Loading...
2015-04 April 2 2015 PBM Page 1 of 24 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board April 2, 2015 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, April 2, 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 Tamara Murphy Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Anthony Prinz Brad Schuler, Current Planner Jordy Rawl Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney David Weaver Bill McDow, Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization Absent: Lisa Mesler 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 March 2015 Planning Board Minutes Tamara Murphy made a motion to approve the March Planning Board minutes. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the March 5, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes. Tamara Murphy recused herself from consideration of Rezoning Request Z-940, citing a conflict of interest. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-940, 4/15) – Request by Stephen Brock of Brock Ventures, Inc. on behalf of Lawrence Lawson Heirs to rezone 6.9 acres from (CZD) B-1, Business District, and R-15, Residential District, to (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential Zoning District, to develop a high density development consisting of 80 units at 4713 Carolina Beach Road. The property is classified as Urban according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report: Page 2 of 24  This is an application for a conditional use zoning district. A conditional use zoning district is different from a conditional zoning district. A conditional use district is basically a district that requires every use within it obtain a special use permit. Therefore, these applications consider two things: 1) the actual rezoning to the conditional use district, and 2) the special use permit for the proposed use. Because of this, these applications require two separate votes by the Board, the first one would be for the rezoning, the second vote for the SUP. Any conditions wished to be added by the Board would be added to the SUP and not the zoning district.  The property in question for this application is a 6.9 acre parcel located at 4713 Carolina Beach Road. As shown on the zoning map, the property is zoned conditional B-1 and R-15. The conditional B-1 district was established in 2008 as part of the Belle Meade development for the purposes of developing general retail, restaurant, and office uses.  As shown on the map, this property is in an area that transitions into the City of Wilmington. The areas colored white are within the City. The City is currently reviewing a multi-family development on the adjoining property to the north. The properties in the unincorporated areas are mostly zoned and used for residential purposes.  The 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan classifies the property as Urban. The purpose of the Urban classification is to provide for continued intensive development and redevelopment of urban areas. Mixed use, cluster, and higher density development may be appropriate within these areas.  Aerial photography of the area reflects direct access from the property to Carolina Beach Road and Sikes Drive.  The applicant is proposing to rezone to a conditional use R-10 zoning district in order to develop a high density development consisting of 80 apartment units as shown on the proposed site plan. The zoning ordinance allows for high density developments within the R-10 district to have a maximum density of 17 units per acre. The proposal for 80 units on this property equates to a density of approximately 11.6 units per acre.  The development will extend Sikes Drive to the southern property line. The street will be dedicated as a public right-of-way and constructed to either NCDOT’s or the City of Wilmington’s standards. Future development and extension of Sikes Drive to the south will provide the opportunity of interconnectivity among the surrounding developments.  The development will also provide a parking lot cross-access to the proposed multi- family development to the north, and a 10’ multi-use path along Carolina Beach Road in accordance with the 2013 Wilmington/New Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan.  Improved recreational land will be provided in compliance with the zoning ordinance. The proposed recreational land includes a playground, covered picnic area, walking trail, and a community center containing a multipurpose room and exercise room.  A Traffic Impact Analysis was not required to be conducted for this proposal; however, NCDOT has stated the existing deceleration lane/turn lane to the property to the north must be extended by 100 feet to also serve this development. Page 3 of 24  Staff is seeking two votes on this application, one on the rezoning, and one on the Special Use Permit. Staff recommends approval of each, finding that the proposed development will be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Urban land use classification, as that classification allows for higher density developments; and that it complies with policy 6.9 of the Land Use Plan that calls for developments to provide for alternative forms of transportation. Staff also finds that the proposed development meets the four findings of fact required for the Special Use Permit. Again, staff recommends approval of the application as proposed. Chairman Shipley asked if board members had questions for staff. Anthony Prinz inquired if there had been any discussion with NCDOT regarding the proximity of parking to Carolina Beach Road, noting NCDOT typically requires at least 100 feet of internal protected stem where no parking or driveway accesses can be located. He noted the site plan didn’t appear to accommodate that requirement. Mr. Schuler stated it was his understanding NCDOT did not require the stem because the project did not require a traffic impact analysis, which is the process through which NCDOT would require that stem. Mr. Prinz suggested that issue be further evaluated because typically that is a requirement of any driveway permit that is issued, particularly on a major roadway corridor like Carolina Beach Road. Chairman Shipley noted Mr. Schuler had indicated Sikes Drive would be dedicated as a public right-of-way and asked for the current status of Sikes Drive and to what standard it was built. Mr. Schuler explained Sikes Drive is a dedicated public right-of-way, which was built to NCDOT standards; however, the City of Wilmington has agreed to maintain that street. Chairman Shipley commented that the areas north of the site on the map appeared to be in the City of Wilmington and asked if Sikes Drive was also built to the City of Wilmington’s standards. Mr. Schuler confirmed that the parcels north of the site are located within the City of Wilmington and all of Sikes Drive is within the City’s jurisdiction as shown on the zoning map. Hearing no other questions from the board, Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Stephen Brock of Brock Ventures, Inc., the applicant and a partner in the proposed development, presented the following overview of the proposed project. The Team: The development is a three-way joint venture for ownership and development. The three members take a long-term ownership and asset management position in the deal, about forty Page 4 of 24 years. We don’t just develop the project, flip it, and walk away. The primary partner is Ray Ventures out of Atlanta. Bill Ray has been in the industry for over forty years, has built over 4,000 units, and would be the financial guarantor. Mr. Brock is also a partner and represents Brock Ventures, a one-man shop located in Wilmington. With Ray Ventures, we also have 72 very similar units going up in Southport at this time. The third partner is Karen Perry of KarenP Investments in Winston-Salem, who could not be here tonight. The Project: The site is 6.9 acres, is zoned R-10 with high density and would be developed at a lower density of about 11.6 units per acre with no known variances. The proposed project, Abbington Cove of Wilmington, will consist of garden-style apartments aimed at the workforce component of our economy, the family workforce. The project will be financed primarily with low income housing tax credits, also known as LI tax or 9 percent tax credits, competitively allocated by the N. C. Housing Finance Agency once per year. The project is under application and in competition for financing for this property and this proposal. The tax credit product is fairly involved, but the idea is that the tax credits are sold to investors upfront to help keep permanent debt levels lower on the property so there is less debt service, and thus those rents can be maintained at a level appropriate for workforce housing folks. On this property, the owners anticipate rents of $650 to $900 targeted at folks making up to 60% of area median income, which are often factory workers, retail workers, restaurant workers, etc. Mr. Brock stated he works all over the State of North Carolina and there is nowhere that the demand for this product is higher than in Wilmington. Mr. Brock presented drawings reflecting a concept of the elevation, color, and quality of the building, which is very comparable to market rate with energy star windows, full brick and Hardee plank siding, broken up roof lines and fenestration. It is an attractive market rate quality look that should stand the test of time. He presented a photo of a similar Ray Ventures project which was built in Georgia, which showed the quality of the development. The proposed units won’t be that particular style, but the units would all have the types of amenities you would expect to see in a regular apartment, as well as site amenities that working families can also use. Mr. Brock presented a typical cross-section of the residents of this type of development. For example, in a 60 unit development, 23 of 60 units work in retail service, 10 units work in restaurants, etc. It covers the same spectrum as professional workers. This would be a professionally managed product. The owners are in it as asset managers over time, but would hire a professional property management firm. In this case, JIM Management out of Charlotte has been chosen to manage the property. They are well versed in this product and certified on tax credit compliance. Residents are screened for this type of property as they are for any other property. They must have acceptable credit and income. There is no rent subsidy for this property. Residents must pay their rent and must have employment to do so. Residents can’t have significant criminal histories or things of that nature. There is no right to stay; residents can be evicted as anywhere else. Mr. Brock explained that time is of the essence for this project as it is on a sensitive timeline. The full application to the N. C. Housing Agency for the tax credits is due in May, at which time Page 5 of 24 the project must be zoned and have a Special Use Permit. He stated they would respectfully request a favorable finding by the board. Four Findings of Fact: Finding #1: This project will not materially endanger the public safety, as it is 100% residential with full-time management overseen by a professional property management firm. Controlled access would be provided via Sikes Drive, where a lot of traffic will be shifted so it can curve into Matteo Drive, which has stoplight access to Carolina Beach Road. Residents can enter and exit directly from Carolina Beach Road, or use a more controlled access from Matteo and Sikes. Interconnectivity is provided as shown on the site plan and the playground and pond would be fenced. Finding #2: The use meets all the required specifications and conditions. The applicant is not asking for any variances from the ordinance. To their knowledge, all standards are being met and the project would be built at lower than actual maximum density. Finding #3: The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. The property currently is unimproved with an abandoned house. Squatters were recently discovered on the site so improving it can only help. The new construction will be aesthetically attractive as shown on the drawings and the property will be professionally managed. Extending Sikes Drive will provide access to the parcels south of the property and can only increase their values. There is an apartment development very close by, no more than half a mile away at 4900 South College Road, the Lockwood Village Apartments, which will be complete in approximately three months. During a review of the property transactions in the neighborhood, Mr. Brock found the sales averaged approximately $94 per square foot before the Lockwood Village Apartments development began. The apartments are not yet complete so there are no after values available, but during development the average value continues to rise as seems to be the case with most areas in this rising economy. Lastly, and most importantly, 228 apartments known as Belle Meade are slated on adjacent property and are very close to permitting. The zoning for that project is already in place so this proposal would complement that use. Finding #4: The location and character of the use as developed in accordance with the plan as submitted would be in harmony with the area. The project is obviously residential in nature, is a good transition property between a high traffic corridor and single family in the back. Multi- family is already zoned adjacent north and the applicants believe it is a good design. The project has already been reviewed by staff and gone through the TRC review process so they have taken into consideration what the county would like to see there. Chairman Shipley opened the opposition portion of the hearing. Michael Lee spoke on behalf of his client, the owner of Belle Meade subdivision, stated he wouldn’t characterize his appearance as being in opposition to the project; however, he requested that the item be continued because a variety of matters in the presentation are not accurate. First, the site plan shows inter-connectivity with the Belle Meade development as mentioned by the applicant, however, the Belle Meade developers have never heard of that before. In regard to Matteo Drive, Matteo is not a public, platted street and application has not been made to the City Page 6 of 24 to accept it as a public street. Sikes Drive has not been accepted by the City. The City has not accepted the maintenance of Sikes Drive nor the application for dedication. There is also a corresponding stormwater pond that takes the stormwater from Sikes. There are certain things that need to occur with respect to easements in order for that to occur. An application for acceptance of Sikes Drive has been submitted to the City and a plat has been recorded. The issues are such that Matteo and Sikes Drives were constructed when they were in the county to NCDOT specifications. From what he has been told that is clearly different from the City’s specifications. To his knowledge, the roadway has not been inspected yet and is not public. Mr. Lee reiterated there are a variety of issues with access and his client, the owner of Belle Meade, that has the future Matteo Drive would be happy to talk to the applicant about those items; however, at this point it seems premature for this commission to approve the project when the vital point, two points of access shown on the site plan, don’t have access either to a public right- of-way or to a private agreement for that interconnectivity that appears to be planned on the site plan that was shown today. Mr. Lee stated today was the first time he’d seen the site plan. He noted that site plan was not included in the packet online and was not presented in the community meeting which his client attended. Mr. Lee requested that the matter be continued so that some of those questions can be answered. He reiterated he was not there to oppose the project, but thought those issues need to be worked through before the project can move forward. Chairman Shipley opened the rebuttal portion of the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Stephen Brock addressed the issues, noting it would have been nice to have been notified of this issue prior to the meeting. He explained with regard to the interconnectivity, he had met several weeks earlier with Bill McDow, the transportation planner with the City of Wilmington, on that issue and together they called an architect or civil engineer at the developer’s office about this very specific interconnectivity. He reported the interconnectivity was in fact moved one bay over because of their dumpster issues. He reiterated they did reach out to someone on the developer’s side with regard to that issue and had made an adjustment. Mr. Brock commented with regard to Matteo and Sikes Drives, those are some moving parts that will need time to be worked out. It was his belief that those issues can be made conditions on the approval to be worked out, but shouldn’t in any way hold up the proposal. He felt that was a bit drastic. Mr. Brock asked for the board’s consideration of the time constraints with the project, which would be rendered unviable by any delays at that point. He respectfully asked the board to make those conditions which could be worked out, noting he felt those issues were quite achievable in that way. Michael Lee stated during opposition rebuttal he would only point out there is not access to the site, which is not an insignificant matter. Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a motion to close the public hearing. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to close the public hearing. Chairman Shipley entertained comments and questions from the board members. Page 7 of 24 Anthony Prinz commented in his business of transportation, they are very much concerned about interconnectivity because it’s not only a convenience factor, but is also related to safety and emergency response. In regard to Mr. Lee’s testimony, if cross access is not provided here, we’re left with a very long cul-de-sac, which a number of people could possibly live on and if blocked by some reason could leave people stranded away from their homes possibly in danger. He felt the interconnectivity issue needed to be resolved and is a major concern. It doesn’t seem to be insurmountable. He noted he was very sensitive to the applicant’s timeline because he agreed that workforce housing is greatly needed in the Wilmington area. Vice Chair Girardot inquired if staff had any comments regarding the issue. Brad Schuler suggested Bill McDow of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization address the subject of interconnectivity as he is more knowledgeable on this subject. Bill McDow of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) spoke on behalf of the City of Wilmington. He stated Abbington Cove appeared at the February 2015 meeting of the New Hanover County Technical Review Committee. At that time, he reviewed the site plans and one of the conditions from the WMPO was that a NCDOT driveway permit be obtained, at which time they would probably be asked by the NCDOT to put in the internal protected stem. His eleventh comment on the project was for the developer to coordinate with the owner of 4703 Carolina Beach Road, Belle Meade Apartments, to provide interconnectivity between the sites and to show pedestrian and vehicle access points to the Belle Meade Apartments street stub, which at that time was located between Building 100 and Building 200. He reported that after meeting with the applicant and discussing it on the phone and at TRC, he and Mr. Brock did make a phone call to GSP Consulting, the engineer working on the Belle Meade Apartments. That apartment complex is currently very close to final signatures on their TRC process for the City of Wilmington so it will be released for construction. After discussing it on two occasions with Mr. Garry Pape of GSP Consulting, we also indicated to him that there would be a multi- use path requirement for the New Hanover County/City of Wilmington Greenway Plan and Mr. Pape was the individual who stated that it would be more conducive to move the connection. Mr. McDow stated in regard to the Sikes Drive connection, during the TRC meeting, Jim Diepenbrock, Senior Planner for the City of Wilmington, attended to address the issue. He discussed the property to the north of this site and made it clear to the applicant the City’s request for them to not only continue the same character of the street on Sikes Drive, but also to have the connection to that property as well as maintaining sidewalk connections across the site of this property. As a result of that meeting, the applicant did modify their site plans to have that connection to Sikes Drive. That drive is in the process of being accepted; however, Mr. McDow does not know when that final acceptance will take place. The coordination with GSP Consulting and the Belle Meade Apartments is currently ongoing. Mr. McDow stated he did not know if Mr. Diepenbrock, the planner for that development, had made it a condition of release for that final coordination to be in place and whether it has to be a vehicular connection or a pedestrian/bike connection as the final condition for that site to receive its COA. Page 8 of 24 Mr. Prinz commented it didn’t sound like Sikes Drive and Matteo Drive are public streets at this point so they are still under the ownership and jurisdiction of the property owner, Belle Meade Plantation. Mr. McDow stated that one of the streets has been platted; however, he doesn’t know when the final acceptance with come through. In response to several inquiries by Mr. Prinz, Mr. McDow confirmed that the acceptance is, in fact, when the City of Wilmington would take ownership of the roadway and the road would become public, and that matter would be fully resolved without coordination between the property owners. His comments on the Abbington Cove project review for the NHC TRC were dated 2/18/15. Sam Burgess confirmed the New Hanover County TRC meeting date was 2/25/15. Chairman Shipley stated after hearing Mr. Lee’s comments and reviewing the map reflecting Carolina Beach Road and the surrounding roadways, he realized how valuable Sikes Drive is to traffic and limiting the congestion in this area of the city and county. He pointed out that St. Andrews Drive goes all the way to 17th Street and many people who would be living in this development may be working at the hospital or one of those doctor offices as nurses, etc. A lot of traffic going that way or downtown could take Sikes Drive to St. Andrews Drive to 17th Street, taking a lot of traffic off Carolina Beach Road. In the morning, possibly thirty, forty, or fifty percent of the cars could be going that way. Without that artery, all of that traffic would be pouring out onto Carolina Beach Road. When everybody is returning home in the afternoon, they would be turning left into that development, which would create a few problems. Since that matter is not resolved, he stated he was not comfortable with approving the rezoning. The drawings are in place and discussions have taken place, but the project hasn’t gotten quite over the goal line on this particular matter with connection to Sikes Drive and having a written agreement resolving the issues and recorded as far as road maintenance, the stormwater pond, and things of that nature they will probably want. Chairman Shipley stated with this issue still lingering, he wouldn’t vote in favor of the project today based on what he had heard. He commented he likes the fact this development is going to be part of the community and feels it is needed, but had some problems with the current drawings in regard to Sikes Drive, and to a lesser extent, the connectivity to Carolina Beach Road. David Weaver asked if Mr. Shipley would be willing to consider a conditional approval so that the development could meet its timeline and go on for review and consideration for approval by the County Commissioners with the condition that the Sikes Drive access issue be resolved as part of the approval. Chairman Shipley explained that moving forward with a conditional approval may put the applicant in a tougher position than if the board just allowed a continuance because if the project was advanced to the County Commissioners with those conditions, the folks at Mr. Lee’s development would have the applicant over a barrel, and the applicant would have to have a road maintenance agreement in place to address those concerns within thirty days or thereabouts. If it was denied by the County Commissioners, they would probably be in a worse position if they denied it based on the same concerns the planning board has brought up. He would hate to limit and box in the applicant on this issue when they are almost there on it. Page 9 of 24 Chairman Shipley stated he would move to allow the applicant to continue the item. If the applicant didn’t want to move forward, the board could continue the matter. If the board denied it, the twelve month waiting period would be in place. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman advised the board may want to ask the applicant which they would prefer, noting the applicant had indicated their timeline required the item to move forward today or the project would not be viable and they would not be able to proceed. Mr. Prinz asked to see the timeline slide again, commenting if the planning board could revisit the item in May and it could be placed on the agenda of the county commissioners second meeting in May and meet the applicant’s timeline, he would recommend they do that. Brad Schuler clarified that Sikes Drive has been dedicated as a public right-of-way and platted. The issue is the maintenance, but there can be no prohibition on who uses that road. He asked Ms. Huffman to confirm. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated if Sikes Drive had been dedicated as a public right-of-way, she would agree that anyone can drive a car on it. She also would agree that until the City of Wilmington accepts it into their roadway system that somebody else is paying for the maintenance and for now that seems to be Belle Meade. Chairman Shipley asked the applicant to come forward to address questions about their timeline, as well as well as whether he would consider a continuance. Mr. Brock acknowledged that a continuance would render their project unviable for this year. They would have to come back a year from now, presumably with that issue resolved, and presumably they would still be under tax credit competition, but for this year’s cycle with the N. C. Housing Finance Agency, they would have to be rezoned and have any use-related permits or approvals by May 15th. Mr. Weaver asked Mr. McDow about the timeline and possible roadblocks for accepting the platted right-of-way into the city system. Mr. McDow stated he did not know the timeline; however, he did know that when the road was constructed years ago, that applicant still has control of the roads. Since that time, that applicant has put in single family homes further on Sikes Drive so at this point both Belle Meade and the applicant are newcomers to the party. He noted that right-of-way dedication was through the original applicant so unless they have made an agreement with the original applicant, that applicant is the person who has control of the road at this time. Jordy Rawls commented it was his understanding that once a roadway is applied for and the City accepts application, there is a one year warranty period. He wasn’t sure how that played into the situation, but wanted to bring that information to the board’s attention because the discussion seemed to be headed into a very technical direction. If in fact that roadway owner is still responsible for the roadway maintenance costs and someone else ties into that roadway, it Page 10 of 24 becomes more of a legal dispute over who has caused what damage to whose roadway. He asked Mr. Prinz to comment on the warranty period. Mr. Prinz confirmed the warranty period is one year, but commented this is about being good neighbors. The applicant was informed in February that they needed to talk to the adjacent property owner and that just didn’t happen. They had discussions with Mr. McDow and other folks at the City of Wilmington and even the engineer for the Belle Meade Apartments, but none of those folks are able to make decisions of this magnitude on behalf of the property owner. Being a good neighbor is about communication and making sure you are all on the same wavelength before a project gets to the point where the planning board needs to decide if they should send it forward to the County Commissioners with a number of questions still unresolved. Hearing no further comments from the board, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion from the board. Mr. Prinz asked Mr. Lee whether he would support a condition or would hold fast on a continuance. Mr. Lee stated he represented the Belle Meade developer, which is the apartment developer immediately adjacent, and was not there on behalf of the owner of Sikes Drive or the homeowners who have built off of Sikes Drive, who are responsible for the road and stormwater pond. He noted there are the homeowners off of Sikes Drive, the owner of Sikes Drive, and the owner of the Belle Meade development who are all responsible for Sikes Drive and the stormwater pond until the City of Wilmington accepts it. If the City determines that the NCDOT standards from five years ago are not acceptable or there are improvements that must be made either to that road or the stormwater facility, the homeowners, the owner of Sikes Drive, and the owner of Belle Meade are all going to be responsible for it. Sikes Drive has not been accepted by the City and they don’t have to accept it. Matteo Drive has not even been platted or requested for acceptance into the City’s road network. It is not a requirement for their site plan approval. Mr. Lee pointed out there are several things upon which the planning board would rely to make their findings that have not been resolved. He reiterated he was not there to oppose the development and was sorry about the timeline, but these are important issues to consider which will have to be addressed by the County Commissioners if the proposal is sent forward. Mr. Lee explained he represents only one of many parties that are responsible for the road maintenance, the stormwater facility and anything else that must be done to the road before the City will take acceptance of it and to him, these are significant issues. Vice Chair Girardot commended Mr. Brock on the proposed project because being in the industry, she knows there is a very small portion of what we’re able to offer in workforce housing in New Hanover County; however, she didn’t feel the four findings of fact had been met. She would hate to see a project like this not come to fruition, but was not comfortable sending the project forward to the County Commissioners without all of the pieces in place. For that reason, she would vote for a denial on the project today. She stated it was one of the hardest decisions she has had to make on the board. Page 11 of 24 Mr. Weaver inquired if the applicant would procedurally have the ability to withdraw or continue the application before it went to the commissioners if the planning board were to approve the rezoning with a condition that the Sikes Road access be resolved; and if they did, would they be able to bring the application back without waiting twelve months. Attorney Huffman explained that an applicant can withdraw an application at any point; however, if they withdrew it they would have to wait the period of time before bringing it back. If their timing helped them in any way to come forward in three months rather than a year from now, they might ask the commissioners to continue it as opposed to withdrawing it. That wouldn’t appear to be of any benefit to the applicant. Mr. Weaver commented the best case scenario would be for the planning board to approve the rezoning with the condition that the Sikes Drive access issue be resolved, and the applicant be able to present an agreement signed by all parties to the commissioners as part of their final approval. Attorney Huffman stated Mr. Weaver’s suggested scenario for approval with that condition was fine; however, no one would be able to force the applicant to withdraw the application if they hadn’t met that condition so it would still go forward to the commissioners not having met the requirement. Chairman Shipley asked how the board would define resolved, noting he wasn’t prepared to offer a definition of what the resolution would be. Apart from having all the streets platted and accepted by the City and having an agreement with the City that the development will have connectivity at Sikes, he didn’t know what that resolution would be. Mr. Weaver commented the resolution would be a maintenance agreement between all parties with an interest in Sikes Road, which may be very difficult to accomplish within thirty days. He also recognizes the need for affordable workforce housing. He knows people that deal with trying to find a place for their family all the time and would hate to not provide every opportunity for this type of development to go forward, especially in this case where it seems like everything is in place except the road maintenance agreement for a publicly dedicated, but not accepted road. Attorney Huffman stated it may also be a possibility that the condition could simply follow the special use permit and that the building permits could not be issued until the road maintenance issue had been resolved. Mr. Weaver agreed that placing the road maintenance condition on the special use permit would work as a potential solution for him. Mr. Prinz commented he felt that the board was charged with dealing with these types of matters before they get to the board of commissioners, noting they have just scratched the surface of this situation and don’t yet know how deep the issue actually goes until the matter has been investigated. He stated he really supports the project because workforce housing is needed in Wilmington. He inquired about the possibility of having a special meeting before May if the road Page 12 of 24 maintenance issue could be resolved in a timely fashion. He offered that solution as it appeared the project was done if it didn’t move forward. Mr. Andrea and Mr. Vafier confirmed that a special meeting could be held at the board’s discretion, but appropriate advertising requirements would have to be met. Mr. Andrea clarified based on the applicant’s time line, they may see it agreeable if the board is not coming to a consensus of recommending approval, the planning board could recommend a denial and the petitioner could then appeal that decision to the County Commissioners and get a hearing by that board on their same anticipated date in order to meet their time line. Mr. Prinz said he felt the planning board was charged with resolving these issues so that the path is laid before the County Commissioners to make a decision with all the information before them. Mr. Andrea stated he didn’t disagree with Mr. Prinz’s comments. He noted in regard to a special meeting, the time may be a little tight because of advertising obligations for the planning board meeting and county commissioners meeting, which would require knowing the planning board’s decision to include it in the commissioners meeting advertisement. Chairman Shipley and Mr. Weaver agreed they would not be supportive of a special meeting. Mr. Weaver suggested placing a condition on the special use permit so that building permits cannot be issued until the road maintenance agreement for Sikes Road has been resolved or unless the City of Wilmington had accepted the road into their system. That condition may be difficult for the developer to achieve, but would allow the project to go forward. Dave Weaver made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request as the Planning Board finds this request for a zoning map amendment of 6.9 acres from R-10 Residential District to CZD (B-2) Conditional Zoning Highway Business District as described is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Urban land use classification and the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because one of the purposes of the land use plan is to provide affordable housing for the workforce and it is reasonable and in the public interest because the provision of affordable workforce housing is an important objective for the county. Attorney Huffman advised the condition would need to be placed on the special use permit, which would be a separate motion. Chairman Shipley announced the motion by Mr. Weaver died for lack of a second. He then entertained another motion or addition discussion. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Rezoning Request Z- 940. Page 13 of 24 Chairman Shipley informed the applicant, Mr. Brock, that if the rezoning is denied, there would be a twelve month waiting period before the application could be resubmitted and inquired if he wished to proceed to a vote or to continue the matter. In response to Mr. Brock’s inquiry regarding previous discussion about three months, Attorney Huffman clarified that the planning board could hear the request at the next meeting, which would be held in May. The application could then be heard at the Commissioners second meeting in May or the first meeting in June. Mr. Andrea reported the Commissioners second meeting in May will be after Mr. Brock’s application to the N. C. Housing Finance Agency is due. In response to Mr. Brock’s question, Chairman Shipley confirmed if the application is denied, there can be no rezoning for another twelve months from today. Mr. Prinz explained the applicant had three options: 1) withdraw the application; 2) ask for the item to be continued to the next meeting or a following meeting; or 3) proceed to a vote on the request. Mr. Brock stated he is not the property owner and didn’t want to put them in a bind by holding them up for twelve months so tabling the item for some period of time might be good. There is every reason to believe this issue could be resolved for next year’s tax credit cycle, but the 2015 tax credit cycle can’t be met. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated it may not be a good idea to simply table the item. The applicant should instead withdraw the item or continue it to a date certain, which doesn’t have to be the next meeting, but may be two months, etc. She didn’t think it was reasonable for the applicant to table the item and think he could ask for it to be brought back to the board six months later. Chairman Shipley deferred to staff on the length of time for a continuance, noting one or two meetings seemed reasonable. Mr. Vafier commented items have been continued to the next meeting and then if more time is needed, the applicant can appear at that meeting and ask for another continuance. Continuances have also been granted for up to a certain number of days, which allows an applicant to contact staff when they are ready to move forward to get on an agenda. Mr. Prinz suggested the item be continued to the next meeting to give them time to figure out the connectivity issue. Chairman Shipley acknowledged that would be an option and asked if the applicant wished to continue the matter or proceed to a vote by the board. Mr. Brock asked Mr. Shipley to clarify that the condition the board wanted met would be a joint road maintenance agreement with the developer. Page 14 of 24 Jordy Rawl stated there are no requirements on the continuance request. Chairman Shipley explained that the board could not give an opinion as to whether the proposal would automatically be deemed approved if the applicant provided documentation at the next meeting, but the previous discussion reflected the board’s concerns. Vice Chair Girardot suggested staff could also clarify what is needed based on the board’s comments. Mr. Stephen Brock requested a continuance of Rezoning Request Z-940 to the May Planning Board meeting. Anthony Prinz made a substitute motion to continue Rezoning Request Z-940 to the May Planning Board meeting. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to continue Rezoning Request Z-940 to the May Planning Board meeting. Item 2: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (A-421, 4/15) – Request by Greg Heafner on behalf of Oxford House, Inc. to amend Section 23, Definitions, to define Disabled Persons and Group Homes and Section 50, Table of Permitted Uses, to permit the use by-right in the PD, R-20S, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, AR, and RA Zoning Districts. Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea presented the following staff report.  This is case A-421, a request for an amendment to the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance by Mr. Greg Heafner, PA, on behalf of Oxford House, Inc.  The request is amend the ordinance to create a new use defined as group homes, and define what zoning districts the use would be permitted in.  A presentation on a similar use currently found in the zoning ordinance follows: o Currently, a Residential Care Facility is defined as a home with support and supervisory personnel that provides room and board, personal care, and rehabilitation services in a family environment for not more than six resident handicapped persons. o One additional standard applies to residential care facilities; that is, that residential care homes cannot be located within a 2000 ft. radius of another residential care home. o Residential care homes are permitted by right in PD, R-20S, R-20, R-15, R- 10, O&I, Airport Residential, and RA zoning districts and by SUP in the R- 7 district. o Residential care facilities have been defined in the zoning ordinance since the 1980s, most likely in response to NC General Statute 168-22 which requires accommodation for these types of uses in local zoning regulations. o 168-22 says that a family care home shall be considered a residential use of property in local zoning regulations and shall be permitted in residential zoning districts. Page 15 of 24 o NCGS 168-21 defines a family care home, with a definition similar to the county’s definition for residential care facility. o This statute also defines “persons with disabilities”. It should be noted that recovering substance abuse patients or recovering alcoholics ARE considered to be persons with disabilities for the purposes of this definition.  This proposed text amendment request originated as a result of a zoning violation compliant of 7 or 8 people unrelated people sharing a single family residence.  Further investigation uncovered that the residence was a facility chartered under Oxford House, Inc.  When notified of the zoning violation, the petitioner contacted zoning staff to assert that the Oxford House could not come into compliance with the zoning ordinance, specifically because the facility could not be considered a residential care facility because no support or services are provided.  In response, zoning staff notified the petitioner and Oxford House of three options: cease operation of the noncompliant facility, come into conformance with the zoning ordinance, or apply for a text amendment.  The text amendment proposed would create two new definitions, including disabled persons and group homes.  Disable Persons would include individuals with disabilities, including individuals recovering from alcoholism and/or drug addiction, who are protected by federal or state protection which is listed out.  A group home would be a home in which up to eight disabled persons live together as a self-supporting and self-sufficient household unit, without any in-home services or outside assistance.  The proposed definition goes on to state that Group Homes must register with the county and shall be at least one-quarter mile from each other.  The proposed amendment would also establish in which zoning districts group homes would be permitted by right, including PD, R-20S, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, Airport Residential, and RA zoning districts.  After internal discussion, staff concluded that they cannot support the proposed amendment as written as they do not find it is in harmony with the spirit and intent of the ordinance’s definition of family. Staff felt that allowing up to eight unrelated individuals to share a single family residence could place an undue burden on existing residential areas of the county. In conclusion, although staff recommends denial of the amendment as proposed, they are certainly cognizant of the need for accommodation of all persons with disabilities in the community and are willing to engage in a discussion that could concluded in an amendment proposal that could be supported by all interested parties. Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Attorney Greg Heafner of Chapel Hill spoke on behalf of Oxford House, Inc. and distributed six copies of written materials to board members. He provided a history of the situation, noting he didn’t disagree with much of Mr. Andrea’s presentation. Page 16 of 24 History: The home is a single family residential detached home in New Hanover County in a neighborhood. It opened in August of 2014 and is home to eight women recovering from alcoholism and/or drug addiction. In December, six months after it opened, a zoning officer came by the house and left a business card in the door asking somebody to call. Mr. Heafner spoke with her and she asked about the nature of Oxford House and the use of the home. He sent her a letter labeled Exhibit A in the package distributed to board members. The letter is long and explains what Oxford House is. During their conversation, he told her that Oxford House doesn’t really fit any of the definitions of use that are currently in the county’s ordinance. He agreed with the zoning official that it is not a family; it is more than three unrelated people. The other option was that it must be a residential care facility, but it’s not, as Mr. Andrea stated. The definition of a residential care facility is a rather institutional type of definition. It does include that services are provided, support is provided, room and board are provided, that someone is running the place, and that rehabilitation services are provided. None of that is the case with Oxford House. The zoning official then sent a letter to Mr. Heafner labeled Exhibit B in the packet, which basically gives the home, the eight women, three options: leave, become a residential care facility which they are not, or amend the zoning ordinance so they can be in compliance. He represents Oxford House, which is open to some amendment of the proposed amendment they are seeking. They would like to work things out at this level as opposed to letting it go on to further levels. Oxford House is not a residential care facility and is not an institutional type of group home setting. The key point is there is nobody running the show, no outside entity that owns the place or runs it, and no profit is made. Oxford House is a group of people living together under the “Oxford House” concept, which was started in 1975 in Maryland. There was a group home run by Montgomery County, Maryland that was closing due to budget constraints. A couple of the guys who had been in that group home for a couple of years, one of whom was a lawyer and another an accountant, both recovering alcoholics, decided to take over the home themselves if the county was going to close it. They formed a coalition of themselves, the group rented the home from the county, and decided to run the home democratically. They opened a bank account, assigned chores, made sure everyone went to their AA meetings, etc. If anyone was drinking, they would have a meeting and throw them out immediately. Exhibit C, the Oxford House Manual, is a little booklet with a very detailed explanation of what Oxford House is. In a snapshot, Oxford House is a group of men or women in this case, but never co-ed, who are self-supporting. No outside financial assistance is provided and no money is paid to anyone, including Oxford House, Inc. The residents run the house themselves in a democratic manner, supporting themselves and most importantly, each other. They are all recovering alcoholics or drug addicts. He reported someone was present from Oxford House to talk about the nature and need of that kind of support. It may be obvious to some people and to some it may not be, as to why they need to live together, why that matters, and why two people living together is not enough. Page 17 of 24 Oxford House doesn’t fit into any of the County’s definitions of zoning. It is fair to ask why the county needs to do anything about it. Mr. Andrea alluded to it in his presentation. There are federal laws which are cited in the proposed amendment that actually classify people in recovery as being “disabled”, as having a type of mental disability, and they are protected under the Federal Fair Housing Act. The Federal Fair Housing Act was enacted in 1968 mainly as part of the civil rights legislation. In 1988, it was amended to include not only race, gender, and religion as originally enacted, but to include people with disabilities. During that same timeframe, the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted. The court has held that people recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction are disabled and covered under the act. The United States Supreme Court has held that Oxford House and its residents are covered under the act. The Act extends not only to a landlord saying he’s not going to rent to you people, but also requires municipal governments to accommodate Oxford House residents or people who are protected. Without that, he imagined a lot of governments probably wouldn’t have ordinances to accommodate them or they would put them out on the outskirts somewhere. The law is written and it has been interpreted such that the Oxford House type use shall be entitled to the same right of housing that a non-disabled person would have, as a family would have. There are some conditions. Oxford House has to prove that under the Fair Housing Act it needs this accommodation. Mr. Gibson is present to discuss Oxford House’s need to have eight people and to live where it does. The Fair Housing Act actually says that in addition to the applicant having to have a need, the County then has to accommodate them unless there’s a burden on the County or there is a fundamental change in the zoning ordinance. There is no burden on the County here if they were to allow these people to live here or to amend the ordinance as requested. The burden here refers to economic burden. He couldn’t imagine how there would be any economic burden on the County by letting disabled people in the community in a group setting like this who are self-supporting. It actually confers a free benefit on the county by providing housing for people that the County doesn’t have to pay for itself. In regard to whether an Oxford House type use alters the scheme of the neighborhood, the residential setting, as staff has contended, he submitted that the ordinance as drafted right now is really proof that these Oxford Houses wouldn’t alter the zoning ordinance. Oxford House is asking for eight people to live together in a house that is in the same area exactly that a Residential Care Facility is allowed now as a matter of right; and a Residential Care Facility, as defined, is essentially the same people with the same type of disabilities, six people maximum with somebody supervising them. That infers there are seven people there. He explained that a house that is not institutionalized with just one more person is really no different. The proposed amendment sets forth the same type of spacing requirement that exists for a Residential Care Facility. It was tailored that way so it is really no different. The amendment being proposed is very similar to ordinances and language that exists in the City of Wilmington and for example, the City of Greensboro, There are a dozen jurisdictions in this state that have ordinances that are almost identical to the one being proposed, including Wilmington. Cary, Winston-Salem, Raleigh, Charlotte, Asheville, Garner all have Group Home ordinances different from a statutory Family Care Home, but very similar to the Oxford House model that is being proposed today. In those Page 18 of 24 jurisdictions, there are no problems with that use. The staff report suggests that three people are enough; however, it is not. The staff report does go on to say actually that there does need to be some change to the ordinance to accommodate people with disabilities who live together in groups of more than three. As far as this use disrupting the harmony and spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance, Mr. Heafner didn’t think so because Residential Care Facilities are already allowed in all of the places they are asking for an Oxford House to be allowed in. With respect to staff, that’s kind of a general conclusion. There are no specifics as to exactly how that use is going to destroy the character of the neighborhood. There is some mention in the staff report about concerns about “undue traffic”. Generally, it has been found that with Oxford Houses, extra traffic is not a problem. Most of the Oxford House residents don’t own cars and many of them don’t have driver’s licenses because of the trouble they may have gotten into in the past. Generally, there are no more cars than there are at a regular home so extra traffic is not an issue. Chairman Shipley commented they have eight modes of transportation out there, for example, eight scooters or eight bicycles, or eight cars or something like that. Keith Gibson will address the profile of the residents, who range in age from their 20’s to their 60’s so they don’t all have a bicycle or scooter or car. Generally, Oxford Houses locate near public transportation and buses are the main mode of transportation for residents. Oxford Houses are not in rural areas. They don’t lend themselves well to those areas so they generally want to locate where there is public transportation, shopping, primarily supermarkets, and first and foremost, close to neighborhoods that have churches with a NA or AA meeting at night that they can walk to or catch a ride to. If the Oxford House is on a bus line and near shopping, there’s a good likelihood people can find jobs. For each of these people, there are probably half that many modes of transportation onsite - a couple of cars, a scooter, and a bike. With these women, I am not sure. Mr. Gibson can provide that information. Mr. Heafner concluded the presentation, stating that is the basis for the amendment being sought, why it is being sought, and why they feel it should be allowed. He reported Keith Gibson of Oxford House, who started this particular house and knows the eight women residing there, was present and available to answer questions. Chairman Shipley opened the opposition portion of the hearing. Robert Jenkins of 114 Lansdowne Road spoke in opposition of the request and stated his residence is located next door to the house in question. He has a lot of issues with the Oxford House residence and was the person who brought it to the County’s attention. He explained his family moved into their home at the end of July 2014. At that time, the home next door was for sale. Then, the For Sale sign was gone, people began doing work around the house and cars began showing up. It wasn’t until later in the fall that it came to his attention that this was the type of establishment that it is. Upon learning that, he contacted the County and spoke to Linda Painter (zoning official) several times over the next several months. She kept him informed and Page 19 of 24 updated on his complaint. As homeowners in the area, they were never given any notice that this establishment was coming in, what it was, etc. No information was provided to the surrounding homeowners. Over time, through discussions with Ms. Painter and Mr. Chris O’Keefe, County Planning & Inspections Director, who explained the process, he was able to gather more information. Mr. Jenkins stated that living there, he could attest to the fact that there are multiple cars at the residence all the time. They are parked all over the front yard, typically 6-8 cars in the driveway and front yard. He explained they haven’t lived there long, but he knows the area and has lived here for 36 years, growing up just down the road. It has been a quiet, family friendly neighborhood and that is why they moved there. They have two small children and he is concerned about what the future could hold if this use is allowed to stay there and continue. There may not be the same type of residents there moving forward, but they may be. He hasn’t personally met any of the folks there, but has seen them in the yard, etc. He reported now there are four people with substance abuse problem living next door. He realizes those folks need a place, but also realizes his first role is a father and he is worried about the safety of his two small children with that type of facility next door. He expressed concern about letting his children play in the backyard and the conversations they could hear across the fence, etc. He is also worried about property values. He is not aware if any of his other neighbors even know that the Oxford House is there because no one was ever notified. As a homeowner, if he had known an establishment like that was there, he wouldn’t have even looked at the house he purchased. For that reason, he felt like the use had already affected his property values. He didn’t believe if he put his house on the market today he would get what he paid for it nine months ago. Mr. Jenkins concluded his remarks, noting he was present to speak as a homeowner in opposition to the amendment. Chairman Shipley opened the rebuttal portion of the public hearing and recognized Mr. Heafner. Greg Heafner, attorney for the applicant, stated the issue regarding the number of cars could be addressed in the ordinance if the board wanted to add language that parking shall be provided for the number of cars. In regard to the concern about diminished property values, that is a common fear people have about group homes. A study by DePaul University dating back over a thirty year period has proven there has been no diminution of property values by group homes and Oxford Houses specifically locating nearby. The Oxford House manual and the letter presented earlier mention the DePaul University studies and psychologist Dr. Lenny Jason, who conducted the studies. Many studies on whether or not property values are diminished have been published in educational journals and have shown that property values are not diminished. Keith Gibson stated he is employed by Oxford House, Inc. and is a man in long-term recovery, meaning he had not used drugs or alcohol in the last eighteen years. He also has a family and a daughter. He explained that Oxford House needs eight people. Everybody works. He reported the ladies at that particular residence have four cars and two scooters. They are rebuilding relationships with their mothers, fathers, kids, and other family members, who visit them at the house. The therapeutic value of one addict helping another addict and one alcoholic helping another alcoholic is important. He noted one of the biggest NA meetings in Wilmington is across the street from the house and a bus stop is also right up the street from the house. An Oxford Page 20 of 24 House can only be chartered if it has six people. There are six officer positions in a house. There is a president, treasurer, comptroller, secretary, etc. and all of those work hand-in-hand teaching them responsibility and accountability. They are all paying taxes now and putting back into the community. They pay $2,500 per month to live in that house, which is divided among them all. The eight ladies pay that amount to their landlord. They get up, go to work, and come home. The concept works. Studies have shown if a resident lives in the house for at least twelve months and does the things that are suggested, he/she has over an 80% chance of long-term sobriety. He stated he is living proof that the Oxford House system works. He lived in an Oxford House for two years. He expressed hope that the county would allow the Oxford House to remain because they need to be there and they are saving lives. Mr. Heafner stated there is a therapeutic value for a threshold number of people. The one document labeled Exhibit E, a one-page copy of a federal statute referred to in the letter labeled Exhibit B, reflects the federal law that funds Oxford Houses. A group of people borrow the money, they don’t have the money to put down a down payment, and that law which funds Oxford House requires a minimum of six people to borrow the money. That requirement shows you must have at least six people. This Oxford House was started pursuant to a contract that Oxford House, Inc. has with the State of North Carolina, the Department of Health and Human Services. That is Mr. Gibson’s job. The State feels that there should be Oxford Houses and they pay them to have them started. Their requirement is that they conform to a standard of preferably eight people, but at least six people. The average number of people in an Oxford House nationwide as reflected in the last DePaul Study of 1,600 plus Oxford Houses is 8.2 people. There is a therapeutic need and an economic need. Two to four people dividing the $2,500/month home costs wouldn’t be affordable. They need people for that economic reason, as well as the therapeutic reason. As Mr. Gibson can attest, quite often there are vacancies in the homes. Somebody may leave after a year or two and move on to get his/her own apartment, get married, etc. There may be a couple of months before that vacancy can be filled because applicants must be interviewed and accepted. They need the extra ability to have eight people because they will have to pay the additional portion of costs during a vacancy. They also need more people because it is more likely a resident will find somebody to identify with and support. That is particularly important when you are new to an Oxford House. Mr. Jenkins stated during opposition rebuttal that if the main need to have eight people is to pay housing rent or housing costs, it would make sense to find a cheaper place to live. Then, they wouldn’t need as many people in the house. Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Anthony Prinz made a motion to close the public hearing. Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to close the public hearing. Chairman Shipley opened board discussion. Vice Chair Donna Girardot stated understanding of Mr. Jenkins’ concerns, and commended Mr. Heafner and Mr. Gibson for their good work. She noted they certainly want to be in compliance with the federal law and at the same time, don’t want to put citizens in harm’s way. They want Page 21 of 24 to be sure that the facilities they approve are safe and don’t want to do harm to the communities or surrounding neighbors. She explained she had received the information late Monday afternoon and felt she hadn’t had sufficient time to really review it. As stated by the chairman, there are a couple of issues. One of those issues is parking. Eight people would indicate eight cars, especially if the people are working. As Mr. Jenkins mentioned, cars can be parked haphazardly all over. That is something that needs to be addressed. There was a bad fire last week locally within an older multifamily development with no sprinkler systems. That is a concern when you have eight people in an older establishment. Handicap accessibility also needs to be addressed when you have eight people in a residence. The realtor association contacted her about this issue. In reviewing the proposed amendment, she noticed it is adding permitted uses to the Table of Uses. The board can’t just be adding that your clients need to be permitted in these areas. She commented the whole ordinance needs to be rewritten and that can’t be done today. This use needs to be incorporated correctly into the ordinance. Vice Chair Girardot suggested that the item be continued to the next meeting and that all interested parties be invited to the table, including the association of realtors, to sit down with Mr. Heafner, Mr. Gibson, and anyone else they would like to invite, along with staff, in order to rewrite the ordinance as it should be written to be satisfactory to all parties. Anthony Prinz agreed with Vice Chair Girardot’s suggestion and comments. He noted that reading the staff report, he felt there are very compelling arguments on both sides of this issue. I am a firm believer of getting all parties together to find some kind of middle ground to actually make this happen. The options that in front of use in the staff report couldn’t be any more polar opposite. The option that has been requested is to allow them in all residential areas. Mr. Prinz stated he personally wouldn’t support that option; however, the other option is full-out denial of the amendment, which in his opinion doesn’t address the community need. He reiterated his agreement with Ms. Girardot that they need to come together to have a discussion on how to best solve this issue. David Weaver asked if a group home has to provide services for the people with disabilities to be covered under the ordinance or can it simply be a home where eight people with disabilities live like the Oxford House. Attorney Huffman stated the question is whether our ordinance could articulate something that would include disabled persons within the family care handicapped ordinance without having an entirely different definition for disabled person. In review of the memo by David Owens, Mr. Weaver said it seems to state that homes that provide services can’t be discriminated against, but there has to be a provision of services. Mr. Heafner stated the U.S. Supreme Court has said that persons who are recovering alcoholics or substance abusers fall under that definition of disabled persons who are federally protected against discrimination in housing. It is an entirely different discussion. I guess you can have a discussion about both of them at the same time, but it is two entirely different protections. Mr. Weaver stated this may be a topic for further discussion as Ms. Girardot stated. We have an ordinance that says you can’t have more than three unrelated people in a house. We’re not Page 22 of 24 making any distinction between people with disabilities and people without disabilities. He inquired if that would be considered discrimination. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated that is probably the path that staff was going down when they made the determination they did. There is a distinction when t said these are two entirely different discussions and two entirely different protections there is a distinction, though, because there’s a state statute regarding family care homes for handicapped person. The state statute says six people whereas the federal statute doesn’t give you a number. It simply says you have to reasonably accommodate them. The question is what is that number? Is it three as the planners have said or is it eight as suggested by Oxford House? Is some other number the reasonable accommodation? There is no right or wrong answer. We wouldn’t know the answer to that unless we were before Judge Fox in the federal courthouse. Chairman Shipley made a motion based on that information to table the matter until the May planning board meeting. He didn’t feel the matter could be resolved at the meeting. Mr. Prinz noted this isn’t the first text amendment issue the planning board has had to navigate during her term on the board. He stated the most effective way the board has been able to overcome these matters is to schedule a workshop where board members can actually sit down with staff, the applicant, in this case Oxford House, the realtors, and other interested folks who are involved in the decision and have a conversation. He suggested that would be the preferred route, but he would defer to the preference of the group. Mr. Vafier reported the next scheduled workshop will be held on Friday, May 15th. Chairman Shipley stated the item could be tabled to the June meeting. David Weaver stated from the point of view of Oxford House, he made the point that there are a number of group homes in his neighborhood. He felt they are great, but they are supervised group homes and are very effective from what he has seen. He asked if delaying or tabling the amendment would affect enforcement action against the existing Oxford House in any way. Ben Andrea stated not at this time, as long as we are moving toward a resolution that noncompliance issue remains unresolved, but we would hope that we could come to some conclusion that may resolve that issue. Chairman Ted Shipley amended his motion to table the amendment request to the June Planning Board meeting with discussion to be held at the May 15, 2015 Planning Board Workshop at 9:00 a.m. David Weaver seconded the motion. During discussion, Chairman Shipley asked if Mr. Heafner would like to speak on the issue of tabling the text amendment. In response to Mr. Heafner’s question, Chairman Shipley explained the workshop would be held in a conference room setting and would be a publicly advertised meeting open to all interested parties. Page 23 of 24 Mr. Heafner confirmed his client would be willing to attend the planning board workshop. Chairman Shipley stated the planning board would then hopefully hold a public hearing on a new text amendment request at their June meeting. Chairman Ted Shipley restated the amended motion to table the amendment request to the June Planning Board meeting with discussion to be held at the May 15, 2015 Planning Board Workshop. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to table Text Amendment A-421 to the June Planning Board meeting with discussion to be held at the May 15, 2015 Planning Board Workshop. 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 March and reviewed two (2) performance residential site plans. Clearwater Preserve Clearwater Preserve is located in the north central portion of the County’s jurisdiction, near the 4800 block of Gordon Road on the north side and is classified as Urban on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. Smith Creek Park, as well as some additional county-owned property, is located north of this site. Site plan attributes include: • R-10 Residential Zoning • 70 lots • 21.24 acres • Public Water & Sewer (CFPUA) • Public & Private Roads (with good inter-connectivity) The project has road interconnections to Big Gum Road, the Emerald Forest development and the Parkwood Estates development. The TRC approved Clearwater Preserve for 70 lots, with eleven conditions which were included in the planning board package. The preliminary validity period of the performance site plan will end March 25, 2017. Hanover Lakes (Revised) Hanover Lakes is located in the north central portion of the County’s jurisdiction near the 2100 block of Castle Hayne Road and is classified as Transition and Conservation on the County’s 2006 Land Use Plan. This project is anchored to the west by the Cape Fear River and its associated marshlands. There is good inter-connectivity via one primary entrance, which abuts Castle Hayne Road to the east; a connection to Arlington Drive, which connects to Castle Hayne Road; and an additional road stub to the north to an undeveloped piece of Page 24 of 24 property. This project was originally reviewed and approved in 2007 for a total of 205 lots. Since that time, there has been an increase of 26 lots. Site plan attributes include: • R-15 Residential Zoning • 231 lots • 104.57 acres • Public Water & Sewer (CFPUA) • Private Roads (with good inter-connectivity) The TRC approved the revision to Hanover Lakes for 231 residential lots, with ten conditions, included in the planning board package. The validity period of the performance site plan will end on March 25, 2017. Mr. Burgess also reported the following first quarter development statistics as reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and Planning staff. 2015 (First Quarter) • Nine (9) preliminary plans, including new, revised, and reapproved plans, totaling 1,036 lots, were approved, including o Five (5) new plans, consisting of 248 lots • 26 final plats and exception plats, which are exempt from subdivision regulations, were approved by staff for a total of 191 lots. 2014 (First Quarter) • Twelve (12) plans, totaling 1,249 lots, were approved, including o Seven (7) new plans, totaling 513 lots o Many revisions and re-approvals were due to the extinction of the Permit Extension Act, and the fact that the County allowed two extra years of validity for preliminary site plans. • 19 final plats and exception plats totaling 85 lots were approved by staff The next scheduled Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting will be held on April 22, 2015. There will not be a TRC meeting on April 8th due to the lack of agenda items. Additional Items of Business With no additional items of business, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.