2014-07 July 10 2014 PBM
Page 1 of 29
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
July 10, 2014
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, July 10, 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
Tamara Murphy Jennifer Rigby, Long Range Planner
Ted Shipley, III Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
David Weaver
Absent:
Lisa Mesler
Chairman 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 June 2014 Planning Board Minutes
Tamara Murphy made a motion to approve the June Planning Board minutes. David Weaver
seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 4-0 to approve the June 5, 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes.
(Richard Collier and Dan Hilla were absent at the June meeting).
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-934, 7/14) - Request by New Hanover County Regional
Medical Center to rezone 26.93 acres located at 151 Scotts Hill Medical Drive from (CUD)
O&I, Office and Institutional Conditional Use District to (CZD) O&I, Office and
Institutional Conditional Zoning District for the addition of a helicopter pad to the
previously approved site plan. The subject property is classified as Transition according to
the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Ken Vafier provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of
service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the
surrounding area.
Page 2 of 29
Ken Vafier presented the following staff report.
The subject property is located in the northern area of the county. The site is
classified as Transition area by the CAMA Land Use Plan.
Access to the site from Market Street is provided by Scotts Hill Medical Drive,
which also provides access to the existing Atlantic Surgical Center facility.
The site is currently zoned O&I Conditional Use District as a result of a 2007
approval of a rezoning case, Z-853. The B-1 Conditional Use District to the south
was also part of that approval. An undeveloped area of B-1 lies just to the north of
the site and the remainder of the surrounding zoning is predominately zoned R-15.
Preliminary plan approval was granted in February of 2014 for a 226 single family
residential development called Scottsdale Village on approximately 90 acres to the
south of the site.
In 2013 staff met with the applicant team to discuss modifications to the 2007 site
plan and it was determined that the building layout and configurations could be
altered by minor modification within administrative approval. However, the addition
of the helipad was considered a major modification, which would require a revisit to
the rezoning process.
The current site plan was approved administratively by staff in February of 2014.
The proposed site plan is virtually identical to the current valid site plan except for
the addition of the proposed helipad area.
The helipad is the only addition to the site plan being considered in this request.
The subject site is under development per the current valid plan that was approved
administratively. The emergency room facility is currently under construction.
29 adjacent property owners were mailed notification of the rezoning request and a
public notice sign was posted on June 19, 2014.
A community information meeting was held by the petitioner on May 28, 2014 prior
to the application submittal. One meeting attendee voiced concern about aircraft
noise that would occur as a result of the proposed helipad. Subsequently, staff did
not receive any calls in support or in opposition to the request.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request as presented. The request directly
supports two policies of the CAMA Land Use Plan and is consistent with the
Transition land use classification. A more detailed consistency determination was
included in the staff summary provided in the planning board package.
Hearing no questions from the board, Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and
recognized the applicant.
Mr. Tom Walsh, Vice President of Facilities at New Hanover Regional Medical Center,
expressed excitement about the project and being able to offer emergency room services at the
border between Pender and New Hanover counties, noting the facility will be a great addition to
the county and to all residents of that area. He introduced the project architect, Steve Triggiano
of BBH Design.
Architect Steven Triggiano of BBH Design provided a brief presentation, noting the request is
for the addition of a helipad to the previously approved master plan. One of the primary concerns
Page 3 of 29
for placement of a helipad is the direction the wind blows. For that reason, the primary flight
path on this site is to the south and will have a southern take-off and landing route. The proposed
helipad is located as far away from the neighbors on the east side of the project and as close to
Highway 17 as possible. The FAA requires that a helipad have a secondary flight path. That
route is approximately 135 degrees from the primary flight path and is to the east.
Mr. Triggiano reviewed the site plan, noting the current project under construction includes the
emergency department and diagnostics and imaging center. Only Building 13 and the associated
parking lots are being built at this time. Buildings 10, 11, 12, and 14 are future buildings on the
master plan. He provided photos of the site from various viewpoints. Flight paths are located so
that aircraft will fly over the facility’s parking lots avoiding trees and obstructions as much as
possible. He introduced Terry McDowell to address the helicopters specifically.
Terry McDowell, Administrator of Emergency Transport Services at New Hanover Regional
Medical Center (NHRMC), stated he is responsible for the 911 services for the county and
critical care services both air and ground for the region. NHRMC currently uses the EC-135
aircraft, which are located in Onslow County and Columbus County, to support the seven-county
area. Mr. McDowell reported the community had been briefed on the amount of noise created by
the aircraft, noting an EC-135 at 1,000 feet puts out about 84 decibels, which is less than the
sound of a lawn mower next door. Utilization of the helipad by aircraft is anticipated to be zero
to four flights per month to pick up patients with stroke, trauma or emergency conditions only if
a ground asset is not readily available on-scene at the North Corridor Emergency Department.
Donna Girardot noted the package indicates the applicant is anticipating a 2% - 4% growth
increase annually and inquired if they foresaw any possible change in the flight paths due to that
anticipated annual growth.
Mr. McDowell reported the flight paths would not change from the current projections. Once the
flight paths are set, they will be published in FAA publications as a private helipad specifically
for hospital aircraft only.
In response to a question from Vice Chair Hilla, Mr. McDowell confirmed the same type of
helicopter currently used by the hospital trauma center will be used at the proposed facility.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition of the rezoning request.
Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and opened formal discussion by the planning board.
He stated he had no questions and noted the applicant had addressed the issue of noise, which
was the greatest concern. He was pleased to see the primary flight path would be south versus
northeast or due east, which would have had a much greater effect on existing residents.
Donna Girardot referred to a memo from Kent Harrell of the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
advising NHRMC of plans for construction of a public water tower in the southwest corner and
inquired if the tower was taken into consideration when the helipad was added to the site plan.
Page 4 of 29
Mr. Triggiano confirmed the water tower was considered when the helipad was added to the site
plan.
Chairman Collier entertained a motion from the board to rezone the property from a conditional
use district to a conditional zoning district, which does not require a special use permit.
Vice Chairman Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request finding
that the request is consistent with the land use plan, is reasonable and in the public interest.
Donna Girardot seconded the motion.
Chairman Collier informed the applicant of the consequences of a denial of the rezoning request
and asked if the applicant would like to proceed with a vote on the request or continue the item.
Mr. Walsh confirmed the applicant’s desire to proceed with a vote on the rezoning request.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-934 finding the
request is consistent with the land use plan, is reasonable and in the public interest.
Item 2: Special Use Permit Request (S-619, 5/14) (Continued from June 5, 2014) – 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.
Ken Vafier provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of
service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the
surrounding area.
Ken Vafier presented the following staff report.
This proposal is for a mixed-use development in accordance with Section 72-38 of the
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance.
The project is located at 7261 Carolina Beach Road on a seven acres tract comprised of
three parcels just south of Radnor Road adjacent to the Inlet Watch Marina and
community.
The item has been continued from two previous Planning Board meetings in order for the
applicant and adjacent property owners to hold a voluntary meeting.
The site is currently vacant and is zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business District. A mixed-
use development meeting all provisions of Section 72-38 of the Zoning Ordinance is
permitted with the approval of a special use permit in this district.
The project proposal is for 93 residential units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space
in one building of 40,138 square feet in area. Units are proposed to be divided into 48
two-bedroom units and 45 one-bedroom units.
Page 5 of 29
As per the site plan, an amenity area, shared parking, landscaping, and stormwater
management are provided and all must meet specifications provided within county
regulations.
Access to the site is provided via one right in, right out on Carolina Beach Road.
Preliminary analysis of anticipated peak hour trips did not meet warrants to require a
traffic impact analysis. This was verified at a scoping meeting amongst staff, the NCDOT
and Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization. Currently, Carolina Beach Road is
operating at a Level of Service of E in the vicinity of the site.
Water and sewer lines are available to serve the site from Aqua North Carolina, who has
informed the applicant of adequate capacity to service the site.
In regard to environmental features on the site, there are some areas of wetlands on site of
which less than half an acre will be proposed to be filled to accommodate some parking
area subject to being permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who has
jurisdiction over wetlands. Also, a corner of the Northeast building does lie within the
100 year flood plain, thus applicable provisions regarding the New Hanover County
Flood Control Ordinance must be provided for in this zone.
Findings of Fact for the special use permit criteria area located within the staff report, but
to summarize, staff has found positive findings for the four special use permit criteria.
The proposal is also consistent with Section 72-38 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant has demonstrated compliance with that section as well as the CAMA Land Use
Plan.
Staff recommends approval with the condition that commercial uses be limited to those
uses that are by-right in the Retail section of the Table of Permitted Uses, with the
exception of an Automobile Service Station, in addition to, from other categories in the
Table of Permitted Uses, a Barber and Beauty Shop, Business Services including
Printing, Personal Services, and a Child Care Center.
The lighting plan, which is an additional requirement from Section 32-78, reflects the
anticipated extent of lighting on the site.
There is a large buffer that will be largely, if not entirely, preserved to accommodate the
amount of wetlands that are in that area. If there are areas where the buffer is not
adequate, it will be supplemented to meet the 100% opacity requirements within the
zoning ordinance.
52 adjacent property owners were notified of the request and a sign was placed on the site
on multiple occasions as it was continued two times, in addition to tonight’s hearing.
Chairman Collier inquired if board members had questions for staff.
Donna Girardot commented the planning board had continued the item at the June meeting so the
applicant could meet with the community, but a community report was not included in the
package. She inquired if she should assume no changes were made due to feedback received at
that meeting.
Mr. Vafier explained staff was not made aware of the information that came out of that meeting.
The original community meeting was held as a voluntary effort by the applicant and was not a
requirement for a special use permit. No report was submitted to staff. He deferred to the
applicant to provide that information.
Page 6 of 29
Ted Shipley asked about the conditional uses that were requested by staff, noting four uses were
presented. He asked staff to provide a short summary as to how those uses were determined and
whether there were any other uses that should also be considered by the board.
Mr. Vafier explained the provisions in Section 72-38 limit uses allowed in the mixed-use
development in the B-1 to those uses that are permitted in the B-1 district. Staff carefully
reviewed all of those uses and excluded those they thought might not meet the intent of the
mixed-use development or be compatible with this development given its location. The majority
of the proposed uses are retail uses. The four separate uses are thought to be low impact uses that
might be beneficial to residents in the building, as well as those who might want to take
advantage of them from elsewhere. He couldn’t recall staff being on the fence regarding other
potential uses. Staff agreed the proposed list was appropriate for the board’s consideration.
Mr. O’Keefe clarified there is a section in the Table of Permitted Uses that identifies Retail
Trade so there are a number of uses not listed on the page that are part of the Retail Trade section
which can be permitted in the project if it is approved. Therefore, in addition to those four listed
uses, there are also the Retail uses as long as they have not been excluded.
Mr. Vafier followed up that staff had reviewed the Retail section thoroughly and determined that
an automobile service station would not be compatible with the development so that use was
specifically excluded.
Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Michael Lee, attorney for the applicant, explained his client was returning from vacation, but his
flight had been delayed so he may or may not arrive during the hearing. He apologized, but noted
others involved with the project were present that could answer questions if he could not.
Mr. Lee stated the Planning Board would recommend conditions to ensure the proposed use is
harmonious and meets the intent of the ordinance. He addressed the history, the four factors, the
ordinance requirements and the CAMA Land Use Plan.
Mr. Lee reported in May 2014 the applicant came before the board to request a continuance in
order to hold a community meeting because they were unable to send out notice in time and
didn’t want to rush through it. Notice was sent to 47 or so entities and a community meeting was
held on May 21, 2014. At the June 2014 meeting, the homeowners association requested a
continuance because they had retained an attorney. The applicant consented to the continuance
because to ensure themselves the opportunity to talk to the community as much as possible.
Mr. Lee stated there many discussions during the community meeting about the development,
the developer, the site and what was around it. The purpose of the community meeting was to
determine if there were concerns the community had that the applicant could address. Residents
had several concerns. First, residents did not want the Inlet Watch name to be used for any part
of the proposed development. Mr. Lee asked that the neighbors’ request be included in the record
and acknowledged the applicant was agreeable to one of the conditions of approval being that the
applicant cannot use the Inlet Watch name. Other issues discussed at the meeting included
Page 7 of 29
traffic, stormwater, and a hydrology concern. Mr. Lee asked the residents to send him the
information related to their hydrology concerns after the meeting so the project engineers could
look at it. He commented the meeting went on for hours and hopefully, all of the residents’
questions and concerns were answered and addressed.
Mr. Lee presented photos of the site, which is made up of three parcels and abuts a residential
neighborhood. A commercial business is located to the right of the property and the entrance to
another project is across to the left. The site, currently zoned B-1, is a vacant, undeveloped parcel
adjacent to the yacht club and single family residential. The marina HOA attended the
community meeting and expressed concerns about the project.
Mr. Lee stated no issues have been raised to indicate the project endangers the public health or
safety. Per staff, the project meets the requirements of the ordinance. He reviewed the site plan,
explaining the distance from the back property line to the building face is 260 feet, and 226 feet
comes from the property line when it jogs up to back a curb, and then there is 98 feet to a
wetland buffer. Behind the property and between the project and the residential neighborhood
there is another 20 feet of common area and then a 10 feet utility easement beyond the property
line. Staff photos reflect the significant amount of trees and other growth in that particular area.
The proposed plan includes 93 units, consisting of 45 one-bedroom units and 48 two-bedroom
units, as well as parking and landscaping. Stormwater management will be provided per
regulations. There is a significant amount of open space and amenity area. The impervious
surface on the project is only 38%. Much of the 62% of pervious surface will be in the buffer
areas.
Mr. Lee stated when compared to the by-right uses without a special use permit, he felt the board
would find that the proposal, combined with the buffer areas, is a good development to be
located adjacent to this particular residential neighborhood. There is no interconnectivity or
vehicular access to and from the site and the other sites. The only other access would be off
Carolina Beach Road. The standards in the ordinance will prevent an impact on the residential
neighbors. The site lighting plan was presented by staff. The applicant must comply with all
stormwater regulations. He stated in regard to the character and harmony of the area, the
residential nature of the project, because it is in a B-1 district with a lot of by-right uses, seems to
be a nice transition between the residential and Carolina Beach Road. The CAMA Land Use Plan
provides for this type of transitional use so the applicant felt the project was very appropriate for
that particular site. Mr. Lee concluded his presentation and offered to answer questions.
No one else from the public spoke in support of the special use permit request.
Chairman Collier then opened the opposition portion of the hearing.
Chris Chleborowicz, the attorney representing the Inlet Watch Homeowners Association and on
a limited basis, the Inlet Watch Yacht Club, provided background about the community, noting it
is a high end, single family residential community built around an existing marina. The marina
has a maintained basin, which is bounded by a seawall or bulkhead. This area has a high water
table and as it exists in the community, there are certain drainage issues that are pre-existing.
Page 8 of 29
Mr. Chleborowicz stated they had four concerns, which could be broken into two categories.
Two concerns could be considered detrimental to the health and wellbeing or the safety of the
surrounding community and two concerns are more interpretive concerns to ensure that this type
of development is envisioned by the Land Use Plan. First, under requirement one, which requires
there is no negative impact to the health and well-being of the public in general, they presented
two concerns, traffic and hydrology.
Mr. Chleborowicz stated upon review of the required general traffic information sheet, he
noticed a couple of items may not have been properly addressed. He noted as an area resident he
was very familiar with the traffic and traffic patterns. First, the data used is 2011 data and there
are some peak traffic uses in the PM time that are up to 120 trips. He didn’t see an up-to-date
traffic use study for the area. More importantly, there didn’t seem to be much consideration
given to the realities of this particular location. For example, the marina has 700 slips, which
means additional people will be using the marina primarily on weekends and during the peak
times of tourist season. He didn’t see any information in the study or in the packet that addressed
the impact of adding this number of residential units in an area where people will be using both
the road for the marina and the same section of Carolina Beach Road to accelerate and decelerate
many times perhaps with boats, etc. in tow. That concern is compounded by a letter received by a
resident at Inlet Watch from the NC Department of Transportation. Mr. Chleborowicz admitted
the letter was about a slightly different issue, but expressed belief that it merited a discussion
among the board members. He provided a copy of the letter to board members.
Chairman Collier asked Mr. Chleborowicz to provide a copy of the letter from NCDOT to the
county attorney and the applicant’s attorney, Mr. Lee.
Mr. Chleborowicz explained the letter was in response to a resident’s request to NCDOT for
consideration of a cut-through directly in front of Radnor Road to alleviate the need for
acceleration on the right-hand turn out to a turn-around to head back toward Carolina Beach. The
NCDOT noted the difficulty of the traffic patterns in this area, particularly the difficulty and
increased risk of angular collisions when people are crossing the road and/or making additional
U-turns. The only way to access the proposed project is to go past the project as you are heading
south to make a U-turn approximately 900 feet, which will probably be about 700 feet from the
entrance. You will have to accelerate into a 55 miles per hour zone and bear across two lanes of
traffic into a deceleration lane to get to the entrance of this proposed project.
Mr. Chleborowicz commented the letter from NCDOT admittedly is in regard to a very different
issue, but he brought it to the board’s attention because it shows that NCDOT is concerned about
additional loads of U-turns in that area and in particular U-turns where people are trailering
boats, etc. If that is taken by extrapolation to 95 units during peak use times, there will be
additional U-turns in an area already heavily loaded with 55 mph traffic. He reiterated it should
also be considered that the area is very heavily used on weekends particularly during the tourist
season. Because there will be additional loads, particularly of U-turns, accelerations and
decelerations, his clients would request that there be additional traffic study and analysis done.
Their concerns are real because there will be many cars making those sorts of maneuvers and the
addition of the marina users on the weekends, who will be making those turns using the same
Page 9 of 29
deceleration area when trying to access their boats. He reiterated the community has a real
concern about this issue in regard to requirement one.
Mr. Chleborowicz reported the community’s second concern related to requirement one is the
hydrology issue very briefly addressed by Mr. Lee. This area has a very high water table.
Andrew Consulting Engineers has helped the marina specifically in reference to the hydrology
and the issues affecting their bulkhead in this area. He distributed a document to board members
and explained the bulkhead in this area acts like a dam. The underground water moves generally
towards the intra-coastal waterway so the bulkhead stands as a partition between the
groundwater and the waterway. As it exists, the bulkhead has numerous drains along its length to
help control the hydrostatic pressure and specifically the hydrostatic head that arises behind that
bulkhead. If that doesn’t happen, the bulkhead truly becomes a dam, which it is not meant to be,
and you can raise the pressures on that wall to the point where there will be a total failure of a
section or the entire wall. He noted in different communities, they have seen that sort of failure
due to a surcharge of water.
Mr. Chleborowicz noted two items in the project plan. First, the surface area by which the
natural water infiltration will be allowed to occur has decreased. Second, there is a plan to
actually inject water coming off of the buildings directly into the ground, which raises concerns
on two fronts. The natural infiltration rate of that property is currently being handled both by the
drainage of the community and the bulkhead and the drains in there. Once we change that
surcharge and the infiltration rate and put water into the ground faster than it is now, we run the
risk of increasing those hydrostatic pressures, which is a real concern for Andrew Consulting
Engineers. Those hydrostatic pressures if not appropriately handled can cause a failure of that
seawall. It can cause failure of underground drainage systems within the community. He also
didn’t find any information in the package about how the actual surface water would be handled.
As previously referenced, there are drainage issues in this community already that are not
because of this property, but just by nature of the high water table and by its proximity to the
intra-coastal waterway. There is a real concern that changing the infiltration rate of water across
this property may add to a surcharge of water on the surface that would negatively impact the
neighborhood behind it. That is a health and safety concern as it relates to pests like mosquitos
and other water-borne vectors. For that reason, his clients would respectfully request that further
consideration be given in regard to the handling of groundwater and surface water for this
project, particularly groundwater because of the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the
seawall that would compromise an existing commercial use.
Mr. Chleborowicz then addressed concerns about requirement three, particularly related to
Section 72-38 of the zoning ordinance regarding the mixed use exception to the B-1 zoning. In
(8), the zoning encourages some residential uses in a commercial setting. This project has a
40,000 square feet footprint, but it three levels high, so there is 120,000 square feet gross of
development, of which 2,500 square feet is commercial. He questioned if it was within the intent
of this exception that they have token commercial uses in a residential setting and whether it was
a means of getting a residential project in a zoning that would not otherwise be allowed. He
noted it is an interpretive issue they would like the planning board to carefully consider. Mr.
Chleborowicz said it was important to say there is no inherent objection to a development like
this. The objection on this level is to make sure that what’s happening in this particular project
Page 10 of 29
sets a correct precedent for other projects and fits within the area and is in harmony. In this
instance, there is only 2,500 square feet of commercial use in roughly 118,000 square feet of
residential use, he asked the board to very carefully consider this zoning exception and make
sure that it fits within the intent of that exception before an approval is granted.
Mr. Chleborowicz stated in regard to harmony, the type of residential use should be considered
and not just the general broad brush residential use. The package contains a list of uses in the
surrounding area, which includes commercial and residential. Directly adjacent is a high end,
single family home residential and then a commercial marina. He agreed there is residential and
commercial in the area, but in regard to the specifics, there aren’t 95 units congregated as an
apartment building anywhere in this vicinity. There isn’t any mass transient use, with no
disrespect to the use as an apartment. They are transient individuals and not homeowners. He
stated in looking at the harmony, there is absolutely no use like this in the general vicinity.
Mr. Chleborowicz reiterated this is not an inherent objection to this particular project in this
particular area. It is a request that moving forward the board ensure that the harmony aspect is
truly being met and that the size and magnitude of the residential being put into the development
match the types of uses in the area. The aerial pictures show there are no uses in the area like the
proposed 95 units of all transient or leasehold rather than single family homeowners. He again
requested the board carefully consider that fact and ensure that the interpretation of the zoning
ordinance sets a good precedent and meets the land use ideas.
Mr. Chleborowicz summed up their reasons for addressing the board. First, they requested the
board set very specific conditions on the issuance of any special use permit and particularly
request that the applicant fulfill further investigation and analyses as to the traffic and the
hydrology. He believed through the two letters provided, they have shown there is a concern that
needs to be addressed by professionals who are trained in those areas. Second, they asked that
the board very carefully consider the use and the intent of the zoning ordinance to ensure this use
fits the intent and also fits the harmony of the area so they don’t have concerns about adjacent
homeowners’ property values. He thanked the board for their time and offered to answer any
questions they may have.
Chairman Collier closed the opposition portion of the hearing and opened the rebuttal period.
Michael Lee stated in regard to traffic, the proposal is for a 40,000 square feet building, of which
2,500 square feet is retail or commercial. If we had a lot more than 2,500 square feet of
retail/commercial and swapped out the residential for retail, the trip generation would go up quite
dramatically. Review of the AM peak hours for all of the proposed residential units in the 40,000
square feet building compared to the 2,500 square feet of commercial indicates an equal amount
of trip volume for AM entry, and the commercial exceeds the trip volume for the PM peak hour
exits. If the applicant goes more toward the retail development, it will increase the traffic issues
that the opposition has a problem with.
Mr. Lee said the board must also consider the proposal from the perspective that it is in a by-
right B-1 zoning district. The applicant is seeking a special use permit for the residential and
Page 11 of 29
mixed-use component; however, the applicant could go ahead and develop those B-1 by-right
uses now.
Mr. Lee commented in regard to the hydrology issue, the applicant started the process in May.
They held a community meeting and have continued the request several times. He reported he
had met with Mr. Chleborowicz. They mentioned the hydrology problem at the community
meeting so he asked them for some information they could give to the project engineer, but
tonight was the first time he had seen a letter. He reiterated the project is located in a B-1 by-
right zoning district. They can go ahead and develop for their permitted uses so that will not
make a difference with respect to the hydrology. He noted they must also comply with all of the
state and county standards, and go through the TRC (Technical Review Committee) and
stormwater permitting so in regard to stormwater or hydrology the applicant must meet all of the
regulatory guidelines.
Mr. Lee explained the intent of the ordinance is residential and commercial. This is a typical type
of development that has gone on in mixed-use. The traffic counts with the introduction of the
residential component will actually go down. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required
because of the minimum impact on Carolina Beach Road. When the applicant obtains the
driveway permit, NCDOT will review the project and impose any mitigation conditions.
Mr. Lee stated in regard to harmony, a project doesn’t have to be the exact same use as another
one to be in harmony with the neighborhood. In fact, it’s better to have a multitude of uses. This
is a transition area. There is a 700-slip commercial marina located on the other side of this
particular development, which is a very intensive commercial use. There is a small residential
community and now we’ve proposed this by special use as opposed to going to a straight by-
right zoning use in B-1 with a residential component to it that, in fact, will reduce some of the
concerns the residents have with regard to traffic. The proposed use won’t impact the hydrology
or stormwater from what we’re allowed to do already because we have B-1 zoning at the project.
Those issues will be addressed by the regulations in any event.
Mr. Lee reported that ECS has already done borings and looked at the soils on the site. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has already inspected and delineated the wetlands as well. The
applicant has investigated this in preparation for development of the project to make sure they
can do what they are seeking the special use permit to do. He thanked the board for their time.
Chairman Collier opened the opposition rebuttal period.
During opposition rebuttal, Mr. Chleborowicz stated in regard to hydrology, he didn’t hear any
discussion where this project is forced to look at the impact of something like a bulkhead. They
look at stormwater and groundwater. We’re concerned that the impact downstream several
thousand feet could be significant so we are asking that an analysis be done. If that wall fails, the
marina and the surrounding community will have a major impact, both as to their safety and the
value of their homes and the overall efficacy of the community.
Mr. Chleborowicz commented it is true that a 700-slip marina is an intensive commercial use,
but what is important is that the residential community came to that marina, and as such there is
Page 12 of 29
a synergy there. There are boat slips and dry slips that the community takes part in. That is the
point of his client’s request that this board look at the intent and ensure that this B-1 exception
to have residential that is not a by-right aspect of B-1, with what we would call a token
commercial truly continues in that synergy for both that neighborhood and the surrounding area.
He stated there are actually restrictive covenants that may further limit the commercial uses that
are available to the project and recommended by staff. Noting he didn’t have the document with
him, he stated he would be happy to provide it to the board. He expressed belief that Mr. Lee was
probably already aware of those covenants.
Mr. Chleborowicz stated in summation, there is going to be a significant impact on traffic in this
resort/tourist area, which has a 700-slip marina as demonstrated by the concerns already raised
by the NCDOT, specifically with respect to the U-turn turnarounds in such a short distance to the
proposed entry. His clients have real hydrology concerns and a bulkhead that is at a very critical
stasis. If that hydraulic head is changed and the surcharge of water is changed, that bulkhead
could fail. There are surface water considerations. He understands, as Mr. Lee said, they have to
meet certain regulations, but he isn’t aware that those regulations require them to look at impacts
further down the road. Mr. Chleborowicz requested on behalf of his clients that the board require
those types of analyses now so that the project doesn’t get two or three years into construction
and have a major concern and perhaps failure of either a commercial or residential situation. He
thanked the board for their time.
Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and asked for comments and questions from the
board members.
Tamara Murphy stated agreement that the proposed transitional use is much better than some of
the uses allowed by-right currently in the B-1 district. She felt this use may be more of a
transition as it is offered under the CAMA Land Use Plan than some of the other developments
that may occur under the B-1 district allowance. She agreed there may be some additional work
to be done with regard to coordination with Inlet Watch, but felt that could be handled.
Vice Chair Hilla asked Mr. Chleborowicz if it was safe to assume based on his presentation that
his clients don’t oppose the project if their concerns are addressed in regard to traffic and some
type of hydrology or engineering or joint report for the neighboring marina.
Mr. Chleborowicz felt it was more accurate to say they are not inherently in objection to a
project like this; however, they are very concerned about having a large 120,000 square feet,
three-story, multi-family residential project with a small amount of commercial there. His clients
would like to see the project brought into magnitude with the surrounding area so it’s not such a
large or outstanding type of project. To answer your question directly, they are not inherently
objectionable to a project like this, but they have some concerns about the use and how large the
project is, as well as its effect on the adjoining property values. He noted they also had some
concerns about the project’s effect on property values but that analysis hasn’t been done so he
couldn’t speak to that issue.
Vice Chair Hilla asked Mr. Lee to provide an example of how one of the proposed uses in the
special use permit request would be better than a by-right B-1 use.
Page 13 of 29
Mr. Lee acknowledged he had made a mistake during his presentation when citing the
comparison of traffic impacts created by 40,000 square feet of residential with the 2,500 square
feet of retail. The comparison should have been 120,000 square feet of residential with 2,500
square feet of retail, which further exacerbates the point as only 2,500 square feet of the 120,000
square feet would be used for what is already allowed in the B-1 zoning by-right. If 2,500 square
feet of 120,000 square feet will have the same number of AM incoming trips and exceed the PM
outgoing trips, then if you had any of the by-right uses because they are commercial in nature,
traffic would dramatically increase. Mr. Lee explained for that reason, the proposed use with
2,500 square feet of retail that is permitted in the B-1 district with a few exceptions and a
120,000 square feet building generates on two of those categories the same or more trips;
therefore, the proposed use is certainly more beneficial from a traffic perspective.
Vice Chairman Hilla commented Mr. Lee seemed to be saying that developing the site with a by-
right use like a grocery store, for example, would have a higher traffic impact than the proposed
special use.
Mr. Lee affirmed Vice Chair Hilla’s understanding was correct in regard to the higher traffic
impact of a by-right use compared to the proposed use.
Donna Girardot expressed concern about traffic, noting there is already an ingress/egress
driveway at that location for Carolina Video, as well as one further up at Radnor Road. She also
noted the U-turn into the 55 mph traffic and the right-in as you travel south at St. Vincent Drive,
where residents must cross two lanes of 55 mph traffic if traveling north. They come into the
median with you while you are trying to make a U-turn, and sometimes they will turn
simultaneously with you really confusing the situation. For those reasons, she is very concerned
about the addition of another ingress/egress in that area. She felt Mr. Lee was very cognizant of
that issue and would work with NCDOT to address traffic concerns and make the required road
improvements, which may include installing a traffic light, installing acceleration and
deceleration lanes, or closing that U-turn and forcing the traffic to make a U-turn further down
Carolina Beach Road.
Ms. Girardot inquired if any concerns had been expressed during the applicant’s conversations
with Aqua North Carolina about potential water pressure problems for existing customers or the
safety of hydrants further down the line.
Mr. Lee deferred to Josh Mihaly, land planner for the project.
Josh Mihaly of Mihaly Land Designs, land planner for the project, reported that Gary Pate, civil
engineer with GSP, had extensive conversations regarding sewer and water availability for the
project and no issues were anticipated. He stated they had not received written confirmation, but
that was one of the first due diligence items addressed prior to starting the project. He reported
that the applicant would be required to satisfy all requirements for fire, water, and sewer on the
site during the technical review process.
Page 14 of 29
Ms. Girardot asked about the type of stormwater they would be putting in and whether they had
gotten that far in the planning process. She inquired if there would be a pond on the site or if the
stormwater would be located in-ground under the parking lot.
Mr. Lee stated the engineer was not present to answer that question, but they have designed it
and done preliminary engineering because they realize they will be bound by the site plan. The
regulations require that the stormwater be no worse than it is when they start.
Mr. Mihaly reported that prior to doing any of the land planning the applicant had done a cursory
analysis on the civil engineering as far as sizing the ponds. They have proposed 38% impervious
surface and the pond was sized according to the impervious surface at this point based on the soil
analysis. There is also plenty of ample property left on the site to work out those details because
they haven’t maximized the site. He reported they will also be required to obtain a state
stormwater permit and go through the TRC process.
David Weaver commented the property is going to be developed one way or the other and he is
very aware that it could be developed as a B-1 use at a much more intense level than the
proposed site plan. The traffic impacts of the proposed development will be much less than the
traffic impacts of a by-right B-1 development on these parcels. On the hydrology issue, Mr.
Weaver asked Mr. Chleborowicz if he had said they were going to inject groundwater.
Mr. Chleborowicz said it may have been an imperfection in the way he said it. He meant that
there will be a footprint that does not allow infiltration. Water will be coming off of the buildings
and putting water into the surrounding areas at a rate that it is not currently. He stated his point
was that the seawall or bulkhead is operating at a current stasis with an adequate number of
drains to handle the amount of water in the water table as the site exists. He stated he had not
heard any discussion or study to show how that change of putting water in at a different
infiltration rate, what he called injecting, into an underground cistern or something of that nature
and the squishing effect of that large building changing the hydrology and how those things will
affect the hydrostatic pressure.
Mr. Chleborowicz then apologized to Vice Chairman Hilla for not answering his earlier question
specifically. He commented he believed if these two issues were addressed satisfactorily as to the
real concerns to the health and welfare of the community there would be much less objection to
this type of development.
Mr. Weaver noted he isn’t a civil engineer, but he knows that typically if a natural site is covered
with impervious surface, it actually reduces the amount of groundwater infiltration and increases
the amount of surface water runoff so on a broad theoretical or conceptual basis, he didn’t see
where the proposed development would increase the hydrostatic pressure of the groundwater
against the bulkhead. Mr. Weaver acknowledged it is a very real concern because he has known
of examples where bulkheads have been blown out by that kind of pressure, but he would
actually see an impervious surface that increases the amount of surface water runoff as a
reduction of the pressure against the bulkhead.
Page 15 of 29
Mr. Chleborowicz commented the one issue that will be added by this development is that there
are currently no ponds on the site so increasing the depth of the pond beyond what is in the
natural wetlands will increase the hydrostatic pressure. The engineer that has helped that marina
believes that needs to be looked at because there is a critical stasis at that bulkhead. If we don’t
know, we can’t discuss what the ponds do and don’t do and what the surface water does or
doesn’t do. He reiterated they haven’t seen that information from Mr. Lee’s client.
Mr. Shipley prefaced his remarks by thanking Mr. Weaver for asking the questions he wanted to
ask, noting it was one of those times when they are both on the same page and have the same
interest because they are concerned about water. He commented conditions apply and he felt
traffic had been addressed enough on the project. Water is the issue and should be discussed
more in depth. In terms of the aesthetics, there is a 700-slip marina there and the proposal is to
put something behind it that has a buffer. If given a choice between a 700-slip marina and a
mixed-use building with a buffer, he would probably choose the mixed-use building in terms of
aesthetics. He thanked both attorneys for making excellent presentations on behalf of their clients
and bringing the important issues to light. He noted he had a tremendous amount of respect for
both of them. If both sides didn’t have representation, the board would essentially be asking the
staff about the proposal, but in this case the board is getting all the information and the
commissioners will as well if the board votes to proceed.
Chairman Collier stated he thought the project is a good project and transitions the zones well,
although there are items that need to be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction. He commented the
NCDOT letter is related to a vastly different case as admitted to by the opposition attorney. The
letter is asking for a left-over directly in and the horizontal curve information referred to and the
angular accidents have nothing to do with the U-turn whatsoever. The letter is purely for a new
cross-over in the median. He noted NCDOT is increasingly moving towards U-turns on their
four-lane, divided roads. That is why super streets are being built like those at Scottsville, in
Leland, and the new improved roads on College Road as well. He agreed that the U-turn
movements are not fantastic, but that is how NCDOT is choosing to handle traffic throughout the
state, not just in Wilmington. The NCDOT acknowledges there is traffic on Carolina Beach
Road, as does everyone who has driven the road. He advocated that residents ask for a reduction
in speed to 45 mph, noting 55 mph in that section of road is probably too quick now. The speed
limit has already been reduced to 45 mph a little further south as you progress into Carolina
Beach.
Chairman Collier commented that Neal Andrew is a very good engineer and a fabulous person to
have handling the bulkhead. Mr. Andrew is correct in everything stated in his letter. There is a
possibility of hydrostatic pressure. He commented the things that are not being seen between this
property and heading toward the seawall are the wetlands, which are carrying it around the
development and not dumping it directly into the seawall. He stated he may be mistaken, but he
didn’t believe it goes directly into it. Mr. Weaver is accurate that once the impervious surface is
put into place and the water is collected in a stormwater pond or some other device, it starts to
slow the water down and handles the volume and reduces what’s going directly into the
groundwater immediately. On both sides, the wetland areas are the natural drains coming in and
out. He commented he would have liked to see more information on the stormwater
management, but he knows it will be done. As any project moves forward, stormwater
Page 16 of 29
management is required through the county or the state. In this case, it will be reviewed by both
so the applicant will have to handle the stormwater on their site and distribute it correctly. He
noted if the State or County feels there is an issue with the Inlet Watch Marina and the seawalls,
they will ask for a downstream study. They have the opportunity to ask for it if they believe the
drainage in any way, shape or form is moving that way. If Mr. Andrew and the clients believe
there is that much of a presence, they should ask for a downstream study to be performed.
Chairman Collier commented in his very surface look at it, it seems to be going around the
marina versus going into the marina, but he could be wrong on that.
Chairman Collier stated he thought overall the proposal is a good project and is designed well.
In regard to traffic, a mixed-use project or an apartment project in general generates less traffic
than the requisite single family homes, and B-2 zoning exponentially increases traffic. Granted,
there is a 700-slip marina and there are drive-ways that are going to be in conflict, which the
NCDOT will handle because they don’t want the wrecks on their numbers either. They will
handle the traffic through right-turn lanes and deceleration lanes. He strongly advocated for the
reduction of the speed limit to help some of these issues. He agreed that a U-turn into a 55 mph
zone going across two lanes of traffic is difficult, with or without a boat trailer. Unfortunately,
the U-turns are the way of the NCDOT now and every road is being built in that same manner.
The speed is hurting the situation more than the U-turn itself.
Chairman Collier commented he believed there are probably some additional discussions that
need to be held to make everyone happy. Whether the applicant uses the Inlet Watch name or not
has no bearing on the board’s decision other than the board can make sure we add a condition if
we choose to move forward in that manner.
Chairman Collier concluded his remarks reiterating the proposal is a good project and
complimenting both attorneys on their presentations. He was glad to see the opposition bring
counsel with them so their arguments could be identified and put clearly in the record.
Chairman Collier asked staff if the size of the commercial portion of the project is in accordance
with the current rules.
Mr. Vafier responded that there are not specific areas, sizes, ratios, or percentages that address
how much space has to be residential versus how much has to be commercial in this section of
the ordinance. I think Mr. Chleborowicz was quite accurate. The provision this would be subject
to Section 72-38.8 of the zoning ordinance, which states that residential uses are permitted and
encouraged in the same building as commercial uses. There is no further guidance for staff on
the area of it.
Chairman Collier asked if the board had any other questions for staff, the applicant, or the
opposition.
Ms. Girardot noted Mr. Lee’s client has an excellent reputation and has shown his good faith by
asking to meet with the community on the hydrology and traffic concerns. She asked Mr. Lee if
his client would be willing to keep the Inlet Watch community in the loop as they move forward
Page 17 of 29
with the hydrology and traffic issues should the request be approved by the Planning Board and
ultimately the County Commissioners.
Mr. Lee stated his client would be happy to let Mr. Chleborowicz know what their path and plan
is and keep the community in the loop all the while. His client typically does that with neighbors
because he wants to ensure they know when things will transpire, such as when construction will
begin, etc.
Chairman Collier entertained a motion from the board.
Vice Chairman Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend approval with the staff conditions
outlined earlier and recommend the applicant keep the neighbors informed of the progress as the
project moves forward. David Weaver seconded the motion.
During discussion, Chairman Collier asked if Vice Chair Hilla was amenable to amending his
motion to include a condition to prohibit the use of the “Inlet Watch” name in the name of the
development.
Vice Chair Hilla amended the motion to include prohibiting the use of Inlet Watch in the name
of the development. David Weaver seconded the amended motion.
Mr. Weaver commented that 911 would likely not approve using the same name for the
development. Mr. Burgess confirmed he was correct.
Ms. Murphy and Chairman Collier instructed the applicant on the consequences of a denial of the
request and asked if he wished to proceed to a vote on the motion or continue the matter.
Mr. Lee confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a vote on the request by the board.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-619 with the
following conditions:
1) Commercial uses shall be limited to those specified as being permitted by right in the
B-1, Neighborhood Business District in the Retail Trades section of the New
Hanover County Table of Permitted Uses, with the exception of an Automobile
Service Station. The following uses within the table may also be permitted:
Barber /Beauty Shop
Business Services Including Printing
Personal Services
Child Care Center
2) The applicant will continue to keep the Inlet Watch Community neighborhood
informed from a perspective of hydrology and traffic issues as the project moves
forward.
3) The “Inlet Watch” name may not be used in the name of the development.
Page 18 of 29
Item 3: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (A-420, 7/14) – Request by Eric G. Conklin to
amend Section 50.4-4, Table of Permitted Uses, to add Accessory Dwelling Unit permitted
by-right in the PD, R-20S, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, O&I, AR, AI, and RA Districts, and
permitted by special use in the B1 and B2 Districts.
Ken Vafier presented the following staff report on the proposed text amendment and staff’s
recommendations.
This proposal from the applicant, Eric Conklin, is for a text amendment to amend the
Table of Permitted Uses specifically to add the opportunity for an accessory dwelling unit
into the Table of Permitted Uses.
Currently, there is not a separate definition or land use for accessory dwelling unit in the
Table of Permitted Uses. Accessory dwelling units, if you are not familiar with that term,
can be referred to as mother-in-law quarters or in-law quarters. They are separate
establishments of a much smaller scale associated with a principle residence to house
individuals either on a permanent or temporary basis.
Accessory dwelling uses are common uses in residential districts in many other
jurisdictions, almost all of which have additional accompanying provisions. Thus, the
goals of this amendment are to:
1) Provide for the opportunity for this use;
2) To define this use specifically in the ordinance; and
3) To regulate this use county-wide with the suggested provisions.
Mr. Conklin has proposed this use be allowed in the following districts. It’s important to
know he has proposed that they be in these districts because these districts mimic what
districts permit a single family dwelling and how they are permitted. These are the PD,
R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, O&I, AR, AI and RA by right and by special use permit
associated with a Mixed-Use development in the B1 and B2 Business districts.
Staff has had many inquiries over the years regarding this subject and thought this was a
timely opportunity to conduct research on this use and come up with a recommendation
to pose to the board.
Staff has recommended the use be permitted in the following districts: PD, R-20S, R-20,
R-15, R-10, R-7, AR and RA. Staff has eliminated the opportunity for this use in the
business districts, the O&I districts, and the AI districts. The purpose of this is to keep
these uses focused where our main residential population is and where it wouldn’t
conflict with other land uses.
Next, staff would like to add a definition in Section 23 to clarify what qualifies as one of
these units and how it may differ from another accessory building or use, and mostly to
clarify that it also must meet all the additional regulations, the intent of which is to
preserve the character of any residential district and not proliferate higher density through
the county.
Proposed Definition:
An accessory dwelling unit is a detached secondary dwelling unit. The term “dwelling
unit” is also specifically defined within the ordinance. Established with conjunction with
and clearly subordinate to a principle dwelling unit meeting the following conditions:
Page 19 of 29
(A) Accessory dwelling units must be located on the lot with a minimum lot size of
18,000 square feet;
(B) Accessory dwelling units must be limited in size to fifty percent of the square
footage of the livable area of the primary structure or 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area, whichever is greater;
(C) Accessory dwelling units must abide by setbacks of ten feet from side and rear
property lines in both conventional and performance residential developments an
must be located in the rear or side yard;
(D) Accessory dwelling units shall be located a minimum of ten feet from any other
structure;
(E) Mobile homes shall not be allowed as accessory dwelling units;
(F) Accessory dwelling units shall be limited to one per single family unit on a parcel.
Mr. Vafier commented the proposed regulations were culminated from quite a bit of research
undertaken by staff. There are many more regulations out there that govern these uses. Staff felt
these were some of the most appropriate ones that could be applied or brought up for discussion
to the board. Mr. Vafier concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the
board.
Chairman Collier thanked Mr. Vafier and noted under accessory dwelling units, staff has listed
conditions A through F and condition (F) states accessory dwelling units shall be limited to one
per single family dwelling on a parcel. He asked for clarification that condition means one
accessory dwelling unit on one single family lot.
Mr. Vafier explained the actual intent is for one accessory dwelling unit per dwelling because
there are instances where there may be two primary dwelling units on a parcel, provided the
minimum acreage requirement has been met. Perhaps that is something that needs to be
addressed further if the board wanted to limit it to one per lot. Staff is looking at it from the angle
that one primary residence and one accessory could be associated with that residence, not
necessarily the lot or tax parcel itself.
Chairman Collier commented that would mean that a five acres parcel with two primary
residences on it would be eligible for two accessory dwelling units, one for each of the primary
residences. .
Mr. Vafier said he could see how that could easily be interpreted in that way so perhaps that is a
requirement which needs further discussion.
In response to inquiries from Donna Girardot and Chairman Collier, Mr. Vafier confirmed both
modular and stick built homes would be considered appropriate to be located on one of these
sites since it is not a mobile unit, but campers and motor homes are temporary uses and would
not qualify for this use because they have their own separate definition in the ordinance.
Vice Chair Hilla asked how staff had arrived at 18,000 square feet as the benchmark acreage for
these accessory dwelling units, noting it seemed pretty unlikely that would ever go in an R-7 or
similar zoning district.
Page 20 of 29
Mr. Vafier explained one of the critical portions of that discussion was that you could have an R-
15 district, but if it was a performance district, you could have lot sizes that went well below
that. For that reason, staff felt that 18,000 square feet was approximately in the mid-range of
acreage between R-15 and R-20 where they would see the most intent to place one of these
structures.
Chris O’Keefe commented it was true and by design that it would be unlikely that an 18,000
square feet lot would occur in an R-7 district. Staff doesn’t anticipate that R-7 will see many
accessory dwelling units, but as Mr. Vafier explained, in a performance residential project there
could be lots consisting of 18,000 square feet or larger in an R-7 district, and if so, they would be
eligible to have an accessory dwelling unit.
Vice Chair Hilla agreed, but noted an 18,000 square feet lot is pretty large. Under that scenario,
it would probably be unlikely under R-15 in most cases as well. Is that correct?
Mr. O’Keefe noted it depends on how the development is laid out, but the thought was the
protection of the neighboring properties. .
Chairman Collier stated he originally read the amendment as an accessory building the first time,
and later realized it was an accessory dwelling so he had a completely different read on the
amendment. He liked the size of the lot, and didn’t think it was intended to be in every situation
and so would be a selective use. There will be larger lots that will have ample space to have an
accessory dwelling unit.
Mr. Vafier explained another issue that factored into staff’s arrival at the 18,000 square feet lot
size was the need to have setbacks and building separations, particularly the setbacks from the
property lines to protect adjacent property owners.
Chairman Collier commented that several people had signed up to speak during the public
hearing portion of the meeting that needed to be heard from as well, and asked if board members
had any additional questions.
Ms. Girardot commented in a county this size she anticipated the number of these structures
would be pretty limited because most of the subdivisions have covenants that would probably
preclude this type of accessory dwelling structure.
Mr. Vafier responded that anywhere there would be covenants or restrictions of course
individuals would have to abide by those covenants. It would be difficult to say to what extent
that could be quantified. The County doesn’t have any authority in the enforcement of covenants
or restrictions to prohibit these.
David Weaver stated based on the way the amendment is written he assumed it would apply to a
large parcel zoned possibly R-20 that is going to be subdivided. Noting he would address his
concerns later, he commented it appeared all that is in an R-20 subdivision would become an R-
10 subdivision if he had read it right.
Page 21 of 29
Mr. Vafier stated if there was a proposal to subdivide there’s a host of other requirements that
would have to be met, including minimum lot sizes, setbacks, etc. These would then have to
meet a building code for a principle residential use so that’s definitely a concern. That is why
some of these regulations that are common from other jurisdictions have been placed in here. He
acknowledged Mr. Weaver’s concern.
Chairman Collier then opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Eric Conklin thanked the board for the opportunity to speak, noting he was unaware he would be
speaking until he arrived at the meeting and the chairman explained the procedures. He stated
the process had initially stated because he was planning to build a workshop in his backyard to
get away from the children and play with cars and that kind of fun stuff. Then, his mom
explained her financial situation and what was happening in her life and asked if he could turn
that workshop into something for her. He commented he plan is to basically put his aging mother
in his backyard so she can live a retired life the way she wants to on a fixed income. That plan
has grown into this request for a text amendment.
In response to a question from Chairman Collier, Mr. Conklin explained he would still have a
workshop downstairs, along with a small garage, and his mother would reside above it.
No one else from the public spoke in support of the text amendment.
Chairman Collier opened the opposition portion of the public hearing. Four people signed up to
speak.
Julia Worth of 8040 Bald Eagle Lane and a member of the board of the Porter’s Neck Quality of
Life Board stated they fully support the desire of people to care for their elderly relatives nearby
and greatly respect people who are able and willing to do that; however, they think the proposed
text amendment is too broadly written to take care of that situation. The accessory dwelling units
would be allowed in almost every zoning district except industrial districts, shopping centers and
along the waterfront. Given the fact that many other jurisdictions have experienced problems
with these units, they would like to see the board move more slowly and carefully in adopting
these accessory dwelling units here in New Hanover County.
Ms. Worth stated they specifically would like to request four additions to the list of conditions.
1) The use be restricted to single family residentially zoned areas only. This would avoid
potential conflicts between homes and commercial areas.
2) Accessory Dwelling Units be allowed only on property where the primary residence is
owner occupied. This would promote good maintenance of the structure by the
homeowner.
3) Accessory Dwelling Units be restricted to people who are related to the property owner
by blood or marriage. This would ensure the units don’t become short term vacation
rentals or student housing.
4) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) be allowed only by a special use permit. This would
allow the ability to make sure the conditions are being complied with and also to look at
other kinds of conditions such as sufficient parking that may be needed.
Page 22 of 29
Ms. Worth explained they felt the four additional requirements wouldn’t present an undue
burden on people wishing to take care of elderly relatives onsite, and would prevent some of the
problems that have occurred in other jurisdictions; therefore, they hoped the board would allow
those four additions to the proposed amendment.
Wanda Canada of 8324 Bald Eagle Lane stated she was also a member of the Porter’s Neck
Quality of Life Board and noted a number of problems in their neighborhood. It is a street along
the waterway and they have constant incursions. They found out about the amendment late. She
and Ms. Worth differ a little and she was sure everyone on their two mile street would disagree
somewhat. She expressed confusion about how one person’s application which she thought could
have been dealt with as a special use permit had become an overall text amendment from the
Planning staff. She felt staff got a little exuberant and carried away with trying to change the
whole thing. Ms. Canada felt the text amendment would destroy all of the single family
residential zoning in the city. This amendment is just what real estate investors are waiting for -
to have a separate dwelling unit on every single property. While that may not happen
immediately, it is certain it will happen a great deal more often.
Ms. Canada explained she had been an owner/landlord of 15-20 properties at any given time in
Raleigh; and had tried very hard not to let those properties affect the values in those particular
neighborhoods. She pointed out that many of her colleagues were not so careful. She can still
drive down a street and point out the rental properties. The problem is the inability to enforce.
There are existing problems with tenants in certain places including rental units and short term
rentals along their two mile street and on part of Futch Creek Road. When residents report
rentals in the neighborhood, they are told officials can’t go in unless the owner allows them to so
in effect the code isn’t being enforced now.
Ms. Canada noted on Bald Eagle lane almost every lot could have a second unit in the back. It
could be a mother-in-law unit to begin with, but when mother dies or a particular owner moves
out, real estate brokers don’t bother to tell buyers that they can’t rent the units. The properties are
bought with the expectation of that extra income to carry things. They currently have a number
of those situations on their street and you can tell which units are being rented and which ones
are not. The proposed text amendment will place an undeserved burden mostly on older
neighborhoods, like theirs, that did not start out with a formal homeowners association. Most
older neighborhoods do not have an entity that can sue on behalf of all the other property owners.
They are biding only by their restrictive covenants. The amendment will not affect the likes of
Landfall, but will affect the older subdivisions and frankly, the poor neighborhoods. She
commented that she would be delighted at this prospect if she was a slum landlord. Ms. Canada
felt the proposed amendment was shortsighted and would be very harmful to the county and
residential neighborhoods as a whole. She assured the board virtually everyone in her
neighborhood would not want to see the proposed text amendment approved. She commented
she still had not heard the location of the property the original petition applied to.
Chairman Collier explained the location of the property would not be listed in the petition
because the item being considered is a text amendment and is not germane to just one applicant’s
property.
Page 23 of 29
Ms. Canada asked how the request became a text amendment.
Chairman Collier explained that question should be directed to staff.
Ms. Canada thought the amendment was a bad idea and felt the whole neighborhood would
support that opinion. She thanked the board for listening.
Robert Brown stated he appreciated the questions and comments by board members prior to the
opening of the public hearing. He felt the amendment would constitute a major and unwarranted
weakening in New Hanover County zoning. He shared the applicant’s concerns about a dwelling
for a relative and felt most people shared those concerns. The proposal doesn’t deal only with the
applicant’s concerns because it will apply to the whole county and to all zoning levels.
Mr. Brown commented as observed earlier by Mr. Weaver this amendment functionally reduces
many R-20S and R-20 zoning parcels to R-10 or below. It does that in a number of ways. It
establishes size allowances for accessory dwellings that are as large as small houses so you wind
up with two houses on what is now a single family zoned parcel. It reduces the setbacks from
current R-20 and R-20S requirements so the setback requirements for these accessory dwellings
(small houses) can be moved closer to the property line, thus infringing on adjacent property
owners’ current rights. The current proposal would apparently allow for rental without restriction
as has already been observed, perhaps introducing nightly rentals in current residential areas and
occupancy by, who knows, unlimited numbers of unrelated individuals. He commented he didn’t
think that was the intent of the proposer at all.
Mr. Brown explained that many people bought their homes under current zoning regulations with
the expectation that they would remain in place without wholesale change. He questioned why
the recommendation for such wholesale changes was proposed on the basis of the needs of a very
small number of individuals. He thought at first this was a greed based proposal intended to
enable the infiltration of rental units, but realized that was obviously not the proposer’s intent.
However, that would be the effect of the amendment if adopted as currently proposed because it
is a one-size-fits-all-zoning-levels proposal. It constitutes a door-in-the-face proposal that
proposes massive and outrageous changes, with perhaps the hidden intent of sneaking through
changes that are a little less outrageous.
Linda F. Anthony stated she attended the meeting to provide supporting evidence of a similar
situation currently in their neighborhood. They moved into the Bald Eagle Lane neighborhood
one year ago and the house for sale next door was occupied primarily by a large family that had
lots of guests. They were allowed to have an exception from the normal single family residence
by having an apartment above their garage that was originally a mother-in-law suite also used for
out of town guests. The neighbors eventually sold the property and the new owners are now
renting it to two people because it is a two bedroom apartment that is as large as a small house. It
has no stove so technically it’s not a house, but it has a microwave, refrigerator, mini bar, nice
size living room, two bedrooms and a nice sized seating area. The resulting density change in
having those two renters was four additional vehicles, in addition to the original couple’s own
two vehicles plus two work vehicles, recreational vehicles, boats, and skid-doo. She explained
Page 24 of 29
that is not the deal they thought they had when they moved onto Bald Eagle Lane, but it was
already there as an exception. She felt it would be nuts to do that to everybody.
Shane Johnson, new Government Affairs Liaison for the Wilmington Area Realtors Association,
stated the trend in American housing is moving to this arena and needs to be addressed. His
organization is not necessarily against the proposal; however, they would like the opportunity to
review it more thoroughly. The National Association of Realtors has wonderful software
program through which they run proposed zoning laws that accesses a database of all types of
situations across the United States and tailors them to our specific jurisdiction. The database was
recently used for the special use permit. Mr. O’Keefe may vouch as to its value. Mr. Johnson
requested that the board table the item for a couple of weeks to provide them with an opportunity
to evaluate the proposal and address some of the neighbors’ concerns and at the same time, take
care of Eric Conklin’s mother.
Chairman Collier asked if anyone else would like another opportunity to speak and if Mr.
Conklin wished to comment.
Mr. Conklin stated he really liked Ms. Worth’s comments, noting all four points she made
applied to his situation. He understood the concerns everyone had expressed and didn’t realize
what other issues the amendment would open up. He would never rent his unit should his mom
pass away because he would not want renters living in his backyard. He acknowledged he does
own rental property downtown. Mr. Conklin was hopeful the request could go forward in his
situation.
Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. He asked staff if the special use permit option was
available to Mr. Conklin for his particular application.
Ken Vafier explained there is no provision in the ordinance which would allow Mr. Conklin to
construct an accessory dwelling unit. That was the rationale for him coming forward with a text
amendment. The code doesn’t allow staff to make one exception for a use. A use must go into
the code uniformly, and thus, govern everyone who is under the code.
Chairman Collier thanked Mr. Vafier, noting his explanation answered his question about why
the petitioner was seeking a text amendment. He asked for comments from other board members.
In response to a question from Ted Shipley, Mr. Conklin stated his property is zoned R-15.
Mr. Shipley commented that R-15 would be more suitable for that type of use if a text
amendment was passed in the future. He felt the amendment as originally proposed would allow
the use by-right in far too many districts. He also had concerns about the proposed square
footage and parking. Multiple vehicles parked in driveways would become a bigger concern than
helping a mother-in-law. He felt it would be beneficial to limit square footage because many
homes in the county are 4,000 plus square feet. An accessory structure of half that size would
result in a 2,000 square feet structure. There also needs to be discussions about setbacks, where
these structures need to be put, as well as the modular/mobile home issue. He would also like to
know what types of structures the City of Wilmington currently allows. Mr. Shipley stated he
Page 25 of 29
couldn’t vote on the amendment because of those issues and concerns and felt it would be best
for staff to rehash the issue, obtain input from realtors and residents, and bring back an
amendment for the residential districts for consideration. .
David Weaver felt the amendment would basically increase the number of dwelling units on an
R-15 parcel by an additional 60% and would double the number of units for R-20. As far as
allowing retrofit of existing lots with a dwelling unit, he would first want E-911 and the public
response agencies to weigh in on the issue because of addressing issues created by the additional
driveways needed to reach accessory buildings. Mr. Weaver anticipated many problems if the
use was by-right, but noted if a special use permit was required, they would probably need to
increase the Planning Board and County Commissioners meetings by a factor of six to handle all
of the new cases. He expressed compassion for Mr. Conklin’s situation because he understands
what he is going through.
Mr. Weaver asked and was informed by staff that the County does not currently allow garage
apartments in the zoning ordinance. He noted the City of Wilmington does allow garage
apartments. In regard to the conditions previously mentioned, he felt it would be an enforcement
nightmare to determine if units were owner occupied or occupied by relatives. His neighborhood
in the city is supposed to be owner occupied, but it is a joke. There aren’t enough enforcement
personnel in the state to enforce that type of ordinance requirement. The enforcement work
required to monitor who lives where is just not practical. Theoretically, a special use permit
would be great, but couldn’t reasonably be done.
Mr. Weaver stated in regard to the setback issue, the amendment would give a property owner
the right to build an accessory dwelling unit within ten feet of their house in a zero lot line
performance residential development where one house is on the property line or within a foot of
the property line. He felt that would be a game changer for an existing neighborhood. He
suggested they bring the issue back up if the realtors association could come up with a solution.
Mr. Weaver stated he was open to suggestions, but would prefer to turn the request down at this
time.
Donna Girardot agreed with Mr. Shipley and noted there are too many unanswered questions,
which could even result in student housing in residents’ backyards. She agreed they should ask
Mr. Johnson to come back with information for the board. She preferred the item come back
before the board in August because there is a need for that type of structure. Ms. Girardot stated
the county likely would not see many of the units because of the covenant issue and the fact that
New Hanover is a small county.
Vice Chairman Dan Hilla agreed there is definitely a need for these structures, noting he is aware
of several places already in existence, but didn’t know how they were permitted. He felt the
amendment needed to come back in another form to be addressed item by item.
Tamara Murphy agreed with the other board members because there is definitely a place and a
use for that type of structure given the aging demographic. She pointed out the need to work out
many details and a lot of language for that type of use. She agreed with Mr. Weaver that it would
be an enforcement headache to determine who is a blood relative and who is married or not. Ms.
Page 26 of 29
Murphy commented she would definitely like to see a more detailed amendment come back for
consideration by the board.
Chairman Collier agreed with Mr. Weaver that the board should turn down the amendment to
allow the time necessary to review all of the issues since it was brought forward as a text
amendment for Mr. Conklin’s particular situation, but would apply county-wide. He noted
carriage houses, a similar type of structure, are allowed in other places. He felt that the nine
conditions discussed wouldn’t adequately address all of the issues that needed to be addressed
before that type of use is approved. Chairman Collier stated the board should move forward to
deny the text amendment because staff can bring back a similar amendment at any time, while
Mr. Conklin would not be able to bring back the request for twelve months. He also
recommended Mr. Conklin work with staff to address his situation or consider expanding his
house, noting unfortunately neither of those options is ideal.
Chairman Collier asked for a motion from the board.
Vice Chairman Hilla acknowledged he would have no problem agreeing to turn the amendment
down as long as the board directed staff to come back with another amendment to address this
type of situation because there is certainly a need in the county which should be addressed.
Chairman Collier asked if it was accurate that staff could come back even next month with a
similar request if the planning board turned down the applicant’s requested amendment.
Mr. O’Keefe explained staff is in the midst of developing the comprehensive plan and upon
completion of the plan, will begin rewriting the ordinance. Based on the board’s discussion, it
appeared that a simple text amendment would not suffice. Staff would like to create a more
sophisticated amendment to allow accessory dwelling units in the unincorporated county and
would prefer to have the benefit of a comprehensive plan to ensure the use is put in the right
locations, rather than subjecting entire districts to the units as currently proposed. Staff worked
with Mr. Conklin because there is a need for accessory dwelling units country-wide, not just
county-wide. More places, especially urban areas, are addressing this issue to provide a variety
of housing types both for affordability and for increasing urban density to offer more efficient
services; however, it is a complex situation. He noted the board had brought up many excellent
points which require a greater level of detail. Mr. O’Keefe stated it would be more appropriate
for staff to address the accessory dwelling unit issue through the comprehensive planning effort
and include it in the ordinance re-write should the board turn down the request.
Chairman Collier thanked Mr. O’Keefe for his comments.
Chairman Richard Collier made a motion to deny Text Amendment A-420 - Amendment to the
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance amending the accessory dwelling unit as written. David
Weaver seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend denial of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment A-
420. The board remanded the amendment back to staff for potential inclusion in the
comprehensive plan update.
Page 27 of 29
Chairman Collier commented as stated before by others this proposal is one that the community
and realtors need to work with staff on through the comprehensive plan. At least have the
discussion so that all of the issues are put on the table because the ones that are listed in terms of
conditions in the proposal are really good, but those are just touch the surface of the items that
need to be addressed.
Technical Review Committee Report (June 2014)
Sam Burgess reported the Technical Review Committee met twice during the month of June and
reviewed a total of three site plans.
Mr. Burgess provided a brief explanation of a General Development Plan (GDP), which
is a master plan that displays more than 150 units. Within a GDP, the applicant has the
option of seeking site plan approval in the form of two phases. Phase I would involve
the limited agency review of the GDP, and would confer the certain rights to a
developer for a period of five (5) years. Those rights would include the total number of
dwelling units, the type of dwelling units, the location of the roads, and the various
types of dwellings, density, and location. Phase II would involve the submission of a
preliminary site plan to TRC for all or a portion of the GDP that would encompass full
agency review.
Village at Motts Landing (Revised General Development Plan)
The Village at Motts Landing general development plan consists of 294.56 acres and is
located in the southern portion of the County’s jurisdiction near the 60 block of Sanders
Road and is classified as Urban on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The
primary purpose of the general development plan revision was the annexation of
approximately 30 acres to the over-all project.
The general development plan is bounded to the west by River Road, to the east by
Carolina Beach Road, and to the south by Sanders Road.
Site plan attributes include:
736 lots (originally 654) consisting of 375 single family units, 90 duplexes, 271
townhomes
R-15 Residential zoning
Private water (Aqua of North Carolina)
Public sewer (CFPUA)
Public & Private Roads within the project
Traffic impact Analysis (TIA) approved based on future road improvements which
will take place in phases as the project develops.
Excellent interconnectivity leading in and out of project via primary accesses at
River Road and Sanders Road, as well as future planned access out to Carolina
Beach Road, two access points to the north leading into the Sycamore Grove
subdivision.
Page 28 of 29
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the general development plan revision to the Village
at Motts Landing for a total of 736 lots for a validity period of five (5) years. Future
preliminary phases of the plan will include approved TIA requirements, a sidewalk
from the primary entrance at Sanders Road to Bellamy Elementary School, and field
verification of conservation resources.
Village at Motts Landing: Phase 2A (Performance Plan)
The Village at Motts Landing is located in the southern portion of the County’s
jurisdiction near the 60 block of Sanders Road and is classified as Urban on the
County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan.
Performance site plan attributes for Phase 2A include:
R-15 residential zoning
12 lots
4.80 acres
Private water (Aqua of North Carolina)
Public Sewer (CFPUA)
TIA Approved
Private Road; No gates, traffic obstructions, on-street parking, or traffic calming
devices
Access for this Phase from Sanders Road
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the preliminary site plan for the Village at Motts
Landing: Phase 2A for 12 lots for a period of two (2) years with conditions, which were
included in the agenda package.
River Bluffs: Phase 2 (PD Plan)
River Bluffs, a planned development rezoned several years ago, is located in the
northern portion of the County’s jurisdiction near the western terminus of Chair Road
and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the County’s adopted 2006 Land
Use Plan.
Site plan attributes include:
PD (Planned Development) zoning
168 lots (146 single family, 22 townhomes/duplexes)
83.16 acres
Public water and sewer (CFPUA)
TIA Approved; future road improvements nearby along Chair Road and at the
intersection of Chair Road and Castle Hayne Road
Private Roads
Primary Access from Chair Road
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the site plan for Phase 2 at River Bluffs with five
conditions, which were included in the agenda package.
Page 29 of 29
Mr. Burgess announced the next scheduled TRC meeting would be held on July 23, 2014, with one
item on the agenda – a high density complex located near the western end of Gordon Road and the I-
40 on-ramp.
Chairman Collier thanked Mr. Burgess and asked if there were any other items on the agenda.
David Weaver stated that the Planning Board by consensus and acclamation recognized and appreciated
the Chairman’s leadership and the Vice Chairman’s leadership over the past years, noting both gentlemen
will be greatly missed.
Chairman Richard Collier and Vice Chairman Dan Hilla expressed their appreciation to Mr. Weaver and
the other members of the planning board.
Chairman Collier revisited the request for a Planning Board representative to attend the August 11, 2014
County Commissioners meeting at 4:00 p.m. Staff will send an email to board members seeking a
volunteer for that meeting.
Chris O’Keefe expressed staff’s appreciation to Chairman Collier and Vice Chairman Hilla for their
leadership and service, noting Vice Chairman Hilla had served on the board since October, 2010, and
Chairman Collier had served the board dutifully since he was appointed to fill an empty seat in May, 2007
and was subsequently reappointed twice. He commented the job can be very difficult at times, but they
have done it very well.
Chairman Collier and Vice Chairman Hilla expressed their thanks to staff.
With no further business, Chairman Richard Collier adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.