomas H. Johnson. Jr., an attorney with Nexsen Pruet PLLC, spoke on behalf of the applicant and requested that the application and all associated documentation reviewed by Mr. Andrea be admitted into evidence in support of their application for a special use permit. All documentation required under the ordinance was submitted, including the FAA documentation. All towers go through an extensive process because they are federally licensed facilities, including environmental reviews, historic property reviews, and many other reviews. Mr. Johnson explained that American Towers is requesting more towers because increasing numbers of consumers are relying exclusively on wireless devices for phone service and data access purposes, particularly in college communities like Wilmington. In the U.S. and in North Carolina 32-33% of all households are wireless only. Another 16% nationally and 13% of North Page 4 of 16 Carolina households are mostly wireless, which means the first device a person will pick up is a wireless device rather than a land phone. More towers are needed to maintain a strong signal that penetrates walls of residential and commercial buildings in order to provide important access to 911 emergency services. Nationwide approximately 75% of all 911 calls originate from a wireless device. Mr. Johnson stated one of the reasons this tower is requested is the plan to meet the need for data access at 4G speed for I-phones, smart phones, tablets, wireless cards, and laptop computers. Data traffic has risen tremendously since the release of the I-phone in 2007. By 2016, the prediction is for 1.4 wireless devices for every person in the world. Demographically, the younger age group relies on wireless for data much more so than the older population. Mr. Johnson stated the search ring for the tower needed by AT&T is very small at approximately 1/3 of a mile. In this area, there aren’t many places where a tower could be located without being in the middle of a floodway or a residential subdivision. This site is on the edge of the search ring, but is undeveloped and wooded, which works well. He presented a map reflecting the proposed site and several other sites, including the site on Gordon Road previously approved by New Hanover County and a tower on Market Street near Costco. Other facilities are also being used by AT&T, but they are not enough to fill the need. AT&T is trying to fill that gap with the proposed tower. He presented a radio frequency propagation map showing how the signal comes from the tower and what is happening with the existing towers. H reiterated a tower is being proposed for the site with the goal of providing a sufficient signal to penetrate the walls of commercial and residential buildings. This tower will serve an area where currently no coverage exists. There isn’t a signal as you move toward the airport because towers can’t be placed around the airport. Mr. Johnson explained a minimal number of trees will be removed to put the tower in the area above an existing dirt road and north of Spring Branch. As required by the ordinance, Mr. Johnson provided photo simulations of the proposed tower. He pointed out the tower blends in with the existing infrastructure already in place along the high voltage power line easement and is not visible from a perspective southwest of the site. In other simulations it is barely visible from a perspective directly west of the site and is not visible off Martin Luther King Parkway southeast of the site. He also noted the tower will not be visible from the neighborhood southwest of the site. He then provided a representation of the tower elevation reflecting the antennas for AT&T at the top and other carriers below, as well as the equipment shelter. Mr. Johnson concluded his presentation and offered to answer questions from the board members. Chairman Collier thanked Mr. Johnson and asked if anyone else would like to speak in support of the project. Hearing none, he entertained questions from board members. Ted Shipley asked if the lots for the trailer park on the same property were leased from the land owner that is also leasing to American Tower. Mr. Johnson confirmed American Towers was leasing the property from the land owner, Mr. Rawlings, who is also leasing to the mobile home park residents. One of the trailers is located Page 5 of 16 within 200 feet of the proposed site. The closest subdivision is located 300 feet to some of those adjoining lots. Mr. Johnson pointed out the tower is a self-supporting 150 feet high monopole tower with no cables or anchors and will not need to be lighted per the FAA approval letter. Typically lighting is not required on a tower less than 200 feet high. Donna Girardot asked the applicant to clarify evidence submitted which states the proposed facility will not meet any significant noise or glare, but will be lit. She assumed that would be for aviation. Mr. Johnson apologized for the error and reiterated that the tower would not be lit. For aviation purposes, it doesn’t have to be lit. The only light will be a light pack on the building to provide light for maintenance personnel servicing the facility at night. Ms. Girardot asked Mr. Andrea to clarify his request for additional information regarding co- location noted in an email dated 4/1/14 to Mr. Johnson, which was included in the package. She noted Mr. Johnson had replied that information did not need to be provided due to legislation enacted by the General Assembly last year. Mr. Andrea explained staff had sought to determine if co-location was feasible based on any other structure that might accommodate it. In regard to the legislation that was recently passed, Mr. Johnson gave his interpretation that he wasn’t required to provide that information, but essentially did so out of courtesy to show the need for the tower. Mr. Johnson elaborated that correspondence was in regard to the radio frequency propagation map addressed in his presentation. While new legislation passed in the last session by the NC General Assembly specifically states that a jurisdiction cannot require that the propagation maps be provided, he chooses to provide them because they help better illustrate the need for the tower. He noted the proposed tower is designed for co-location. Chairman Collier opened the opposition portion of the hearing. No one from the public spoke in opposition to the request. Chairman Collier closed the opposition portion of the hearing and offered the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal. Hearing none, Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and asked if board members had any additional questions for staff or the applicant. Chairman Collier asked Mr. Johnson to confirm there was 200 feet clearance around the tower site, including the Kings Grant neighborhood across the power easement. Mr. Johnson confirmed the closest residential structure is one of the mobile homes, which is 200 feet away and the other adjoining residences are much further away. Per the ordinance, which requires one for one in the fall zone, the site well exceeds that because there is nothing closer than 150 feet to the tower. In response to additional questions from the chairman, he reiterated Page 6 of 16 for the record that a flashing red beacon would not be included on the tower. The reference to the light in the evidence was an error. The FAA report, which was submitted and filed, does not require lighting on the tower. A wall pack light on the building itself will be included at ground level. Typically those wall packs have motion sensors so they do not come on unless someone comes into the facility. Chairman Collier asked Mr. Andrea if staff was comfortable with supplementing landscaping within the existing vegetation or would make that determination upon submittal of a formal plan. Mr. Andrea acknowledged staff would prefer to make that determination upon review of the formal plan and an onsite assessment. Staff will ensure it meets the opacity requirements during the zoning review. Mr. Johnson stated the applicant would be glad to do whatever is needed to supplement the landscaping. Chairman Collier entertained a motion from the board for the special use permit request. Vice Chair Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit as submitted with all findings being positive. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit Request S-618. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-931, 4/14) - Request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions on behalf of Andrew Hall to rezone 5.71 acres located at 6904 Carolina Beach Road from R- 15, Residential, to CZD (O&I), Office and Institutional Conditional Zoning District, for Recreational Vehicle and Boat Trailer Storage. The subject property is classified as Wetland Resource Protection Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Ben Andrea presented the following staff report.  The subject property is located in the southern portion of the county on Carolina Beach Road near the intersection of Myrtle Grove Road. The roughly 31 acres parent parcel is classified as Wetland Resource Area and National Heritage Resource Area according to the CAMA Resource Area Plan.  The area subject to rezoning is just over five acres, and that’s classified solely as Wetland Resource Protection Area. I wanted to point out also that other areas along Carolina Beach Road are classified as Transition, which are areas slated to get intensive land use.  The surrounding land uses consist largely of single family residential uses, but substantial acreage to the northwest of the site is held in conservation by various organizations.  The site remains undeveloped with the exception of a modular office building that was recently placed on the property. The site features 165 feet of frontage along Carolina Beach Road. A driveway permit from NC DOT would be required for the project. The closest median crossing is just north of the site. Page 7 of 16  There are a few non-residential uses in the vicinity of the subject site. Both of those are just south of the subject site and include a former furniture store and a bait and fishing sales type establishment.  The current zoning of the property is R-15, as is the majority of the surrounding area. The non-residential uses comprise the B-1 area. There is also an R-10 district. The area subject to the rezoning is on the eastern portion of the tract. A property survey was provided by the applicant. There are delineated wetland areas on the property and a jurisdictional determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is valid until February, 2019.  The overall concept plan reflects two storage areas with 73 spaces in three different sizes connected by an access drive approximately 18 feet in width. Wetland impact is limited to two small areas totaling approximately .21 acres to build the driveway.  The first area would have 16 spaces, the office space, and buffering improvements. An automated gate is proposed and a fence would enclose the entire facility.  The western storage area features a total of 57 spaces varying in size. Actual vegetation would be augmented as necessary within the 21 feet buffer to provide adequate visual screening.  The MPO conducted a traffic count last month, which yielded an average daily trip count of nearly 27,000 trips. This represents a level of service of E for this section of Carolina Beach Road, meaning that the traffic counts are approaching the design capacity of the road. Traffic generation as a result of this project; however, is proposed to be very minimal at three peak hour trips for both morning and evening.  203 adjacent property owners were notified of the request. Staff received one phone call from a property owner on Southern Charm Drive with questions about the request, but no other support or opposition was voiced by that caller.  Staff received a letter of support from another property owner on Southern Charm Drive, which was included in the agenda package.  The rezoning request is to rezone 5.7 acres from R-15 to Office and Institutional Conditional Zoning District. Although the request would create a pocket district of O&I within predominantly R-15 zoning, staff feels it would provide resource protection. Additionally staff feels the low density use is not inconsistent with the applicable land use classifications. The proposal does conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance, particularly Section 63, which outlines specific requirements for this type of use.  The original intent of the petitioner was to seek a rezoning request to a B-2 Conditional District. However, as a result of the feedback received at the community information meeting held by the petitioner, the rezoning request was revised to pursue the Office and Institutional District rather than the B-2 District. It is also important to note that any change in use that deviates from what is approved as a part of a rezoning to a conditional district is considered a major modification and would require revisiting the rezoning process.  Staff recommends approval of the request. Mr. Andrea offered to answer questions from the board. Page 8 of 16 Chairman Collier asked if board members had any questions for staff. Hearing none, he opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Andy Hall, owner and petitioner, stated he was a resident of 4 Columbia Street, Wrightsville Beach and a physician with Wrightsville Radiology. He asked Cindee Wolf to speak in regard to the technicalities of the project following his presentation. Within a couple of miles of the subject property there have been multiple subdivisions built, including Old Cape Cod, that are small homes on small lots with no garages and little room for folks to park their adult toys, including boats, trailers, and RV’s. In fact, many have HOA rules that prohibit folks from parking those types of vehicles on their property. He met with the neighbors when he began thinking about uses for the property. The closest storage facility is at Monkey Junction. This proposal would help shorten the distance between the residents nearby and the storage facility for their vehicles, enabling them to use them more often and reach launch facilities quicker. There are also people who live in the Research Triangle area that may not want to drive their boat or RV back and forth to the Carolina Beach area so this would be an ideal area to store those vehicles. He was hoping this business model would capture some of that activity as well. Dr. Hall pointed out most of the parcel is wetlands. The front portion is where the uplands are located and is where the attention is focused on the parcel. The design layout is respectful to the wetlands. Impact on the frontage along Carolina Beach Road will be minimal with a fairly long access road. The majority of the rear property is covered by wetlands so the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods will also be minimal. He noted one of the adjacent neighbors, Mr. Dowdy, was present to speak in support of the proposal. Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she was assisting Dr. Hall with the rezoning process. As previously noted, proximity to your home and boat ramp certainly come into play when deciding where you’d like to store these types of vehicles. Many uses, including day cares, are permitted in residential districts by special use permit so that they are close to the need that they are trying to serve. Ms. Wolf reported in the past there was no specific definition for storage facilities in the ordinance, but the County Commissioners approved a text amendment that defined Recreational Vehicle and Boat Trailer Storage Facilities a few months ago. It was a major difference in the comparatively broad view of what mini warehousing had been in the past and was required to be in a B-2 zone. Ms. Wolf explained they were pursuing an Office and Institutional District. Primary commercial nodes all along Carolina Beach Road are located at the nodes of major intersections, which is a sensible location for business nodes. But, if you take a look up and down this stretch of Carolina Beach Road, there are many non-conforming uses in those residential districts. Many have been there so long they were grandfathered before the zoning ordinance was enacted and more often than not, are not in compliance with current technical standards. A lot of outdoor storage of materials and junk, unsafe driveways, and virtually no screening or landscaping can be found there. These properties have no requirements to improve on those standards unless major changes are being made in the physical attributes of that particular site or that particular use, whether business or residential. Page 9 of 16 Ms. Wolf commented overall, the lands immediately adjacent to the Carolina Beach Road thoroughfare really aren’t as desirable for residential development. They find that situation to be true all the time. When they first applied for the B-2 zone, they understood why there was kickback because they don’t want to strip out Carolina Beach Road with businesses, strip centers and those types of uses allowed in B-1 and B-2 districts. Ms. Wolf commented they believe zoning the five acres site for Office and Institutional is a logical move for transition of uses. They may have considered a straight Office and Institutional zoning for the five acres site, such as a dentist office, veterinary office, or many other uses, but in the short term they felt specifically conditioning the rezoning on a conditional zoning district for an RV and boat storage limits the near term impacts, but adds value to the owner and tax base for the county now. The proposed improvements include a gravel base, no structures, and the existing building currently onsite, which will serve as a management office. However, requirements for the driveway permit, stormwater management, screened buffers and landscaping for aesthetics will all be met at this particular juncture. Ms. Wolf explained the project is currently set up in two sections so it lends itself easily to phasing, bringing in the first section, including landscaping and presenting a nice improvement to the open, vacant, scrubby site as it is right now and in a good business mode, extending back into the back section when appropriate. Ultimately, as a Transition type of use in an Office and Institutional district, future redevelopment is made easier as economics and demographics change over the years; however, under the conditional zoning district, any future modifications would still come before the board for final approval. As presented tonight, the applicant believes the project is a very low impact use that serves a good purpose and a need that has been established throughout the community. Ms. Wolf stated in conclusion, the applicant agrees with all findings and the data presented by staff and asks the board to consider a positive recommendation for approval of this request. Mr. Dowdy commented he and Mr. Hall had spoken about the issue several times. He acknowledged he is an RV person and had communicated to Mr. Hall that this location would be a great place for RVs. There is no RV location nearby except Winners at Carolina Beach. There is also a KOA campground on Market Street, but those are the only two RV locations in New Hanover County. The County is missing out on a lot of opportunity in regard to tax base income. In conclusion, Mr. Dowdy stated he is in favor of the proposed project, His property is located directly adjacent to the subject property and he is willing to do anything he can to assist Mr. Hall. Chairman Collier opened the opposition portion of the hearing. Ty Rogers of 464 McQuillan Drive stated several of his neighbors were also present at the meeting. The notice they received did not clearly indicate whether the rezoning request was for only 5.7 acres or would affect the rest of the property in the parcel. They reside in the River Oaks neighborhood located at the other end of the 931 Carolina Beach Road property. They asked for clarification of the request and the effect it would have on the rest of the property. Chairman Collier clarified that the front half of the property containing 5.7 acres would have a Conditional Zoning district on it to allow the requested use if approved. The rear half of the Page 10 of 16 property containing the remaining 27+/- acres is predominantly wetlands, which would take extensive permitting to cross in order to have any viable use. At this time, it is in a Conservation Resource zone according to the CAMA Land Use Plan. The limitations on development within that area are also very stringent so for all intents and purposes, it is an unusable piece of property. He asked Dr. Hall to speak in regard to that issue. Dr. Hall affirmed Chairman Collier’s statements in regard to the rear portion of the property were correct. For point of clarification, he reported meeting with Shawn Ralston, formerly with the Planning & Zoning Department, to work through the process of acquiring funds to survey the large tract, which is an expensive proposition. He would like to donate that portion of the property for a conservation area. Since Ms. Ralston’s departure, that process had stalled so they have been working diligently with the Army Corps of Engineers to get the wetlands permits squared away. Because so much of the parcel is wetlands, it would be very difficult for there to be any substantive changes to that area in order to access any facilities. Chairman Collier commented if any future development was proposed later on the property, there would have to be another public hearing for the site to be modified. The rear portion of the parcel, unless developed as single family residential would also be required to come before the same board for almost any other use placed upon it. No one else from the public spoke in opposition to the request. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and entertained questions and comments from the board members. Chairman Collier asked Mr. Dowdy, the closest adjacent neighbor, if he was planning to continue living adjacent to the project. Mr. Dowdy confirmed he planned to continue living on his property. He commented his property is two acres in size and he has two RVs of his own. He noted several people in the Cape Cod subdivision had approached him about storing their RVs and boats on his property, but he had denied their requests. He stated there was definitely a need in the area for that type of storage facility. In response to Chairman Collier’s inquiry, Mr. Dowdy also confirmed he was comfortable with the proposed plan and the vegetation between his property and the proposed storage facility site. Chairman Collier asked Ms. Wolf to clarify for the record the purpose of the proposal is for RV and boat trailer storage, and is not for a camp ground/RV park. Ms. Wolf confirmed the proposal is for a RV and boat trailer storage facility only. While she agreed with Mr. Dowdy’s statements in regard to the need for a campground/RV park in New Hanover County, the applicant is not proposing that type of facility. She also confirmed the proposal doesn’t include any utilities, water or sewer, other than those for the existing building on the site. Page 11 of 16 In response to a question from Chairman Collier, Ms. Wolf confirmed the surfaces would be gravel, which the exception of the driveway. The driveway will be paved up to the entry gate because the handicapped space for the office would have to be a solid surface. That would be logical and would clean up the frontage. She will make that distinction on future plans. She noted the office is an existing building onsite that will be relocated. Ms. Wolf confirmed the office is currently onsite and is a doublewide that was previously moved from another location and is being used as a personal storage facility. It will translate nicely into a management office for this facility only. In regard to the chairman’s question about site lighting, the applicant hasn’t specifically outlined the lighting, but the county code requires directional control over lights. They would certainly want some security lighting, which would be motion based. The applicant is willing to discuss specifics, but the county ordinance covers the topic satisfactorily. Those details will also be worked out during the site plan process. No light will stray off the property and vegetative buffers will also serve that purpose. There is some level of woods or tree coverage between the site and the adjacent residences even in the rear of the property, which will be supplemented. Chairman Collier asked if the project would be built in phases. Ms. Wolf stated belief the applicant would phase the first section of the project and then extend into the rear section. The rear section would be phased because of the wetlands crossing the property, although there isn’t a lot of it. The owner would phase the first section and then logically extend into the rear section of the property. Ms. Wolf confirmed there will be three sizes of rental spaces. When laying out the property, she took into consideration the traffic patterns and the turning radii necessary for boats, trailers and RVs. Chairman Collier asked if the entire site would be completely fenced. Ms. Wolf confirmed the property would be fenced completely around because of the nature of the use. The applicant is proposing full landscape buffers and probably chain link fence for security purposes other than perhaps along the front section for aesthetic purposes. The buffer requirements for three rows of evergreen shrubs and intermittent trees and existing vegetation would remain and be supplemented. The fence height would probably be eight feet. Chairman Collier stated a preference for at least a wooden fence on the front portion of the property if the project moved forward. Depending upon the screening, he felt a chain link fence would probably work along the rear, but the applicant could work with staff on the opacity of the fence/buffer. In response to an inquiry from Chairman Collier, Ms. Wolf stated there is no limitation on impervious coverage in the wetland resource protection area. She noted an engineer would be engaged to address stormwater management for the site because they must maintain and detain the water off the gravel lot, which is considered impervious surface because of the vehicular use. Page 12 of 16 The site plan incorporates green areas in between some of the rows, which could be used as depressed detention areas. Chairman Collier asked for questions from the planning board. Ms. Girardot offered some clarification to Mr. Hall and Mr. Dowdy regarding the distance to wet and dry storage spaces. She pointed to nearby Inlet Watch approximately .4 miles away with 200 wet and dry spaces and noted 3 to 4 RV and boat/trailer storage sites available south of Monkey Junction, not including option at Carolina Beach. Ms. Girardot stated in regard to pocket districts, she knows those as spot zoning, which concerns her. They are usually a smaller area that is singled out of a larger area specially zoned for a classification that’s different from or inconsistent with a normal classification. She is especially worried since the county is moving forward on the comp plan, but really hasn’t gotten into it yet. She isn’t sure what those people in that part of the county really want to see adjacent to them. The County hasn’t asked those residents or given them the opportunity to say what they want there, but is spot zoning with this proposal. Ms. Girardot noted on Page 4 the staff report states the proposal creates the opportunity for RV and boat trailer storage in close proximity to residential areas that may not have their own neighborhood storage area and the proposal also seems to support Policy 4.3 of the CAMA Land Use Plan. The question is does it or does it not support Policy 4.3 because the CAMA Land Use Plan says we maximize the effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring that the land is available for commercial uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas. She reported a comment was made at a commissioners’ meeting about every land owner having the right to use his property. She firmly believes that and her credentials back that up. She firmly believes in protecting private property rights, but she is also a firm believer that the private property owners that bought R-15 property on either side of this parcel, which is also zoned R-, have private property rights to be respected. They didn’t anticipate an adjacent property owner putting in a manufacturing plant or paper mill or a boat and trailer and RV parking lot in that space and that concerns her. Ms. Girardot then recounted testimony from the March 10, 2014 County Commissioners meeting at which the board discussed a special use permit request by ACI Pine Ridge LLC. Commissioner Barfield asked Bill Batuyious of Atlantic Appraisal Associates, Inc., who was testifying on behalf of that project, “If he had ever not endorsed a project”. Mr. Batuyious reported there was a boat storage project that he had reviewed with his professional opinion being the project would not have been the best use of the property and would have had a negative impact on the surrounding property values.” She believed a word was left out of the minutes because she thought she heard “residential” property values. The testimony can be found in the Commissioners meeting minutes in Book 33, Page 36. Some concerns were noted by planning board members at their January meeting and were also presented at the February County Commissioners meeting when they discussed this issue in concert with a text amendment written to allow boat storage, trailer storage and RV storage in business areas, O&I, and all Residential districts. She noted the concerns expressed were all night security lighting, flashing neon signs, Page 13 of 16 4:00 a.m. noise of fishermen coming to retrieve their boats, compounded by the temptation to test their engines before securing hitches and tow bars. They also expressed concern about the folks who would use the facility to clean and do repair work on their RVs and boats or prepare their RVs for upcoming trips or sale, or to meet potential buyers of these boats and vehicles on the property, which could happen during the week or over weekends. She stated she understood that with a conditional use permit rules could be drafted that prohibit maintenance or repair work and other things, but they would be difficult to enforce. Everyone has seen these activities occurring at already established facilities. Ms. Girardot stated staff notes in the package that the same request was brought forward to a community meeting in October, 2013, in the B-1 and the text amendment came before the Planning Board and the County Commissioners in January, but the staff report didn’t say that all of the residential was stripped out of that text amendment unanimously by the Planning Board and the text amendment was adopted with the residential zoning stripped out because they found it “inappropriate to be in a residential area”. Ms. Girardot stated she saw nothing different in this request than was seen in January’s request. She is bothered by the spot zoning and finds this use inappropriate in a residential area. She stated for those two reasons, she finds those things she is supposed to be looking for, the general welfare standard, the zoning consistency standard, and the nuisance standard, have not been met; therefore, she can’t support this request. David Weaver stated most of his comments had already been given by Ms. Girardot and the chairman. He asked about the hours of operation, noting a locking automated gate was proposed. Ms. Wolf reported the storage facility would be self-service through the automated gate, which can be computer automated to allow key cards to work only during certain hours of the day/night. If that is a condition of the approval, the applicant is more than willing to discuss it. This site is in a relatively open area. One neighbor is present at this meeting, who has no issues with the request. Dr. Hall has spoken with the other neighbors; however, they are not present so that would be third party information. The 5 acres proposal is removed from anything located on McQuillan Drive. Of the five property owners on Southern Charm Drive, one resident has sent staff a letter of support for the proposal. The project is fairly far removed from those particular five neighbors and is buffered as required by the ordinance. Enforcement of the county codes is complaint driven. Ms. Wolf stated all of those nuisance comments came from Ms. Girardot when she made her presentation at that time, but we are talking about two different things. The boat storage in a residential district was not included in the text amendment that was passed. The key to it was that the commissioners believed that in all residential districts in the entire county, this was not something they were willing to support and there was a good amount of discussion. Ms. Wolf stated, however, this particular site is not a spot zone. It is located very close to B-1 and B-2 districts. There is a convenience store located at the intersection of Myrtle Grove Road, along with all sorts of things. She didn’t feel this site would be considered legally a spot zone. The key to the conditional zoning district has to do with the fact that they are specifically requesting this use, which is a very low impact, hardly visible type of use along a busy highway corridor. Those things in combination make the conditional zoning district, which is specific to a particular site, appropriate for the request on this site for an Office and Institutional District. Page 14 of 16 Mr. Weaver agreed that legally this is not spot zoning; however, you did say that Office and Institutional is Transition zoning and in this case it’s not Transition zoning because usually O&I is transitioned from a B-1 or B-2 district to a residential district. There is no B-1 or B-2 adjacent. Ms. Wolf replied that there is a highway corridor and it equally transitions from a highway. Mr. Weaver disagreed, noting it is not a transition from the highway. In this area of the county even though Highway 421 is a busy road, there are a number of instances on this stretch of Highway 421 where some very nice, successful subdivisions have been built. The shape of this particular parcel which has narrow frontage on Highway 421 and then goes in somewhat deeply lends itself to that kind of subdivision. For that reason, he felt the parcel could be developed frankly successfully as a residential subdivision. Mr. Weaver then expressed concern that the office would not be manned during the hours of operation. Ms. Wolf confirmed the office would not be manned at a facility of this size. Mr. Weaver also stated concern that people would come in and decide to spend a couple of nights in the RV on the property. He noted he has a neighbor down the street that has a large boat and on weekends, he gets up early and cranks it up, revving the engine. It sounds like a Harley Davidson convention coming down the road. He detests it and is not very nice. It doesn’t sound like there are any controls on this facility except for zoning enforcement officers and he would guarantee it wouldn’t be easy to get a zoning enforcement officer out to check on a noise violation at 4:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning. He stated for those reasons he couldn’t support the request either in this particular instance. Ms. Wolf noted Mr. Weaver’s neighbor was also in violation of the ordinance. Hearing no additional comments, Chairman Collier entertained a motion from the board. Donna Girardot made a motion to deny Rezoning Request Z-931 based on the finding the request is not reasonable and is not in the public interest based on the nuisance standard and is not consistent with the land use plan. David Weaver seconded the motion. During discussion, Mr. Weaver asked if Ms. Girardot was willing to amend the motion because he didn’t think the special use permit would be in harmony with the area in which it is located. Ms. Girardot amended her motion to include the use would not be in harmony with the area in which it is located, but noted the request is a conditional use permit. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman then clarified the request is not a conditional use rezoning, but is a conditional rezoning. A conditional rezoning is a straight rezoning that has the ability to have conditions placed upon it for approval. There is no special use permit or conditional use. Page 15 of 16 Chairman Collier thanked Ms. Huffman for clarifying the request is for a conditional district rezoning. He announced there is a motion by Ms. Girardot for denial and asked for confirmation of the motion and second. Ms. Girardot confirmed the motion. Mr. Weaver confirmed the second. The Planning Board voted 3-2 to deny Rezoning Request Z-931 based on the finding the request is not reasonable and is not in the public interest based on the nuisance standard, is not consistent with the land use plan and is not in harmony with the area. (Girardot, Hilla, and Weaver voted for denial). (Collier and Shipley voted against the motion). Technical Review Committee Report (March/April) Sam Burgess provided the following TRC Report. The County’s Technical Review Committee met twice in March and once in April and reviewed a total of three preliminary site plans. River Oaks This project is located in the southern portion of the county near the 8000 block of River Road and is classified as Transition on the County’s adopted 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The project consists of several residential land uses. Adjacent and to the north of this project is River Oaks proper. To the east is also Windswept subdivision and to the south is The Cape subdivision that was established in early 1982. As reflected on the site plan, the area is zoned R-15. The proposal for this section of River Oaks is for 47 single family lots approximately 15,000 square feet in size. Those lots will be sitting on approximately 31.95 acres. Private water and sewer will be provided through Aqua of North Carolina. There will be an extension of the public roads that exist in River Oaks presently for this project. Primary project access for this project will be through River Oak through Fern Drive. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved a preliminary site plan for River Oaks for a two year period. There were four conditions attached to the site plan approval and those conditions are a part of the Planning Board package. The Village at Motts Landing This property is classified as Urban on the County’s adopted Land Use Plan. Immediately to the left of this project is another major portion of the Village at Motts Landing, which was established around 2001-2002. There has been a general development plan that has been approved for the entire project consisting of 654 residential lots so this particular project will probably be ongoing for the next 10-15 years. The site plan shows R-15 residential zoning, 47 single family lots are contained within this particular section of the Village at Motts Landing, which consists of approximately Page 16 of 16 23.7 acres. Aqua of North Carolina will serve this project, along with public sewer through the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. There is a blend of public and private roads within this particular section of the project. The project access will be through Sanders Road and also River Road. In a vote of 4-0, the TRC approved the preliminary site plan for the Village of Knots Landing for a period of two years. Five conditions were attached to the plan and were included in the Planning Board package. River Oaks This project is located in the southern portion of our jurisdiction and is classified as Transition and Conservation on the County’s 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. There are two basic upland areas for this particular project. One will have direct access off of River Road and the other portion will be off of River Oaks Drive, which is directly below the smaller portion of the project. The area to the east and adjacent is a part of the River Oaks Development that was established around 1978 to 1980. The site plan attributes include R-15 residential zoning, 22 single family lots, on approximately 21.72 acres in addition to the wetlands that are a part of the area. Private water and sewer through Aqua will serve this particular project and the roads are basically private. Project access is from River Road and also River Oaks Drive. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the preliminary site plan for West View for a period of two years with approximately nine conditions attached to the plan. Those conditions are included in the planning board package. Chairman Collier thanked Mr. Burgess for the presentation, noting he was pleased there were projects moving forward in the county. Chris O’Keefe welcomed new board member Donna Girardot. He also announced several upcoming vacancies on the Planning Board and encouraged members of the public to apply if they were interested in serving on the board. With no further business, Chairman Collier adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.