2015-03 March 5 2015 PBM
Page 1 of 15
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
March 5, 2015
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, March 5, 2015 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:
Edward “Ted” Shipley, III, Chairman Kenneth Vafier, Planning Manager
Donna Girardot, Vice Chair Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Lisa Mesler Sam Burgess, Senior Planner
Tamara Murphy Brad Schuler, Current Planner
Anthony Prinz Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
Jordy Rawl Bill McDow, Wilmington Metropolitan Planning
David Weaver Organization
Chairman Ted Shipley opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing.
Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Ted Shipley reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Approval of February 2015 Planning Board Minutes
Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a motion to approve the February Planning Board minutes.
Chairman Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the February
5, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes.
Chairman Shipley then announced a change in the order of the hearing items on the agenda,
explaining that Planning staff had received a request from the applicant to continue Rezoning
Request Z-939 to a later date based on information gathered during agency comments on the
application.
Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z-939, 3/15) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of multiple
property owners to rezone 12.77 acres from B-2, Highway Business District, and R-15,
Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business Zoning District, to
develop a commercial shopping center at the 7100 block of Market Street at the
intersection of Middle Sound Loop Road. The property is classified as Transition and
Watershed Resource Protection according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Chairman Shipley entertained discussion and/or a motion from the board to continue the
rezoning request.
David Weaver made a motion to continue Rezoning Request Z-939 to the April Planning Board
meeting. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to continue
Rezoning Request Z-939 to the April Planning Board meeting.
Page 2 of 15
Item 1: Special Use Permit Request (S-625, 3/15) – Request by Keresa Anderson-Young to
operate a child care center at her residence at 7245 Savanna Run Loop. The property is
zoned R-10, Residential District, and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection
according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Brad Schuler 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.
Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report:
This is an application to allow a child care center to be located at 7254 Savanna Run
Loop, which is within the Park Ridge at West Bay Estates subdivision.
The parcels immediately surrounding the site contain predominately single-family
residential with many subdivisions within the area. South of the property is Ogden Park.
The property is classified as Wetland Resource Protection in the 2006 CAMA Land Use
Plan.
A child care center, as defined by the zoning ordinance, is an arrangement where, at any
one time, there are three or more preschool-age children or nine of more school-age
children receiving child care. Currently, the applicant is seeking to provide care for up
to 10 preschool-age children.
The county’s zoning regulations on child care facilities were amended in 2013 to make
them more consistent with the state’s requirements. As a result, two uses were created:
child care centers and family care homes. The main difference between the uses is the
number of children that can be cared for, and typically were they are located. Family
care homes are limited in the number of children they can care for, and are located
within a residence. While child care centers can care for more children and can be a
more commercially-oriented facility. That being said, child care centers can also locate
within a residence provided they do not care for more than 12 children, which is a state
requirement.
The State, specifically the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services,
also regulates child care facilities and imposes additional standards that address a
variety of safety and health related issues. So in addition to obtaining the SUP, the
applicant must also obtain approval from the Department of Health and Human Services
prior to operating a child care center. Please note too that the state may further restrict
the number of children allowed to be cared for depending on the design of the
residence. Some general information on the state’s building requirements for this use
was included in the Planning Board packet.
The required parking improvements for these facilities were also addressed when the
zoning ordinance was amended. Previously, the same parking improvements for
commercial businesses were required for these facilities. However, the amendment
Page 3 of 15
reduced those required improvements after the county received consistent concern from
the adjacent property owners. What staff found was that generally the neighbors
supported the business, but they did not support the parking improvements, which can
reduce the residential quality of a neighborhood. Since the amendment, staff has
allowed the required parking to be located within the driveway of the subject property.
In this application, the applicant is required to have four parking spaces. Two spaces are
required for the single-family dwelling, and two spaces are required for the child care
center. Two spaces are generally a sufficient amount as the parking is very short term
and staggered during the pick-up and drop-off times. The applicant has provided
pictures, and staff prepared a site plan in conjunction with the applicant illustrating that
four parking spaces are available within the existing driveway.
Staff is recommending approval of this application finding that it meets the required
Findings of Fact.
Chairman Shipley asked if board members had questions for staff.
In response to a question from Jordy Rawl, Mr. Schuler confirmed that Savanna Run Loop is a
private road.
Hearing no other questions, Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the
applicant.
Mrs. Keresa Anderson-Young stated she was applying for a special use permit for a maximum of
ten children. She reported she had met all requirements for a child care in a residence. She has
worked with children for twelve years in a residence and loves it. Since she moved into the
neighborhood in 2014, there has been a big need for child care in the area. There will be no
changes on the outside structure of her residence. There will be minimum traffic as all parents
have different drop-off and pick-up times. The harmony will remain in the neighborhood and
will not be affected. Ms. Anderson-Young stated belief that the expansion of her in-home child
care expansion will be great for the neighborhood. She thanked the board for their consideration
of the request.
Chairman Shipley inquired if board members had any questions for the applicant. Hearing none,
he opened the opposition portion of the hearing.
Donna Hogan of 447 Putnam Drive stated she owns the home behind the residence proposed for
the child care. She has tenants in that home that often work nights and are caring for a mother
with Alzheimer’s, who suffers from the associated Sundowning Syndrome which causes her to
be awake and roam during the night. Her tenants are against the proposed day care center for
those reasons. She is also against the request because she contacted CAMS to see if there were
any restrictive homeowners association covenants against it and there are. No one is supposed to
use the home for anything, but residential purposes. The covenants also state that no noxious or
offensive activity shall be carried out on any lot, nor shall anything be carried on which may be
an annoyance to the neighborhood. She would interpret that as having ten children in a day care
Page 4 of 15
center with people coming in and out of the neighborhood for ten different children. While she
respected the applicant for trying to have their own business, she felt the proposal would turn
into a situation where there would be fines against the homeowner because she bought a home in
a community that has rules and regulations. She commented that she also has her own business.
Ms. Hogan stated she had a copy of highlighted parts of the homeowners association covenants if
the board would like to review them.
Chairman Shipley asked which HOA declarations were provided and asked for a summary.
Ms. Hogan summarized the rules and regulations were for the neighborhoods at Westbay. Even
though the community is considered Park Ridge, CAMS told her that the restrictive covenants
for Windsor Place and Garlington Heights at Westbay Estates are the restrictive covenants. She
stated she is a realtor and these were the covenants attached to the online listings for properties
currently for sale in the community. She printed page one and highlighted that as the restricted
covenants and then printed page 23 that addresses residential purposes, noxious activities and
nuisances. She also had the rules and regulations.
Diana Johns of 451 Putnam Drive stated she resides next door to Ms. Hogan’s home. Her
husband works at General Electric and works often at night so he obviously sleeps during the
day. That is the biggest issue she has with the request. She doesn’t have anything against caring
for children, but ten children, mostly school-aged, will want to play outside. Traffic is already
horrendous on Putnam Drive, and residents are also dealing with the issue of the highway
coming in the next few years. The neighborhood is constantly putting in speed bumps so people
will slow down. The proposal is located on the next road over and will add more traffic on an
already congested road. Ms. Johns reiterated her husband works nights and likes to sleep during
the day and with ten kids that will be a problem.
Chairman Shipley opened the rebuttal portion of the hearing and recognized the applicant, Ms.
Anderson-Young.
Ms. Anderson-Young stated she purchased her home in April 2014 and explained that a special
use permit isn’t required for the eight children, five preschool and three after school, she has
been providing childcare services for during the last year. She has never had any problems. She
reported when she purchased the home she had also contacted Westbay and was told that as long
as there are no signs in the yard and no changes to the structure of the house, there would be no
problem. She hasn’t made any changes to the structure of the house and doesn’t have a sign.
With that information, she moved forward with the special use permit request. She reiterated she
isn’t required to have a special use permit for the eight children she has provided childcare
services to for the last year.
Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to close the public hearing and enter the board discussion
period.
Anthony Prinz made a motion to close the public hearing and enter the board discussion period.
Chairman Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to close the public
hearing and enter the board discussion period.
Page 5 of 15
Chairman Shipley asked for confirmation from the county attorney that the Planning Board is not
allowed to enforce HOA covenants or restrictions.
Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman confirmed the chairman was correct in the opinion
that the board could not enforce HOA covenant restrictions. That would be a litigation matter by
the homeowners association. The board could certainly take into consideration that information
in determining if the request was in harmony with the community if there was a violation of the
community rules and regulations; however she would not suggest that it would rise to the level of
competent material and substantial evidence necessary to rebut the presumption that the
applicant has reached at this point.
In response to an inquiry from David Weaver, Brad Schuler and Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed
the fence in the backyard is opaque and approximately six-feet high and meets the requirements
established by the State of North Carolina. She also confirmed the fence, as well as the drainage
easement located behind her property serve as a buffer between her property and the neighbors.
Vice Chair Girardot commented she had seen Ms. Young’s house, which is fenced and on a cul-
de-sac. She asked in regard to parking, if people would be dropping off and picking up in a
staggered manner.
Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed the parents of the children she cares for have different drop-off
times and pick-up times so the number of cars there at one time is limited. She has a high school
aged child and a preschooler and is currently providing care for six children. She is licensed for
eight children, five preschoolers and three after-schoolers. She has been providing childcare
services at her home since she obtained her license in March 2014.
In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s inquiry, Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed the special use
permit would allow her to expand to ten children and essentially provide services for two
additional children.
In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s inquiry about hours of operation, Ms. Anderson-Young
stated the current hours are 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Vice Chair Girardot asked in regard to comments about the HOA rules and nuisances, if there
were any specific rules against a day care facility, noting Ms. Anderson-Young is currently
licensed.
Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed she is currently a licensed child care provider and reported she
had gone to the homeowners association regarding operating a child care facility and was told
not to change any structure on the property or post signs in the yard. In regard to concerns about
the use being a nuisance, she has never had any problems with any of her neighbors. They all
received notifications of the special use permit request and had contacted her. Many of them
didn’t even know she operated a child care until they saw the notice. She also noted there had
never been any problem with traffic because no one knew she had a child care facility.
Page 6 of 15
Chairman Shipley commented in regard to noxious and offensive activities, generally he would
consider that a child care facility doesn’t rise to the level of noxious and offensive. In shopping
center leases where that language, although vague, is often applied, it refers to something far
more egregious than a child care center. He inquired if Ms. Huffman agreed.
Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman agreed with the chairman’s comments and asked if
that was the language used in the covenants. She commented most folks would agree that a child
care center is typically not noxious or offensive.
Chairman Shipley noted that the rules provided state that no noxious or offensive activity shall
be carried out upon any lot and also refers to an activity which may become an annoyance or
nuisance to the neighborhood. The language is incredibly vague, but noxious or offensive
activity is usually something pretty egregious. He simply wanted to clarify that issue.
Anthony Prinz expressed agreement with the Chairman’s comments, noting his son currently
attends child care and he would hope he’s not considered an annoyance and the daycare is not
considered a noxious type of use. He personally felt that these types of things are very consistent
with residential types of uses. Noting it happens all over the country, he would hope that
neighbors are willing to accept children playing in the backyard as part of their community.
Mr. Prinz asked Ms. Anderson-Young if she had talked to the management company that
currently administers the homeowners association when she talked to the homeowners
association and who her point of contact was at that time.
Ms. Anderson-Young stated she had spoken with a woman, but didn’t remember her name. She
simply contacted the association and asked them the questions. She reported she had also
personally reviewed the handbook.
Mr. Prinz explained he asked that question because the connection is not really clear, noting
there are two completely different documents being presented as documentation that this use is
against the homeowners association covenants. He also couldn’t track how those documents are
connected to Ms. Anderson-Young’s parcel as described by Ms. Hogan. Mr. Prinz asked Ms.
Anderson-Young if she was convinced that the homeowners association is okay with her child
care business.
Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed she was sure, reiterating their instructions to follow the rules
regarding no signs and not altering the structure of her house. She has obeyed all of the rules.
She was never told she couldn’t operate a child care and it is not stated in the handbook either.
Ms. Anderson-Young also confirmed she had not received any complaints from her other
neighbors.
Vice Chair Girardot asked Ms. Johns to clarify whether the neighborhood her property is located
in shares the same homeowners association as the applicant’s neighborhood.
Page 7 of 15
Ms. Johns confirmed it is the same; it is CAMS. She noted Ms. Hogan had actually spoken with
the manager there earlier that day and she was not aware of a daycare. She pointed out that Item
One in the homeowners association covenants states that no business in a residential community
is allowed. This would be considered a business.
Vice Chair Girardot stated she was confused about whether they were talking about the same
homeowners association.
Ms. Johns stated it is CAMS; it is the same homeowners association.
Vice Chair Girardot commented that CAMS is the name of an overall management corporation.
She asked for clarification on the homeowners association and whether the opposition and
applicant residences are located in different subdivisions.
Ms. Johns explained that her home and Ms. Hogan’s property are located in the Putnam Run
subdivision and Ms. Anderson-Young resides in Park Ridge subdivision. These subdivisions are
adjacent so their properties back up to each other.
In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s inquiry, Ms. Johns confirmed the subdivisions have
different homeowners associations, but both are managed by CAMS. When they called CAMS,
they said they were all the same. .
Vice Chair Girardot commented that the subdivisions could have two different sets of covenants.
Ms. Johns acknowledged that Donna Hogan would be the best person to answer that question
because she actually spoke with CAMS. The covenants in Westbay Estates, Putnam Run, and
Park Ridge are all the same.
David Weaver commented he felt it was the planning board’s duty to deal with county
regulations and county planning documents and the board should not be involved in adjudicating
homeowners association disputes.
Chairman Shipley agreed with Mr. Weaver, noting if the item moves forward to the county
commissioners, it may be advisable for the proper person from the homeowners association to
appear before that board to address that issue if they are so inclined.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion from the board.
Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-625 finding that
all Findings of Fact as stated in the staff report are positive. Tamara Murphy seconded the
motion.
Vice Chair Girardot asked if Mr. Prinz was agreeable amending the motion to include hours of
operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Page 8 of 15
Anthony Prinz offered an amended motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-625
finding that all Findings of Fact as stated in the staff report are positive with one condition:
1) Hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Tamara Murphy seconded the amended motion.
Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed support for limiting hours of operation to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
David Weaver made a motion to close debate on the motion. Chairman Ted Shipley seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to close debate on the motion.
The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit Request S-625
finding that all Findings of Fact as stated in the staff report are positive with one condition:
1) Hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Item 2: Special Use Permit Request (S-626, 3/15) – Request by Darek Huckbody on behalf
of New Hanover County to operate an indoor recreation use at 1817 Hall Drive. The
property is zoned AI, Airport Industrial, and is classified as Transition according to the
2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Vice Chair Girardot stated for the record that she is a member of the Airport Authority Board;
however, she had consulted with the County Attorney and Assistant County Attorney and it had
been determined that because she will have no personal financial benefit from this item, she will
not have to recuse herself from considering the special use permit request being brought forward
this evening.
Brad Schuler 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.
Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report:
This is an application to allow an indoor recreation use to be located at 1817 Hall Drive.
The site is zoned AI, Airport Industrial, and is located on the same parcel as the
Wilmington International Airport, which approximately 1,300 acres in size.
The surrounding land uses are mostly airport operations. The closest residential
property is approximately 1,750 feet from the proposed location of the indoor recreation
use. The site is accessed from both Hall Drive (SR 1386) and Trask Drive (SR 1312).
Hall Drive connects directly into Blue Clay Road, approximately one half mile north of
23rd Street.
The indoor recreation use being proposed is a laser tag business, which is currently
proposed to occupy 10,263 square feet of a 20,600 square foot building. The use will
consist of approximately 9,000 square feet of recreation area and 1,500 square feet for
Page 9 of 15
administrative purposes. The business plans on using a maximum of around 40 parking
spaces to accommodate both staff and customers.
While the current proposal is seeking to use just a portion of the building, the applicant
has requested that the SUP application include the entire building so that the business
may expand into the remaining portions of the building without having to modify the
SUP. As SUPs run with the land and not with the applicant, if this application is
approved, any indoor recreation use would be allowed to occupy the building.
Staff recommends approval of the application with the following condition, as it meets
the required findings of fact as detailed in the case analysis. Staff is recommending this
condition be placed on the permit to clarify that any initiation or expansion of an indoor
recreation use must still undergo an official review to verify compliance with the
applicable standards of the zoning ordinance.
Condition:
Prior to any initiation or expansion of an indoor recreation use, a zoning review
must be conducted to ensure compliance with any applicable regulations in
existence at that time.
Chairman Shipley asked if the condition applied only to the 10,000 square feet or to the 20,000
square feet of the entire building.
Mr. Schuler confirmed the condition would apply to the entire building.
David Weaver inquired if approval of the special use permit would allow any indoor use in the
building and asked about other indoor uses.
Mr. Schuler confirmed approval of the special use permit would allow any indoor recreation use
in the building, for example, a bowling alley. With any application, you must use the Table of
Permitted Uses and classify the proposed use. In the current Table of Permitted Uses there is an
indoor recreation use so any type of indoor recreation would fall under that use and have to meet
those requirements.
In response to Mr. Weaver’s question about an indoor shooting range, Ken Vafier, Planning
Manager, explained that an indoor shooting range is a separately listed permitted use and would
not apply in this instance.
Mr. Weaver asked if the board could place a condition on this permit that limited the use to Laser
Tag use, noting he isn’t familiar with all the different kinds of indoor recreation uses.
Brad Schuler confirmed the board could limit the use to an exact use; however, the zoning
ordinance classifies uses based on their impact on the surrounding properties. If there is a
particular indoor recreation use that the board might have concerns with, the ordinance should
classify that use as its own use and have specific standards for that use similar to the indoor
shooting range.
Page 10 of 15
Mr. Prinz stated maybe before the board makes a determination on whether that is appropriate,
they could hear from staff on what would be allowed as an indoor recreation use.
Mr. Vafier explained there was not a simple answer because within the Indoor Recreational Use
there are not sub-categories broken down to list a bowling alley, batting cage, etc. so staff would
have to interpret whether a use would be an indoor recreational use or another use that is covered
in the Table of Permitted Uses or if staff feels the use is outside the category of an indoor
recreational use. Essentially, if a proposal was received for the remainder of the building or for a
new use of the building altogether, it could be a use that becomes subject to interpretation by the
Planning staff.
Tamara Murphy commented that the recommended condition appears to prevent the situation of
the applicant changing the use because it requires them, prior to any initiation or expansion, to
come back for a zoning review.
Mr. Vafier confirmed it is the intent of the proposed condition to provide review by staff to
determine if a proposed change of use would be allowed within the purview of the current
special use permit or would require another review by the board for revision. The proposed
condition will also give the applicant the flexibility to utilize the existing special use permit for
what it is granted for, not limiting them just to one type of operation or a certain area within the
building.
David Weaver commented board members should be aware they are considering a special use
permit for an indoor recreation facility, not a special use permit for an indoor laser tag facility.
Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor, suggested that if there was a type of indoor
recreation use that the board didn’t feel comfortable including in this potential approval, it
wouldn’t be uncommon for the board to restrict a particular use.
Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Darek Huckbody of 525 Tanbridge Road, the applicant, stated he had no comments at that time
about staff’s presentation and offered to answer questions from the board.
Chairman Shipley inquired if anyone else was present who wished to speak on behalf of the
applicant.
Jim Morton of the New Hanover County Airport Authority stated the applicant is somewhat part
of the county, as the special use permit is proposed on county-owned property. The County
signed the application to request the special use permit from the County. It is an unusual
situation, but the Airport Authority is very supportive of this venture and hopes to get the board’s
approval.
In response to Chairman Shipley’s inquiry, Mr. Morton clarified that technically the County
owns the land, which is leased by the Airport Authority, and the building is owned by the Airport
Page 11 of 15
Authority so there are no other parties. The request involves only the County, the Airport
Authority and Mr. Huckbody.
Seeing no one present to speak in opposition to the special use permit request, Chairman Shipley
stated the board would forego the rebuttal period and asked for a motion to close the public
comment period.
Anthony Prinz made a motion to close the public comment period. Chairman Shipley seconded
the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to close the public comment period.
Chairman Shipley opened the planning board discussion period.
Anthony Prinz commented that given the location of the building on the airport property,
regardless of what the indoor recreation use is, he didn’t feel it would have an impact on the
surrounding area. While he appreciated the information provided that there are other recreation
opportunities if the laser tag isn’t a long-term tenant, he stated his full support of the staff
recommendation allowing for a general indoor type of use.
David Weaver stated agreement with Mr. Prinz’s comments.
Chairman Shipley stated his questions were in regard to signage and the outward appearance of
the building because there were no proposed pictures in the application package. He noted some
family entertainment centers can be loud in terms of signage colors and aesthetics. He asked the
applicant to address those issues.
Mr. Huckbody stated the proposed logo colors are black and gold. They will follow whatever the
regulations are in regarding to signage and aren’t planning anything too flashy.
Mr. Schuler reported the ordinance requires signage for indoor recreation uses to be limited to
one ground sign not to exceed 32 square feet and requires a minimum setback of 25 feet from the
right-of-way. He noted there are more restrictive standards on signage for these uses.
Jordy Rawl asked if the applicant had tentatively established any hours of operation.
Mr. Huckbody confirmed they were considering summer hours and winter hours. Winter hours
will focus on the after school timeframe depending on the customer base, possibly lunch time
until 9:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. at the latest on Friday and Saturday nights, but nothing past
midnight.
Chairman Shipley closed the planning board discussion period and read the required statement
regarding the consequences of a denial of a special use permit.
A special use permit, which is denied, can only be resubmitted if there has been a
substantial change in the facts, evidence, or conditions of the application as determined
by the Planning Director. At this time, you may ask to either continue the application to
Page 12 of 15
a future meeting or to proceed with this board deciding whether to grant or deny the
application.
Darek Huckbody confirmed the applicant wished to proceed to a vote by the board.
Chairman Shipley entertained a motion from the board.
Anthony Prinz commented being an Appalachian State grad, he fully appreciated the black and
gold motif.
Anthony Prinz then made a motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-626 to the
County Commissioners with the finding that all Findings of Fact included in the staff report are
positive. Donna Girardot seconded the motion.
During debate, Ms. Murphy asked if Mr. Prinz’s motion included the recommended staff
condition.
Anthony Prinz offered an amended motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-626
with the finding that all Findings of Fact included in the staff report are positive to include the
condition in the staff report, which is: 1) Prior to any initiation or expansion of the indoor
recreation use, a zoning review must be conducted to ensure compliance with any applicable
regulations in existence at that time. Vice Chair Girardot seconded the amended motion.
Tamara Murphy made a motion to close debate on the motion. Chairman Ted Shipley seconded
the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to close debate on the motion.
The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-626 with the
finding that all Findings of Fact included in the staff report are positive with one condition:
1) Prior to any initiation or expansion of the indoor recreation use, a zoning review
must be conducted to ensure compliance with any applicable regulations in
existence at that time.
Technical Review Committee Report (February)
Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Report:
The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once during the month of
February and reviewed five (5) site plans.
Parsons Mill (Performance Plan Second One Year Extension)
Parsons Mill is located in the northern portion of our jurisdiction (4500 block N. College
Road) and is classified as Aquifer Resource Protection on the County’s 2006 adopted
Land Use Plan. Site plan attributes include:
CD (R-10) Conditional District Zoning – Residential
354 units (blend single & multi-family)
107.17 acres
Page 13 of 15
Public water & sewer (CFPUA)
Private Roads (with inter-connectivity to Parmele Road)
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the second one year extension of the project for 354
units ending February 25, 2016 with five (5) conditions, which are included in the TRC
Report as part of the Planning Board package.
In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Girardot, Mr. Burgess explained the postal
service has shared with staff that they would prefer a cluster box system in multi-family
developments to save time for the carriers. The TRC made that recommendation to the
developer, who embraced it; however, cluster boxes are not required by New Hanover
County.
River Bluffs: Phase 2 (Revised PD- Planned Development)
River Bluffs is located in the northern portion of our jurisdiction (western end Chair
Road) and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection of the County’s adopted 2006
Land Use Plan. The River Bluffs Master Plan and rezoning from R-20 Residential to PD
Planned Development was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in March,
2008 and amended in January, 2014 to include a commercial marina. A total of 738 units
are allowed for the entire project. To date, Phase 1has received approval by TRC for 223
units. The revision to Phase 2 represents 198 units with road design width modifications.
Other site plan attributes include:
PD Planned Development Zoning District
198 units
84.05 acres
Public water & sewer (CFPUA)
Private Roads (sole access from Chair Road)
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the revision to Phase 2 of River Bluffs with six (6)
conditions, listed in the TRC report included in the Planning Board package.
In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s inquiry regarding the reason for the waiver for the
reduced pavement width, Mr. Burgess explained it was largely due to the LID
components included in the project and because County Fire Services found the
pavement width reduction would not impact emergency service delivery.
Tidalwalk (R/W Dedication)
Tidalwalk is located in the southern portion of our jurisdiction (7900 block Myrtle Grove
Road) and is classified as Conservation on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. In
order to legally meet the access requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to serve five (5)
lots in the project, the developer for the project requested an extension to the existing
right-of-way near the eastern end of the project. Nearby are the Intracoastal waterway,
located east of the project; an older established residential development known as
Seaview, which was developed in the early 1980’s; and the Old Chimney subdivision,
which is adjacent to the south and fronts off Carolina Beach Road, which was developed
in the late 1970’s. There are plans to elevate the causeway, which serves lots 417-419, to
Page 14 of 15
mitigate any flooding issues and plans with the State to provide a retaining wall in the
event of an unusually high tide or tropical system.
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the right-of-way extension to Tidalwalk subdivision
along with the five (5) lots with six conditions involved with the right-of-way dedication,
which are detailed as part of the Planning Board agenda package.
Abbington Cove (High Density)
Abbington Cove is located in the central portion of the County’s jurisdiction (4700 block
Carolina Beach Road) and is classified as Urban on the County’s 2006 adopted Land Use
Plan. Nearby is St. Andrew’s Drive, the Johnson Farm Hollow project developed in the
late 1990’s, and several other high density projects in the general area and abutting
Carolina Beach Road. Several areas have been voluntarily annexed by the City of
Wilmington. If approved by the Board of Commissioners, this project may eventually
become annexed by the City. Primary access will be Carolina Beach Road and also Sikes
Drive, which is a designated public road. Site attributes include:
CD (B-1) Conditional District Light Business & R-15 Residential
80 units (apartments)
6.96 acres
Public water & sewer (CFPUA)
Private Road(s) with exception Sikes Drive
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved Abbington Cove for 80 units with nine conditions,
which are included in the planning board agenda package. Abbington Cove is a high
density project that will require a special use permit so the planning board will see the
item again in the near future.
Pumpkin Creek Village (Performance Site Plan)
Pumpkin Creek Village is located in the northern portion of the County’s jurisdiction
(4300 block of Blue Clay Road) and is classified as Transition and Conservation on the
County’s 2006 Land Use Plan. Several different types of land uses in the area include the
Northchase subdivision to the South-Southeast and Cape Fear Community College North
Campus to the Northeast. I-140 runs by, but will not connect with the project. Primary
access will be provided from Blue Clay Road. Site plan attributes include:
R-15 Residential Zoning
62 single family lots
24.8 acres
Public water & sewer (CFPUA)
Public Roads
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved Pumpkin Creek Village for a total of 62 lots with six
conditions, which are detailed in the planning board package.
There are no items scheduled for the March 11th TRC meeting so the next meeting will be
held on March 25, 2015.
Page 15 of 15
Other Business
Chairman Shipley reported staff had asked the board to consider changing the date of the April
Planning Board meeting from April 2nd to April 9th due to the Good Friday holiday. He expressed
concern about April 9th, pointing out possible issues with parking due to the Allen Jackson
concert associated with the Azalea Festival taking place downtown. He wished to ensure good
attendance by the public and the board members at the meeting.
Mr. Vafier proposed Wednesday, April 8th, noting Ogden Marketplace may come back for
consideration at the April meeting, as well as Abbington Cove, and a proposed text amendment.
Mr. Prinz stated no preference, noting parking may be needed for the Ogden Marketplace item.
Vice Chair Girardot reported the Airport Authority meets on the first Wednesday of the month.
She was unsure if that meeting would be rescheduled due to a conflict with the Azalea Festival.
In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s suggestion, Mr. Vafier agreed to research other organization
meetings in conflict with the proposed dates and email the options in a poll to board members.
With no additional items of business, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to adjourn.
David Weaver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Shipley seconded the motion.
By unanimous vote, the meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m.