2016-12 December 1 2016 PBM
Page 1 of 25
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
December 1, 2016
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 6:00 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 & Land Use Director
Ernest Olds, Vice Chair Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Brad Schuler, Current Planner
Jordy Rawl Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
David Weaver
Absent:
Paul Boney
Allen Pope
Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing.
Chris O’Keefe led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Approval of November Planning Board Minutes
Ted Shipley made a motion, seconded by Ernest Olds to approve the November 3, 2016 Planning
Board meeting minutes as presented. The motion was unanimously approved.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-959M, 12/16) – Request by H+W Design on behalf of the
property owner, Raleigh Wilmington Investors, LLC, to rezone 20.7 acres located at the 2300
& 2400 block of Middle Sound Loop Road from (CZD) R-20, Conditional Residential
District, and R-20S, Residential District, to (CZD) R-20, Conditional Residential District, in
order to develop a performance residential development.
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided the following staff presentation.
• This is an application to modify an existing conditional zoning district. Case # Z-959
was approved in August 2016 and allowed for the development of a 32-lot performance
residential subdivision. The property owner recently obtained ownership of an adjoining
parcel of land, and is seeking to incorporate that parcel into the proposed
development. The newly acquired parcel is located just east of the existing district and
is 3.28 acres in size.
• The current approved site plan for the conditional zoning district, consists of 32 lots.
Page 2 of 25
• The updated, proposed site plan incorporates the additional parcel and increases the
proposed number of lots to 39, as it is increasing the base area for the subdivision.
• The proposed site plan also modifies the street layout. The new layout moves the
development's access further north, which provides two main benefits. First, it will
provide for a better site distance when motorists are existing the site; and second, it will
allow for additional wetlands to be preserved. With the current plan, existing wetlands
would have had to be mitigated to provide access from the site to Middle Sound Loop
Road.
• An existing private access easement runs along the edge of the property, which provides
access to three adjacent properties. The applicant is providing an access easement to
that access easement which will allow those three adjacent property owners to utilize
the development's improved access to Middle Sound Loop Road.
• An existing single-family dwelling is currently located on the property that is proposed
to be added to the development and will be removed with the proposed development.
• The property is classified as General Residential in the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. This classification allows for lower density housing and associated civic and
commercial services. The ideal density for single-family residential in this Place Type
is 1-6 dwelling units per acre.
• Overall the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre is within the ideal density range of the General
Residential Place Type. Also, performance residential developments allow for more
open space which can be utilized for stormwater control, recreation, and preservation of
areas of environmental concern and wildlife habitat.
• Staff recommends approval of the application with the same five conditions that have
been agreed upon with the applicant for the original proposal. Those conditions limit
the housing type to single-family so there can be no duplex multi-family, or mobile
homes; impervious coverage shall not exceed thirty percent of the site; the development
must incorporate low impact development techniques; all the vegetation that is within
the open space must be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and only removed
in order to install necessary infrastructure needed to comply with applicable county and
state regulations; and finally, a twenty-foot access easement shall be dedicated to the
County along Middle Sound Loop Road for the purpose of installing a future pedestrian
facility.
Mr. Schuler offered to answer questions from board members.
Chairman Girardot asked if board members had any questions.
Ted Shipley inquired if the other portion of the private easement would also be eliminated so there
is no traffic going back onto Middle Sound Loop Road. Mr. Schuler replied that staff had
recommended to the applicant that it would be best to eliminate the other portion of the private
easement; however, that would be a private agreement between the property owners. He noted that
eliminating that other portion of the easement would also allow for additional buffering to be
installed along there. Mr. Schuler said the applicant may be able to address that issue in their
presentation.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Page 3 of 25
Dan Weeks stated he represented the ownership group. He stated that since the original approval,
this 3.2 acres tract really benefits the site immensely. The wetlands crossing has been eliminated
and every attempt has been made to reinforce preservation of the wetlands in the open space. The
conditions are basically being applied to this middle. With regard to the question about that section
of the property easement, the applicant has tried to do with the access road coming into the
development. At the public meeting, there was a lot of feedback from the owners of those adjacent
properties at Anchors Bend regarding increasing the buffer between their properties and the
proposed development. The applicant had a pinch point on this piece of property due to the
wetlands so they had to figure out a way to provide a means to come in, in addition to having the
arrival sequence. Mr. Weeks stated there is approximately fifteen foot increased buffer than what
was previously approved.
Mr. Weeks stated there is a note on the drawing that all the existing vegetation within that private
easement will be maintained and preserved so the applicant would have to reach out to the three
individual owners for them to agree to eliminate that section as you’ve described on the exhibit.
He stated they will reach out to those property owners to determine if they are agreeable to that,
but they wanted to improve their access so they have a stub out coming in and then going down
there. Mr. Weeks concluded his presentation and offered to answer questions from the board.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds stated in regard to the question about the access and its proximity to the
proposed entrance, he would assume that NC DOT would have some control over granting access
to the proposed road and he would think they would not look favorably at a private driveway being
next to it. He inquired if the applicant had held any conversations with or had any correspondence
with NC DOT about that issue. Mr. Weeks replied that the applicant had not reached out to NC
DOT at that point in time; however, they know their criteria, which include their preference for
sight distances. He noted that with the additional tract, the visibility has greatly improved with this
access point and meets their threshold. Mr. Weeks said if the applicant was able to get this
approved, the next step would be to go into the weeds and have discussion with NC DOT and they
would issue the driveway permit.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds asked if there was any question that the NC DOT might ask the applicant
to flip those seven or so lots with that road to avoid the private access. Mr. Weeks stated NC DOT
would like to see a 400 feet sight distance so if he moved the roadway down next to the wetlands,
it will be closer to the curve and would become a safety hazard. Mr. Weeks said he thought the
current proposed location is within the threshold of what NC DOT typically approves.
David Weaver inquired if there was any possibility the applicant could have that coming closer to
Middle Sound Loop Road, noting that way there wouldn’t be any need for them to have a private
access entrance off Middle Sound Loop Road. Mr. Weeks explained that right now what the
applicant would have to reach out to those property owners, who are aware that we would like for
them to use Road “A” as the way to come in and eliminate that section, preserve that with the
existing trees, and increase the buffer. Mr. Weeks said at that point the little forty-five would be
their access point into the three lots, which was the intent of that sort of design.
In response to Ted Shipley’s inquiry, Mr. Weeks confirmed that the developer is the owner of the
fee and that the easement goes across. Mr. Weeks also confirmed Mr. Shipley was correct that if
Page 4 of 25
the neighbors abandon that portion of the easement, it would automatically revert to the applicant,
as the ownership would have to agree to that in terms of the three lots that are served by it.
Chairman Girardot noted in the notes from the public meeting held with the neighbors, the
neighbors had expressed concern about a traffic circle adjacent to the residential properties. Ms.
Girardot inquired where that traffic circle was located. Mr. Weeks explained that the traffic circle
was in the previous plan. Mr. Weeks noted at that point they had a divided median coming in and
then a roundabout or traffic circle where it jogs toward the private easement. Mr. Weeks said the
concerns that the adjacent property owners had at that time was that the traffic circle was too close
to their homes, that it was going to be a lot of pavement next to their properties, and that they
would rather have the traffic circle eliminated so that is why the applicant went back to the drawing
board and came up with this compromise, which increased the buffer and allowed more of a
vegetative buffer to the properties that they are concerned about.
Chairman Girardot inquired if anyone else from the public would like to speak in regard to the
rezoning item.
Kerry Cowan stated he lives at 7402 Song Bird Court and explained that the roundabout was going
to be located in their backyard approximately five feet off their property line. Mr. Cowan stated
when they attended the meeting and this new drawing was shown, they and the people they talked
to that aren’t present this evening felt the new site plan with the nice gentle curve in the access
point for those sites back there is much more preferable.
Seeing no, one else present, Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing.
Jordy Rawl commented that he remembered this item very well from the last time it came before
the planning board and noted it looks like the developer and the engineering firm has come together
to really make the project more compatible with the area in which they are proposing development.
Mr. Rawl stated he had taken in all considerations of their design and so had high favorability; and
therefore, he thought the board should move forward with a motion to approve this item.
Chairman Girardot said once again she thought this performance residential development is much
preferable to the previous development proposal. She noted that being developed in this manner
there will be the same number of houses, but you are going to have the same number of cars and
the same number of children in the schools, and this is much better aesthetically, as it provides so
much more open space in the way it’s going to be developed. She stated that overall this is an
improvement and a nice product.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the Planning Board.
Jordy Rawl made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning as this site plan as exhibited
meets the aesthetics and harmony of the surrounding developments in the area because it is:
1) Reasonable and in the public interest because the project’s reliance on performance
residential standards allows for the preservation of increased amounts of open space for
the continuing enjoyment of the residents and the protection of the natural environment
and wildlife habitats.
Page 5 of 25
With the following conditions:
1) Duplex, multi-family, and mobile home housing shall be prohibited;
2) Impervious coverage shall not exceed thirty (30%) percent of the site;
3) In addition to meeting county and state stormwater requirements, the development
shall incorporate low impact development or LID techniques as described in the City
of Wilmington-New Hanover County LID Guidance Manual and qualify as a LID
project as determined by the County’s Technical Review Committee;
4) Existing vegetation located within the proposed open space area shall be preserved
to the maximum extent practicable, and only removed in order to install necessary
infrastructure needed to comply with the applicable county and state regulations;
5) A twenty (20’) foot access easement shall be dedicated to the County along Middle
Sound Loop Road for the purpose of installing a future pedestrian facility.
David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of
rezoning request Z-959M with five conditions.
Item 2: Special Use Permit Request (S-633, 12/16) – Request by New Hanover County Fire
Services on behalf of the property owner, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, for a special
use permit for a temporary fire station located at the 7500 block of Old Oak Road.
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea provided the following staff presentation.
• New Hanover County Fire Services is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct and
operate a temporary fire station on property owned by the Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority at 7571 Old Oak Road.
• The site will include a building to host one fire truck and a mobile home to be used for
an office and sleeping quarters for Fire Services staff.
• The proposed fire station is expected to be on the site for 12 months while the existing
Ogden Fire Station on Market Street is redeveloped.
• The site is 0.65 acres of a 41.67-acre tract located along Old Oak Road. The site and
vicinity are zoned R-15. The use falls under the category of Government Offices, which
are allowed in R-15 by Special Use Permit. Some R-10 zoning exists on the south side
of Torchwood Boulevard. Commercial and Office and Institutional zoning are
concentrated on the nearby Market Street corridor.
• The surrounding land uses consist predominately of detached single-family residential,
except for the CFPUA Nano filtration water treatment facility that was developed on
the parcel in 2007.
• The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The site doesn’t host any known
environmental, historic, or archaeological resources.
• Access to the site is from Old Oak Road, which links to Torchwood Boulevard.
• Traffic generation from this project should be minimal, with a AM peak hour trip
generation not exceeding 15 trips. This is resulting from the 7am staff shift change.
Page 6 of 25
• Staff on site will be no more than 6 per shift, so the peak trip generation will be the
overlap between the staff leaving after their shift and the staff arriving for their shift.
• Due to the low trip generation figures, a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required.
• The site plan shows the proposal. Development is minimal and includes only two
buildings: one 800 SF building for the fire truck and one 840 SF mobile home for staff
office and sleeping quarters.
• On the subject site, existing trees will be retained and vegetation will be supplemented
to provide a buffer along the southern project boundary.
• One segment of Old Oak Road was recorded in 1963 with a section of the Greenview
Ranches subdivision, which is north of the site. Although it is designated for public use,
it is not state-maintained at this time.
• Another segment of Old Oak Road leads to Torchwood Boulevard and was recorded in
1997 as a public right-of-way as part of Orchard Park at West Bay Estates. Although
this segment was recorded as public, it was never turned over to NC DOT, and therefore,
is not state-maintained at this time. In order to alleviate the neighboring property
owners’ responsibility for the repairs of any wear and tear to Old Oak Road resulting
from this project, a condition has been suggested to be added to the SUP.
• From the subject site, the CFPUA facility is visible in the distance. There is a drainage
easement on the south side of the project site.
• This site is classified as General Residential according to the 2016 Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan doesn’t have any goals or implementation strategies
specific to public safety facilities; however, the Comprehensive Plan is intended to align
with the County’s strategies, including superior public health and public safety.
• Ensuring adequate response times to emergencies is an effort woven into the ongoing
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, therefore supporting the proposal.
• Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposal and the information we have received to
date and we have created preliminary findings of fact to support each of the four required
conclusions necessary to be reached to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit.
• Those four conclusions and findings of fact have been provided in the staff summary,
beginning on page 5. He noted he could go through those if the board desired, or those
can be visited after any additional evidence or testimony is presented during tonight’s
public hearing.
• Staff is recommending the following two conditions be added to the Special Use Permit:
1) An assessment of Old Oak Road be performed and any damage to the existing state
of Old Oak Road resulting from the project be mitigated by the County. (NC DOT
has already performed a punch list of improvements necessary to have the road
turned over to NC DOT, and that is an option that is currently being explored);
2) The SUP expires when the temporary fire station is removed from the property.
(Typically SUPs run with the land and this condition would make the SUP validity
sunset when the temporary use is over).
Mr. Andrea concluded the staff’s presentation and offered to address any questions the board
may have. He reported that Fire Chief Donnie Hall and Deputy Fire Chief Cliff Robinson were
present to represent New Hanover County Fire Services.
Page 7 of 25
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Chief Donnie Hall of the New Hanover County Fire Services Department stated he represented
the applicant. Chief Hall said Mr. Andrea had done a very good job of presenting the request for
special use permit. He explained they have been in a design element phase for the new fire station
and are reaching the point of trying to solidify plans for the temporary location. He stated they had
done an extensive property search on Market Street trying to find some property there and although
they ran into several leads, they could not find anything that would materialize for them to keep
the crews out there on Market Street. Chief Hall stated this site then became an option that did
develop into a favorable setting. He offered to answer any questions the board may have.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds noted he knew a little about what was going on with the fire company on
Market Street and asked how many bays there are currently at that station. Chief Hall commented
there are five bays at the Market Street fire station. Vice Chair Olds asked what will happen with
the other equipment that is currently located at the Market Street Fire Station. Chief Hall explained
the other equipment would be moved around to some of the other stations for storage. He noted
they currently operate one crew out of the Ogden Station with one engine company so that is why
they will be able to keep the truck apparatus at the temporary fire station down to just one bay. In
response to another inquiry from Vice Chair Olds, Chief Hall confirmed that on this proposed
location, the one apparatus would be located inside and other apparatus wouldn’t be parked on the
site so it would be a minimal situation. Vice Chair Olds asked in regard to the temporary nature of
the proposal, what the applicant’s intended plans were for the building. Chief Hall replied that at
the conclusion of the temporary use, the modular mobile unit used for the living quarters will be
repurposed and moved off site for future use and the building will be taken down and stored until
it is needed for a future project. Chief Hall said the applicant would also tear up the slab foundation
and noted the condition in the agreement with CFPUA requires the County to return the site to the
way it currently looks as much as possible at the conclusion of the temporary use. In response to
Vice Chair Olds’ inquiry, Chief Hall confirmed that the proposed temporary fire station site would
be accessed via Old Oak Road to Torchwood Road and Torchwood Road to Market Street.
David Weaver inquired if the applicant had ruled out the possibility of staying onsite with the one-
bay modular unit while construction went on. Chief Hall confirmed they had ruled out that option,
noting the current site is just over one acre and to be effective to t ear down the building and have
construction happening, there isn’t any space left there for the modular unit or to keep one bay
open during construction. Chief Hall also explained that the current Ogden fire station sits just a
few feet off the right-of-way from Market Street and the back part of it ties into an old railroad
easement so they don’t have the luxury of setting up something to the side or to the back that the
crew could work out of. Mr. Weaver asked how long the temporary fire station would be needed
and is the applicant was acceptable to a time limit on the special use permit as opposed to just
simply referring to it as being temporary. Chief Hall confirmed the applicant was fine with a time
limit as they are anticipating construction from the notice to proceed to whoever is awarded the
contract to be approximately a twelve-month construction time frame. Chief Hall noted their plan
is to have the temporary facility ready to move into sometime in June 2017 so they have enough
time where they don’t want the contractor that is awarded the construction project on Market Street
waiting for them to move out before they can start their demolition and construction of the new
facility. Chief Hall explained that everything they have been given by their architect up to this
Page 8 of 25
point is indicating roughly a twelve-month lead time and then they are looking at maybe a month
to demobilize the site once the new station is open.
David Weaver said that in talking with some of the residents out there, it seemed that one of the
issues is the condition of Old Oak Road and maintaining it and what can be done about that. He
asked Chief Hall to talk about their assessment of the road and what might be able to be done with
it. Chief Hall replied that they understand that is one of the conditions that is being recommended
by staff. We have asked for an assessment to be done of the roadway to give us some kind of idea
of its current condition before we move in and we would be willing to go back after we are
demobilizing from the temporary site, go in and make any repairs that may be needed on the road
due to the apparatus travel.
Chairman Girardot commented that one of the things brought up by some of the residents is the
sirens and the lights and inquired if Chief Hall foresees that as being a problem to these residents.
She noted the information states the average use of this temporary fire station is three to five times
a day. Chief Hall confirmed that based on the previous call volume at the current Ogden Fire
Station that unit typically runs between three to five responses per day on average. He stated there
are some things they can do to mitigate the use of flights during certain hours of the day while they
are at the station, whether they are testing the equipment, trying it out, they can keep all that to a
minimum during sleeping hours. Chief Hall said there is obviously the requirement that if they are
in a response mode that they use red lights and sirens as required by law, but as far as the noise
from them working the equipment, testing the lights and sirens during their daily check, all that
can be minimized and done during a time that it would have a minimal impact for the surrounding
folks.
David Weaver noted there will be an assessment of the road done. He commented that he
remembered that there are many instances in the county of roads that have been dedicated for
public right-of-way, but have never been accepted by the state. The roads might have been built to
state standards, but were for whatever reason, maybe not enough people living on it them at the
time, etc., they were never accepted. Mr. Weaver said there are a lot of roads out there that are
deteriorating in the county and it would be great if in this particular case, we could come up with
a solution that would wind up in the road being accepted by the state. He inquired if the applicant
would be willing as part of the assessment process to work with NCDOT to get an idea of what
the cost would be and what would have to be done to bring that road up to acceptance by the state,
not only what needed to be done, but whether or not NCDOT would actually be willing to accept
it once it was brought up to that standard. He asked if that could be part of the assessment process
to see what kind of costs would be looked at. Chief Hall said he was thinking they would be a
partner in trying to find out how they can help this road actually get accepted into the state system
for maintenance. He noted he obviously can’t commit the funding if there’s an expense associated
with that because he doesn’t have the authority to do that, but he does think that they can help out
the neighborhood there, working hopefully, with CFPUA and some other folks. Chief Hall
commented that he understands the County Engineering Department has looked at some of the
things with the assessment of the road and could offer us some assistance as well.
Chairman Girardot opened the opposition portion of the public hearing.
Page 9 of 25
Larry Ott of 7501 Corum Lane provided copies of his presentation to the planning board prior to
making his remarks. Mr. Ott stated he and his wife own a home there and would respectfully
request that the planning board deny this request for a special use permit for a temporary fire
station located at the 7500 block of Old Oak Road. He noted they realize the request is only for a
temporary period of time and appreciate the services that they provide to New Hanover County;
however, they feel a permit will not only add to the already excessive traffic on Old Oak Road,
but equipment will generate a noise nuisance, as well as additional wear and tear to Old Oak Road.
Mr. Ott stated he asked Chief Hall at the public meeting on January 27, 2016 was they didn’t look
at other properties that are not located in the middle of residential communities, i.e., the property
on Lendire Road as that property would benefit New Hanover County much better than the
proposed site. He stated he was told they looked at that property, but it was not cost effective for
the County. Mr. Ott inquired why the County couldn’t exercise its right of eminent domain for a
property on other land closer to Market Street and away from residential communities. He noted
that since Cape Fear Public Utility Authority had moved into their neighborhood, they have seen
a radical increase in daily traffic, ninety plus employees in and out, utility vehicles in and out
several times a day, and their enormous pump trucks which barrel by several times a day. The
utility trucks not only leave in the morning and return at the close of business, but they are in and
out numerous times throughout the day. He commented that they also have a tanker truck that
visits their site on a regular basis. Mr. Ott stated that Cape Fear Public Utility Authority has
maintained their properties very well and they have been good neighbors in that regard; however,
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority has contributed greatly to the wear and tear of Old Oak Road
with their many utility vehicles, including their heavy duty pump trucks, and by considering this
special use permit, the Fire Services will add to that wear and tear.
Mr. Ott stated in regard to the noise nuisance, they would like for the board to consider that a
neighbor who breezes through in his/her vehicle with the stereo blasting at full blast literally makes
our master bath located right beside Old Oak Road vibrate and asked them to imagine what a fire
apparatus will do. Mr. Ott commented that he noticed on the traffic impact worksheet for th is
project that the average daily traffic and level of service was marked N/A. He inquired how can
this not be considered relevant based on the daily traffic generated from 123 current homes, most
of which have at least two vehicles and the fact that soon another 45 homes will be added in Gable
Run, as well as traffic from HH Homes, UPS, garbage trucks, etc. Mr. Ott stated he felt this needed
to be revisited before any consideration can be given to this special use permit; therefore, he would
request that the planning board at least postpone a decision on this permit until a traffic impact
study is completed. He noted relative to Page 3 of 7 on S-633, dated 12/16 under the topic of
traffic, he opposes and questions the legality that the maintenance responsibility of Old Oak Road
lies with adjacent property owners. He noted their covenants and deed of trust do not mention
anything pertaining to the maintenance of Old Oak Road. He said Old Oak Road is a public street
and we as property owners do not and have not maintained this road and we do not have any road
maintenance agreement that states the homeowners or all adjacent owners are or will be
responsible for the maintenance of Old Oak Road. He noted prior to Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority moving into their neighborhood, Old Oak Road was in good condition and was adequate
for general public use and not commercial use. He said it is his understanding that Cape Fear Public
Utility Authority led the County to believe they were going to be using lightweight vehicles.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Mr. Ott stated he has attached a photo of a tanker truck that
visits CFPUA on a regular basis and noted they also have pump trucks that are not lightweight
vehicles and make daily trips to and from the CFPUA site. Mr. Ott stated that now the New
Page 10 of 25
Hanover County Fire Services is seeking to use their heavy duty truck for travel on Old Oak Road,
which was not designed to handle truck traffic from Cape Fear Public Utility Authority or New
Hanover County Fire Services. Therefore, it would be his recommendation that the planning board
deny this special use permit and additionally require Cape Fear Public Utility Authority to make
necessary improvements to Old Oak Road before they abandon the use of Old Oak Road when
they start to use a new by-pass for their ingress and egress. He thanked the board for the
opportunity to speak and stated he trusted the board will do what is best for the citizens of New
Hanover County.
During rebuttal, Chief Hall offered to address any questions the board may have in regard to Mr.
Ott’s stated concerns.
Chairman Girardot commented that staff could address the traffic counts.
Vice Chair Olds asked Chief Hall to comment on the applicant’s efforts to seek other properties,
citing the speaker’s earlier comments regarding conversation at the prior public meeting about
seeking locations like the property on Lendire Road across from the Ogden Business Center.
Chief Donnie Hall confirmed that Fire Services had looked at several properties, including the
property at the end of Lendire Road where is connects to Market Street and the properties that are
across from the end of Middle Sound Loop Road where the Bojangles restaurant and the auto parts
store are located. Chief Hall noted they were not interested in any type of short term arrangement
there. He explained they wanted to sell the property and the price was well above the funds
available. He noted they also looked at some other properties, for example the former DDT Outlet
that has now been converted into a marina. Chief Hall noted almost all of the other vacant property
heading north on Market Street up to the other side of Torchwood was already spoke for or was
not available. Chief Hall stated there was one property that the County had tried to work a
partnership with, but that business closed before they were able to get that done and the property
went back to the real estate agent and is now under another renter as commercial property. Chief
Hall elaborated that they did look in that area, but unfortunately, they were unable to make that
come together.
Chairman Girardot inquired if Fire Services has a lease arrangement with the Cape Fear Public
Utility Authority for that period of time. Chief Hall confirmed that there is a memorandum of
understanding with Cape Fear Public Utility Authority to use the property. Chairman Girardot
commented that would answer Mr. Ott’s question regarding why eminent domain wasn’t used in
this instance as obviously it would have to be used if the County was purchasing the property.
David Weaver commented that he had missed the statement in the agenda package that the
maintenance responsibility of the road lies with the adjacent property owners. He said it was his
understanding that really no one is legally responsible for maintenance of the road at this point.
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea explained that the maintenance responsibility
for the segment of Old Oak Road that was recorded with Orchard Park at West Bay Estates seems
to fall with the property owners according to their deeds and covenants as referenced on Book
2164, page 958 where it speaks to the maintenance responsibilities of the owners for the streets
that were recorded on the plat. He noted that is the segment of Old Oak Road that is just to the
Page 11 of 25
south of the subject site leading to Torchwood Boulevard. He stated he believed Mr. Ott said he
lives on Corum Lane, which is part of that same subdivision plat.
Mr. Ott stated he had a copy of the covenants if they would like to see them, noti ng it doesn’t
specify anything about the maintenance of Old Oak Road.
Mr. Andrea stated in the covenants of Orchard Park at West Bay Estates, which is in Book 2164,
Page 958, under Streets - Ownership and Maintenance, it reads, “Section 1. Undivided Ownership
of Streets. Whether or not specifically set forth in the deed conveying any lot, the conveyance of
the lot shall be deemed to be together with an undivided interest in and to the streets shown on the
recorded plat of the properties for which the owner of said lot is responsible for maintenance,
upkeep, and repair as set forth in this article. The undivided ownership interest of any such owner
shall be equal with the undivided interest of other owners who are likewise responsible for the
maintenance, upkeep, and repair of the same street. The ownership among the owners is in the
same street shall remain undivided and no owner or any other person shall bring any action for
partition or division of any part thereof. This restraint against partition shall not apply to individual
lots.”
Mr. Ott commented that it does not specify Old Oak Road. I don’t see how any county government
can enforce property owners to maintain a road that has been, particularly now since it’s been
abused by Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. He said there was nothing wrong with that road
before they got in there.
Chairman Girardot said she thinks that is a discussion for perhaps another time, but right now, we
have to work out who is responsible for the road, which is the question posed by Mr. Weaver.
Mr. Weaver acknowledged he did not know that language was in the covenants. He asked the
county attorney if the county could force someone to maintain that road, noting he thought that
deed note means that you have the responsibility and the right to maintain the road, but for someone
to require you to maintain that road means that that person also has to be a party or an owner of
the road and subdivision.
Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman explained that for roads that have not been taken over
by DOT and are either private roads or public rights-of-way that have not been taken over by DOT,
obviously these are the two types of roads that we have issues with deteriorating and becoming a
problem, to her knowledge there has not been any county in North Carolina that has proceeded to
force homeowners either on private roads or on these public rights-of-way that aren’t DOT
maintained to maintain the road. Ms. Huffman stated the topic of what will become of these roads
that have deteriorated to the point that they become a nuisance comes up on occasion on list serves
and at conferences she has attended. She commented there are roadway in this county as in many
counties that have deteriorated to the point that emergency vehicles can’t get through them or pass
over them and obviously that’s not the issue here; however, there are roads in this county that are
in that condition and in many other counties and it’s a constant source of conversation what does
the county do in those situations. She stated it has been discussed that if a road is in bad enough
shape that it really is a nuisance to the point that people are at risk, whether the county should go
in and alleviate the nuisance and assess the property owners for the cost of it. Ms. Huffman noted
that is conceivable, but this county has never done and to her knowledge no other counties have
Page 12 of 25
done it as of yet, though it is discussed on occasion. She said to answer Mr. Weaver’s question
about whether the county could force that, that the closest the county could get to forcing it would
be to pave it and then assess the homeowners because it is so dangerous
David Weaver commented he thought it is very important for the planning board to put a condition
as part of the special use permit that we do our best to pursue some kind of an evaluation of the
road with DOT, and if at all feasible to come up with a funding mechanism to get it upgraded and
accepted by DOT to be part of the road system. He commented in his mind it wouldn’t be that
important to do if this was only going to be a temporary issue, i.e., the fire station would only be
there for a year or so and Cape Fear Public Utility Authority would quit using the road as their
access once the by-pass is constructed, but it sounds like there are other subdivisions, other
neighborhoods, that are using this road so it’s just going to become a long-term problem of who is
going to maintain the road and this may be our best opportunity to try and get DOT to jump in and
do what’s right.
Vice Chair Olds commented that the proper thing to do is make sure anything the Fire Department
does in a negative way is mitigated when they leave. He noted separate from that is the issue of
CFPUA and the other neighbors and so forth. Vice Chair Olds said he agreed that this is a good
opportunity to get that dialogue started and maybe a good reason to have that dialogue continue,
but he thinks it is separate from the needs of the Fire Department with regard to their temporary
permit. Chairman Girardot stated she agreed, noting that is why she is not sure it should be added
as a condition to the permit, but perhaps more direction to staff to follow up on something like
that.
David Weaver said he had drafted up some language that the board may be able to use as a
condition, but that could be addressed when the board is ready for a proposal.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the
planning board discussion period.
Chairman Girardot read the required procedures and appeals statement and inquired how the
applicant wished to proceed.
Chief Hall confirmed the applicant wished to proceed with a vote by the Planning Board.
David Weaver asked if Fire Services had considered Ogden Park as a temporary fire station site.
Chief Hall confirmed the applicant had worked with the Parks Department to located some
property in Ogden Park that would be an acceptable site for the temporary fire station, but there
were some issues with water and sewer connectivity, minus wetlands, and unfortunately, there are
speed bumps throughout the course of the arterial roadway through Ogden Park, which is very
counterproductive for emergency response vehicles so they really couldn’t work anything out
there. He reiterated that they had looked at that area extensively.
Chairman Girardot entertained additional discussion or a motion from the board.
Page 13 of 25
Ted Shipley stated he wasn’t comfortable with where the temporary fire station is sited and doesn’t
like it being there, but the applicant has met all four required findings of fact so he could see no
reason for denial, unfortunately.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the Planning Board.
David Weaver made a motion to recommend approval as the Planning Board finds that this
application for a special use permit to develop a temporary fire station will not materially endanger
the public health or safety, meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning
ordinance, will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, and will be in
harmony with the surrounding area, and is in general conformit y with the plans of development
for New Hanover County. Also, that the following conditions be added to the development:
1) An assessment of Old Oak Road shall be performed and any impact of the road realized
from the use by the fire apparatus shall be mitigated by the County. The assessment shall
be performed in conjunction with NCDOT to evaluate the cost and possibility of
rehabilitating the road for compliance with NCDOT standards for acceptance into the
NCDOT system.
2) The special use permit shall expire when the temporary fire station is removed from the
property and would expire no later than 24 months or after the certificate of occupancy is
issued for the permanent fire station, whichever occurs first.
Ted Shipley seconded the motion.
Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Land Use Director, asked Mr. Weaver for a clarification on the
assessment of Old Oak Road, noting the purpose of the assessment that staff was suggesting was
to ensure that the road is in as good condition as it is today when the SUP is finished and the fire
station moves out or as good as it is prior to them moving in there. Mr. O’Keefe asked if it should
be a separate condition that an assessment also be performed by the NC Department of
Transportation to determine what needs to be repaired on the road in order for the road to be taken
over by the NC DOT for maintenance.
Mr. Weaver agreed it would probably read better if the second half of condition one was listed as
a separate condition that read, “An assessment of Old Oak Road shall be performed in conjunction
with NCDOT to evaluate the cost and possibility of rehabilitating the road for compliance with
NCDOT standards for acceptance into the NCDOT system. He noted that would make it clear that
at a minimum, an assessment will be done to fix the conditions or to fix any deterioration of the
road as a result of the fire station. Mr. Weaver said as a goal that he would hope that the county
will move forward and would as much as possible try to get this road upgraded to a condition
acceptable to NCDOT so they might accept it. He noted the concept behind that condition is to
eventually get the road accepted into the NCDOT system for maintenance. Mr. Weaver
acknowledged that they can’t require the NCDOT acceptance as a condition, but he would hope
the County, along with maybe the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority would help realize that if it
is at all feasible.
Bill McDow of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization commented that in terms of
what it would take to get that road accepted, it would be an issue of funding and where that funding
would come from. He noted if the funding was coming from a combination of the County and the
Page 14 of 25
CFPUA it would probably have a stronger incentive that if it was coming directly from DOT. Mr.
McDow said if the funding was coming from DOT, then they would have to get it from the State
or go through some other source that may be present. He commented there may be grants or other
things that the advisory committee can determine as sources for funding. Mr. McDow felt that
would be the primary concern about where you would come up with those funds as it wouldn’t fall
into safety or any other known projects for maintenance not in the state system at this time. Mr.
McDow stated that would be the only concern he would have. Mr. McDow stated when it gets to
the point of finding six potholes and one crack, for example, who pays for the six potholes and
who pays for the crack down the middle of the road. He said that is where the rub comes in and
the only concern he would have.
Mr. Weaver agreed with Mr. McDow, noting understanding there is a big gap between simply
restoring the road back to the condition it is in now and bringing it up to the conditions that are
actually acceptable to NC DOT. He said he had heard of several different possible sources of
money for it and had also heard several widely varying estimates of what it would cost to bring
the road up to NC DOT standards so he can only hope that the County would pursue to the extent
possible, but we can’t require the County to do so at this point.
Chairman Girardot inquired if the board had any questions for Mr. McDow.
Chairman Girardot said if we’re talking about bringing CFPUA into this as well where this might
be something that they would be asked to help underwrite the cost of along with the County, she
was a little uncomfortable with putting that in as a condition and not as a separate instruction to
staff to follow-up on this issue. Mr. Weaver replied that the condition would not require or even
require asking CFPUA or anybody else to contribute money at this point, but would simply say
let’s determine what it would cost to get NCDOT to accept it at this point in time, and then we’re
asking staff and the County to pursue trying to develop funding sources, not requiring any specific
funds or anything else from anybody at this point because he fully agrees with the chairman on
that aspect of it.
Chairman Girardot stated one assessment is being done in order to return the road to the condition
it is presently in, noting that a baseline has been established for that, and inquired if there would
be a separate cost to obtain another assessment to determine the requirements to bring the road up
to state standards. Chris O’Keefe confirmed there would not be a cost for that assessment to let us
know what the cost would ultimately be to repair the damages, to get them up to that standard that
NC DOT would accept. He noted staff had already talked to the NC Department of Transportation
about the road and we have a preliminary assessment where they outlined some of the deficiencies,
but we don’t have a final estimate on what the cost of repairing those would be. In response for
the chairman’s inquiry, Mr. O’Keefe also confirmed that both assessments could be done at the
same time and there would be no separate cost.
Mr. Weaver revised his motion to add a third condition, which would read, “3) An assessment
shall be performed in conjunction with DOT to evaluate the cost and possibility of rehabilitating
the road for compliance with DOT standards for acceptance into the NCDOT system.”
Mr. Weaver stated he fully agreed with the chairman that we can’t tell anybody to fund it right
now and that we are simply saying let’s look into it and try to make it happen.
Page 15 of 25
Jordy Rawl commented he takes a bit of an issue with using this particular setting to kind of enforce
conditions on the County’s Fire and Rescue Services to kind of unmask a deeply rooted issue that
not only concerns the County, but also the State as it comes to these roadways. He noted if you
look back historically when these roadways were installed, those developers, those homeowners,
didn’t have the intent of the interconnectivity policy that the County and cities would eventually
enforce so you end up getting all these grids that now serve us a long-term roads. He explained by
the nature of the way roadways are constructed, they have a lifespan to them. For example, for a
thirty-year-old road to kind of reach its lifespan and then at 28 years, the CFPUA comes in and
then at thirty years, the County comes in and they add a few more potholes to it, to kind of make
it incumbent on them to come up with a scenario to make it a solvent, he had a tough time wrapping
his brain around that. Mr. Rawl stated he didn’t necessarily have a point to it, but he just wanted
to express his feelings about what the board is looking at. He said he felt the board had strayed
away from the issue at hand a few times. Mr. Rawl noted he understands these proposal and special
use permits are pretty broad and complex, but he felt the board was straying away from the four
findings of fact, which are what the board is in place to make a judgement call on.
David Weaver agreed with Mr. Rawl’s statements and noted they are not going to solve the issue
of unmaintained road that have been dedicated, but not accepted in the county tonight or any time
soon as they’ve wrestled with that issue for several decades. He added when the issue has come
up before, the board has tried to make something happen to the best of our ability and sometimes
it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but we address each case as it comes up and look at the specifics
of it and see if there is something that can be done. He noted his only intent in throwing out the
request for an additional assessment is to see where it might lead us.
Mr. Rawl stated he understood and could appreciate that there are limited forums in which these
issues can be presented so he recognizes this is probably a good opportunity to broach the subject.
He asked Mr. Weaver to proceed with the conditions, noting he would prefer a clarification on the
specifics of exactly what the County needs to do in order to fulfill the condition, for example an
assessment could be a couple of employees walking down the road with a notepad determining
there is a pothole there or could be having a professional service come and identify core borings
of the roadway and the depth. He would appreciate that clarification of what the assessment would
be and what they would do at that point.
Mr. Weaver said in the past when we’ve done assessments, they have many times been quick and
dirty ones because you’ll go out and see that the pavement is only an inch thick as opposed to six
inches and you have a problem like having to put an extra four or five inches of pavement, which
shoots it out of the water. He was sure that would probably be one of the things that would be
looked at, but as you also know, there are also unit cost numbers out there, cost per square yard of
pavement and putting down a base, and the County can provide an estimate of what it would cost
for the drainage improvements so we can get a ballpark number. Mr. Weaver said he was sure
somebody will look at that ballpark number and say there’s a possibility of going forward with
this or that there is no way that we can do this
Chairman Girardot stated the motion had changed as there are now three conditions instead of two
conditions. She inquired if Mr. Shipley’s second was valid.
Mr. Shipley confirmed his second on the revised motion was valid.
Page 16 of 25
The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-633 with three
conditions:
1) An assessment of Old Oak Road shall be performed and any impact of the road realized
from the use by the fire apparatus shall be mitigated by the County.
2) The special use permit shall expire when the temporary fire station is removed from the
property and would expire no later than 24 months or after the certificate of occupancy is
issued for the permanent fire station, whichever occurs first.
3) An assessment shall be performed in conjunction with DOT to evaluate the cost and
possibility of rehabilitating the road for compliance with DOT standards for acceptance
into the NCDOT system.
Chairman Girardot stated the Planning Board is grateful to the Mr. Hall and the New Hanover
County Fire Services Department staff and fire fighters, and EMTs for their service to our county
and our community.
Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z-965, 12/16) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the
property owner, Inlet Watch Development Partners, LLC, to rezone 7.03 acres located at the
7200 block of Carolina Beach Road from B-1, Business District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional
Highway Business District, in order to develop a mini-warehouse use.
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided the staff presentation.
• As stated this is an application to establish a conditional rezoning district, in order to
allow for the development of a mini-warehouse building. Conditional zoning districts
have a conceptual site plan attached to them, and conditions above and beyond th e
requirements of the zoning ordinance may be added with the applicant’s agreement.
• The surrounding area consists mostly of single-family residential developments with
Inlet Watch being located directly east of the subject property. To the south, is an
existing B-1 zoned property containing an existing retail establishment, Carolina Video.
• The property itself consists of three undeveloped parcels of land totaling 7.03 acres. The
applicant is proposing to develop a mini-warehouse use consisting of four buildings
totaling about 78,000 square feet.
• The proposed development will generate 12 trips in the AM peak, and 20 trips in the
PM peak. Because the trips do not exceed 100 in the peak hours, a Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) was not required to be completed.
• The Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization’s most recent traffic count for this
portion of Carolina Beach Road found an average daily traffic of 30,123 trips. Based
on the road’s design capacity this equates to a Level of Service (LOS) of “F” when using
the Volume to Capacity Ratio.
• Portions of the property are located within an AE Special Flood Hazard Area with a
Base Flood Elevation of 12 feet. The development must comply with the County’s
Page 17 of 25
Floodplain Ordinance, which will be reviewed the site plan/building permit process.
However, it should be noted that the official flood maps will be updated within the
coming months. Currently, the preliminary flood maps remove the AE S pecial Flood
Hazard Area from the property.
• The applicant has received an approved wetland delineation for the property from the
US Army Corps of Engineers. The property contains 1.12 acres of wetlands which are
illustrated on the site plan. The development will impact 2,385 square feet (0.054 acres)
of the wetlands in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineer’s standards.
• The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject properties as Community
Mixed Use. This place type focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development
patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and
visitors. Types of uses encouraged in this place type include office, retail, mixed use,
recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential.
• Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use
Plan as commercial development is encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place
type. The proposed use minimizes vehicle trips for nearby residents and is designed to
promote safety for customers and nearby residents.
• Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions which have been agreed
upon with the applicant:
1. The business shall be subject to the following hours of operation:
a. Staff Office
i. 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. – Weekdays
ii. 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. – Saturdays
iii. 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. – Sundays
b. Gate Access by Security Code
i. 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. – Daily
2. Freestanding signage shall be limited to monument signs, in that the sign must have a support
structure that is a solid appearing base constructed of a permanent material, such as concrete block
or brick. Freestanding signs supported by poles and any flashing, digital signs shall be prohibited.
3. The yards along Carolina Beach Road and Radnor Road shall be bordered with min 6’ high
decorative aluminum fencing. The required streetyard plantings along Carolina Beach Road shall
be supplemented by an evergreen low buffer consistent with the parking lot screening requirements
of Section 62.1-5 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a 20’ wide buffer strip, consistent with
Section 62.1-4 of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be planted along Radnor Road.
• Based on comments made at the community meeting, staff did attempt to add a
condition regarding the architectural design of the buildings; however, instead of actual
design standards for the buildings, the applicant has proposed standards on the fencing
that will be installed along Carolina Beach Road and Radnor Road; specifically, that it
Page 18 of 25
will be a decorative aluminum fence. Also, the applicant proposed to plant additional
landscaping along these streets, as well to help provide a visual screen of the buildings.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represented the property owners and noted the
proposal consists of three lots along Carolina Beach Road. There is currently an existing plan for
92 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space that is intact today. For a variety of
reasons, the economy, location, and sewer and water availability, her clients determined they felt
like a higher and better use of this site perhaps would be the storage facility. The biggest reason
behind that decision is that in this part of the county, water and sewer availability is provided by
Aqua Utilities, not Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and they have some capacity issues. It isn’t
that this project couldn’t be built, but capacity is getting close and tight. Ms. Wolf reported they
had met with the folks in Inlet Watch and the different communities that are in there and many of
them felt that the change from the apartment units and commercial to the storage facility had a lot
of benefits, primarily impacts as far as ultimate noise, the height of the building that was there
previously being three stories, and also the amount of traffic, which is appreciably reduced on
Carolina Beach Road. Although it is upstream of their access to Carolina Beach Road, the traffic
is a big selling point in the difference in the zoning the applicant is proposing.
Ms. Wolf said beyond that, she appreciated the staff’s summary of the project. She confirmed the
applicant has agreed to the staff’s recommended conditions. She noted the applicant has a lot of
storage facilities and she tries very hard to create the buildings perpendicular to the roadways. In
this particular case because of the wetlands, the depth of the site, and a lot of different things, she
wasn’t able to do that on this site so the long length of the storage building along the street yard
and the fact that those long lengths will have some doors made it difficult to tie down any specific
architectural details. Ms. Wolf confirmed they have agreed to details such as some changes in
materials and some architectural interest, but rather her client felt that in this particular case the
better solution was to spend more money for the aesthetics along the streetscape to actually screen
the interior of the architecture. She noted Mr. Schuler was correct in that the applicant has proposed
in addition to the 25-foot street yard, which is a requirement of the B-2 district, that includes street
trees and low shrubs, they would also use a decorative aluminum fence, which for the record would
be six feet to eight feet tall. Ms. Wolf provided a picture of the proposed fence style, noting the
photo reflect a four to five feet high fence, but the fence would actually be six to eight feet tall.
She noted staff didn’t want it to be so subjective, but it will be that type off fencing. In addition to
the fence, a low buffer of evergreen shrubs will be added. These shrubs start out at three feet. They
are intended to be in that three to five feet range as they are maintained throughout the season so
that a combination of the height of the trees, the low shrubs, the medium low buffer shrubs, and
the decorative fence would serve the purpose of improving the aesthetics of the streetscape with
the long lengths of the building.
Ms. Wolf stated there would be architectural detail on the office area and the smaller building and
the condition of the street yard to put the low buffer along this boundary in addition to the required
buffer because it is residentially zoned. Ms. Wolf offered to answer questions from the board
members.
Page 19 of 25
Vice Chair Ernest Olds inquired if the proposed buildings would be one-story. Ms. Wolf confirmed
that the buildings would be one-story buildings, approximately twelve feet high. The eave height,
the bearing height, is ten feet. She also confirmed that is the eave height of a small single family
home. Mr. Olds commented that is an advantage.
Mr. Olds asked in regard to the front streetscape of the building and especially the very large
building, if there would be doors facing the street. Ms. Wolf confirmed there would be some doors
facing the street, noting this is a combination of climate control, but they also wanted the
availability of exterior doors for the larger unit rentals.
In response to Mr. Olds inquiry, Ms. Wolf confirmed she didn’t not have a picture of what the
facility would look like architecturally, but noted basically their premise is to screen the interio r,
and hopefully, the architectural design itself will meld into that area being a residential area. Ms.
Wolf commented that today’s storage facilities have upgraded designs and features in order to get
the people and the renters to pick them over other facilities.
Vice Chair Olds commented that they also had to make sure that the operator is not trying to make
a sign out of the building itself or use bright orange doors and yellow siding and that kind of thing
so it does go both ways. He said if this project is done in colors that one might associate with a
residential neighborhood, it could blend in very nicely and the landscaping could help offset the
view to the doors which He agreed if the Carolina Beach Road side was all doors it would be
undesirable. If it was climate-controlled it would be better for the interior side to be the doors and
the climate control to be on the road side. He hoped the applicant would take those suggestions
into consideration when looking at the layout.
Chairman Girardot said she was confused about whether there are two sets, noting she was
assuming that you would be able to access the storage units from both the road side and also from
the back side where the road goes down. She inquired if it was just one big unit that runs the length
or the width of the building. Ms. Wolf replied it was her understanding that this particular facility
would have some doors along those three sides; then, there would be access points to interior
hallways with climate control on the insides of the buildings. Ms. Wolf noted this is a combination
of both facilities and that has become important because obviously you can’t store a car on the
inside climate control and with the wider units, you don’t generally have climate control because
you need the double doors for larger storage items or something like that.
Chairman Girardot asked if there were any further questions.
Damon Wood, of 828 Berwyn Drive and resident of Inlet Watch stated Ms. Wolf was very accurate
and as she said, the residents do feel better about this proposal than the previous plan approved
two years ago, but he does have a couple of concerns. First, the area which Mr. Lee back in 2014
had a picture of this area. He noted he lives east of that area. Mr. Lee said that would be a buffer
and you would not be able to see the apartment complex. That’s one of the concerns that he would
like to pass on to the board and hope they will try to realize that we don’t want to be looking at a
storage facility from where we live. Mr. Wood said his second concern is stormwater runoff as the
whole subdivision drains into a fourteen-inch pipe that goes seven, eight, nine hundred feet
underneath Radnor Road on the back. He expressed concern that if they add any runoff whatsoever,
the neighbors were going to be in trouble. He said he is not against the proposal, but wanted to
Page 20 of 25
emphasize and hope they will contain all of their water, leave that buffer zone, and keep it strictly
for mini-warehouse storage. Mr. Wood also expressed concern that they may come back down the
road and put in boat storage on the site and asked for confirmation that the facility would be strictly
limited to mini-warehouse storage and prohibit boat storage. Mr. Wood said he would like to thank
Ms. Wolf for coming out to Inlet Watch and talking to them and said she was right that they feel
better about this proposal than the other one, but we still have concerns.
Chairman Girardot opened the rebuttal period.
During opposition rebuttal, Ms. Wolf stated as far as the conditional district approval, when we
have a conditional district approval, it is the plan that is part of that site and so therefore, any
modifications of it have to either come before this board or be determined by the planning director
that they are minor, but things like changes in where it is accessed, appreciable changes in the
amount of gross square footage, anything like that is controlled by the conditional district and
cannot be modified without re-approval.
Ms. Wolf said they did talk quite a bit that evening when they met with the neighbors about the
drainage situation and they do have a field survey. She noted that the ditch that is along this
boundary sort of it cuts into the applicant’s site a little bit, but the majority of it is over in that side,
there is a buffer yard there. She said that one of the conditions is that no trees in the buffer yard
may be taken out. Ms. Wolf noted that as shown on the current up-to-date plan, this pond was
much larger than it needed to be. She said all of this is certainly buffer that can’t be taken out
because it is wetlands and it falls into the buffer yard that’s required. They will supplement as
needed down there to make sure it’s buffered in that section, but there is quite a bit of space on the
opposite side of the ditch so she finds no problem with having enough room for that green space.
Ms. Wolf said the stormwater management is controlled by both the state and the county and all
of their runoff must be detained in this pond so the post runoff from this site will be no more than
it is currently. She said generally speaking when these types of projects occur because the pond
will have an outlet to this ditch system; then the existing ditches which are often not maintained
very well because they are not being used, per se, actually improve because they have to be cleaned
up and put in a condition that is appropriate for that outfall whenever they are approved.
David Weaver asked about the possibility of moving building number 4 in the southeast corner
further to the west. Ms. Wolf explained that area is wetlands. She noted they are using the available
upland pockets.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s comment, Ms. Wolf confirmed that stormwater ponds are
required to contain one hundred percent of the site’s runoff so adjacent neighborhoods usually see
an improvement in any type of flooding or runoff.
Mr. Weaver commented they are required to accept one hundred percent of the runoff for a certain
designed storm, not for every hurricane that comes along.
Mr. Rawl commented the right-of-way looks like some turn improvements will be required to
access the property and inquired if any signage or improvement or proposed median may come in
there to segregate the traffic from coming in and out of the complex. Ms. Wolf replied the applicant
Page 21 of 25
suspects that they would have a right turn lane and taper to go into the site, but because of having
trucks and that sort of vehicle, this will be a right in, right out and they would generally not put in
any type of decorative median in the entryway because generally they get destroyed by the larger
trucks.
In response to another inquiry from Mr. Rawl, Ms. Wolf reported that the applicant has agreed to
use monument signage only for this site on Carolina Beach Road.
Chairman Girardot asked if board members had any other questions for Ms. Wolf.
Ted Shipley stated he likes this proposal better than the old plan. He likes this buffer both on the
east and west and this plan also handles stormwater remarkably better than the previous plan,
which was an issue, He noted, if members would recall from a couple of years ago, there was a
discussion about hydrology and the flow of water and retention walls and buckling. He commented
that the new retention pond is bigger and is going to handle water better so we’re not having that
discussion. Mr. Shipley said if given the opportunity he would like to present a motion.
Mr. Weaver asked Ms. Wolf or staff to comment on the status of the other self-storage facility
approved a couple of years ago, which is located across the street and further north of the current
proposal. Ms. Wolf said she thought he might be referring to the storage facility that had the text
amendment for outside boat and RV storage associated with it. She noted that site plan is of course,
in place today, but the owner sold that piece of property so she would imagine that at some point
in time the board will see a modification of that CZD.
Mr. Weaver said he was wondering if there would be two self-storage facilities going up at the
same time. Ms. Wolf replied that the other rezoning consists of strictly open storage with no
buildings so she didn’t believe he would see that situation.
Chairman Girardot said she only has two concerns. On the northern border with Radnor Road, that
building will obviously be visible as soon as you enter the subdivision or go into the area. She
stated appreciation of the picture of the fence because she was not understanding what type of
fencing it would be and noted she thinks that it is going to be very attractive. She also likes the
fact that the applicant is buffering that.
Ms. Wolf stated there is a berm that goes up about six feet along the entire boundary so when you
come in Radnor Road, you probably won’t see that building. Ms. Wolf said she thought the
vegetation was already on the berm of the Inlet Watch community and the applicant will have to
put buffering behind it on their piece of property so she doubted there will be a lot of view of that
building.
Chairman Girardot commented that if the landscaping is short, she would like to see something
put in there. Ms. Wolf confirmed that the buffer there must be six feet.
Chairman Girardot noted in the buffering and landscaping, it appeared that the applicant is going
to put landscaping along the fence as well, but she would like to see opaque, vegetative buffering
included there as well. Ms. Wolf confirmed that the buffering requirement is opaque, vegetative
buffering because the fence is not part of the applicant’s buffer in this particular case. Ms. Wolf
Page 22 of 25
noted it would have to be three rows of evergreen shrubs and would be one hundred percent opacity
by regulation.
Chairman Girardot said she would also like to see the opacity on that eastern buffer if somehow
they could make sure that happen as well. Ms. Wolf confirmed that is also a requirement and noted
that is directly behind the houses that are along there.
Chairman Girardot read the required procedures and appeals statement and inquired how the
applicant wished to proceed.
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a vote by the Planning Board.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the Planning Board.
Ted Shipley made a motion to recommend approval as the Planning Board finds this application
for a zoning map amendment of 7.03 acres from B-1 Business District to CZD Highway Business
District as described is consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
because uses are appropriate within the Community Mixed Use placetype and because the
proposed development is consistent with the recommended intensity of the Community Mixed Use
placetype. It is also reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed development will
provide a service to nearby residents that will minimize vehicle trips and miles traveled. The
conditions for the approval will be:
1) The business shall be subject to the following hours of operation.
a. Staff Office
i. 9am to 6pm on weekdays
ii. 9am to 4pm on Saturdays
iii. 10am to 2pm on Sundays
b. Gate Access shall be by Security Code
i. 6am to 10pm daily.
2) Free standing signage shall be limited to monument signs in that the sign must have a
support structure that is a solid appearing base constructed of a permanent material
such as concrete block or brick. Free standing signs supported by poles and any
flashing, digital signs are to be prohibited.
3) The yards along Carolina Beach Road and Radnor Road shall be bordered with a
minimum six-foot high decorative aluminum fencing; and the required streetyard
plantings along Carolina Beach Road shall be supplemented by an evergreen low
buffer consistent with the parking lot screening requirements of Section 62.1-5 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a twenty-foot wide buffer strip, consistent with Section
62.1-4 of the zoning ordinance, shall be planted along Radnor Road.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend
approval of Rezoning Request Z-965.
Page 23 of 25
Item 4: Development Activity Page – Presentation by Planning Staff on the County’s new
Development Activity Page.
Current Planner Brad Schuler stated staff is happy to announce a new feature on our website, called
the Development Activity Page. Mr. Schuler provided a brief overview and tour of the County’s
new Development Activity Page, noting the purpose of the page is to provide a one stop shop for
the public to obtain information regarding recent major development applications in the County
so items like the application materials, site plans, community meeting notices, etc. will all be
included on this page. Mr. Schuler stated public involvement is an important component of the
planning process and the planning board and board of commissioners truly do value the input they
receive on development applications, including all the input from the public. However, their input
is based off of what they know regarding the application so the page contains four main
components. The first being the drop down lists of all seven major application types that are
department reviews. Clicking on the drop down list creates a list showing the recent development
applications of that specific type, including the project name, case number, status, staff contact,
and the last time it was updated on the website. Clicking on that project name results in a popup
page with links to all the relevant information for that application, including the general
information regarding the proposal, the public meeting information, the community meeting notice
report, application materials, site plan, and such. Mr. Schuler stated this webpage will be excellent
because people can go to it to view submitted applications and the attached documents related to
them. The website will house all of that information. He noted the public’s access to that
information has been a recent topic of discussion for special use permits.
Mr. Schuler stated the second component of the site is the Development Activity Map, which can
be enlarged by clicking on it and will allow the public to locate applications without actually
knowing the property address or the exact case number. For example, if they saw a rezoning sign
when they were driving by an area. This page shows all the different cases and a visitor can zoom
in or change the base map. The topography is available also, and zooming in and clicking on the
icon or the More Info button will take you to the popup page for a specific application.
Mr. Schuler stated the third component of the site is the Community Meeting Notices section,
which will contain all community meeting notices and community meetings.
Mr. Schuler stated the fourth main component of the site is the Important Links page, which
includes all the important links that people might be interested in whe n they are looking at
development applications, including links to the County’s ordinances the Planning Board agenda
and minutes, and things of that nature. There will also be a development archive. This webpage
will only show the recent applications. Eventually, they will be taken off so the page doesn’t get
too busy, however, the public will still be able to locate documents for previous applications on
this website and that will build as the site is continuously updated. Mr. Weaver inquired if the
building permit activity button would allow visitors to look up individual building permits. Mr.
Schuler commented that the County’s IT Department had put together a website so that you can
look at certain areas of the county and view the actual building permits that have been issued. Mr.
Weaver said it was outstanding to have that information available also.
Mr. Schuler concluded his presentation and thanked all of the New Hanover County Departments
that assisted with the creation of the Development Activity Page. He noted it was truly a team
Page 24 of 25
effort and the IT Department and Communications Department had also assisted with the page.
Mr. Schuler stated for the record that the New Hanover County Development Activity Page is the
best development activity page in the state of North Carolina and everyone should be proud of it.
Chairman Girardot thanked Mr. Schuler and the staff for their work on the Development Activity
Page, stating she agreed the webpage is outstanding.
November 2016 Technical Review Committee Report
Brad Schuler reported that the Technical Review Committee did not meet during the month of
November.
Additional Items of Business
Chairman Girardot stated the original 2017 Planning Board meeting schedule reflects a regular
meeting during the week of July 4th.2017. Staff has asked if board members would like to move
that meeting to July 13th to avoid any conflicts with the holiday.
Jordy Rawl made a motion to change the July 2017 Planning Board meeting date from July 6, 2017
to July 13, 2017. Vice Chair Ernest Olds seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to
change the July 2017 Planning Board meeting date to July 13, 2017.
Chairman Girardot asked for a volunteer to serve as the Planning Board representative at the
December 5th County Commissioners meeting, noting there was one Planning Board related item
on the agenda. Vice Chair Ernest Olds volunteered to attend the December 5th meeting as the
Planning Board representative.
Mr. O’Keefe reminded board members that the Planning Board Work Session on the Special Use
Permit would be held from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 8, 2016, and the draft
should be sent to board members soon.
David Weaver commented that board members had received an email saying that the County
would like to postpone the Groundwater 101 presentation until after the USGS study is done and
inquired about the timeframe for that study. Mr. O’Keefe explained there is currently not a
definitive timeframe. He noted the County is negotiating with the USGS to try to get the project
rolling. He said he could promise to update the Planning Board as progress is made, but right now
there is not a definitive timeframe. He noted staff would expect that the first phase would be done
within a year after the contract is signed. Mr. Weaver asked Mr. O’Keefe to clarify if the
Groundwater 101 presentation could be done within a year. Mr. O’Keefe explained that staff would
like to have the information from the USGS Study prior to it in order to be used as part of the
Groundwater 101 presentation so the best estimate staff has right now is that it will be about one
year. David Weaver commented he would like for the Planning Board to move forward with a
Groundwater 101 presentation because the board is simply ignorant about groundwater to a great
extent; however, if everyone else was comfortable with waiting until the USGS study is complete,
then so be it. Mr. O’Keefe explained that it is the staff’s preference to include the study in the
Page 25 of 25
Groundwater 101 presentation mainly to ensure that the information that the Planning Board and
the County are putting out is consistent with the study.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Weaver, Mr. O’Keefe said he could provide more information
to the board about the groundwater study, which will be conducted in coordination with the USGS,
at the next planning board meeting or perhaps at the next work session.
Hearing no other business, Chairman Girardot adjourned the meeting.