2016-04 April 14 2016 PBMPage 1 of 42
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
April 14, 2016
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. in the
Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a
public meeting.
Planning Board Present: Staff Present:
Donna Girardot, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Anthony Prinz, Vice Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Tamara Murphy Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Jordy Rawl Brad Schuler, Current Planner
Ernest Olds Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Edward “Ted” Shipley, III
David Weaver
Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing.
Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-953, 4/16) – Request by Edward H. Clark of Hanover Lakes
LLC, property owner, to rezone 2.2 acres located at the 2100 block of Castle Hayne Road
from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) O&I, Conditional Office and Institutional
District, in order to develop a commercial/office building. The property is classified as
Transition 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, video, and photographs of the
property and the surrounding area.
This is an application to establish a conditional zoning district. Conditional zoning has a
proposed use and site plan attached to the district, and conditions above and beyond the
requirements of the zoning ordinance may be attached to the district with the applicant’s
agreement. Currently, the property is within a 106 acre parcel of land, of which 104 acres
have recently received preliminary plat approval in order to develop a 231 lot single-family
performance residential subdivision entitled Hanover Lakes, which is currently under
development. The zoning in the vicinity consists mostly of residential zoning districts,
including the R-20, R-15, and Airport Residential districts. Commercial zoning districts
are located where Castle Hayne Road intersects with 23rd Street and N. Kerr Avenue. A
tire/auto shop is located across the street. The subject property is a wooded, undeveloped
tract of land that fronts Castle Hayne Road. The site plan indicates the proposed
development consists of a 12,970 square foot commercial/office building, which will have
Page 2 of 42
direct access to Castle Hayne Road. The applicant has identified some potentially
regulated wetlands on the property, which are illustrated on the plan; however the
development will be outside of those areas. Also, as the property adjoins lands zoned for
residential use, the development will be required to install fully opaque buffers around the
perimeter of the property to help screen the development from the residential dwellings.
With conditional zoning, additional conditions can be added to the district, including
limiting the allowable uses within the district. This application proposes to limit the
number of uses permitted on the property. Those uses include a variety of commercial and
office uses, specifically ones that do not generate a lot of traffic. It was the intent of the
proposed district to ensure that whatever business or businesses locate on the property, that
it will generate less than 100 peak hour trips. Of course, any use that generates more than
100 peak hour trips would be required to complete a traffic Impact analysis which may
result in some off-site improvements to the area’s transportation network. As the building
may contain a combination of uses and tenants, staff is requesting a condition be added to
the district ensuring that the total number of trips generated from the property cannot
exceed 100 peak hour trips, and also that any change of use proposal must be reviewed by
the County in order to verify compliance with the standards of the zoning district. In the
event that we do find that a proposed use will exceed the 100 peak hour trip threshold, it
would be considered a major modification to the district and it would require that a Traffic
Impact Analysis be completed and also that it go back through the entire rezoning process.
According to traffic counts conducted by the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning
Organization, the adjacent portion of Castle Hayne Road currently experiences about
17,000 trips per day. Based on the road’s current classification, and using to the Volume to
Capacity ratio, this equates to a Level of Service of F. However, staff feels that number is a
little misleading. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was recently completed for the Hanover
Lakes subdivision, which is currently under construction next door to the proposed
rezoning. That TIA examined major intersections in the area, including Castle Hayne
Road at N. Kerr Avenue and Castle Hayne Road at 23rd Street, and found that those
intersections are operating at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS), ranging from a LOS of
A to D. The TIA was reviewed and approved by NCDOT and the WMPO and required
that a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane be installed on Castle
Hayne Road at the subdivision’s access. Also, the North Carolina State Transportation
Improvement Program has identified a project (U-5863) to widen Castle Hayne Road to
multi-lanes. The project is currently funded, with right-of-way acquisition tentatively
scheduled to begin in 2020 and construction in 2023.
Staff has reviewed the rezoning and special use application to determine if it complies with
the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan, which classifies the property as Transition. The purpose
of the Transition classification is to provide for future intensive development on lands that
have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. Staff recommended approval
of the application as it complies with the Land Use Plan, including Policy 4.3 of the plan
which encourages that land is available for commercial uses within close proximity to the
markets they serve and by ensuring such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of
life in nearby residential areas. Staff also recommended that one condition be added to the
district, which will ensure that whatever business or businesses locate on the property will
generate less than 100 peak hour trips.
Page 3 of 42
In response to an inquiry from Chairman Girardot, Mr. Schuler explained there would be a buffer
around all three sides of the property. The wetlands are wooded; the landscaping and vegetation
within the wetlands can be credited toward the buffer. If they are not, the applicant will have to
squeeze in the appropriate amount of buffering to meet the 100 percent opaque buffer
requirement. There are different options. The buffer can be 100 percent vegetation or it can be a
combination of fencing and vegetation. That will be verified during the building permit process.
Jordy Rawl inquired if the wetlands classification on the property had been delineated and if the
proposal was located in the One Hundred Year Floodplain, noting the flood note at the bottom of
the site plan. Mr. Schuler stated an official copy of the wetlands delineation from the US Army
Corps of Engineers had not been received, but would be required prior to issuance of the
building permit. It was his understanding that the property is not located in the floodplain, but he
would confirm.
David Weaver inquired if the 2.2 acres was isolated from the Hanover Lakes subdivision by the
wetlands. He commented it almost looked like a case of spot zoning as there is no commercial
zoning adjacent to it and no highway node there. Mr. Schuler stated as he understood it, the
property was not included in the Hanover Lakes subdivision because of the wetlands. No access
was allowed to that portion of the property without going through Castle Hayne Road. In regard
to spot zoning, there is legal spot zoning out there that has shown that the zoning district will
benefit the area and not diminish life around the area.
Mr. Weaver noted there appear to be a couple of other parcels in the one to two acre range just
north of that site on Castle Hayne Road and asked what would prevent those owners from
requesting a similar type of zoning if this zoning request is approved. Mr. Schuler explained that
every property owner has the right to submit a rezoning application to the count y so nothing
would prevent those owners from doing so. In answer to Mr. Rawl’s question, he reported that
the property is not located within the flood zone.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Allison Engerbretson stated she is a landscape architect with Paramounte Engineering and was
appearing on behalf of the applicant. She offered to answer questions from the board.
Chairman Girardot asked Ms. Engerbretson to further address the question about the proposal
property being separate and not contiguous with the subdivision. Ms. Engerbretson stated the
applicant was requesting the rezoning because wetlands cut off this piece of property from the
rest of the Hanover Lakes development. The developer did not find this piece of land useful for
anything else and thought it might be useful to turn it into a Transition corridor use such as that
seen down the road. That is why they are seeking an Office and Institutional zoning. The impact
you get across that wetland was substantial and during the planning of the development it was
not favorable.
Ernest Olds inquired about the traffic ingress and egress and whether acceleration/deceleration
lanes would be required. Ms. Engerbretson stated the developer was not at that point yet. At the
community meeting, there were quite a few questions about traffic and what the property use
Page 4 of 42
would be. There is not an intended end user yet so no traffic information is available at this time.
When the proposal goes through with a site plan, they would be required to obtain a driveway
permit and the NC Department of Transportation would review the traffic situation at that time.
No one from the public spoke in support of the application.
Chairman Girardot opened the opposition portion of the hearing.
Kenneth Caulder stated he resides nearby off Yorktown Road, which is two streets over from
Hanover Lakes. He expressed concern about the traffic study and inquired if the traffic study
considered the 200 plus houses that are being built there, as well as the houses being built at
River Bluff, which is nearby. Mr. Schuler responded that the traffic study was done for the 231
lot subdivision Hanover Lakes, but he didn’t think the TIA included the River Bluffs
development, which is located outside the scope of the TIA, but generally TIA’s do include all
the developments proposed in the surrounding area and the background traffic, as well as a
growth rate associated with that traffic so it does try to incorporate future traffic generated by
other developments.
Mr. Caulder noted it was also his understanding that a developer is preparing to build several
hundred homes off Kerr Avenue and Blue Clay Road, which he assumed would funnel traffic
that way toward downtown. He has lived there his entire life and has seen the changes and the
traffic from those changes. He commented they are looking at 2023 to improve Castle Hayne
Road. He noted he was looking for water 26 years ago, but still doesn’t have it where he lives.
He reiterated he was more concerned about the traffic study than anything else, but also noted
there was no information provided about the height of the building and if it would be multi-story
although information was provided on the square footage. Brad Schuler stated the applicant is
proposing a one-story building with a height of twenty feet. .
During rebuttal, Ms. Engerbretson stated in regard to the height of the building, they are
cognizant of the residences around the site and certainly won’t inflict something imposing on the
neighbors. They have kept the building to one-story and included that as part of the conditional
rezoning request. The buffers have also been increased beyond the county’s requirements to
ensure further distance on every side from surrounding residences. She offered to answer
questions on traffic.
No one from the public spoke during opposition rebuttal.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened board discussion.
David Weaver asked the county attorney to provide an opinion about spot zoning in this case.
Sharon Huffman responded an attorney can articulate from both sides of the issue whether this
would be spot zoning. Upon review of the documentation, the proposal certainly stands out as
being an office building in the middle of a residential area, but it is located in a Transition area,
and Office and Institutional uses are many times allowed as appropriate transition in those areas.
Page 5 of 42
Also, it is her understanding that with conditional zoning matters, typically if they meet with the
Land Use Plan and are felt to be reasonable, they aren’t considered to be spot zoning.
Vice Chair Prinz commented that considering the shape of the parcels in that area, it appears that
there are some non-residential uses in other areas reflected on the aerial map although he
couldn’t confirm it. He would contend that while those area are currently zoned residential, they
are of non-residential uses to this request would be a logical continuation of that Transition area.
Chairman Girardot stated that the new comprehensive plan moves toward more community
mixed-use and there are some areas there that are more commercial, small-business type uses. In
addition, she didn’t see this small project as being necessarily intrusive, especially given the fact
they would have to come back before the planning board and county commissioners for anything
above 100 vehicle peak hour trips.
Vice Chair Prinz said the board should also consider the size and shape of the parcel, which is
2.2 acres. In his opinion, there has to be some transition here and if they can limit the type of
uses and the impact on trip generation, it is probably in the best interest of the area.
Jordy Rawl felt the proposed type of development in the area would be good for the community
if done in a responsible manner and recommended a condition be added in regard to signage
because it is located in a heavily residential area and a use has not yet been determined. He felt
the condition should specifically not allow incidental or flashing signage to ensure there would
be no gaudy signs reflecting light at all hours of the night and impeding the beautification of the
roadway in the residential area.
Vice Chair Prinz said that goes with the site lighting as well. The regulations require full cut-off
lighting fixtures for these types of sites so that no light spills onto neighbor properties, but
instead focuses light downward. We may also want to limit signage there to a monument type of
sign instead of a pole mounted sign which would be higher and cast more glare at night.
Mr. Rawl noted the ordinance describes incidental signage as a two-faced illuminated sign
containing light and color and he would like to deter that type of signage at that location.
Vice Chair Prinz asked Ms. Engerbretson what type of building materials were being considered
for the building. Ms. Engerbretson responded that the type of building materials was completely
unknown at that point in time since they don’t have an end user yet.
Chairman Girardot read the procedure and appeals statement.
Allison Engerbretson stated the applicant would like to proceed with a vote by the Planning
Board.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the board.
Vice Chair Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-953
to the Board of Commissioners as the Planning Board finds this application for a zoning map
Page 6 of 42
amendment of 2.2 acres from R-15 Residential District to (CZD) O&I, Office and Institutional
District as described is,
1. Consistent with the purpose and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the
property is located on an arterial street and will be served by public water and sewer
services, thereby, making it suitable for intensive urban development which is
encouraged in the Transition classification.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of
commercial uses by locating them within close proximity to the markets they serve and
by ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life of the existing
residential communities.
With the following conditions:
1. No more than a total of 100 peak hour trips can be generated from the use or combination
of uses located within the zoning district; change of use proposals must be reviewed and
approved by the County in order to verify compliance with the zoning district standards.
2. The use must comply with all provisions of an approved NCDOT driveway permit before
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
3. The signage must be an integral sign as described in Section 23-121 of the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance.
4. A fully opaque buffer is required along the perimeter of the property.
Chairman Girardot asked if the applicant was agreeable to the conditions proposed for the
rezoning. Engerbretson confirmed the applicant was agreeable to the conditions proposed for the
rezoning.
Ernest Olds seconded the motion.
During discussion, David Weaver stated the definition of an integral sign indicates it must be
part of the building, which would prevent the construction of a nice brick, ground-based sign that
would be no more than 3-4 feet high near the street. He felt that would be limiting and asked Mr.
Prinz if he was willing to amend the motion to state a free standing monument sign.
Vice Chair Prinz amended the motion to state in Condition Number Three, “The signage must be
a free standing monument sign as described in Section 23-121 of the New Hanover County
Zoning Ordinance and be absent of any flashing digital material.
Ernest Olds seconded the amended motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend
approval of Rezoning Request Z-953 with four conditions.
Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-954, 4/16) – Request by Design Solutions, on behalf of the
property owner, Nix Investments 2 LLC, to rezone 0.58 acres located at the 2415 Castle
Hayne Road from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business
District, in order to develop a mini-warehouse building. The property is classified as
Transition according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Page 7 of 42
Current Planner 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.
This is an application to establish a conditional zoning district. Conditional zoning districts
have an attached conceptual site plan, and conditions may be added to the district with the
applicant’s agreement. The property is proposed to be rezoned to a Conditional B-2 district
in order to expand an existing self-storage business. The zoning in the vicinity consists of a
mixture of commercial and residential districts. The commercial zoning is located along
Castle Hayne Road, and creates a commercial node around the road’s intersection with N.
Kerr Avenue. The subject property adjoins land currently zoned B-2. The property directly
to the south is where the existing self-storage business is located. Residential zoning is
located directly north and west of the subject property, and contains existing and proposed
residential subdivisions. The subject property abuts Chadwick Acres and Riverside, a
proposed performance residential subdivision, is located further north. The subject
property is a wooded and undeveloped parcel of land that fronts Castle Hayne Road.
Per the conceptual site plan submitted with the application, the applicant is proposing to
expand an existing self-storage business by developing a 9,000 square foot climate-control
storage building. The building will be accessed from the existing business to the south,
and utilize the existing driveway on Castle Hayne Road. The zoning ordinance requires
that a fully opaque buffer be installed along the rear and side property lines to screen the
development from the adjoining residential land. The applicant has agreed to a condition
that the existing vegetation be preserved and supplemented as necessary to provide the
100% visual opacity requirement.
The proposed use should not have any substantial impact on traffic in the area as the use
will generate just one AM peak hour trip, and two PM peak hour trips. According to traffic
counts conducted by the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, the adjacent
portion of Castle Hayne Road currently experiences about 17,000 trips per day. Based on
the road’s current classification, and using the Volume to Capacity ratio, that equates to a
Level of Service of F. However, staff feels that number is a little misleading. A traffic
impact analysis (TIA) was recently completed for the proposed Riverside subdivision
located north of the subject property. That TIA examined the intersection of Castle Hayne
Road at N. Kerr Avenue and found that intersection will operate at an acceptable level of
service when the Riverside subdivision is expected to be completed in 2019. Specifically,
the intersection will operate at a Level of Service of C to D. The TIA was reviewed and
approved by NCDOT and the WMPO and required the installation of a couple of turn lanes
at the subdivision’s access with Castle Hayne Road. Also, The North Carolina State
Transportation Improvement Program has identified a project (U-5863) to widen Castle
Hayne Road to multi-lanes. The project is currently funded with right-of-way acquisition
tentatively scheduled to begin in 2020 and construction in 2023.
Staff has reviewed the rezoning and special use permit application to determine
compliance with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The plan classifies the property as
Transition. The purpose of the Transition classification is to provide for future intensive
Page 8 of 42
development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban
services. Staff recommended approval of the application as they feel it complies with the
Land Use Plan, including Policy 4.3 of the plan, which encourages that land is available
for commercial uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring such
commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas. Staff
recommended that the condition be added to the district, which will ensure that the existing
vegetation will remain and be supplemented as necessary to provide a fully opaque buffer.
Ted Shipley inquired about the setback and buffer between the proposal and the neighboring
residence. Mr. Schuler explained that the setback is thirty feet, then the minimum buffer yard
would be twent y feet, and the existing tree line would remain.
In response to an inquiry by Jordy Rawl, Mr. Schuler explained the google map in the
application package is a drainage map, which shows the drainage in the area.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf stated she represented the property owner and appreciated staff’s thorough
presentation of the rezoning request. She offered two exhibits to provide additional information,
including an aerial showing the existing B-2 zoning owned by her client. The proposal would be
an expansion of the B-2 district and would not require a driveway or water and sewer
connections. She stated that the business has been successful and is well maintained. The owners
worked with the next door neighbor and the neighbor immediately behind the proposal and held
a community meeting. She explained that the exhibit Mr. Rawl referred to earlier was actually
part of the project meeting report and was included because they anticipated a conversation about
drainage. The map was provided in a much larger scale at the community meeting. She explained
that a ditch runs between the existing driveway and where the new building would be
constructed. Mr. Nix keeps that ditch clean, which is another benefit of the expansion that will
not only mitigate any drainage issues, but will also improve the aesthetics of the entire area. Ms.
Wolf stated they feel the proposed rezoning is justified because it is in compliance with the
current and future land use plans as a Transition use and will locate storage in an area surrounded
by general residential where it would be best used. She offered to answer questions.
David Weaver stated he had no problem with the proposed use, but wondered if the building
would be one large storage building for one user or would contain multiple units. Ms. Wolf
clarified that the facility would not be a warehouse, but was intended to be a climate-controlled
storage building, which typically has a corridor for parking and entrance via a door. This type of
facility always has dollies and does not have the garage doors on the outside. Doors are located
at each end and in the center of the building leading to an interior T-corridor with 10’ x 20’ or
20’ x 20’ climate-controlled storage rooms utilized by individuals. She confirmed there would be
three parking spaces for the entire building.
Ernie Olds asked if the existing ditch would be piped or would have a crossing. Ms. Wolf
explained there would be a culvert crossing where you walk from the parking spaces to the front
door. In response to Mr. Olds’ inquiry about landscaping and buffering, she explained that the
site plan shows the trees regulated by the county. There is no reason to clear the front of the
Page 9 of 42
property. They will instead take advantage of the streetyard. This is an expansion of an existing
project so they won’t need the visibility. She also confirmed the climate-controlled facility will
be a one-story structure with a maximum height of ten feet and that the access road was paved
over a year ago.
Chairman Girardot noted that several of the neighbors discussed the drainage issue. She inquired
if the project runoff, which will go into the ditch, would alleviate any drainage issues that the
neighbors were concerned about. Ms. Wolf explained the neighbors who were concerned about
drainage were generally located north of Chadwick Avenue. Their drainage flows south to where
this ditch intersects, then goes a bit further south and under Castle Hayne Road. Many of their
issues had to do with maintenance of ditches, some of which are under the jurisdiction of the
NCDOT along the road corridors, and the lack of maintenance that sometimes occurs, and others
were related to ditches on other properties along the way because the county doesn’t have a
stormwater management program. To the best of Ms. Wolf’s knowledge, people were fine. The
project will drain to a ditch, which will be maintained by the applicant, but had not been
maintained before. Ms. Wolf reported that her client also has the frontage where it flows down
Castle Hayne Road so he can maintain that ditch as well to prevent water backing up into his
ditch, which is adjacent to this project.
Lori Meadows, owner of 2419 Castle Hayne Road, located directly north of the subject property
spoke in support of the project. She has had several discussions with Mr. Nix and Ms. Wolf and
with neighbors at the community meeting. Ms. Meadows stated she has seen the site plan and she
has no objections to the rezoning. She said she thought Mr. Nix had made every effort to
maintain the integrity of the area and she felt the addition of the fence and the supplemental
vegetation would help maintain the privacy of her home, therefore, she supports the rezoning
request.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period.
Ted Shipley stated the adjacent landowner, who has a residence there has spoken in favor of the
rezoning request. The applicant has addressed the buffer well and the condition proposed by staff
is satisfactory to him and appears to satisfy Ms. Meadows. He felt the climate-controlled storage
buildings generate very little traffic at the rate of one trip per hour. Mr. Shipley stated h is support
of the rezoning.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion on the rezoning request.
Ted Shipley made a motion to recommend approval, as the Planning Board finds that this
application for a zoning map amendment of 0.58 acres from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD)
B-2, Conditional Highway Business District as described is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan
because the Transition classification provides for intense urban development in
areas with urban services and because the plan encourages commercial
development to occur on major thoroughfares in the County.
Page 10 of 42
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of
commercial uses by locating them within close proximity to the markets they serve
and by ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life of
the existing residential communities.
Condition:
1. Existing vegetation must remain within the twenty foot wide rear buffer and be
supplemented as necessary to provide the 100% visual opacity requirement.
Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of
Rezoning Request Z-954 with one condition.
Chairman Girardot announced that the board would conduct a public hearing for Item Number 6
– Rezoning Request Z-958 prior to the public hearing for Item Number 3 in order to
accommodate Bill McDow of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, whose
expertise is needed for that item. She apologized for the inconvenience to those in attendance for
other items.
Item 6: Rezoning Request (Z-958, 4/16) – Request by Brock Ventures Inc., applicant, on
behalf of the property owner, Lawrence Lawson Heirs, to rezone 6.9 acres located at the
2700 block of Carolina Beach Road from (CUD) B-1, Conditional Business District, and R-
15, Residential District, to (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, in order to
develop a high density development. 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, video, and photographs of the
property and the surrounding area.
This is an application to establish a conditional use zoning district, which requires that
every use within the district obtain a Special Use Permit. The rezoning request must be
acted upon first, and if approved, the Board can then act on the Special Use Permit (SUP).
If the rezoning is denied, no action is needed to be taken for the SUP, as the rezoning is
necessary to create the eligibility for the permit. If the rezoning is approved, but the SUP
is denied, the application will also be processed with a recommendation of denial from the
Planning Board. The rezoning request to a Conditional Use District is considered to be a
straight or general rezoning; therefore, no conditions can be added to the zoning district.
The board may recommend conditions be added to the Special Use Permit.
The Conditional B-1 District was established in 2008 as part of the Belle Meade
development, which at one time proposed the development of a movie theater and
associated retail, restaurant, and office uses. The property is now proposed to be rezoned to
a Conditional Use R-10 District in order to develop an 80-unit apartment complex. The
Page 11 of 42
property is in an area that transitions into the City of Wilmington and a multi-family
development is currently being constructed on the property to the north. Most of the
property is currently undeveloped, although a vacant single-family dwelling is located in
the front of the property close to Carolina Beach Road.
The site plan shows the development will consist of four buildings containing a total of 80
dwelling units, which equates to a density of 11.5 units per acre and is below the maximum
density allowed for this development, which is 17 dwelling units per acre.
The property will access Carolina Beach Road and Sykes Drive. There were some
concerns brought up last year regarding the connection to Sykes Drive, which was
dedicated as a public right-of-way in 2014, but has not yet been taken over for maintenance
by the City of Wilmington. The difference in this issue this year is that the development of
the adjoining property has now officially requested that the City of Wilmington accept
Sykes Drive into the City’s street maintenance system. This development will extend
Sykes Drive through the southern property line and staff is recommending a condition be
added to the special use permit to require Sykes Drive to be dedicated as a public right-of-
way prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. Future development and extension
of Sykes Drive to the south will provide a lot of opportunity for interconnectivity in the
area. There are a lot of stubs to the south so Sykes Drive can be extended to hopefully
connect to all of those stubs. Interconnected streets disperse traffic instead of forcing traffic
onto one road and will help with the traffic situation. People in this area will be able to
easily get to St. Andrew’s Drive off 17th Street and get to the northern portions of the
county. Most importantly, interconnected streets reduce emergency response time;
therefore, staff is requiring interconnectivity with this development. A Traffic Impact
Analysis was not required to be conducted for this property as it does not generate more
than 100 peak hour trips. NC Department of Transportation has reviewed this plan and has
stated that the existing deceleration lane/turn lane into Mateo Drive, located to the north,
must be extended to serve both developments. The Wilmington Metropolitan Planning
Organization conducted a traffic count at the 5000 block of Carolina Beach Road in 2015
and found it is currently experiencing about 2,500 trips per day. Using the volume to
capacity ratio, that that equates to a Level of Service of “F”. The Belle Meade Apartments
are currently being constructed next door to the subject property.
Staff has reviewed the rezoning application for compliance with the 2006 CAMA Land
Use Plan, which 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 developments are appropriate within these areas
and because of that, staff supports the rezoning and recommends the following conditions
be added:
1. Sykes Drive must be dedicated as a public right-of-way.
2. A multi-use path be installed along Carolina Beach Road. The Wilmington-New
Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan does call for the installation of a
greenway along this portion of Carolina Beach Road.
Page 12 of 42
Mr. Schuler reported that the applicant has agreed to install the multi-use path as part of
the plan and staff is adding that condition to ensure it is constructed. Mr. Schuler
concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Charles Baldwin of the Brooks Pierce Law Firm stated he represented the applicant, along with
their authorized agent, Stephen Brock. They believe the project will be reasonable and a good
project for the community. He stated Mr. Brock would present the project and he would address
the legal issues.
Stephen Brock stated he is one of the applicants. They believe a public good as it is work force
housing. With that he introduced his partner, Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, a well -
established non-profit out of Ohio with an associated management arm. He explained that he is
the other part of the development team in this joint venture. He said he lives here locally in the
community and wants to be a good neighbor and wants to have something her that he is proud of.
He explained that they don’t build and sell these apartment complexes, but will be involved for
thirty-plus years. He reported that the rezoning is 6.9 acres with high density; however, they are
requesting a much lower density of 11.6 units per acre with no known variances. The preliminary
concept is 80 units of work force housing containing 1, 2 and 3 bedroom garden style apartments
that will be professionally managed by RLT Management. The Affordable Housing Program
Low Income Tax Credit is a federal program that finances the construction of these apartments
so that the developers end up with less permanent debt than a normal apartment owner would
and thus, enable the developer to keep rents affordable for the workforce. He explained this is
not a Section 8, HUD, Housing Authority, public housing or rental subsidy. In New Hanover
County, we are targeting folks earning around 50-60% of area median income, which translates
to $30,000 to $40,000 in annual income. Mr. Brock provided a quick profile snapshot of the
folks that live in workforce housing properties. They include restaurant workers, clerical
workers, medical workers, etc. Mr. Brock stated the need for workforce housing in New
Hanover County is tremendous. The overall capture rate here is 6.3% and that is only targeting
our little narrow band. When you consider other slightly wider bands of income, the need is
much greater. Mr. Brock explained these apartments are built to market rate quality, with broken
up roof lines and architectural shingles, gables, energy star rated windows, and red brick veneer.
He showed photos of a property they recently opened in Southport consisting of 72 units of
workforce housing with 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms, which are very attractive, as well as another
project recently completed in Wallace. He provided photos of the area around the proposed
project site, noting Matteo Drive must be publicly dedicated and is close to completion as the
developers are currently in lease on certain units in certain buildings. The site plan has been
vetted with staff, the TRC, and NCDOT. It includes a 100 foot decal lane, as per the condition
mentioned by Mr. Schuler, a right in only at Carolina Beach Road, and further controlled access
by the secondary road above Sykes Drive and Matteo Drive that is offering a little bit more
controlled egress and ingress as well.
Charles Baldwin provided various slides, including a slide showing Sykes Drive connecting to
the top and how it will connect across this property, the property’s excellent frontage on Carolina
Beach Road, and the greenway on the margin. He also shows the final recorded plat for the
Page 13 of 42
Sykes Drive portion, which shows that Sykes Drive is a dedicated public right-of-way. There is
thirty feet on each side and the width varies not less than thirty feet, and Matteo Drive, which
does not connect to this property. This property connects to Carolina Beach Road and to Sykes
Drive. One of the slides showed the letter from the engineering firm asking for Sykes Drive
ending in the subdivision and tract number to be accepted by the City of Wilmington. If Sykes
Drive is accepted by the City, the City of Wilmington will be responsible for the maintenance of
the street. Even if Sykes Drive is never accepted for maintenance, it will not affect the four
corners of the subject property and the developer’s entitlement to build on that property. They
need public access, which has been deeded at this point, but it looks like the dedication process is
running its course. It is the applicant’s desire to have the road taken over for maintenance. Mr.
Baldwin stated he raised this issue because a few days ago they were alerted for the first time by
one of the lawyers for the property owners of Sykes Drive and Matteo Drive, which are two
separate owners, but are jointly represented. Their attorney stated they have a concern about the
project’s access. He stated this is the first they heard about their concerns about access because
this is a recorded right-of-way and no one came forward at any of the public meetings that were
held. He showed the release letter for Matteo Drive, which talks about the responsibility of the
property owner as discussed to seek official acceptance from the City of Wilmington. Neither the
Planning Board nor the applicant can control whether the City accepts the street for maintenance,
but the zoning process can control is the fact that Matteo Drive, as it states in paragraph H, is to
be dedicated as a public right-of-way and the developer shall record a dedication plat prior to
issuance of the first CO. As shown by the photos presented earlier, those apartments are under
construction and that dedication will have to occur long before the applicant puts a stake in the
ground. Mr. Baldwin added because of the grant process timetable, the applicant has to go
forward now and be considered by the Board of County Commissioners in May in order for the
applicant to submit their application by May 13, 2016, which a firm deadline. The applicant will
find out if they are awarded the grant in October 2016 and it will take six months after that to put
a spade in the ground so there is plenty of time for these streets to be accepted by the City of
Wilmington before that time, which will be May 2017.
Mr. Baldwin addressed the Findings and the Findings of Fact for the special use permit portion
of the rezoning process. The use is consistent with the purpose and content of the land use plan.
The Urban classification is entirely for this type of project, with excellent roads, and utilities
access. The use is consistent with the neighboring development and the character along that
corridor. Second, the use is reasonable and in the public interest for the reasons stated by Mr.
Brock earlier. It is abundantly true in this case where multi-family affordable workforce housing
is needed in this community. It is below the density limit at 11.6 units per acre versus 17 units
allowable under this zoning. There will be additional access to the project, which covers
interconnectivity. First, the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety. The
project consists is one hundred percent residential workforce housing, will be managed 24/7 with
24/7 on call service and overseen by an experience management firm; it has good utilities and
street access; and the developer has agreed to install a camera on the property as requested at the
public meeting. Second, the use meets all the required conditions and specifications of the zoning
ordinance. The project meets all the standards of the zoning ordinance; no variances have been
requested; the project meeting all standards related to density. Third, the use will not
substantially injure the value of the abutting property. That is entirely the case in this situation.
The use is consistent with adjacent and adjoining properties. It is a Transition use from the very
Page 14 of 42
high traffic Carolina Beach Road corridor to the lower traffic residential corridor. He stated their
appraiser, Joe Jones, was present and available to address any issues related to property values,
etc. Fourth, the location and character of the use will be in harmony with the area. The project is
in harmony with the location and in general conformity with area development. Mr. Brock
covered many of those reasons earlier. It is in compliance with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan
and the residential nature of the project will complement the residential areas and be a good
transition. Mr. Baldwin offered to answer questions from the board.
Vice Chair Prinz stated the access issue was discussed when this project last came before the
board. At that time, the planning board was basically under the gun to approve this project at
one meeting or it all went to waste and wasn’t going to happen at all. He inquired if the board
was in the same situation. Mr. Brock confirmed the board was in the same situation due to the
schedule and nature of the annual process to secure grant funds for these projects. He explained
that it takes time to find a good joint venture. Mr. Brock stated Buckeye Hope is a good solid
partner and was brought in after many discussions. He noted they essentially have new plan this
year and there are material revisions to the plan. Last year, there were going to be four bedroom
units, but because of some issues, those were removed. The new plan has a lower density so it
should be more reasonable, and hopefully, will be viewed as a more favorable project during the
grant selection process.
Vice Chair Prinz stated secondly, during that meeting we talked a lot about coordination with the
neighbors because there was concern then about whether or not Sykes Drive was becoming
public or not. It sounds like some of that has been addressed, but at that meeting, he specifically
requested that the developer reach out to the neighbor and in good faith have a discussion about
the current situation of that road and the partnership of moving similar types of development
forward with interconnectivity. He asked if that communication happened. Mr. Brock stated that
communication happened at the attorney level at that time. Because it’s now on the project level,
the communication fell apart and had to start over again, and then because of the changes in
condition and the submittal of the request for public dedication of Sykes Drive. At that point, we
are not aware of there being an issue and were not aware until a couple of days ago that any
neighbor had a concern. We went through the public notice process, held a public hearing, and
did all the things than can be expected of an applicant.
Chairman Girardot stated three people signed up to speak in regard to the rezoning and asked
them to state their name, address and whether they were in support of opposition.
William Hatcher of 4222 Pine Hollow Road stated he is in opposition to the rezoning proposal.
He and his family are ten year residents of the neighborhood and he is also a member of the
homeowner association board for Belle Meade subdivision. He noted there are 52 lots and 51
homes in the subdivision now. They are not against the housing that New Hanover County
needs, but they are opposed because they knew over ten years ago that there were no public
complexes. Now Belle Meade Village has started one complex already and Belle Meade Village
2 is underway and now these gentlemen are asking for a third complex. In review of the plot
plan, there are additional vacant lots beside him and the apartment renters will come down Sykes
Drive and turn into his neighborhood like other have done for the past ten years repeatedly. More
and more traffic is coming their way down Pine Hollow Road, which is a private road with
Page 15 of 42
public access. He commented that the homeowners were filling potholes in the neighborhood last
week. The residents are concerned about the additional traffic resulting in greater street
maintenance, which is their responsibility. Mr. Hatcher noted he is aware that they have Sykes
Drive and can go out to St. Andrews Drive that way, but they are coming through his
neighborhood, which has lots of young families with small children. He commented that they are
located in the County so the speed limit is 55 miles per hour. The Sheriff’s Department says they
have no jurisdiction there and can only watch speeders go through the neighborhood. That
doesn’t happen all of the time, but it does happen. Their neighborhood is a nice, beautiful
neighborhood, which has narrow roads with an island in the middle of it, but speeders detract
from the neighborhood. Mr. Hatcher asked how much more traffic would be traveling through it.
He then mentioned past traffic calming measures the neighborhood has requested. He stated he
understands that there is a need for that type of project in Wilmington and New Hanover County,
but their neighborhood also needs some traffic calming measures so he asked them to slow down
traffic coming through his neighborhood and not leave them out in the cold to fill their potholes
and with no options to regulate speed on their streets. He asked for their assistance to slow down
speeders and provide more security and safety for their families.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s question regarding the speed limit on Pine Hollow Drive,
Mr. Hatcher explained there is no speed limit signage on that road so people come through at
whatever speed they choose. The road is not maintained by the NC Department of
Transportation. Some of the residents have put up speed limit signs, but they are not enforceable.
William Bennett of 4251 Pine Hollow Drive stated he resides in the same neighborhood as Mr.
Hatcher and is also a member of the homeowner association board. There are 52 lots and 51 built
upon lots. When he moved there in 2010, there was a little bit of traffic and the road was already
connected to Carolina Beach Road. He believes that Pine Hollow Drive is viewed by the County
as a connector road. Pine Hollow Drive extends all the way over to College Road so people quite
frequently drive down it at a fairly good clip. Two stop signs were installed by Johnson Farms
and Cambridge Heights in an effort by the neighborhoods to stop traffic from going through.
They are concerned that the County has designated the road as a private road with public access
even though they view it as a connector and the neighborhoods have to maintain those roads. He
reiterated that their primary concerns are traffic and road maintenance.
Peter Jones stated he was the appraiser for the property and has appraised these projects from
Asheville to Elizabeth City to Southport over the last fifteen years. He said that people hear low
income and get a picture in their minds. This project is more affordable wage housing in that the
people who occupy those dwellings earn 60%, of the average annual income of the
neighborhood. Typically, when he goes back later to take a picture of a property like this to use it
as a comparable later if it wins the award, he sees vehicles of police officers and rescue
personnel parked in the neighborhood. He noted a starting police officer in New Hanover County
can’t afford to live in Wilmington under market rate conditions. Their pay is such that they need
this type of workable wage, low income housing, which he would call affordable wage housing.
He provided photos of other projects he had appraised which improved the property value,
including a twelve year old family housing complex called Vineyard Point, and Cane Break, an
elderly housing complex. He noted the proposal is for a family housing complex. He cited
another family housing project in Burgaw that is fifteen years old, but looks like it is 3 -4 years
Page 16 of 42
old. He explained that the developers receive their profit on the back end of these projects, and
basically break even when they are renting at the 60% income level for the thirty year period.
After the thirty year period, the developer will own the property and will be able to charge
market rates; therefore, what they have left at the end of the thirty years is what they profit so
they manage these properties very well and want a good product left at the end of those thirty
years. Mr. Jones stated that New Hanover County needs projects like these so he was hopeful it
would be approved by the State of North Carolina and be approved by the Planning Board and
County Commissioners.
Robbie Parker of The Lee Law Firm stated he is not opposing the project, but wanted to get
some clarification and ask for the rezoning item to be tabled for a number of different reasons.
He explained he represented the adjacent landowner, Belle Meade Development Partners and the
fee owner of the Sykes Road right-of-way, which is SHP Belle Meade. He said he had requested
clarification on whether or not there was service on the fee owner of Sykes Road and thought he
would receive that information prior to the public hearing. Mr. Andrea stated in the public
notification process, both of those entities mentioned were sent notification via U.S. Mail and
should have received that notification.
Mr. Parker requested that the Planning Board table the matter because his clients did not receive
any tangible email, correspondence, or anything else until yesterday or the day before asking to
work something out in regard to Matteo Drive, which is between the two phases. The right-of-
way plat is set to be recorded as the mylars were cut today to be filed. With that comes a twelve
month period of maintenance that those owners will have to undertake, so they are concerned
that given that the primary way into the proposed project during construction will be across
Matteo Drive. He noted Sykes Road also has the same issue, but he will address it separately.
Construction vehicles will tear up the road and his clients will be responsible for maintaining the
road. Mr. Parker stated they were not opposing the project, but were asking the Pl anning Board
to table the item until his clients have reached an agreement with the applicant on that road.
Mr. Parker stated with respect to Sykes Road, he differed on whether or not an official
acceptance has been requested for road maintenance. He saw the letter that was mentioned in
February 2016, but doesn’t have a copy of it with him. He noted he also received correspondence
from the City of Wilmington as of March 30, 2016 saying to their knowledge there has been no
official acceptance requested by either SHP Belle Meade or by Bill Clark Homes with respect to
the two cul-de-sacs there so he wasn’t sure that actually happened. He didn’t think there was
actually a deadline for dedicating that road with respect to the issuance of CO’s for any
development off of Sykes Road. Mr. Parker stated with respect to Matteo Drive, they are pushing
hard to get that done because there are conditions on the Certificates of Occupancy on that
project and there are buildings in place.
Mr. Parker stated again they are not in opposition to the project, but are asking for the rezoning
to be tabled so his clients can reach an agreement with the applicant to address these matters
moving forward.
Chairman Girardot asked Mr. Parker what period of time he was asking for the item to be
continued.
Page 17 of 42
Mr. Parker stated they would request a continuance of at least thirty days as they have not had an
opportunity to discuss at any length exactly what the applicant would propose in regard to
reimbursement and use.
Chairman Girardot asked if Mr. Baldwin would like to address Mr. Parker’s concerns.
Mr. Baldwin stated as mentioned earlier, it would be at least a year before the developer could
put a shovel in the ground even if the grant is awarded. If the grant isn’t awarded, the project is
dead so this is all academic. He would suggest as a practical matter the odds of these things not
being accepted are very low. Further, it is clear this property has excellent frontage on Carolina
Beach Road so that is where the construction vehicles will be going in; they’re not going to drive
past the adjacent apartment complex, take a right and drive the long way in the back down Sykes
Road. As far as this developer is required by law, all they need is a recorded right-of-way and the
right to go on those roads. The applicant has the same right to use them as anybody else in the
city. The other property owners in the city aren’t being asked to pay for potential road traffic on
these roads; that’s not how it works. He commented that it looks like these folks built their
apartments and they don’t want the competition. These are all issues that could have been raised
in the community meeting process and they could have been discussed. Brock Ventures and
Buckeye Hope want to be good neighbors and have offered a guarantee that they will stand for
damage done by the construction vehicles. You can’t ask for a better neighbor than that. Because
Sykes Road is a recorded public right-of-way, the applicant has the same right to use it as anyone
else. The fact that vehicles use lawful roads is something that happens. When developers build
roads they know something like that can happen and it is part of the risk they take as a developer.
He offered to answer any questions.
At the chairman’s request, Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman explained the applicant and
opposition had made their presentations and there was no reason the board shouldn’t proceed
normally. She heard no procedural question that would change the process so the chairman could
consider closing the public hearing and proceeding to board member discussion, during which
information could be requested from the Wilmington MPO representative, Mr. McDow.
Mr. Bennett emphasized they are not against affordable income housing and are not against the
financing mechanism, but they are against the sheer volume of traffic. Since they moved in,
Belle Meade Apartments has 265 units going in on Parcel #2 on the neighbor properties map and
Bill Clark Homes is also building 45 or 50 single-family dwellings in the neighborhood, which
he felt was overloading their streets.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Board discussion period.
She then recognized William (Bill) McDow, Associate Transportation Planner with the
Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization and an employee of the City of Wilmington.
Bill McDow addressed the traffic for the project, noting the items had come before the WMPO
as part of two issues. First, the project was reviewed as part of the Technical Review Committee
process and was evaluated in terms of the technical merits; it was also evaluated to determine if a
Traffic Impact Analysis would be required. Based on the number of apartments, it did not exceed
the basic threshold of 100 new AM trips or 100 PM trips for this development. As part of their
Page 18 of 42
driveway permit process, the NC Department of Transportation required that the site have a turn
lane on Carolina Beach Road. Per the County, the project will need to have access to Carolina
Beach Road, as well as access to Sykes Drive. The project will be required to put in a multi-use
trail as part of the Wilmington-New Hanover County Greenway Plan. In terms of construction
entrances, that could be discussed when it comes time for review of the construction plans.
Mr. McDow reported he had discussed the project with the City of Wilmington Engineering
Department. The City has received the letter from Stroud Engineering specifying public road
dedication of Sykes Drive and Pine Hollow Drive, indicating the section of Pine Hollow Drive
from Belle Meade Plantation back to Sykes Drive, and Sykes Drive starting at St. Andrews
Drive. He clarified that Sykes Drive has been requested for dedication and is currently in the
process. The Engineering Department has met once with the engineer, Mr. Jimmy Fentress, on
site at Sykes Drive and generated an initial punch list, which the applicant is required to
complete. Once those items on the punch list are complete, the street will be accepted for public
maintenance. Mr. McDow noted they had not received any requests from the other homeowners
associations for road maintenance on any of the other roads or road segments that have been
included. He also looked at Matteo Drive and three buildings have received a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) from the City of Wilmington as part of the Belle Meade Apartments. The first
building, 1109, received a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) on January 13, 2016; Building 1119
received a CO on February 16, 2016; and Building 1129 received a CO on March 23, 2016. The
other four apartment buildings, the apartment buildings, as well as the commercial space and the
pavilion and pool have not received a CO and the City hasn’t received any requests from Belle
Meade Apartments for their roads to receive public maintenance. At this point, the City doesn’t
know what their plans are or when and if they will bring them into the road system. Most of
those roads were constructed in the 2004-2005 time period so the City is still waiting for those
roads to come in in those terms. He said to his knowledge, there has been no additional
infrastructure added to those roads since they were originally built over ten years ago.
Mr. Shipley expressed concern about Pine Hollow Drive being a connector road and a private
road and asked for some background on that situation and why that isn’t a publicly dedicated
street.
Mr. McDow said he didn’t know; there had been times that he had received requests for different
streets throughout the area to receive traffic calming requests for speed humps, chokers,
roundabouts or other types of traffic calming devices. He has received phone call requests from
this area, but nothing official asking for either the road to be accepted or for any type of traffic
calming to be installed. He would be happy to address it if it was in the City of Wilmington.
Planning and Inspections Director Chris O’Keefe stated in response to Mr. Shipley’s question,
staff has had numerous conversations with Mr. Hatcher regarding the road section on Pine
Hollow Drive, which was proposed to be a NCDOT road when the road was constructed;
however, the connections on both ends of the road have not yet been dedicated. Until those
connections on the ends of the road are dedicated, NCDOT will not allow dedication of the
middle portion of the road for street maintenance because NCDOT requires that a road be
connected to an existing NCDOT road before it can be accepted for maintenance. They had
hoped the Belle Meade development would move forward more quickly so that the City would
Page 19 of 42
take over that right-of-way for maintenance. At that point, NCDOT could take over maintenance
of the section of Pine Hollow Drive referred to by Mr. Hatcher. Again, until the connecting
roads are taken over by the City or NCDOT for road maintenance, the State can’t take over that
portion of Pine Hollow Drive in the Belle Meade subdivision. County staff has worked with that
community to try to come up with traffic calming measures because it is an issue they have
brought to the County numerous times. In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Mr. O’Keefe
explained that because the road remains private, the Sheriff would not have jurisdiction to
regulate the speed limit on it, with the exception of enforcement of reckless driving and driving
under the influence.
Vice Chair Prinz commented that Pine Hollow Drive had been a concern for at least seven years,
but unfortunately NCDOT is not willing to accept the roadway in the middle until the ends
connect to other NCDOT roads or City streets. There were some traffic calming devices installed
at one time of the street, but they were removed due to concerns identified by the Fire
Department. He empathized with the residents because they are in a difficult situation in that
until the road becomes a NCDOT street, an ordinance can’t be created to establish a speed limit
through the neighborhood, which could be enforced by the Sheriff’s Department.
Vice Chair Prinz asked Mr. McDow to clarify that there has been a letter submitted to the City of
Wilmington requesting public acceptance of Sykes Drive. Mr. McDow confirmed that the City
of Wilmington had received a letter requesting the public acceptance of Sykes Drive, and the
request also included the first segment of Pine Hollow. Hopefully, that will help the residents of
Belle Meade Plantation as well because it will take public road maintenance to their door, and
from there, provide something that NCDOT can connect to so they can accept that portion of
Pine Hollow Drive of concern to the residents.
Vice Chair Prinz commented that the current status of Sykes Drive is that public acceptance is
being considered and with that there is an inspection, after which there is a punch list of items
that need to be completed before the road can be accepted. Mr. McDow confirmed that was the
process and that part of the inspection has been done, but the applicant, Bill Clark Homes and
Mr. Fentress, is waiting on part of the occupancy for that segment of Pine Hollow Drive, for
those homes to be occupied and as those homes are occupied. Per Vice Chair Prinz’s inquiry,
Mr. McDow also confirmed that the City of Wilmington’s process works like the NCDOT
process where a certain percentage of the lots must be occupied before the public acceptance will
actually occur.
Chairman Girardot inquired who would be responsible for maintenance of the continuation of
Sykes Drive in the future that was hand drawn on the map earlier. Mr. McDow stated it would
depend on where the property is located. If the segment of Sykes Drive from St. Andrews to the
property of Aaronfield Cove is accepted for public maintenance, then it would either be
maintained by NCOT or they could petition the City of Wilmington to have the road annexed
similar to portions of Gordon Road where one side of Gordon Road is in the County and one side
is within the City.
Vice Chair Prinz inquired about the process of applying for this type of funding that puts the
County in a situation where they only have one month to make a decision.
Page 20 of 42
Mr. Stephen Brock stated it was regrettable that they were in the same situation as last year and
explained the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency allocates the tax credits on a steady
schedule every year. It is a two stage application. The second stage is due in early May, which is
May 13th this year. North Carolina does not finalize its rules, which are contained in the qualified
application plan signed by the governor until early September so applicants often don’t know
what parcels will be competitive and what they need to get under purchase contract until very
late in the process. The applicant can then apply and proceed with the first stage of the
application in January. In New Hanover County’s lengthy process, they could not have gone
earlier if they tried. He stated that Vice Chair Prinz timeline was accurate, in that the rules
regarding eligibility for funding and the application process come out in December; then the
application is submitted in January; once that application is submitted, then the developer can
begin the process of due diligence with regard to the County’s process, which includes a public
meeting. Brad Schuler added that all high density developments must also go through the
Technical Review Committee (TRC) review process. He explained that Mr. Brock submitted his
application to TRC in early February and the County has a few weeks to review the plans, which
are also sent to various agencies, including both county and state, for comments. The project
was reviewed and approved by the TRC at their March 9, 2016 meeting. The approval by the
TRC allowed the project to be placed on the April 14th Planning Board meeting agenda and to
then be considered for approval at the County Commissioners at their May 2nd meeting.
Chairman Girardot read the procedure and appeals statement.
Mr. Brock confirmed the applicants would like to move forward with an approval or denial of
the request.
David Weaver asked if all of Sykes Drive from the proposed development to St. Andrews Drive
had been dedicated for public right-of-way. Vice Chair Prinz stated the plat indicates that Sykes
Drive was platted as a public right-of-way. Mr. Weaver commented that if so, a tenant of the
development could use Sykes Drive as a means of egress during an emergency. Vice Chair Prinz
stated that is common practice with the county because when you have 100 plus units as in the
Pine Hollow development and all the other development in that area, there has to be a minimum
of two points of ingress and egress. Mr. Weaver said his point was that they could legally use
Sykes Drive as an access.
Vice Chair Prinz said it appeared that the applicant has some evidence that Sykes Drive has been
requested for public acceptance by Jimmy Fentress with Stroud Engineering. He asked if Mr.
Fentress was a representative of the property owner, SHP Belle Meade. Mr. Parker confirmed
that SHP Belle Meade is the fee simple owner of Sykes Road, as well as Atwater Court and
acknowledged that SHP Belle Meade and Bill Clark Homes had hired Mr. Fentress to handle the
process. He stated he had conflicting information, but noted that official acceptance letter usually
look a little different than the letter presented and there also didn’t seem to be anything
accompanying the letter, such as the 12-15 checklist items, so he didn’t know if the letter was
delivered. Vice Chair Prinz commented that it was a little odd that it would go to Mr. McDow
because he is with the Wilmington MPO. Mr. Parker stated he couldn’t confirm for sure, but he
thought there was an issue with some folks who had purchased homes from Bill Clark Homes
Page 21 of 42
not getting service, for example trash service, etc. he didn’t know if the letter was written in
response to those requests or if it was an official acceptance, along with the normal packet.
Ted Shipley pointed out a couple of positive things since the board last looked at the proposal a
couple of years ago. One of the primary concerns when the project was voted down befor e was
traffic on Carolina Beach Road, as well as the Sykes Drive situation. There are now deceleration
lanes and there is a hundred foot no parking stem which wasn’t included previously. That
appears to have reduced the number of units they have because they have reconfigured the site
plan. They certainly addressed the traffic on Carolina Beach Road. Much of the discussion has
been about the exit point from the property which ten percent of the people will use, but where
ninety percent of the people will go, they have done a tremendous job to address it. Secondly, he
understood about the construction trucks driving up on the property. He asked if a condition
could be placed on the approval, if there is a concern, requiring that the connection to Sykes
Drive not be open until the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the property, meaning
that construction trucks wouldn’t be travelling upon it until a CO has been issued. Mr. Baldwin
has already made the point they would use Carolina Beach Road anyway, but such a condition
would ensure it.
Mr. Schuler stated he thought it could be worked out and worded correctly to condition that the
connection to Sykes Drive not be made until after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued on
the buildings.
Mr. Brock confirmed the applicant agreed they would find that condition acceptable.
In response to Mr. Shipley’s inquiry, Deputy County Attorney Huffman stated she didn’t recall
ever seeing that type of condition; however, if attached to the special use permit and agreed to by
the applicant, she didn’t see a problem with the condition.
Jordy Rawl commented that counsel for Brock Ventures had said they would indemnify SHP
Belle Meade or Bill Clark Homes, whichever is the legal owner of Sykes Road, until it is passed
its one year warranty period by signing an affidavit or acknowledgement letter indemnifying any
construction issues caused by those trucks. He thought that may be an easier solution to
rectifying the issue because when it comes down to construction and traffic, regulation will be
the issue. Because the project is on the city-county line and there are some outstanding
ownership issues, not to mention you can’t regulate what a driver will do per se, that may be an
issue we highlight versus trying to regulate how they really traverse the area.
Brad Schuler stated if that is a condition the board wished to add, he would recommend
modifying the first condition recommended by staff, which was says prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, Sykes Drive shall be dedicated as a public right-of-way. In order for it
to be dedicated as a public right-of-way, it must be constructed so if the intent is to hold off
construction until after the CO, then obviously those conditions would contradict each other. He
suggested removing “…prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy” and instead state the
condition as “Sykes Drive shall be dedicated as a public right-of-way.”
Page 22 of 42
Mr. Weaver stated he thought it would be better to leave that condition and specifically state that
it shall be closed because if the condition #1 is removed, there is nothing that says Sykes Drive
can’t be dedicated as a public right-of-way and used for construction.
Mr. Schuler suggested that Sykes Drive be constructed, but a gate potentially be installed until
the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued in order to prevent any travel on it.
Mr. Shipley was amenable to whatever staff felt would impede any through traffic on Sykes
Drive until the certificate of occupancy is issued.
Vice Chair Prinz stated the true resolution to the issue is for the two parties to get together and
work it out. He felt they may be trying to micromanage the process He thought Mr. Shipley’s
condition would be a good resolution if the issue is preventing construction traffic from
impacting Sykes Drive. He felt the true issue here is about being good neighbors and having
those face to face conversations about the concerns each party has being neighbors in the
development process. He didn’t think the board could condition the approval to require the
parties to iron out the situation before the rezoning goes to the county commissioners. He would
like to do that, but didn’t feel it was something that goes with the land use decision. Mr. Weaver
agreed, but noted in the interest of the applicant getting their grant and moving forward with the
project, he didn’t think that was doable.
Vice Chair Prinz offered a strong recommendation that the applicant have the conversation with
the adjacent property owners regarding Sykes Drive and be able to report to the County
Commissioners that the issue has been worked through with the adjacent property owners and
everyone is comfortable with the resolution.
Mr. Baldwin stated he would be glad to represent that those discussions have started and would
continue.
David Weaver made a motion to recommend approval, as the Planning Board finds this
application for a zoning map amendment of 6.9 acres from (CUD) B-1, Conditional Business
District, and R-15, Residential District to (CUD), R-10 Conditional Use Residential District as
described is;
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because
the Urban classification provides for continued intensive development and
redevelopment of urban areas. The property has access from an arterial street and is in
close proximity to public water and sewer services.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it provides for increased densit y in
areas best suited for development and alternative modes of transportation by
installing a multi-use path in accordance with the Comprehensive Greenway Plan,
and because it provides interconnectivity to the surrounding properties.
Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of
Rezoning Request Z-958.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion on the companion Special Use Permit.
Page 23 of 42
Vice Chair Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval, as the Planning Board finds
that this request for a Special Use Permit complies with the four required Findings of Fact, and
that the following conditions be met:
1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Sykes Drive shall be dedicated as a
public right-of-way.
2. A ten foot (10’) wide multi-use path shall be installed along Carolina Beach Road in
accordance with the Wilmington-New Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan.
The multi-use path shall be constructed to the adjoining property lines and shall include
any necessary crosswalks, boardwalks, or bridges.
3. Sykes Drive shall not be open for public traffic onto the adjacent property prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the buildings.
Ernest Olds seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the
companion special use permit with three conditions.
Chairman Girardot announced a fifteen minute recess before hearing Item #3.
BRIEF RECESS
Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z-955, 4/16) – Request by Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf
of the property owners, Mildred Wolff Futch et al, to rezone 1.95 acres located at 2715 N.
23rd Street from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) B-1, Conditional Business District, in
order to develop 5000 SF commercial building. The property is classified as Transition
according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea 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.
This is a request to rezone 1.95 acres from R-15 to (CZD) B-1, conditional business district
to develop a 5,000 SF multi-tenant building at 2715 N. 23rd Street, between Blue Clay
Road and Castle Hayne Road. The property has been zoned R-15 since zoning was applied
to this area in 1971, in addition to the existing B-1 to the north of the property. Other
zoning in the area includes B-2, Airport Industrial across 23rd Street, and some I-2 south of
Gordon Road. Land uses in the area consist of a mixture of office, warehouse, retail,
restaurant, industrial, and single family residential. The property subject to the rezoning
request is currently undeveloped. Single family residential uses are located south of the
site.
The proposal consists of a 5000 SF building and associated parking to be developed on the
eastern portion of the tract, closer to the road. Based on a preliminary wetlands delineation,
wetlands encumber the remainder of the tract, therefore, it would remain undeveloped,
with the exception of some wetland areas that are proposed to be filled. Access would be
Page 24 of 42
from a new driveway to N. 23rd Street, which will require a driveway permit from the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
A full review for compliance with zoning, building code, and other applicable regulations
would be required prior to development. However, the site plan does comply with zoning
standards, including parking requirements, building setbacks, and the bufferyard to the
south of the drive aisle.
Water and sewer would be provided by the CFPUA.
Uses proposed for the site are limited to a handful, including:
o Special Trade Contractor & General Contractors (with no outside storage)
o General Merchandise
o Barber/Beauty Shop
o Business Services including Printing
o Indoor Recreational Establishments
o Personal Services
o Clock, Watch, & Jewelry Repair
o Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities
The road network in the vicinity of the site appears to be functioning well based on a
recent TIA that was performed for the nearby Hanover Lakes subdivision. That TIA
showed that the intersection of Castle Hayne Road and N. 23rd Street will operate at a level
of service of A in the AM peak and B in the PM peak when the subdivision is expected to
be complete in 2018. Traffic generation from the proposal is minimal, based in part to the
size of the structure as well as the limited uses proposed. With either a single occupancy or
combination of the proposed uses, the trip generation is nowhere near the 100 peak hour
trip threshold to require a TIA for this project.
The site and surrounding area is classified as Transition by the 2006 CAMA Land Use
Plan. The purpose of the Transition classification is to provide for future intensive urban
development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services.
Staff concluded that the proposal is consistent with the Transition land use classification
and is not in conflict with any other policy from the plan, and recommended approval of
the request.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf stated she represented the property owners, the Mildred Wolff Futch heirs and her
client who is interested in developing the property. She explained that a large part of the property
is actually wetlands so there is just a small area on 23rd Street that is viable for some type of
development. There is a good amount of business development in the area as shown on the
zoning map, including B-1, B-2, and the types of uses with large parking lots and large buildings.
She presented the site plan, which would have up to a 5,000 square foot, multi-tenant building.
She explained that her client is in the water and fire restoration business and that is why one of
the requested uses is the Special Trade and General Contractors Without Outside Storage. She
noted the property is a small site and will have a one-story building because there are residences
located south of the parcel. She reported that those residents attended the community meeting,
Page 25 of 42
along with many other residents so the meeting was well attended and there was very lively
conversation. She reported that to the best of her knowledge, no one has an issue with the
proposal. They received a lot of history from the residents that live in the houses to the south
regarding the type of development that has occurred around the area. Those residents didn’t seem
surprised by the request for some type of commercial use for the property. Ms. Wolf commented
that the 5,000 square foot multi-tenant building is very small in the scheme of things. She noted
her business is located in a 5,000 square foot building, which is occupied by a total of three
professional businesses. Her client would occupy a good portion of the building and would like
the opportunity to lease space to other folks so a small variety of uses is being requested. Ms.
Wolf offered to answer any questions the board may have and stated the applicant agreed with
staff that the proposal complies with the future land use plan, the Transition land classification,
and is in harmony with the area and the other business uses.
Ernest Olds commented that on the site plan the topo travels from plus 20 to under 10, which is a
pretty fair slope for this area and inquired how Ms. Wolf would manage that fall. Ms. Wolf
explained there would be a retaining wall with an abrupt fall behind the building.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the rezoning request.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing.
Chairman Girardot read the procedure and appeals statement.
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a vote by the Planning Board.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the board.
Tamara Murphy made a motion to recommend approval as the Planning Board finds this
application for a zoning map amendment of 1.95 acres from R-15, Residential District to (CZD)
B-1, Conditional Business District as described is;
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the
Transition classification provides for intense urban development in areas with urban
services and because the plan encourages commercial development to occur on major
thoroughfares in the county.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it maximized the effectiveness of
commercial uses by locating them within close proximity to the markets they serve and
by ensuring such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life of the existing
residential communities.
At Chairman Girardot’s request, Ms. Murphy added the following condition:
1. Existing vegetation must remain within the buffer yards on the southern perimeter of the
site and be supplemented as necessary to provide the 100 percent visual opacity
requirement.
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant would accept the buffer condition as proposed.
Page 26 of 42
Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of
Rezoning Request Z-955 with one condition.
Item 4: Rezoning Request (Z-956, 4/16) – Request by Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf
of the property owners, Clarence K. & Peggy W. Henry, and Michael F. & Aleta J. Moser,
to rezone 2.77 acres located at the 5000 block of Carolina Beach Road from R-15,
Residential District, to (CZD) O&I, Conditional Office and Institutional District, in order
to develop office buildings. 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, video, and photographs of the
property and the surrounding area.
This is an application to establish a conditional zoning district. The subject property
consists of four parcels totaling 2.77 acres of land and is located just north of Monkey
Junction at the 5000 block of Carolina Beach Road. The property is currently zoned R-15
and is being proposed to be rezoned to a conditional Office and Institutional district in
order to develop two single-tenant office buildings. The property is in an area that
transitions into the City of Wilmington. Zoning in the vicinity consists of a mixture of
commercial and residential districts. The commercial districts are located along Carolina
Beach Road, and create a large commercial node around Monkey Junction. The
commercial uses include a mixture of office, retail, and restaurant uses. Residential zoning
is located north and east of the property, and includes single-family and multi-family
developments. The Lakes at Johnson Farms, a high density development, is located to the
north. Willoughby Park, a multi-family development, is located adjoining the property to
the east. Four single-family dwellings currently located on the property will be removed as
the property is developed with the proposed office use.
The conceptual site plan submitted with the application reflects the applicant’s proposal to
develop two single-tenant office buildings totaling 10,000 square feet. Access will be
provided from a 50’ private access easement which connects to Carolina Beach Road. The
access easement will also provide access to the rear of the property, which is proposed to
be developed as an 80 unit apartment complex. That proposed apartment complex is the
next item on the agenda.
In regard to traffic, the proposed development will generate 18 trips in the AM peak, and
17 trips in the PM peak. In addition, the proposed apartment complex will generate 43
trips in the AM peak, and 62 trips in the PM peak. Because the combined trips from both
projects do not exceed 100 in the peak hours, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not
required. However, staff has recommended a condition be added to the district clarifying
that a TIA will be required if any combination of land uses that access from that 50’
private access easement exceeds 100 peak hour trips. In 2015, the Wilmington
Metropolitan Planning Organization conducted a traffic count at the 5000 block of
Carolina Beach Road, and found that it currently experiences about 29,000 trips per day.
Page 27 of 42
Based on the classification of the road, and using the volume to capacity ratio, this equates
to a level of service of F. NCDOT is currently working on plans for a pedestrian safety
project in the Monkey Junction area. Those plans include the installation of a sidewalk
along Carolina Beach Road from the Burger King at Monkey Junction to the Willoughby
Park development. Therefore, staff also recommended a condition be added to the district
that would require the proposed sidewalk be extended in front of the subject
property. That would provide access to the proposed office buildings for the residents in
the area, as well as provide access for the residents of the proposed apartment complex
located directly behind the proposed office buildings to Monkey Junction.
Staff has reviewed the application for compliance with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
The plan classifies the property as Urban. The purpose of the Urban classification is to
provide for continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban
areas. Staff recommended approval of the application as staff believes it complies with the
Land Use Plan, including Policy 4.3 of the plan which encourages that land is available for
commercial uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring such
commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas. Staff
recommended the following conditions be added to the district:
1. A sidewalk be installed along Carolina Beach Road; and
2. A TIA will be required if any combination of uses that access from the private
access easement exceed 100 peak hour trips.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf stated she represented the property owners, the Moser and Henry families. Ms.
Wolf explained this property is part of a larger situation. The applicants own several sites and
want to recombine them so they can be developed to the highest and best uses. They are
recommending the Office and Institutional zoning because it is along Carolina Beach Road,
where there are a lot of business uses, as well as a pocket of Office and Institutional do wn the
road. The property includes five lots with three frontages. In regard to traffic along Carolina
Beach Road, the proposal will take away conflict points. They are trying to remedy those by
taking a comprehensive look at how this land would be developed. She explained that
development is proposed to be done in two different projects, but she felt they have done a good
job working out the situation to the best avail of traffic on Carolina Beach Road. She explained
that Woodridge Point Lane will be the access road that will go to the back of the property that
will be proposed in the next zoning case they board will consider and will actually be part of the
lands of the rear lot; however, it would be a joint effort and it made more sense to just rezone the
property all the way across the frontage rather than have a strip of R-10 coming out. She
explained the access road would be built before or at the same time the proposed commercial
development would occur. The adjacent property is a strip of land that is located between what
is being proposed and the B-2. The applicants have worked with those particular landowners, the
Roberts, and have reached agreement on the eight-foot fence that is across the top of this
proposal so that they are provided with a buffer yard. She explained she has offset the actual
pavement of the access road within the 50 foot access easement so that there is room not only for
the fence, but for the landscape buffering that would be required between a business use and the
existing residential use. Ms. Wolf offered to answer questions and stated they feel this Office and
Page 28 of 42
Institutional use is a low impact for this particular area, but also avails itself to both projects very
well.
Chairman Girardot inquired about the deceleration lane coming off Carolina Beach Road and
Woodridge Point Lane. Ms. Wolf confirmed they expect that a deceleration lane will be required
for the 80 unit proposal at the rear of the property and this particular project. The applicants have
agreed with staff’s recommended condition that any change in the uses would require a TIA.
They are trying to avoid the traffic impact. She noted there aren’t many other uses in the O&I
District, but if these uses were to change or get larger, they would have to come back for a
modification. She explained Woodridge Point Lane would be the entrance for the O&I project on
Carolina Beach Road, as well as the entrance for the project on the rear parcels. At this point,
Woodridge Point Lane is just an access drive for the purposes of this project and would only
extend just past the driveway so there would be a turnaround if the other project did not occur.
Then, whatever development happens at the back of the property has the ability to use this access
drive so it will be a shared situation. She commented it doesn’t actually dead end because there is
another project that the board will see that will need connectivity. Ms. Wolf noted Woodridge
Point Lane is not a road, but is a driveway that will access the property if it were to be developed
as proposed.
David Weaver asked why the Roberts didn’t want to be included in the rezoning, noting it
seemed tough to leave a strip there. Ms. Wolf stated they would have welcomed them into the
effort, but they have no plans for their property and are happy living there.
Mr. Rawls commented it would be more of a merit for the technical review committee, but he
felt in all likeliness there would be some requirement to tie into Appeals Drive so there would be
some loop effort there; however, he wouldn’t suggest that be a condition on the motion.
.
Ernest Olds asked Ms. Wolf to elaborate on why she designed the site with one large building in
the front and a small building in the back. Ms. Wolf explained that Mr. Henry and Mr. Moser
have gone together on the project, but Mr. Moser lives in the front area of the property.
Regardless of whether it is zoned O&I, if the other project were to develop first less a lot of
baggage in our ordinance in regard to setbacks and buffer yards from a residential district and/or
a residential use, the logistics of the deal are such that Mr. Moser wishes to stay in his home as
long as he possibly can. That is why we are proposing to divide this into two parcels because he
would be on the front parcel and the other parcel would become a vacant O&I zoned parcel until
such time as somebody were to develop it.
Ms. Wolf said the chances are when Mr. Moser sells the property he will sell the entire property
and move away and the new owner may or may not parcel this out into t wo buildings. They may
come back to the board with a modification for a single building or any number of other options.
She confirmed they could extend the parking in front of the smaller piece to the south and build
another building there where that house is located. She noted that residential zoning is located
along there and there is setback and a buffer yard to the south also. She also confirmed they have
far more square footage, but then they would have a traffic situation with trip generation.
.
Page 29 of 42
Mr. Olds was concerned about the larger building’s close proximity to the street given the
setback of other buildings along Carolina Beach Road, Ms. Wolf explained that in the City and
in conversations with the County, the idea of addressing the street with buildings and keeping the
parking hidden in the rear has become very popular and that is why she designed it that way. She
There will be a sidewalk along the front of the property as Mr. Schuler pointed out earlier there
is a NCDOT pedestrian safet y project going on in that area so it will make it better to have the
buildings up a little closer rather than having large parking areas. She noted it won’t slow traffic
down on Carolina Beach Road, but it will certainly add to the aesthetic.
Vice Chair Prinz asked Ms. Wolf to explain the logistics of the project and why one building is
larger than the other. Ms. Wolf replied that Mr. Moser wanted to remain in his home until the
property was sold so she came up with a solution that would allow him to stay in his home if the
rear parcel is approved and developed without these extensive setbacks and buffer yards. In
doing so, it works to create two Office and Institutional zoned lots and perhaps a CPA firm
would occupy the first one and someone else would occupy the rear one. She commented that
what happened is that this home is on Lot 1 and there will be upon approval of the rezoning an
intervening Lot 2, which is zoned O&I, but will be vacant until such time as it is developed. Ms.
Wolf confirmed Vice Chair Prinz was correct in that the purpose of Lot 2 is to buffer this
residential area from this home so there aren’t extensive setbacks for this development in the
short period of time and Mr. Moser has the ability to create it in this method for his own benefit.
George Guzman, a resident of Willoughby Park expressed concern that the site plan was
considerably different than the site plan presented at the community meeting. He explained there
was only one building on the site plan at that time, although he wasn’t sure that it would make
any difference, he was just shocked to learn that there were two buildings on the site on the
revised site plan. He also didn’t know who had the authority to extend the sidewalk or greenway
beyond that property to the next traffic light instead of stopping it at the property line and if that
would be considered now or take place later. He reiterated his concern about having two
buildings versus one building. Cindee Wolf explained that changing the site plan to reflect two
buildings instead of one came up during the review process when they learned that Mr. Moser
wanted to stay in his home until he sold the property for commercial purposes. The building on
the original site plan was larger at 10,000 or 15,000 square feet and was in the same location on
the lot as Building #1 on the revised site plan. She explained that she thought the location of the
second building and the fact that the combined gross floor area of the two buildings is no more
than the square footage of the original single building, Also, no additional parking spaces are
required would be a reasonable option.
Michael Moser, owner of the subject property along with Mr. Henry, clarified that it was their
intention to sell the property up front as quickly as possible. The original design was perfect with
one building and he thought it would be really nice as a doctor’s office, etc. for the community.
He explained the arrangement is so that he can live in his house until the property in the front is
sold and the property is currently in the real estate agent’s hands.
Vice Chair Prinz asked staff if would be considered a major modification requiring review if the
property were to sell all at one time and Mr. Moser wasn’t going to live on the property and the
owner decided they wanted to go forward with one building at that amount of square footage
Page 30 of 42
versus two separate buildings. Mr. Andrea responded that the zoning ordinance has some criteria
on how staff determines if something is a major or minor modification. A major modification
must go back through the approval process with the Planning Board and the County
Commissioners. Staff works within the confines of what the ordinance requires to minimize the
need to go through a long process if possible. He felt staff would look at that scenario as a minor
change as long as it doesn’t increase the square footage of the parking or buildings. Ms. Wolf
stated that was her feeling when she came up with this solution.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing.
Chairman Girardot read the procedure and appeals statement.
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a vote by the Planning Board.
Vice Chair Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-956 to
the Board of Commissioners for approval as the Planning Board finds that this application for a
zoning map amendment of 2.77 acres from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2 Conditional
Office and Institutional District, as described is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the
Urban classification provides continued intensive development and redevelopment of
urban areas and because the plan encourages commercial development to occur on major
thoroughfares and at major intersections in the county.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of
commercial uses by locating them within close proximity to the market they serve and by
ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life of the existing
residential communities.
With the following conditions:
1. A sidewalk shall be installed along Carolina Beach Road. The sidewalk shall connect to
and be constructed consistent with NCDOT’s Pedestrian Safety Improvements proposed
for the Monkey Junction-Carolina Beach Road area.
2. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be required of any combination of land uses which access
from the 50-foot private access easement, including off-site uses exceeds 100 peak hour
trips.
Ernest Olds seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of
Rezoning Request Z-956.
Item 5: Rezoning Request (Z-957, 4/16) – Request by Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf
of the property owners, Clarence K. & Peggy W. Henry, and Michael F. & Aletta J. Moser,
to rezone 5.8 acres located at the 5000 block of Carolina Beach Road from R -15,
Residential District, to (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, in order to
develop a high density development. The property is classified as Urban according to the
2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Page 31 of 42
Current Planner 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.
This is an application to establish a conditional use zoning district. A conditional use
district is a zoning district which requires that every use within the district obtain a Special
Use Permit (SUP). The rezoning request must be acted on first, and if it approved, the
Board can then act on the Special Use Permit. If the rezoning is denied, no action is needed
for the Special Use Permit, as the rezoning is necessary to create the eligibility for the
permit. If the rezoning is approved, but the SUP is denied, then the application will be
processed with a recommendation of denial from the Planning Board. The rezoning request
to a Conditional Use District is considered a straight or general rezoning; therefore, no
conditions can be added to the zoning district. Should the board wish to recommend
conditions be placed on the development, those conditions must be added to the Special
Use Permit.
The property proposed to be rezoned consists of land within four parcels totaling 5.8 acres .
The proposal is to rezone the property to a conditional use R-10 district in order to develop
a high density development consisting of 80 dwelling units. The subject property is
currently wooded and undeveloped, and is located directly behind the rezoning proposal
for the development of two office buildings considered by the board in a separate
application earlier in the meeting. The area consists of a mixture of residential and
commercial zoning districts. The commercial districts are located alon g Carolina Beach
Road and create a large commercial node around Monkey Junction. Residential zoning is
located north and east of the property and includes single-family and multi-family
housing. The Lakes at Johnson Farms, a high density development, is located directly
north. Willoughby Park, a multi-family development, is located adjoining the property to
the east. Other multi-family developments in the area include Myrtle Grove Village
Apartments, Pleasant Grove Village Apartments, Madeline Place Townhomes, and the Still
Meadow Village Apartments.
Per the proposed site plan, the development will consist of four (4) buildings containing 80
dwelling units, along with a separate clubhouse building for the residents. The 80 dwelling
units equates to a density of 13.7 units per acre, which is below the 17 units per acre
maximum density allowed for high density developments in the R-10 district. The property
will be accessed from the 50’ private access easement that connects to Carolina Beach
Road. There will also be emergency access that connects into Appeals Road, which is in
the city limits. That access will be gated so no through traffic can go through, with the
exception of emergency vehicles. The development will also install a sidewalk along the
access easement which will eventually connect into the sidewalk that the proposed office
development will install. This sidewalk will then continue all the way to Monkey Junction.
The applicant has identified a small area of wetlands on the property which will have to be
further delineated by the Army Corps of Engineers prior to construction of the project;
however, the proposed development will be well outside of that area. In addition, the
zoning ordinance requires the development to install a buffer along the perimeter of the
property to screen it from the adjacent residential developments.
Page 32 of 42
In regard to traffic, the proposed development will not generate more than 100 peak hour
trips; therefore, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required to be
completed. However, staff recommends a condition be added to the development that
clarifies that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required if any combination of land
uses that access from the 50’ private access easement exceed 100 peak hour trips.
Staff has reviewed the rezoning application for compliance with the 2006 CAMA Land
Use Plan, which classifies the property as Urban. The purpose of the Urban classification
is to provide for continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban
areas. Staff supported the application and recommended the following condition be added
to the special use permit:
1) A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required if any combination of land uses
that access from the 50’ private access easement exceed 100 peak hour trips.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf stated she represented the applicants, the Moser and Henry families. She
stated there are other multi-family projects in the immediate area as pointed out by Mr.
Schuler, including the adjacent Willoughby Park community and Johnson Farms to the
north, which is also a high density R-15 project although that portion of it is a single-
family, as well as Still Meadow Village, and other multi-family projects.
Ms. Wolf explained that the site plan shows this is a multi-family project, and like the one
presented earlier, this is in fact an affordable housing project. Connelly Development is a very
well-known developer of these types of projects and very similar to the presentation earlier, this
isn’t the type of developer that gets in, developer a project, and then sells it off to some other
management company or entity. Connelly Development holds on to these projects because they
are long-term investments and do avail themselves to a more work force affordable value. The
private drive will actually be part of this property, but as discussed earlier, it will be zoned O&I,
which will be neither here nor there as far as the access. The access will be maintained by this
owner and then there would be cross-accessibility to the O&I use. In regard to the
interconnectivity, there is the stub Appeals Road from the Willoughby Park development and it
is maintained by the City of Wilmington. She explained they knew from the begi nning that the
residents of Willoughby Park were going to be somewhat resistant to the connection; howev er,
they believe they have met the criteria of public health, safety and welfare by creating not only
this private drive that accesses Carolina Beach Road, which is one of the conditions of a high
density development to have major access to an arterial road. The plan to install a stab ilized
surface for emergency access instead of a connection to Appeals Road was voted on positively
by the Fire Services representative and all other TRC members at the Technical Review
Committee meeting. She stated if they was a different situation where traffic could go either
north or south on Carolina Beach Road, it might have been different, but everybody that comes
out to Carolina Beach Road must go north so there is no reason for anyone in this development
to go thorough Willoughby Park Court just to be in the same direction of traffic. To keep the
neighbors happy and satisfy the safety requirements, this was a reasonable solution and it was
reasonably accepted by Fire Services and the entire Technical Review Committee. Ms. Wolf said
the buildings are fairly standard three-story walk-ups. They have a lot of nice architectural
Page 33 of 42
fenestration and features and it is an attractive design. They have done other very similar projects
and have worked with this architect before. The clubhouse will have a similar character as far as
the materials and style, but it will only be a one-story structure as it backs up to the single-family
residential zoning on the north end of the subject property. She explained they worked out with
those neighbors the requirement for the eight foot fence the entire length of the driveway and
then there will be the twenty foot buffer requirement for 100% opacity of visibility on all three of
the other sides. The site plan that staff presented, one of the things that did come up during the
conversation with the Willoughby Park residents was storm drainage, as it often does, and also
the people that are behind in Johnson Farms. There is a fifty foot drainage easement, but it is
actually common area owned in fee simple by the Johnson Farms homeowner association. There
is piping in it and it goes to ponds but it really is set aside pretty much for Johnson Farms. That
being said, the logical place for this pond was at the back of the property so there was a concern
of where our outfall is going to go after the pond has the formal pond and the requirement for
stow away so we’ve done the upfront work and designed the pond so we now the pond is sized
for the purpose of our development. Of course, the O&I that she showed had under the
circumstances its own pond so that wasn’t a problem. She explained they surveyed from the rear
of the property to the existing culvert under Carolina Beach Road. She said they have more than
adequate fall to take a pipe from the spillway of the pond all the way to that point so it will
remedy the fact that currently there is an unmaintained ditch on the Willoughby Park side. It will
have a much nicer appear rather than having a ditch between the two. She stated that Mr. Allen
with Paramount Engineers was present to answer specific questions in that regard. Ms. Wolf
explained that was one of the most discussed items at the neighborhood meeting and is
something they have done the legwork on to assure there is an engineering solution. Ms. Wolf
said the buffer yard provision was also a topic at the meeting. She noted t he people along that
stretch of Willoughby Court requested a privacy fence and the development, Connelly
Development, agreed to construct a privacy fence along that boundary in conjunction with the
landscaping in the twenty foot buffer. Ms. Wolf offered to answer questions and no ted Al Rosen,
who is a partner in Connelly Development, was there and could give a brief introduction of
Connelly Development and their process, but all in all, this is a multi -family project in the right
place in the county and it will hopefully have the advantage of being affordable workforce
housing for the local workforce.
Vice Chair Prinz commented the center line radius of that roadway is a little concerning and
asked Ms. Wolf to explain what it is. Ms. Wolf explained there would be Type A curb and gutter
in the entire parking area with 1-1/2 foot gutter with the stand-up curbing. The width is a
standard parking lane aisle of 24 feet from face to face and the curb is either 50 or 75. There is a
long straight of way. She felt the curb coming into it is certainly adequate for the Fire Services
and Emergency Services vehicles, the trash truck, etc., but they didn’t want a very sweeping
curve that would allow people to just come right into the parking lot at a high speed. Mr. Prinz
commented that fifty feet should be adequate as there might be some overlapping movements
there, but it wouldn’t be considered a high traffic area.
Jordy Rawl asked if the applicant would be amenable to trying to create a joint signage area like
a detached monument where there would be a twenty five foot high sign at night. Ms. Wolf
stated she could certainly address that the Board of Commissioners meeting. She felt an ultimate
part of the deal with be a signage agreement. She guessed the signage for the office buildings
Page 34 of 42
would be more centrally located to the building, but she was still aware that anyone making the
turn in the turning lane would be approaching the entrance for both of those uses so a condition
certainly requiring a monument sign for the apartment complex approval would be acceptable.
In response to David Weaver’s inquiry, Ms. Wolf explained the emergency connection would
not be gravel, but would have a stabilized surface. Most often Fire Services requires those paver
stones that have grass growing between them. It would be a minimum stabilization of twenty feet
wide, but they had discussed with the Willoughby Park residents that there would be a gate with
an Ox-Box or siren activated gate there. The area would be striped so there would be no
allowable parking there to prevent it from being blocked and that would be handled by knock-
down bollards.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the rezoning.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing.
Chairman Girardot read the procedure and appeals statement.
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicants would like to proceed with a vote by the Planning Board
on the rezoning and special use permit.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the board on the rezoning.
Tamara Murphy made a motion to recommend approval as the Planning Board finds this
application for a zoning map amendment of 5.8 acres from R-15, Residential District to (CUD)
R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, as described is:
1) Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the
Urban classification provides continued intensive development and redevelopment of
Urban areas. The property is accessed from an arterial street and is in close proximity of
public water and sewer services.
2) In the public interest because it includes areas best suited for development.
Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of
Rezoning Request Z-958.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion on the companion special use permit.
Ernest Olds made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit as the Planning
Board finds the request for a special use permit complies with the four required Findings of Fact
and that the following condition be met:
1. A traffic impact analysis shall be required of any combination of land uses which comes
from the 50 foot private access easement, including off-site uses exceed 100 peak hour
trips.
Page 35 of 42
Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the
companion Special Use Permit with one condition.
Vice Chair Prinz mentioned in regard to the two affordable workforce housing items on Carolina
Beach Road, that staff might touch base with WAVE Transit and coordinate with them to see if
there is any need in that area for bus stops/shelters, etc. and coordinate with them. He noted
WAVE is rolling out a whole package of new bus shelters. He commented he was not suggesting
they revisit the recommended approval.
Item 7: Special Use Permit Request (S-629, 4/16) – Request by Design Solutions, applicant,
on behalf of the property owners, FSS Properties, LLC, for a special use permit for an
asphalt mixing facility (Intensive Manufacturing) on a 10.01 acre parcel located at 5600
Holly Shelter Road. The property is classified as Aquifer Resource Protection Area and
Wetland Resource Protection Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea 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.
This is a request for a special use permit for an intensive manufacturing use in the I-2
Heavy Industrial zoning district. The property consists of 10.01 acres and is located at
5600 Holly Shelter Road in the northern part of the county. The site and surrounding area
is zoned I-2, and the zoning in this area has remained relatively unchanged since zoning
was applied to the area in 1972. The purpose of the of the I-2 zoning district is to set aside
areas of the county for a variety of manufacturing and other heavy industrial uses for sites
served by key transportation infrastructure including rail, waterway, and highway
networks. As with the county’s other zoning districts, certain uses are permitted in the I-2
zoning district by special use permit through high standards of planning and design, as well
as the potential for conditions in order to minimize any negative effects that a particular
use may have on the surrounding area. The nearest residential zoning district consists of
nearly 60 homes and is visible to the southwest of the site along Blue Clay Road. Other
nearby residential uses include 4-5 homes off Lula Nixon Road to the north of the site.
Vacant and undeveloped land is predominant in the greater vicinity of the site, along with
some industrial uses along Holly Shelter Road in the vicinity of the site. The subject
property is currently not utilized, but has been used for equipment storage and offices for
various contractors and businesses in the past. The site is cleared of trees and vegetation,
and development on the site is currently limited to a small office building that would be
used as part of the current proposal. Immediately adjacent to the north of the subject site is
a heavy truck servicing facility. To the east is a Duke Energy Progress complex including
offices, fleet services, and equipment storage yards. Northeast of the site on Holly Shelter
Road is a cement mixing facility that appears to be vacated. Adjacent to the south of the
site is a shooting range surrounded by a large vacant and undeveloped parcel. Across Holly
Shelter Road from the subject site is Diamond Shamrock Road, which leads to Elementis
Chromium, as well as Adams Products, a brick and masonry products supplier, on Holly
Shelter Road. Approximately one-half mile to the west of the site is a cement mixing
Page 36 of 42
facility at the intersection of Blue Clay Road and Holly Shelter Road. The specific use
proposed for the subject property is an asphalt mixing facility (NAICS 324121) classified
as Intensive Manufacturing by the definition in the Zoning Ordinance, which specifically
mentions petroleum products. The operation is described in the narrative accompanying the
application, and can be summarized as a facility that mixes existing materials, aggregate,
sand, and a binder under heated conditions to produce the final mixed asphalt product
which is then loaded onto trucks and shipped to a final destination for use. Information in
the application materials also speaks to potential impacts such as noise, dust, odor,
stormwater runoff, and air emissions. Noise is described as minimal and limited to the site
due to the central location of the machinery, and dust resulting from the operation will be
controlled through filtration. The existing pond on site is proposed to be improved for use
as stormwater runoff mitigation. The impacts to air quality would be minimized through a
state-issued permit for air emissions that would impose conditions on hourly and annual
production. The use of natural gas for the heat source, bag filters for particulate control,
and recycled asphalt all contribute to the anticipated low impacts to air quality.
In regard to traffic, Holly Shelter Road is classified as a Minor Arterial by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and is functioning at a high level of
service based on its design capacity and existing volume. Traffic counts were conducted in
the 5600 block of Holly Shelter Road in September 2015, showing an average daily trip
count of 5,943 trips with a capacity of 29,300 and yielding a volume-to-capacity ratio of
0.26 and a Level of Service of “A”. Trip generation from the proposed use will be
primarily heavy trucks bringing materials to the site and leaving the site with the mixed
asphalt enroute to the final destination. The narrative accompanying the application
indicates that during the 6AM to 6PM hours of operation, the truck traffic per day will be
20-50 trucks. Additionally, peak traffic would be in the morning with potentially six (6)
trucks per hour leaving the site with the mixed asphalt. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is
not required for the development due to the low trip generation realized from the proposal.
The new use would require a driveway permit from NCDOT. A cursory review by
Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) staff encouraged a 24’ wide
travelway to accommodate two-way travel for the large trucks entering and exiting the site
and the petitioner has noted a 24’ wide travelway will be incorporated into the design.
The site is split between two subclasses of the Resource Protection land use class in the
2006 CAMA Land Use Plan: Aquifer Resource Protection Area and Wet land Resource
Protection Area. Management strategies for the Aquifer Resource Protection subclass are
designed to protect from diminished recharge of the aquifer and contamination of the
aquifer by inappropriate land uses. The most applicable strategy is to prevent uses that
pose risk of spill of hazardous materials. Based on the information provided thus far, staff
has concluded that the proposal would pose a very small risk of such contamination, and
therefore, is consistent with the Aquifer Resource Protection subclass. The Wetland
Resource Protection subclass is primarily in the northeastern part of the county and put
into place to protect from loss of wetland areas to development and encouraging
preservation of wetlands and wetland functions. No wetlands have been identified on site,
and the proposal should have no impact to wetlands off site. Therefore, staff has concluded
that based on the information received so far the use is consistent with the Wetland
Resource Protection subclass as well. Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposed use
Page 37 of 42
and the information provided as part of the application package, in addition to
supplemental information provided by the applicant, and has created preliminary findings
of fact to support each of the four conclusions required to be reached to approve the special
use permit request. The preliminary findings of fact and suggested conclusions are based
solely on the information provided to date, prior to any information or testimony in support
or opposition to the request that may be presented tonight.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf stated she represented the applicant, Southern Asphalt, which would like to locate
their facility on the site. The types of industrial uses in the area include Carolina Power and Light
and the law enforcement shooting range, which can be very noisy. It is the perfect location for
them because it is in the Industrial zoning classification and the property is next door to the
Martin area quarry, which provides one of the materials that is part of the asphalt mixing process.
That is a tremendous advantage. There are a few residences in this area on Lula Nixon Road, but
everything is well beyond the 2,000 foot radius from the site. Southern Asphalt has been in
business over ten years and focuses on asphalt paving for general contractors and local and
federal government agencies like NCDOT, the City of Wilmington, and other jurisdictions. The
site plan includes a very compact plant that is oriented very centralized to the site. They have
created a perimeter of fifty feet around the storage area. The entire area the plant sits on will be
paved and the 24 foot travel way will be ribbon pavement from the intersection to Holly Shelter
Road. They are aware that the NCDOT permitting process will requi re improvements to that
driveway including adding a turning radius sufficient for the trucks that will be coming in and
out. They felt it was a true advantage to have Holly Shelter Road there which extends over to I-
40. She explained this is a mixing facility so they will not be producing something like some of
the controversial past uses in this area. There is another mixing facility that mixes concrete just
down the road at S&W Ready Mix and it is located beside residential uses at the Blue Clay Road
intersection. Hours of operation are typically twelve hours during the day; however, a run of the
capacity of this type of facility only takes 2 hours to 3-1/2 hours so at the low runs, this operation
will be going on maybe 3-4 hours per day. If they have a lot of construction activity in the
middle of the summer, it could go on for 4-6 hours per day so the plant would not be operating
12 hours per day. The asphalt ix mixed up and put in silos and as trucks come in, the asphalt is
loaded onto the trucks so the plant doesn’t have to run the entire time. Truck traffic is anticipated
to be during the day at an average of six trucks per hour. Sometimes it may be busier, sometime
it may be slower. Another advantage of this site is that natural gas is available there as the
heating source and is a cleaner fuel. Ms. Wolf noted there is a wide range of permit beyond the
special use permit that will be required for the initial construction and ongoing operations for this
facility. These permits will ensure the project will not endanger public health, safety or welfare.
There are other uses of this intensity and character in the vicinity. Ms. Wolf offered to answer
questions from the board and noted they had a commercial real expert present to answer
questions regarding the impact on real estate values and they also have an environmental
consultant present to address those questions.
Ernest Olds asked how the elements get to the site and in what form and how they are stored on
the site. He also inquired what happens during the process in terms of effect on water, drainage,
and the air. Ms. Wolf explained the materials are aggregate and a binder (a petroleum goo), and
Page 38 of 42
those materials are heated and mixed in a drum to produce bituminous asphalt, which is what is
used to pave parking lots. The materials will be stored in the gravel material storage area and are
brought in by truck. They are taken and loaded in the operations area, the binder is heated up,
and they are mixed together. Then, it is put in silos that are also part of that machinery that is
centralized on the site. The mixed material is then loaded directly into the trucks. There is a
limitation on how long the material stays hot so there is a travel pattern and it depends partly on
the time of year and the temperature conditions. Dust is controlled by these filters in the plant.
The runoff from the materials stored in the storage area is no different from a parking lot or street
because it is the same material. The stormwater pond is for the paved area and the gravel area.
There will still be mitigation of all the stormwater runoff by the pond. The binder is not a solid
when it comes to the site, but it isn’t a liquid either. The binder is not kept onsite except in the
transport of the trucks.
David Weaver asked if the petroleum goo binder would just stay there on the ground if he
emptied a bucket of it. Ms. Wolf stated that the binder would not go anywhere quickly so if there
was a spill, it could be scooped up with a backhoe, etc. and moved to either the heating facility or
would be disposed of offsite. She explained that the binder is stored in tanks, not in the gravel
storage area. Jimmy Sanderford of Southern Asphalt stated the binder is encapsulated the entire
time and is taken from the holding tank and put into the mixer to be mixed with the asphalt. In
regard to viscosity, the material is much thicker than honey and becomes like water and is very
hot when heated up. The binder will not run into the ground. Ms. Wolf also noted that the entire
area will be paved so it physically wouldn’t be able to run into the ground.
Mr. Weaver inquired about the permits required for handling the materials. Mr. Sanderford
explained it is similar to a gas station where they take the fuel out of the tractor trailer and put it
in the ground tanks via a coupling. It was her understanding that the same basic type of process
is used when transferring the binder to the tank so it shouldn’t spill. If that did occur, the product
would fall onto the asphalt and can be cleaned up quickly. He had never known that to happen,
but anything is possible. Their company currently places asphalt and this is the next step for
them. They have never had any environmental issues related to their work in the past. Th ey are
taking the extra step to pave the entire area. The binder product is manufactured directly across
the street from the location of the proposed plant. In regard to Mr. Weaver’s question about
groundwater withdrawal during the process, Mr. Sanderford stated there would be no
groundwater withdrawal used during the process. The only water needed will be the same as for
a normal office facility.
Vice Chair Prinz inquired about the hours of operation given one of the largest customers may be
the NCDOT or their contractor and there are a lot of high traffic roads in the area that need to be
repaved. He noted a lot of that work occurs after 6:00 p.m. and asked how the plant would
accommodate that type of customer given the product doesn’t stay warm for a long period. Mr.
Sanderford explained that NCDOT is not one of their biggest customers because they mostly do
commercial work, for example, the Walmart at Porters Neck was one of their bigger jobs. They
also just finished a job at Sunny Point and do other federal work. The NCDOT work they do is
normally for a bridge replacement, culvert, etc. as their forte is more around 500 tons per day.
They are a midsize contractor. He explained they don’t do the type of work that would require a
Page 39 of 42
larger facility as that is not their market. They mainly do new construction, subdivision roads,
etc.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the special use permit.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened board discussion.
Chairman Girardot stated her disappointment that no one from the NC Department Water
Quality or NC Department of Air Quality was present, noting she had requested that a
representative from both agencies attend the meeting.
Ms. Wolf stated there was an environmental consultant present to answer questions.
Tom Johnson, the attorney for the Southern Asphalt team, stated Mark Hunsek is the air quality
expert. The only permit involved with this use is for quality other than the typical stormwater
permit. He noted Mr. Hunsek is also quoted in the staff report.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry regarding the state issued permit imposing conditions
on hourly and annual production and the types of conditions, Mark Hunsek explained the air
permit will have a descriptor on the national production rate of asphalt or hot mix asphalt, which
is usually in a tons per hour rate and is usually defined by the capacity of the facility. There are
some facilities in New Hanover County that operate at over 400 tons per hour, but this facility
will operate at 300 tons per hour. Based on their expected hours of business, 6am to 6pm, seven
days per week, as stated they expect to only produce asphalt about four hours per day or 6 hours
per day at the most. Therefore, they have some flexibility in defining those limitations, but in any
sense, the size and the capacity of the equipment would define the facility as a minor source
under the Division of Air Quality regulations and EPA regulations.
Chairman Girardot stated she was concerned about the impact the facility may have on the
County’s status currently in regard to nonattainment. For that reason, she had asked a
representative from Air Quality to attend the meeting. In response, Mr. Hunsek stated that
attainment or nonattainment is specific to individual pollutants. He believed New Hanover
County was targeted for nonattainment potentially for a new one hour sulfur dioxide attainment,
which was mainly because the EPA promulgated a new short term standard and there were large
SO2 sources in the county, namely the Sutton Plant, but there were others too. His understanding
of the current status is that the Division of Air Quality had submitted to EPA a request to be
designated as Attainment following certain strategies and part of that strategy was converting to
natural gas, which will be happening. He explained that the applicant will not be burning or
storing fuel. He added that depending on the size of the asphalt cement heater or storage unit, it
could trigger what is called spill prevention control and counter measure requirements, which
would require that a plan be developed and have mitigation measures and other activities in place
to assure that if there is a spill that proper measures would be taken.
In regard to a question about the material being produced into the air that would require
measurement, Mr. Hunsek explained that asphalt plants are covered by a federal new source
performance standard, NSPS, which is a federal standard that applies across the country, not just
Page 40 of 42
in North Carolina, and is for particulate emissions and opacity. Opacity being whether you see
smoke or not coming out of a stack or even potentially fugitive type dust or smoke. In this case,
it is associated directly with the mixing operation so because of the N SPS they will have a
requirement to control that particulate and then also test once they are operational to show
compliance. There are particulate emissions, but those would be controlled by the bag filter and
bag filters are easily 99.9% efficient so very little dust or particulates would be coming out.
Natural gas would be no different than anybody burning natural gas in a home furnace or
fireplace. You would get some pollutants that are inherent to natural gas.
In response to a question about re-inspections of the plant, Mr. Hunsek reported that in their
case, there will be a requirement to submit start-up plans to the agency, which has an opportunity
to be onsite to oversee that testing and usually takes advantage of that opportunity to conduct
inspections of the operation. .
In regard to fugitive emissions, Mr. Hunsek explained that fugitive emissions don’t come out of
a stack or a particular location. For example, when a gust of wind picks up some of the fine
material from a storage pile of very dry material, it could be deemed a fugitive. Anything dust
related that is picked up by the wind is generally fugitive, or in other words is something not
captured. In many cases, if you have an open tank and a material volatizes, it would be
considered fugitive as well.
In response to the Chairman’s question regarding water and sewer, Ms. Wolf explained there is
no water and sewer on Holly Shelter Road. The only water that will be needed for the project is
for the office building and there is a well and septic system there now.
Chairman Girardot commented that the Department of Air Quality personnel mentioned having
water trucks to keep down the dust in the dry season and inquired if that was common. Mr.
Hunsek explained that the road will be paved so there won’t be a gravel or dirt road creating
those fugitive emissions via truck traffic picking up the dust and requiring water to keep it down.
Because the road will be paved, he didn’t expect a need to use water trucks to keep down dust.
That would only be needed on unimproved or non-paved roads. There could be a management
practice in that just because trucks do carry some dust with them or kick up some dust to wash
those if needed. He stated they have been in contact with the Division of Air Quality, the
Wilmington Regional Office and have discussed with them some of the initial line items that will
need to be addressed as part of their application.
Chairman Girardot noted the Division of Air Quality staff had indicated they had not received an
application from the applicant. Mr. Hunsek confirmed the applicant had not prepared their
application yet.
Vice Chair Prinz inquired at what point in the process the applicant would actually apply for the
air quality permit. Mr. Hunsek responded that he would apply for the air quality permit at the
request of Southern Asphalt. The first step is to get the appropriate zoning in place, then apply
for the air quality permit. The zoning must first be in place before the applicant can proceed with
obtaining the other permits to get the plant in place. An air quality permit application is not
submitted before the zoning is in place to allow the project to move forward.
Page 41 of 42
Vice Chair Prinz said some air quality permits tend to take a long time to obtain depending on
the use and inquired about the process to obtain the air quality permit for this use. Mr. Hunsek
explained this would be a minor permit that they would apply for like a building permit. There is
a general statute in North Carolina which requires as part of an air quality permit application that
a zoning consistency determination must be obtained before an application can be accepted by
the agency for review. You have to have this zoning consistency determination filed with your
department. There is also a fee associated with the application, and if you’re dealing with
emissions controls, in this case, particulate bag filters, there is a requirement for professional
review. Because this will be a minor source, it won’t take very long. There are over forty permits
in Caswell County, and over 200 permits in the state of North Carolina. These aren’t uncommon.
The lengthiest part is getting the package together. In his experience with the agency over the
years, they want a good application so he will make it a point to submit a good application for
Southern Asphalt to ensure it identifies all of the required items and can have a more expedited
review process.
Jordy Rawl made a brief observation, noting he was perhaps searching for the silver lining,
however; based on his perspective, they have an asphalt plant with close proximity to their core
location they will be servicing, as well as one of the main additives right across the street. After
hearing comments about the air quality concerns, it sounded like diesel fuel was a much worse
byproduct than natural gas. He noted by having less distance for trucks to travel to get the
aggregate needed and having shorter trips to their core location or destination for work, the
applicant seemed to have created a niche where there could be a lessening of a more harmful
byproduct, diesel fuel.
Mr. Johnson announced that Mr. Hanson Matthews was present to address real estate questions
from the board.
Chairman Girardot read the procedure and appeals statement.
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a vote by the Planning Board.
Ted Shipley made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit by finding as a
board that the use will not:
1. Materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and if developed
according to the plan as submitted and approved.
2. The board found that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the
zoning ordinance.
3. The board finds it will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property
or that the use is a public necessity.
4. The board finds the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as
submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and
in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County
David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of
Special Use Permit S-629.
Page 42 of 42
Technical Review Committee Report (March)
No report was given.
Other Business
Chairman Girardot announced a Planning Board Work Session would be held on Monday, April
25, 2016 from 3pm to 5pm on Chapters 1-4 of the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan.
Comments from board members on Chapter 5 should be emailed to Jennifer Rigby no later than
April 20th.
With no further business, Chairman Girardot adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.