2018-06 June 7 2018 PBM
Page 1 of 18
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
June 7, 2018
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 7, 2018 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:
Ernest Olds, Chairman Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director
Jordy Rawl, Vice Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Paul Boney Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Donna Girardot Brad Schuler, Current Planner
Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
David Weaver
Absent:
Allen Pope
Chairman Ernest Olds opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public
hearing.
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea led the reciting of the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Chairman Ernest Olds reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Approval of May 3, 2018 Minutes
Board Member Donna Girardot requested one correction on Page 22, Article 5, Section
G7d, remove the words “of the building.”
MOTION: Board Member Donna Girardot MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member
David Weaver, to approve the May 3, 2018 meeting minutes with one correction as noted. The
Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the May 3, 218 Planning Board meeting minutes.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z18-05) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property
owner, John Dieffenbauch et al, to rezone approximately 4.2 acres of land located at the 7300
block of Mason Landing Road from R-20S, Residential District, to (CZD) R-20, Conditional
Residential, in order to construct a performance residential development.
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land
classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of
the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report.
Page 2 of 18
Planner Schuler stated this is an application to establish a conditional zoning district. This
R-20S zoning district is found along the Intracoastal Waterway in the northeastern portion of the
county. The purpose of this district is to permit low density single-family detached housing on
20,000 sf lots, therefore, this district prohibits performance residential developments and any form
of attached housing. The property is located in an area of the Middle Sound community that
consists of a variety of residential zoning districts. Directly southeast of the property is the
Register Place Estates subdivision which is also zoned as R-20S, North of the proposal is the
Mason Harbour subdivision which is a zoned as a Conditional Use R-15 district, and on the western
side of Middle Sound Loop Road you will find residential subdivisions within the R-20 and R-15
zoning districts. The property itself is currently a wooded, undeveloped tract of land consisting of
4.2 acres.
Current Planner Schuler stated the applicant is seeking to rezone the property to a
Conditional R-20 district in order to construct a performance residential development consisting
of 8 single-family lots. Performance developments are prohibited in the R-20S district, and thus
why the applicant is requesting this rezoning. A Performance residential development is a type of
subdivision that provides more flexibility in the design of the project by not requiring a minimum
lot size and by allowing for multiple housing types. However, these types of developments are
subject to a maximum density requirement. Performance developments within the proposed R-20
district are permitted a maximum density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre, which equates to a
maximum of eight dwelling units on the subject property. By not requiring a minimum lot size,
performance developments allow for additional land to be utilized for open space and stormwater
purposes. The proposed development will provide approximately 1.2 acres of open space, which
is about 29% of the subject property. A pocket of wetlands of approximately 15,000 square feet
located at the western side of the property will be contained within the open space areas.
Current Planner Schuler stated as for traffic, the proposed development is expected to
generate less than 10 trips during the peak hours. Traffic impacts will be reviewed by NCDOT
during the driveway permitting process. There have been no recent TIAs completed for other
developments within the area.
Current Planner Schuler stated the Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as
General residential which is a place types that Focuses on lower-density housing and associated
civic and commercial services. Overall, the proposed development is generally consistent with the
comp plan because it provides infill residential development similar to the existing pattern of the
area, while protecting environmentally sensitive land. The applicant has proposed and agreed to
one condition that will prohibit the development of attached housing or mobile homes on the
property, which is consistent with the current R-20S zoning of the property.
Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represents the applicant. She said this is a R-
20S. Over the course of the last several years, there have been several R-20s areas that have
rezoned to R-20 or other densities like the R-15 CUD that Mason Landing Harbour had, because
some of the ideas of that are to keep the lots big and that is protecting the water or the environment
even more became a little bit obsolete. The performance residential allows us to cluster the
development and leave more open space, preserve the wetlands and in the scheme of things she
Page 3 of 18
could still be creative and get 8 lots out of it in the R-20s, but that's not the highest and best, we
believe, design for this property. That being said, she believes that this is justified, is a better plan,
and is more environmentally sensible. She offered to answer any questions the board may have.
Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for Ms. Wolf.
Board Member Girardot commented that Ms. Wolf had committed to preserving as much
of the existing vegetation within the building lots and along the rear property boundaries as
possible at the applicant’s meeting with the surrounding property owners. Ms. Wolf confirmed
that was accurate, noting there are certainly much smaller lots being created in some performance
developments and one of the things they committed to and performance allows are both attached
and detached homes. Ms. Wolf said they have committed that these will absolutely be detached
so 8 single family homes, and their lots are in anywhere from 11,000sf to 13,000sf, to almost
14,000 sf. The footprints in those will certainly not take up the entire lot so her client has no
intention of clear-cutting lots for the sake of it because it is a nice wooded area. He will preserve
as much as he can other than the footprint. Ms. Wolf explained there is no buffer required between
like residential zoning districts and particularly since they have the single family to single family,
they will save as much vegetation as possible. She said they think having backyards with
vegetation would be an advantage for their potential buyers. But we don't intend to insert a buffer
yard.
In regard to vegetation, on the preliminary plat there are wetlands laid out and it looks like
there are open swales that drain there. He inquired if they will have to go inside that wetlands
passive open space and create almost a retention area. Ms. Wolf replied no, there will be no more
than 25 percent overall impervious surfaces which will include the public road, all of the rooftops,
driveways, and that sort of thing. The reason for this is even though you think it's very close to the
waterway, everything drains to the west and then to the northwest to cross mason landing road and
so where the outlet basin goes is more than a half mile from the actual essay waters. She explained
they have 25 percent available to the; it is designed as a low density project, and all the homes will
drain to that rear swale along the back and into the wet lands just for the attenuation because they
don't have a requirement for a water quality basin since the project is low density.
In response to another inquiry regarding drainage, Ms. Wolf explained the project is not
intended to infiltrate; it is supposed to sustain the wetlands and act as the natural drainage system
that it already does. In regard to an inquiry about how stormwater will be handled off the roadway,
Ms. Wolf explained the cross-section of this road is cross sloped; it is not crowned, so it cross-
slopes into that side and there is a flume or drop inlet that then after a 100 -foot minimum swale
will then go into the wetlands. She clarified that the wetlands will remain undisturbed and the
treescape will stay regardless.
In regard to the land between Loblolly Lane and the property that defines Register Place,
Ms. Wolf clarified that property will not be disturbed and is someone else’s property and is a 15 -
foot gap between the properties that runs to the east to the Alison property. is someone else's
property. She noted the right-of-way on that street section is 45 feet as required by the private
road sections. There is 8-1/2 feet between that property line and the back of the curb, so they
believe that's enough room for construction. They will not be able to encroach on the property.
Page 4 of 18
In regard to Chairman Olds’ inquiry about the road, Ms. Wolf confirmed the conventional
right-of-way extends past five lots and then turns into a private driveway. You can have up to four
lots on a private driveway. It will keep impervious surfaces down and has been cleared through
the fire department. She noted the project has actually been through the TRC process. Ms. Wolf
confirmed the little hitch in the road is designed for fire equipment and emergency vehicles to turn
around. At the point of the end of the right-of-way, she would guess it would turn from a regular
subdivision street into a sixteen foot paved area. She believes they intend to pave it, noting private
access easements don’t have a paving requirement, but the quality of these homes and the status
they want would result in paving them. Chairman Olds stated his concern was that it would turn
into something substantially less quality that would not look like a road, but would look more like
an unpaved alley; and we certainly want to maintain that character, even if it didn’t maintain the
width. Chairman Olds commended the applicant for their creativeness and trying to keep the
impervious to a minimum, but yet the lot yield is the same as if you hadn't done anything so kudos
to the developer for that.
Board Member David Weaver asked if stormwater would be handled the same if the
proposal was a conventional R20 development. Cindee Wolf said she would guess so, noting if
these end up being 20,000 square foot lots they definitely would be low density. If she was creative
and turned it into eight conventional lots, they would be on private access easements and there
would be no requirement to even pave them.
Chris Dieffenbach, owner and developer of the property, stated he thinks it’s going to be a
30-foot easement back to the other lots and it’s going to be paved. They are looking at some type
of pervious pavement to allow for more infiltration, but it will be paved. The development is going
to be nice with homes equal to or exceeding the quality of homes in the area., which will warrant
a nice-looking street and development.
Speakers in Support
Gary Lane spoke in support of the project, stating that he owns the property that directly
abuts the project toward Mason Landing Road, not the property on Mason Landing Road, but the
next property back that is about an acre and a quarter. He expressed concern that they keep as
much vegetation on the site as possible. He is very concerned that the property not be clear -cut
like the property in front of his property. He noted there are all kinds of wildlife like deer, fox, etc.
on his property and that move through that area so clear-cutting would not be good. He noted the
proposal sounds like it will be a nice project.
Speakers in Opposition
Michael Sage stated he isn’t really in opposition, but he has an inquiry or question about
the proposal. Mr. Sage said he is a resident of the Mason Harbour community, which is on the
north side of the project. He expressed concern about the project’s effect on property values of
abutting property. He would like the developer to clarify the perceived or intended value of the
homes that will be built on these sites.
Applicant Chris Dieffenbach explained they didn’t get the property for free. They paid a
good chunk of money for it and will be putting a substantial amount of money into the project for
Page 5 of 18
infrastructure. He said they are going to have at least equality of homes that are in Mason Harbour
Yacht Club and at Register Place and he would like to think they may even go a little further that
that with some of them. Ms. Dieffenbach said in regard to the look of the homes, they’d like a little
bit of a Charleston house that they’re seeing around the area. he wants property values to be high
for everybody over there and doesn’t want to devalue anybody's property, including his own. He
commented that they’ve had this property for over a year now, have gone through countless
iterations of plans and feel like this is the best plan for the property.
Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. He
stated that the applicant may continue the application to a future meeting or proceed with the
planning board deciding whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. What do
you wish to do?
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicants would like to move forward with a decision by the
planning board.
Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board.
Board Member Girardot commented she likes this project as it’s infill. She is a fan of
performance residential and leaving as much open space as possible. She noted there is no density
increase.
MOTION: Board Member Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member
Ted Shipley, to recommend approval as the board finds that this request for a zoning map
amendment of approximately 4.2 acres from R- 20S district to a Conditional R-20 district, as
described, is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it
provides for infill residential development similar to the existing pattern of the area,
while protecting environmentally sensitive land.
2. 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
and for the protection of the natural environment and wildlife habitats.
Condition:
1. Duplex, townhome, multifamily, and mobile home housing shall be prohibited.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z18-05 with
one condition.
Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z18-06) – Request by Gary W. Keyes Land Surveying on behalf
of the property owner, Germain Nadaud, to rezone approximately 5.3 acres of land located
at the 3100-3200 block of Ervins Place Drive from R-20, Residential District, to R-10,
Residential District.
Page 6 of 18
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification,
access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property
and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report.
Current Planner Schuler said this is an application to for a zoning map amendment, or what
is commonly referred to as a general use or straight rezoning. A portion of the property adjoins the
Walnut Hills Subdivision to the west which is zoned R-10. And to the east is the Apple Valley
subdivision. The property itself is undeveloped and consists of approximately 5.3 acres. It runs
along the western side of Ervins Place Road, a road which was dedicated for public use in 1999
but at this time has not been accepted into the state’s maintenance s ystem. However, the road
original developer of Ervins Place has requested the road be added into the State’s System. In
response, NCDOT has inspected the road and provided a list of improvements that need to be
completed to the road prior to it being add ed to the State’s System. The property also abuts
Cottonwood Lane within the Walnut Subdivision. The roads within this subdivision are maintained
by NCDOT.
Current Planner Schuler stated the applicant is seeking to rezoned the property to the R-10
district. Because this is a general map amendment and not a conditional rezoning, if this application
is approved, then the property would be allowed to be developed in accordance with the standards
for the R-10 district. As both the R-20 and R-10 districts are residential districts, the uses permitted
within them are mostly similar with only slight variations. The primary difference between the
districts is that the R-10 district allows for smaller lots and higher density as highlighted on this
slide. Overall, under our performance residential standards, the property is currently allowed up
to 10 dwellings units at a density of 1.9 du/ac, and if this rezoning is approved, then up 17 dwellings
units at a density of 3.3 du/ac would be permitted.
Current Planner Schuler stated in regard to traffic, any impacts will be analyzed at the time
a development is proposed. Any use that exceeds 100 trips in the peak hours will be required to
conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prior to development. And even if a TIA is not required,
transportation improvements still may be required by NCDOT during the driveway permitting
process. Based on the size of the property and the permitted density, it is not anticipated that a by-
right residential development would generate enough traffic to warrant a TIA. A detached single-
family dwelling, for example, typically generates about one trip during the peak hours. Under our
performance residential standards, the proposed district would allow up to 17 dwelling units on
the subject property, which would generate approximately 17 trips in the peak hours.
Current Planner Schuler reported there is one project that is included in the State
Transportation Improvement Program that will improve the portion of Castle Hayne Road adjacent
to the subject property:
STIP Project U-5863
o Widening of Castle Hayne Road to multi-lanes from I-140 to Division Drive.
Right-of-way acquisition is expected to begin in 2021 and construction is expected
to begin in 2023.
Current Planner Schuler stated the Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as
General residential which is a place types that Focuses on lower-density housing and associated
Page 7 of 18
civic and commercial services. Overall, the proposed development is generally consistent with the
comp plan because it provides infill residential development similar to th e existing pattern of the
area, therefore, staff recommends approval of this application.
In response to a board member’s inquiry, Mr. Schuler confirmed he has a list of the
improvements needed for the road to be taken into the NCDOT database for road maintenance.
Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Gary Keyes of Keyes Land Surveying stated he represented the applicant. He stated the
staff recommendation and presentation is very sufficient in this case. Their property is located
currently as R-20 in the General Residential place type. here. There is R-15 zoning nearby and
they actually share a property line with an R-10 so they really don’t have anything to add at the
moment and would like to proceed with the rezoning. He offered to answer questions from the
board members.
Chairman Olds inquired about the depth of the lots that would be on Ervins Place. Mr.
Keyes replied that accounting for the right-of-way, the rear property line, and those matters, not
even a full survey has been done so they don't want to certify an actual depth yet. He acknowledged
the it is skinnier than the opposite side and is a very narrow tract of land.
Board Member Weaver inquired if they tried to acquire the property to the west of the site,
noting there appeared to be two large lots there. Mr. Keyes stated it is his understanding that those
lots are not available, but they have not pursued those.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.
Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. He
stated that the applicant may continue the application to a future meeting or proceed with the
planning board deciding whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. What do
you wish to do?
Gary Keyes confirmed the applicant would like to move forward with a decision by the
planning board.
Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board.
MOTION: Board Member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chairman
Jordy Rawl, to recommend approval as the board finds that this request for a zoning map
amendment of approximately 5.3 acres from the R-20 district to an R-10 district, as described, is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it
provides an infill residential development similar to the existing pattern of the area and
aligns with the density recommendation of the General Residential place type.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal provides a reasonable
extension of an existing R-10 zoning district in an area where public water and sewer
is available.
Page 8 of 18
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z18-06.
Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl expressed concern about the Ervins Place Drive access, which
is not currently maintained by NCDOT. Current Planner Schuler confirmed that the intent is for
this development to utilize Ervins Place Drive for access. He also noted that staff would work out
details during the TRC process with the property owner. He noted that Cottonwood Lane is
maintained by NCDOT and also stubs into the property.
Board Member Weaver asked if anyone on the east side of Ervins place in the R-20 area
make any inquiries about this rezoning request. Current Planner Schuler confirmed he had received
a good amount of general inquiries about the rezoning request.
Item 3: Special Use Permit Request (S18-02) – Request by Herrington Classic Homes, LLC,
on behalf of the property owner, Linda T. McCall, for a Special Use Permit for a high density
development on an approximately 5.8-acre parcel located at 6724 Carolina Beach Road.
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land
classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of
the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report.
This is an application for a Special Use Permit for a high density development, which is a
residential project that exceeds the maximum density limit of the subject zoning district. As noted
on a zoning map of the area, the subject property is currently zoned R-15, and most of the
surrounding area is also zoned R-15. Directly south is property zoned I-2 Heavy Industrial which
contains a welding shop and telecommunication tower and directly north is the Immaculate
Conception Catholic Church. The subject property consists of approximately 5.8 acres and is
currently developed with a single-family dwelling, which will be removed with the proposed
project. The current proposed site plan for the application shows the development will consist of
37 single-family lots, which equates to a density of 6.4 du/ac. This plan has been reviewed by the
Technical Review Committee (TRC) and does comply with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
As for traffic, the proposed use is expected to generate around 30 to 40 trips during the peak hours,
and the traffic impacts will be reviewed by the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
through the driveway permitting process. There have been no recent Traffic Impact Analyses
(TIAs) conducted for other projects within one mile of the subject property, and there are no
planned State improvement projects for the area. Carolina Beach Road is currently operating
within its designed capacity. The Wilmington-New Hanover County Greenway Plan does
recommend that a greenway be installed along the western portion of Carolina Beach Road.
The Comprehensive Plan classifies the property as Community Mixed Use., which 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 appropriate uses include office, retail,
mixed use, recreation, commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential.
The proposed Cypress Village project is generally CONSISTENT with the Community
Mixed Use place type. It provides housing at densities consistent with what is encouraged in this
area, and along with the adjacent land uses, creates the desired mix of uses.
Page 9 of 18
Because this is a SUP application, the Planning Board must make four conclusions in order
to recommend approval of the application. These conclusions should be supported with findings
of fact that are based on substantial and competent evidence. Staff has created preliminary findings
of fact that support each conclusion. The four conclusions and findings of fact are included in the
staff report. The first conclusion is that the use will not endanger the public health or safety, the
second is that the use meets all the required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance,
third is that the use will not substantially injure the adjoining property and fourth , the use is in
harmony with the area and consistent with our long range plans. Lastly, staff is suggesting one
condition and that is that a 20-food wide easement be dedicated to the county along Carolina Beach
Road in accordance with the Wilmington-New Hanover Comprehensive Greenway Plan.
Chairman Olds inquired if board members had any questions for staff.
Board Member Girardot noted NCDOT has made Carolina Beach Road a haven for
Michigan U-turns. She asked if coming out of this property folks would go north and turn where
that Michigan U-turn is located? Planner Schuler replied that he would imagine that would be the
route they would take and pointed out the approximate location of the driveway where the
existing one is located. He would assume that most people would probably go into that U-turn
lane if they were headed north.
Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Attorney Michael Lee stated he and Robbie Parker of the Lee Law Firm were present to
represent the applicant, Craig Johnson for Herrington Homes. He noted that Planner Schuler had
gone through the four conditions, but he would go through them also, providing information about
the property, the ordinance requirements, and the future land use plan. He presented a slide of the
site, noting the current land uses on and around the site. He pointed out the sign, the church, and
the I-2 district. He noted there is an office next door that is currently in business and behind the
sign on the back is a tower. There are some manufactured housing projects further down Carolina
Beach Road. Attorney Lee noted there is currently a single-family home on the site, a church on
one side, and the tower in the back. There are also some cypress trees on the front of the parcel. H
presented a photo of the adjacent church and the adjacent office that is currently operating. He also
provided a site plan overlay to provide context of how the proposal would look on the existing
conditions. He noted the reason for that slide is to take a look at the cross-section of the street and
how there are street trees, a sidewalk which is both on the other side of the roadway.
In regard to the proposed plan of 37 single family units, he said he realized the high density
is a little over ten units per acre, but the site as shown will be 6.4. the sidewalks are a great feature
and kind of dovetail also with the small trail, which is about a three-quarter acre of active area.
There will also be a community post office box at every one of these particular units. Attorney Lee
noted these will be single family residences, ranging from 1,250 square feet to 2,400 square feet.
There will be about five different elevations and floor plans. He presented a drawing of one of the
homes, which are still in development. The identifying sales prices will be from the low $200’s to
the mid $200’s to attract that market.
Page 10 of 18
Attorney Lee stated in regard to traffic, there weren’t enough trips to warrant a traffic
impact analysis (TIA). The trips identified by Davenport Engineering are 28 AM Peak Trips and
37 PM Peak Trips respectively. The existing trips for the existing zoning get to around 72 trips for
the AM and PM peak hours.
Attorney Lee stated this is a Community Mixed Use classification. It is adjacent to a church
and also the I-2 zoning where the office is located. As the property begins to develop down
Carolina Beach Road with the pedestrian crossing on the front hopefully we’ll have some good
interconnectivity. He noted the aerials in Planner Schuler’s presentation reflected the worn path
down Carolina Beach Road, which people are currently traveling on foot.
Attorney Lee stated in regard to endangering the public health or safety, the project will
have to go through the NCDOT permitting process. In speaking with Davenport, it looks like they
may have a twenty-foot taper into the project. He noted the project also meets all required
conditions and has already gone through the TRC review. The proposal will not substantially injure
the abutting properties; it will be a bonus for the area. The location and use will be in harmony
with the area as the Community Mixed Use is developed. This mix of uses will work really well
being a residential development adjacent to the church and the I-2 zoned property adjacent to it,
and hopefully some redevelopment as we go down the road. Attorney Lee offered to answer any
questions the planning board may have.
In response to an inquiry from Board Member Jordy Rawl, Charles Cazier of Intracoastal
Engineering confirmed all the systems are designed as infiltration systems on this project. The
soils testing was done and turned out well. That area is a natural low area that crosses the I-2
property and then out to that conservation area so that is where that overflow would go. He also
confirmed the front left corner would flow to the drop inlet on Carolina Beach Road. They have
actually been in discussion with NCDOT already and discussed the parameters as to what they
would require as far us to hold back as far as treating it on our site before relieving it to the right-
of-way.
Board Member Rawl commented that 70% of traffic will want to head back north into
Wilmington and inquired if there was enough clearance for a stacked-up lane of traffic exiting the
subdivision to make it across two lanes of traffic in the morning to get into that Michigan turn lane.
Mr. Cazier confirmed they have been in discussions with NCDOT and there might be a slight
adjustment, but they feel they are pretty close to where it can be done. They will work out the
details during the driveway permit process.
Board Member Donna Girardot stated this is a nice project on a small piece of land and
inquired if there was sufficient overflow parking within this project. Attorney Lee confirmed the
smaller units will have single car garages in addition to the driveways, but most of the units will
have two car garages in addition to the approach pad and driveways so overflow parking, beyond
that if you have a party would just be on the street. Josh Mihaly explained they located a few on-
street parking areas. There are five additional parallel spots on the south side of the property, and
there are also one or two parking spaces by the post office boxes.
Chairman Olds asked in regard to the I-2 district if there is any concern that there could be
something in the I-2 that might need some buffering from the proposed development. He noted
Page 11 of 18
there is a welding shop there now. He noted the proposal is first class and commended the applicant
on a fine job. He noted he was just concerned about the compatibility of I-2 and what the applicants
have done to protect the future homeowners from what could happen in the I-2.
Attorney Lee explained the district requires a 25-foot buffer adjacent to the residential
district and they have matched that on the I-2 side as well, to have some buffering with that. Even
though it’s residential it’s on the I-2 as well. He noted he thinks what we may all expect is that
moving forward in the future that hopefully the use would be something besides an industrial use
in this particular area, but he knows it was probably conducive to having the cell tower back there.
Seeing none signed up to speak in opposition to the special use permit, Chairman Olds
closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period.
Board Member Rawl stated the proposal is a nicely laid out design. The development team
consists of quality folks that bring good projects forward in the local area. He thinks this is a cool
use type to be able to put on a relatively small piece of land. The buzzword around town is
affordable housing and it looks like somebody is making a creative attempt to tackle it. I think it’s
worth moving forward to the commissioners.
Chairman Olds stated his agreement, noting the applicant could have taken the easy way
out and nobody would have had a problem with that. He commended the applicants for taking the
higher road.
Chairman Olds inquired if board members had any other comments. Hearing none, he
asked the applicant to come forward and stated a special use permit which is denied can only be
resubmitted if there is a substantial change in the facts, evidence or conditions of the application
as determined by the planning director. At this time, you may ask to either continue the application
to a future meeting or move forward with a decision to recommend or deny by the planning board
or continue the item to a future meeting. What do you wish to do?
Attorney Michael Lee confirmed the applicant would like to move forward with a decision
by the planning board.
Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board.
MOTION: Board Member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member
Donna Girardot, to recommend approval as the board finds that this application for a special use
permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the staff
summary and with the condition as recommended by staff.
Condition:
1. A 20-foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the County along Carolina Beach Road
for the purpose of installing a pedestrian facility in accordance with the Wilmington-
New Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit Request S18-
02 with one condition.
Page 12 of 18
Item 4: Special Use Permit Request (S18-03) – Request by Milestone Communications, on
behalf of the property owner, New Hanover County, for a Special Use Permit for a
telecommunications tower on an approximately 200-acre parcel located off of Halyburton
Memorial Parkway.
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea provided information pertaining to
location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and
photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Andrea presented the following staff
report.
Planning Supervisor Andrea stated this is a special use permit request from Milestone
Communications, applicant, on behalf of New Hanover County, property owner, to develop a
telecommunications tower. He stated that regardless that the county is the property owner, the
Planning Board needed to make their recommendation for approval or denial of the SUP based on
the greater weight of competent, material, and substantial evidence presented during this quasi -
judicial public hearing, just as they would with any other Special Use Permit request.
Planning Supervisor Andrea reported the property is a nearly 200-acres parcel located in
the southern half of the county. The portion of the site subject to the SUP request and for where
the tower is proposed is about halfway between the southern parking lot and the ball field complex
in Veterans Park. Veterans Park is a public park facility that has amenities for active recreation.
Adjacent to the park to the west are three public schools, Murray Middle, Ashley High, and
Anderson Elementary. There is also a CFPUA water tower on the site. CFPUA has informed
county staff that the top of the tank is 162’ off the ground, and there are antennas for AT&T that
protrude above the top of the tank. The CFPUA water tower is at structural capacity so no
additional equipment can be added to it. The property is all zoned R-15, and telecommunications
towers are allowed in the R-15 zoning district by Special Use Permit. The property is surrounded
by R-15 zoning and mostly single-family residential uses. Just to the north of the property is an
active aviation runway in the Pilots Ridge community. The property is classified as General
Residential by the 2016 Comp Plan.
Planning Supervisor Andrea stated the proposal is for a 140’ tall monopole style tower
designed to accommodate up to 5 carriers. The tower and equipment compound would be within
a 35’ by 75’ lease area, which is in an area that is currently vegetated. Access to the site would be
from an access easement from Halyburton Memorial Parkway and over the existing driveway and
parking lot to the equipment compound. The other three sides of the equipment compound would
have a 25’ wide vegetated buffer; vegetation would consist of as much existing vegetation as
possible and supplemented with more plants to reach the required 100% opacity.
Planning Supervisor Andrea presented the proposed layout for the equipment compound,
pointing out the actual tower and lease areas for the ground equipment required to support antennas
for each carrier that may be on the tower, as well as the 25’ wide vegetated buffer that would
surround the compound on three sides, along with how the compound would be accessed from the
east side. He noted that telecom towers generate virtually no vehicle trips, so this proposal will
have basically no impact on the surrounding transportation network.
Page 13 of 18
Planning Supervisor Andrea stated that four conclusions are required to be reached
supported by findings of facts based on competent, material, and substantial evidence and
testimony in order to approve a special use permit. He briefly reviewed each of the four required
conclusions and draft findings of fact. The first conclusion is that the proposal will not materially
endanger public health or safety. Staff suggests that this conclusion is met based on these five draft
findings of fact. The second required conclusion is that the proposal meets all of the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance. The zoning ordinance sets out many supplemental standards and
application requirements for telecom towers in Section 63.5. There are 11 proposed findings of
fact in the staff summary that support that the proposal meets the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The third required conclusion is that the use won’t substantially injure the property
values of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity. Staff suggests that
this conclusion can be met based on the material received in the application package. Supervisor
Andrea asked the board to disregard proposed finding “C” in the staff report, noting that it is not
applicable to this proposal. The fourth conclusion is that if developed, the location and character
of the use would be in harmony with the area and that the use conforms with the comp rehensive
plan. Staff suggests that this two-prong requirement is met supported by these findings of fact.
In conclusion, Planning Supervisor Andrea announced that Jonathan Yates was present on
behalf of the petitioner, Milestone Communications.
Hearing no questions for staff, Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized
the applicants.
Scott Holmes of Murchison, Taylor & Gibson stated that Jonathan Yates, as well as David
Goldsmith of Milestone Communication would present the applicant’s presentation.
Jonathan Yates stated he represents the petitioner. He commended Mr. Andrea, noting it
was a pleasure to work with him. He stated he has worked all over the Carolinas and he wished
that Mr. Andrea worked in a lot of other counties. He stated the proposal is a 140 -foot monopole
style wireless communication facility. It is in Veterans Park and immediately adjacent to it is
Charles B. Murray Middle School, then Eugene Ashley High School, and Edwin Anderson
Elementary School. He learned tonight why those three schools are named that and saw the
beautiful plaque on the first floor explaining that all of them were medal of honor recipients. This
is an incredible place to put a communications facility. The purpose for this is to help offload
capacity from existing communications facilities along Carolina Beach Road and the location is
absolutely ideal. The county property gave them everything to work with. He stated their goal was
to not only meet, but try to go a little further on the requirements of 63.5-1. This property allowed
us to not only meet them, but meet them in a big way.
Attorney Yates explained that under 63.5-1 they are required to be a height away from an
adjoining or abutting residential zoning district or boundary. In this case, they achieved to the
north 1,772 feet, 421 feet to the south, 640 feet to the east, and 908 feet to the west, so even on
their closest they meet the standard by a factor of 3 times. Right off the parking area of the baseball
field complex, they were able to tuck the tower site into some existing tree cover. In order to
implement and use, the typical cell facility is a square of 100 feet by 100 feet or 80 feet by 80 feet.
Because they wanted to take advantage of that area and the existing tree cover, they came up with
Page 14 of 18
a little different compound in that they’re going to go 35 feet by 75 feet; it will work for them and
they can enjoy the existing tree cover. They will bring in up to 34 of the Nelly R. Stevens Holly
trees, planting them about six feet apart. They grow to about 35 feet at maturity so the base will be
hidden. The facility itself is designed for at least 5 cellular carriers and if New Hanover County
has any need for it themselves for any public safety communication or any of their communication
devices, they built that capacity on it. There will be the 140-foot tower and at the base in the 35’
to 75,’ will be all their individual equipment area.
A facility like this takes roughly 45 to 60 days max to build; most of that is the foundation
being set between 45, 60 days max to build. Most of that is the foundation being set. It will be
ready after that for the tower erection, which takes about a day. After that, they find on average
the carriers visit maybe about 6 times a year. Most of this equipment is remotely run and controlled
so occasionally a tech crew will come in for an hour or so just to tinker with the equipment. This
will not bring any additional traffic onto Halyburton Memorial Parkway. Their visits on and off
the park will be fairly innocuous. In addition to the landscaping, they will secure the site as they
have certain interests in site security and have some very valuable equipment in there. He stated
they will have an 8-foot chain link fence. Even though it's covered by the tree cover they will put
in the green privacy slats so you can't look through it.
We are doing this for wireless infrastructure. This site is being driven by everything going
on around it. You have so many people not only using their phones, their IPads, all the devices
that it has caused a tough part on the system. This is designed to take what capacity off existing
sites so people can have the same experience they are used to having, which is important. He noted
he doesn’t have the current numbers, but in 2014, 77 percent of all 911 calls in New Hanover
County came from wireless devices. The nationwide average is about 82 to 84 percent, that's
probably where you guys are now so it's very important that this robust coverage be present,
particularly where people are playing and attending school. Unlike other infrastructure whether it
be a tower, telephone or water & sewer, they do not have to run every linear foot to bring their
infrastructure. With a few well-placed positions, they can ensure folks can enjoy what they are
expecting to enjoy. Mr. Yates stated the nationwide average in the United States, state to state,
with numbers increasing monthly, over 50 percent of households have gone wireless only.
Particularly for the folks who are younger than me, which is most of the world, they will never
have a land line phone. Everything is wireless. He noted they are seeing in a lot of communities
that 50 percent are is wireless only, 42 percent are a hybrid of wireless and land line, and only 8
percent are land line only so it’s essential that they be able to deliver infrastructure where it's
needed.
Mr. Yates said as cell sites go, he’s worked on a lot of them and this one is incredible.
Very rarely does he get to work with a 200-acres piece of property. Milestone is known for their
innovative techniques; they didn't just come in with a typical square, they are trying to place it
carefully, doing a slightly different compound and taking advantage of the tree cover. This is
really a win-win for the folks around it and they thank the County for this particular piece of
property located exactly where the carriers need to be and for a beautiful piece of property to do
this. The reiterated that this property allowed them to do a good job of meeting the requirements
of 63.5-1. It gave us the vehicle so we could take your ordinance and not meet but exceed every
Page 15 of 18
requirement. In conclusion, he stated his colleague, David Goldsmith of Milestone
Communications was also present to answer questions.
In response to Board Member Girardot’s inquiry regarding the status of their other two
sites, Attorney Yates confirmed those sites are at capacity, particularly the sectors facing the
highway, Carolina Beach Road. He noted with that with that incredible traffic, they are at full
capacity, resulting in a problem with connection. Adding this tower will take capacity off the two
existing sites so the experience can get back to what it should be.
Board Member inquired if the tower will be lit since it is so close to Pilots Ridge. Attorney
Yates stated it is under final review. They had an initial review done by Ken Patterson of Ken
Patterson Airspace Consulting, formerly with the FAA. He feels at 140 feet the tower won’t have
to be lit. They are about five days out from receiving the final determination and will follow
whatever that recommendation is. He noted they are about 10 nautical miles from Wilmington
International’s Runway 06 and about 1,800 feet south of Pilots Ridge so they brought the height
down considerably. Prior to seeing the commissioners on this proposal, the final determination by
the FAA will be received and the applicants will go with whatever the FAA determines.
Board Member David Weaver inquired what limits the capacity on these towers. Attorney
Yates explained that capacity if the volume of users. There are a finite number of radios and
channels you can put on a site and when they are all in play, they are out. He commented that they
are predicting by the year 2020, two years out, in the United States there will be something like
940 million wireless devices in play and there is a finite number of radios you can put on each site.
Vice Chair Jordy Rawl inquired if the applicant had tried to blend the tower in with the
pole lights around the ball fields, noting Mr. Yates had discussed the obtrusive nature of cell
towers, which are a fact of life now. He stated understanding that they will disguise the base of the
tower. Mr. Yates explained they had taken a look at that, but if they put it on the ball field, he
would have to do a 25’ buffer all the wa y around it which might interfere with play. They were
trying to meet every part of the ordinance and not have to seek a variance so they went with a
monopole, which is the most innocuous. There really wasn't a stealth technique that would work
in this instance so they did the best they could by going with the monopole design and putting it
in that location.
In response to Vice Chair Rawl’s inquiry, Mr. Yates explained they would take the utmost
measures to protect the safety of those enjoying athletic events at the fields, particularly given this
is peak season, during the construction period. He noted they follow all protocol set by the property
owner and work with any rules they set. There will be a team performing this work and the site
will be secured at all times. Most of the timeframe is getting the foundation in. The tower erection
process is about a 24-hour process where it's stacked up and after that it's tower integration, which
involves tech teams hooking the wires correctly. He explained that they understand, Milestone
particularly, their place in this industry is almost exclusively to work with counties and school
districts so they understand protocol, take whatever rules are given to them, try to go many steps
further, and we understand their partnerships are important.
Page 16 of 18
In response to Chairman Olds’ inquiry, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Andrea explained
that the photo simulations of the monopole provided in the package were not available for
projection. Mr. Yates stated that Mr. Goldsmith did have them available on a thumb drive.
In response to an inquiry from the chairman, Mr. Yates confirmed there is simply an area
designated for access to the site and a generator onsite; however, it only runs when the power is
out and for occasional testing. Typically, with this design they are guaranteed if you are less than
20 meters out, the sound measures at less than 60 dBm, which about the same as an air conditioner.
If the power is completely out in the area, you would hear the hum of more generators at the same
time; it is just a backup. Mr. Yates noted they have to be there for emergency situations, and in the
case of a catastrophic situation, a lot of folks depend on them so they have to have the generator.
He noted the generator would probably undergo a quick test on a weekly basis.
Chairman Olds pointed out that in the simulation photos, the perception is that the
monopole isn’t that dissimilar to the light standards. He would assume it’s taller than the lights on
the ballfields, but it’s not dramatically different. He was surprised that it didn’t seem to tower over
everything. The simulations were very informative and helped put it into context, relieving some
of his concerns about how it might look. Mr. Yates explained they do their simulations by actually
getting a balloon up to the correct height and then photo simulations are done, which makes it
more realistic.
In response to Board Member Donna Girardot inquiry, Mr. Yates confirmed the applicant
would be leasing the tower site from New Hanover County.
Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. He
advised the applicant that a special use permit that is denied may only be resubmitted if there has
been a substantial change in the facts, evidence or conditions of the application as determined by
the Planning Director. At this time, the applicant may ask to either continue the application to a
future meeting or proceed with the planning board deciding whether to recommend approval or
denial of the application. What do you wish to do?
Attorney Holmes confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a decision by the
planning board.
Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board.
MOTION: Board Member David Weaver made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member
Ted Shipley, to recommend approval as the planning board finds that this application for a special
use permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the staff
summary.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit Request S18-
03.
Technical Review Committee Report (April-May)
Page 17 of 18
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea presented the TRC report. The TRC
met four times during the months of April and May to review six projects.
1. Covey Commons: Located off Murrayville Road. Proposal was previously approved for 13
lots, but with additional acreage, two additional lots were achieved for a total of 15 lots.
2. Congleton Farms: Located off Myrtle Grove Road. Approved for 171 lots. Eight additional
lots were added to a valid approval due to the addition of acreage to the site.
3. Cypress Village: Located off Carolina Beach Road. This is a new project and the associated
Special Use Permit Request S18-02 was heard earlier tonight.
4. Windsor Pines: This is a new project located in The Cape subdivision. This is a single-
family residential project totaling 82 lots.
5. Smith Creek Village: Located on the north side of Gordon Road near the west bound on-
ramp of I-40. Initially approved a few years ago as a special use permit and by TRC as an
apartment project with 318 units. The unit count was reduced from the original approval.
6. The Landing at Lewis Creek Estates: This was a revision to a previously approved design
totaling 422 units. The layout was slightly reconfigured somewhat based on the Planning
Board’s feedback.
Other Agenda Items - Unified Development Ordinance Update:
Planning & Land Use Director Wayne Clark provided an update on the Unified
Development Ordinance. Director Clark stated that the recent Planning Board UDO workshop
helped staff determine the need to find a format that would make it more conducive for everyone
to understand what is being recommended in the UDO. Rather than presenting 150 pages of code
for review, staff has developed a sheet for each zoning district. For example, P hase I contains the
amendments to all the zoning districts, which includes the purpose statements, dimensional
standards, and permitted uses. Staff has created a simple to read sheet that shows what is there,
what we think the challenges are, and the recommendations for all the zoning districts. There are
approximately 13 existing districts that are basically done now and four or five new districts that
are still being completed.
Director Clark stated that Board Member Girardot has been helping staff through the
technical committee and they think the new sheets will be much easier for everybody to
understand. When staff gets the final versions of the existing zoning districts, they will schedule
another workshop with the planning board on Phase I, which would include everything
recommended to be changed related to the existing districts and probably hold a third workshop
because they’ll be going through 13 different districts fairly close behind it to review the new
districts. That would conclude Phase I. Then phase II will begin, where we would be drafting
changes to the parking, lighting, signs, etc. Director Clark suggested the second UDO workshop
be held in August instead of July if the Planning Board members preferred , giving staff time to
provide the sheets to the planning board prior to the meeting so they would have several weeks to
review and discuss them before the board is expected to weigh in on the drafts. Director Clark
stated that staff was considering holding the workshop related to these districts after the week of
the regular Planning Board meeting in August.
Following a short discussion about possible dates for the workshop in August, Director
Clark reported that Monday, August 13 and Thursday, August 16, are available for a workshop.
Page 18 of 18
He noted that based on public comments at the last workshop, staff was considering holding the
workshop after 5:00 p.m. if the board was agreeable. At the Board’s request, staff will coordinate
the date and time of the next UDO public workshop with the planning board via email.
Director Clark stated staff may send a draft of one of the districts in advance so the board
can get an idea of what it looks like. He would like to be sure board members are put in a good
position to provide quality feedback. He stated this new approach will make it much easier than
providing a book of code to board members.
With no other items of business, Chairman Olds adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director