2015-06 June 4 2015 PBM
Page 1 of 41
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
June 4, 2015
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting.
Planning Board Present: Staff Present:
Edward “Ted” Shipley, III, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Donna Girardot, Vice Chair Kenneth Vafier, Planning Manager
Tamara Murphy Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Anthony Prinz Sam Burgess, Senior Planner
Jordy Rawl Brad Schuler, Current Planner
David Weaver Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
Bill McDow, Wilmington Metropolitan Planning
Absent: Organization
Lisa Mesler
Chairman Ted Shipley opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing.
Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Ted Shipley reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Approval of April 2015 Planning Board Minutes
Anthony Prinz made a motion to approve the April Planning Board minutes. Vice Chair Donna
Girardot seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the April 2, 2015
Planning Board meeting minutes.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-941, 6/15) – Request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions on behalf of
Hoosier Daddy, LLC to rezone 2.39 acres located at 5819 & 5841 Carolina Beach Road from R -15,
Residential District, to B-2, Highway Business District. The property is classified as Transition
according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification,
access, and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the
surrounding area. Mr. Schuler reported:
This application is considered a straight rezoning or general rezoning, meaning it is
proposing strictly to change the zoning classification of a piece of land from one district
to another. There are no proposed uses as part of this application, no conceptual site
plans, and conditions above and beyond the zoning ordinance cannot be added to the
district. Should the application be approved, the land would be allowed to be developed
in accordance with the standards of the proposed B-2 zoning district.
Page 2 of 41
The rezoning proposal is located adjacent to the Sanders Road and Carolina Beach
Road intersection. The rezoning is within 2 parcels which total more than 115 acres . Of
those 115 acres, about 2 acres are currently zoned B-2 along Carolina Beach Road.
Those acres of commercial zoning are part of a commercial node at the Sanders and
Carolina Beach Road intersection, which was established when zoning was initially
applied to this area in 1971, and it has expanded over the years through multiple re-
zonings. Just outside of that node is mostly R-15 zoning, containing residential
subdivisions, the closest being the Battle Park development directly to the south.
The property is currently undeveloped, with some of the surrounding land uses
including an animal park located directly to the north, a storage business to the south,
and general retail and offices uses nearby.
As this is a rezoning application, staff reviews to determine if it complies with the 2006
CAMA Land Use Plan. The plan classifies the property as Transition, which is to
provide for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be
provided with necessary urban services. The plan also contains two policies that call for
commercial nodes to be located on major thoroughfares and at major intersections.
Therefore, staff feels this application does comply with the Land Use Plan, and is
recommending approval.
Chairman Shipley asked if board members had any questions for staff.
Anthony Prinz inquired about access to the property. Mr. Schuler explained the project would
have direct driveway access to Carolina Beach Road.
Vice Chair Girardot asked if the property was part of an overlay district in regard to signage and
setbacks. Mr. Schuler said it was not.
In response to a question from Jordy Rawl regarding zoning of the property between the proposal
and Carolina Beach Road, Mr. Schuler explained the property would remain B-2.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represented the owner of the property. The B-2 area
of her client’s property is only 250 feet deep; whereas, the B-2 zone on other properties seems to
carry a very consistent offset from Carolina Beach Road. She stated she had initially spoken to
the owners of the Tregembo Zoo property, but Mrs. Tregembo had opted not to sign the petition,
expressing concern about their property taxes potentially increasing when they intend to use their
property only for a zoo in perpetuity. Ms. Wolf stated appreciation of the staff’s
recommendation, noting the applicant would like to make the B-2 zoning consistent and give it
enough depth that some type of business could be developed on the property. She offered to
answer questions from the board.
No one else spoke in support of the project.
Chris O’Keefe addressed Vice Chair Girardot’s question about regulations along Carolina Beach
Road, noting there is one specific ordinance that addresses free standing signs along Carolina
Page 3 of 41
Beach Road, which comply with provisions of signs except they onl y allow one free standing
ground sign not to exceed six (6) feet of height and a maximum area of six (6) feet should be
permitted. That ordinance is specific to this area of Carolina Beach Road.
Chairman Shipley opened the opposition portion of the hearing.
Robert Tregembo stated his family owns the Tregembo Animal Park. He explained he is not so
much against the rezoning to B-2 as he is against what Mr. Kerr said they were going to build on
the property – a multi-story hotel or motel. He expressed concern that a three-story building
located reasonably close the property line would have oversight into their property and the lion
enclosures in the zoo would be the closest exhibit to it. A person with a laser or gun staying in
the hotel/motel with a window could potentially shoot a gun or laser at a lion. There would be no
way they could build a fence or screen thirty or forty feet high to block the lion enclosure from
the view of the hotel/motel. He inquired about the building setbacks from the property line.
Mr. Schuler explained the setbacks between B-2 and R-15 in that area would be a twenty (20’)
foot buffer at minimum, but the setback would depend on the height of the structure. The taller
the structure, the larger the setback would be.
Mr. Tregembo reiterated his concerns, noting Mr. Kerr had provided the information about
building a multi-story hotel during a discussion in which Mr. Kerr inquired about leasing some
of the Tregembo’s property and Mr. Tregembo asked about purchasing some of Mr. Kerr’s
property.
Chairman Shipley thanked Mr. Tregembo for his comments and clarified the board was
considering a rezoning request, not a request for an actual hotel or motel. He expressed gratitude
that Mr. Tregembo had brought it to their attention based on the current use he has.
Seeing no one else present who wished to speak in regard to the rezoning request, Chairman
Shipley closed the opposition portion of the hearing and opened the rebuttal period.
During rebuttal, Cindee Wolf stated that hotels are a permitted use in a B-2 zone. Most hotels
don’t have opening windows. The front of the property is already zoned B-2, so any type of
business that could locate on that two-acres piece of land could be built. She hoped that no one
would take the action Mr. Tregembo suggested adjacent to a zoo. Ms. Wolf commented that a
hotel is certainly a possibility on that piece of property.
Chairman Shipley asked if board members had any questions.
In response to an inquiry from David Weaver, Mr. Tregembo confirmed the lion facility is
located in the strip of land zoned R-15.
Mr. Weaver commented that if a hotel was built on the two acres at the front of the property, it
wouldn’t overlook any animal cage at the zoo; however, a hotel built on the property proposed to
be rezoned would overlook the animal cages.
Page 4 of 41
No one else from the public spoke in regard to the rezoning. Chairman Shipley entertained a
motion to close the public hearing.
Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a motion to close the public hearing. David Weaver seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to close the public hearing.
Chairman Shipley opened the planning board discussion period.
Anthony Prinz stated a similar situation had occurred at a previous meeting where neighbors
expressed concerns about behavior rather than land use. In his opinion, behavior concerns would
be a law enforcement matter rather than a zoning matter. From his perspective, B-2 zoning is
much more appropriate for that parcel than R-15 based on the zoning map. The question is in its
current zoning what would an owner be able to build and would it be viable in that area. Would it
be reasonable to build to build a series of single family homes thee at the intersection of Sanders
Road and Carolina Beach Road? He felt most would agree that parcel is more appropriate for
commercial.
David Weaver stated he would agree with Mr. Prinz if the adjacent parcel wasn’t zoned R-15.
Typically, when a parcel is rezoned to commercial next to a residential piece of property, the
board would consider subdued rezoning to B-1 or O&I or wait until someone came forward with
a specific use and put the necessary conditions on it. He stated sympathy for Mr. Tregembo’s
viewpoint in this case in that allowing for a three-story hotel next to adjacent R-15 zoned
property could become a problem just as it could if there was an existing single family residential
structure next to the B-2 district. Mr. Weaver stated while he sees the value of that property
becoming commercial, because of the existing R-15 use next to it, he would like to see a specific
use proposed for the parcel as part of a B-2 or a much reduced rezoning to O&I or B-1.
Chairman Shipley entertained additional comments or a motion from the board.
Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-941
finding the application for the rezoning map amendment of 2.39 acres from R-15 Residential
District to B-2 Highway Business District Zoning District is consistent with the purposes and
intent of the Transition land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan and is
reasonable and in the public interest. Chairman Ted Shipley seconded the motion.
During discussion, David Weaver asked if Ms. Girardot would recommend B-2 if there were
existing single family homes on the strip of adjacent R-15 zoned land.
Vice Chair Girardot explained she felt that residential use was no longer appropriate for the
subject property. She agreed with Mr. Prinz that the property has transitioned beyond residential
at this point in time.
With no other discussion, the Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of Rezoning
Request Z-941. (Ayes: Girardot, Murphy, Prinz, Rawl, and Ted Shipley. No: David Weaver)
Page 5 of 41
Item 2: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (A-421, 4/15) – Request by Greg Heafner on behalf of
Oxford House, Inc. to amend Section 23, Definitions, to define Disabled Persons and Group Homes
and Section 50, Table of Permitted Uses, to permit the use by-right in the PD, R-20S, R-20, R-15, R-
10, R-7, AR, and RA Zoning Districts. (This item was tabled at the April 2, 2015 Planning Board
meeting).
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Benjamin Andrea presented the staff report.
This item was brought before the board at their April meeting. At that time, staff
recommended denial of the amendment as proposed by the applicant. A recommendation
was made by Anthony Prinz to table the item so it could be discussed as the May 15 th
Planning Board Work Session and the board did have some discussion about the item.
State Statutory Accommodation for Family Care Homes
NCGS § 168-22
A family care home shall be deemed a residential use of property for zoning purposes and
shall be a permissible use in all residential districts of all political subdivisions. No
political subdivision may require that a family care home, its owner, or operator obtain,
because of the use, a conditional use permit, special use permit, special exception, or
variance from any such zoning ordinance or plan; provided, however, that a political
subdivision may prohibit a family care home from being located within a one-half mile
radius of an existing family care home.
NCGS § 168-21
“Family care home” means a home with support and supervisory personnel that provides
room and board, personal care, and habilitation services in a family environment for not
more than six persons with disabilities.
“Persons with disabilities” means a person with a temporary or permanent physical,
emotional, or mental disability including but not limited to mental retardation, cerebral
palsy, epilepsy, autism, hearing and sight impairments, emotional disturbances, and
orthopedic impairments but not including mentally ill persons who are dangerous to others
as defined in G.S. 122C-3(11)b.
Applicant’s Proposal
Section 23: Definitions
Disabled Persons – Individuals with disabilities, including individuals recovering
from alcoholism and/or drug addiction, who are protected by either the provisions of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 USC 12101, the Fair Housing Act, 42
USC 3601 et. seq., or NCGS Chapter 168, Article 3, as each may be amended.
Group Home – A home in which up to eight (8) Disabled Persons live together as a
self-supporting and self-sufficient household unit, without any in-home services or
outside assistance. Group Homes must register with the County and shall be at least
one-quarter mile from each other.
Page 6 of 41
Section 50: Establishment of Use District;
Table of Permitted Uses
Applicant’s Proposed Additions: red and underlined
Staff’s Proposed Additions: blue and underlined
Staff’s Proposed Deletions: blue and strikethrough
Changes Since PB Workshop: yellow highlight
Staff Recommendation:
Section 23: Definitions
Disabled Persons – Individuals with disabilities, including individuals recovering
from alcoholism and/or drug addiction, who are protected by either the provisions of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 USC 12101, the Fair Housing Act, 42
USC 3601 et. seq., or NCGS Chapter 168, Article 3, as each may be amended.
Group Home – A home in which up to eight (8) more than three (3) unrelated
Disabled Persons live together as a self-supporting and self-sufficient household unit,
without any in-home services or outside assistance. Group Homes must register with
the County and shall be at least one-quarter mile from each other.
Section 50: Establishment of Use District;
Table of Permitted Uses
Section 63.11: Group Homes
Group homes shall be permitted in accordance with the table of permitted uses in Section
50 and the following standards:
1. Group homes shall be limited to six (6) Disabled Persons living together as a self-
supporting and self-sufficient household unit without any in-home services or
outside assistance.
2. No group homes shall be occupied or operated without a certificate of occupancy
zoning approval.
3. Parking shall be provided in accordance with Article VIII: Off-Street Parking and
Loading.
Permitted Uses
PD R
20S
R
20
R
15
R
10 R7 B
1
B
2
I
1
I
2
O
&
I
A
R
A
I
S
C
R
A
R
F
M
U
Supp
Regs
N
A
I
C
S
Group Homes P P P P P P P P
Permitted Uses
PD R
20S
R
20
R
15
R
10 R7 B
1
B
2
I
1
I
2
O
&
I
A
R
A
I
S
C
R
A
R
F
M
U
Supp
Regs
N
A
I
C
S
Group Homes P P P P P P P P
Page 7 of 41
4. Group homes shall not be located closer than one quarter mile 2000 feet to any other
existing group home, or family care home, child care home, nursing care home, or
family child care home; measured by a straight line from the nearest property lines.
5. With respect to the distance between the proposed use and the existing, permitted
uses described in subsection 4 above, the distance shall be reduced by the right-of-
way of a major thoroughfare exceeding one hundred (100) feet, major topographical
features such as a major watercourse, or by major nonresidential or public uses such
as a park, school, or religious institution.
6. Special Exceptions
a. Applicability. The Board of Adjustment is authorized to grant special
exceptions for the special circumstances set forth in this section to allow for a
reasonable accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act.
b. Application. An application for a special exception under this section shall be
submitted to the Board of Adjustment by filing a copy of the application with
the Planning Director or their designee. No filing fee shall be required for
such application.
c. Approval process. The procedures set forth in Section 121-3 for variances
and appeals shall apply to Staff Review and Report, Public Hearing Notice and
Action of the Board of Adjustment.
d. Approval criteria. The Board of Adjustment shall grant a special exception to
any provision of this ordinance as a reasonable accommodation under the
Federal Fair Housing Act if the Board finds by the greater weight of the
evidence that the proposed special exception is:
i. "Reasonable." An accommodation will be determined to be reasonable if it
would not undermine the legitimate purposes and effects of existing zoning
regulations, and if it will not impose significant financial and administrative
burdens upon the County and/or constitute a substantial of fundamental
alteration of the Town's ordinance provisions); and
ii. "Necessary." An accommodation will be determined to be necessary if it
would provide direct or meaningful therapeutic amelioration of the effects
of the particular disability or handicap), and would afford handicapped or
disabled persons equal opportunity to enjoy and use housing in residential
districts in the County.
Section 81: Minimum Parking Standards
Uses Required Off-Street Parking
Group Home No more than 2 plus 1 per 4 beds and 1 per supervisor
Mr. Andrea reported the existing zoning ordinance language addresses residential care
facilities, which is a residential use offered under the general statutes. A residential care
Page 8 of 41
facility is currently allowed, and is considered a home with supervisory personnel that
provides room and board, personal care, and habilitation services in a family environment
for not more than six resident handicapped persons. Current regulations require a 2,000
foot radius between those homes and they are allowed in all residential zoning districts.
He reviewed the language in the state statute that offers that protection in local zoning
ordinances that the county has, as well as the state language that defines such residences
and persons with disabilities.
He then reviewed the language presented at the April meeting, including the applicant’s
proposal, which includes two new definitions. The first is a definition that defines disabled
persons and the second is a definition that defines group homes. The applicant proposed to
allow group homes as the applicant defined it, in all residential districts by-right. There
was discussion at the Planning Board workshop, as well as at other times, about the
applicant’s proposed amendment. Ultimately, staff recommends approval of a revised
version of that amendment. The revised version of the amendment was presented at the
Planning Board workshop on May 15th, but minor changes have been made since then.
Minor changes include the following:
Staff has no difficulties with the definition proposed for disabled persons; however,
would recommend language be added to the definition for group home to include
more than three unrelated disabled persons to clarify and make it very clear that this
type of use is not within the family definition that is in the county’s ordinance.
Staff recommends striking the language that says without any in-home services or
outside assistance. Staff thought that language may become prohibitive of any type
of service that might be offered in any group home, such as in-home therapy or
providing medications or any sort of service that someone may visit the home to
provide that service. Staff didn’t want language to prevent that from happening,
whether at an Oxford House or another type of group home.
Changes board members have seen include:
Staff’s recommendation to strike from the definition that the group homes must
register with the county and also the proposed distance separation requirement.
Staff doesn’t recommend any changes to where these types of facilities are
proposed.
Staff recommends that they be permitted by-right in all residential districts.
Changes made since the Planning Board workshop include:
Staff’s recommendation to create a new section in the ordinance that talks about
group homes and some supplemental regulations that they must adhere to.
The proposed language includes staff’s recommendation they be permitted as listed
in the table of permitted uses essentially by-right in all the residential zoning
districts.
Staff also recommends they be limited to six disabled persons.
The rest of that line is essentially from the petitioner’s proposed definition, again
striking that language without any in-home services or outside assistance.
Page 9 of 41
No group home shall be occupied or operated without zoning approval. The original
recommendation from staff said Certificate of Occupancy. That language was
changed to zoning approval to make it clear that a group home would have to
receive new zoning approval prior to opening up.
Staff is recommending some parking and a change to the distance separation
requirement to be consistent with the requirement currently in the ordinance for
family care homes. That separation requirement is 2,000 feet, which is a bit more
than the applicant’s proposed one-quarter mile (or 1,320 feet). The intent is again to
be consistent with the language and the separation requirement, currently in the
ordinance.
Staff is also proposing to strike out some of the uses they had initially proposed to
be in that separation requirement so essentially group homes would only need to be
separated 2,000 feet from another group home or from a family care home.
Another large section from the proposed Section 63-11 would set up a new system
in the county’s ordinance specifically for these group homes to seek special
exceptions to the language, essentially allowing a group home to choose to pursue a
reasonable accommodation request for the number of people that could live in the
home (Staff is recommending a maximum of six) or the separation requirement or
any of those other provisions previously mentioned. This language sets up a process
for a group home to essentially petition to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for this
special exemption. Mr. Andrea noted this language is verbatim of what the North
Carolina Court told the Town of Garner to insert into their ordinance so it is not
language created by staff. Staff feels that it’s a fair process and is a process that
probably should be included in order to be able to request reasonable
accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Staff initially proposed a minimum parking requirement of two parking spaces, plus
one per four beds and one per supervisor. Staff doesn’t want to encourage the
conversion of a front yard or yard space into required parking based on what would
be required by amendment, but at the same time would like to ensure that any cars
that would be parked at the facility would have an opportunity to be parked in an
orderly manner. For that reason, staff is proposing a minimum parking requirement,
keeping in mind that any residence in the county currently, if conforming has two
off-street parking spaces already. A group home would have two spaces already. If
they want to provide more than the two spaces, they could, but this language would
now set a maximum as far as the parking that they could provide. It is not saying
they have to provide any more than the two parking spaces there, but puts a
maximum on how much parking could be provided.
Mr. Andrea offered to answer questions from the board.
Chairman Shipley asked if board members had any questions for staff.
Jordy Rawl requested clarification on the change in regard to disabled persons and group homes,
and whether it was an amendment on both of those sections or a specific definition of a group
home specifically paired with the definition of a disabled person or a change to the definition of
group homes only in New Hanover County.
Page 10 of 41
Mr. Andrea explained the language on the first page of the staff summary was the language
originally proposed by the applicant. That language is contained in both the applicant’s version
and the staff version of the amendment and recommends two new definitions – one for “group
homes” and the other for “disabled persons.” The intent is to make it clear who qualifies as a
disabled person. The petitioner felt it was important and staff concurred because the group home
definition references disabled persons that it would be helpful to have a definition that defines
what disabled persons are. The applicant’s original proposal had the reference to disabled person
in the actual definition. In staff’s recommendation, it is retained in the Definitions and also
included in the new Section 63-11.
Anthony Prinz commented the reason the board is addressing the issue is because of Oxford
House. The County is trying to determine a way to reasonably accommodate those types of uses
while protecting the integrity of existing single family homes. Mr. Prinz asked if the proposed
amendment would require the Oxford House to get a special exemption from the Zoning Board
of Adjustment to accommodate their use.
Mr. Andrea acknowledged the amendment would require a special exemption from the Zoning
Board of Adjustment to accommodate an Oxford House proposing to have a residence.
Mr. Prinz asked how many parking spaces would be required if an Oxford House was approved
by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Andrea explained staff was proposing language which only sets a maximum to the number
of parking spaces based on the number of beds. For example, an Oxford House with eight people
proposing to put in the maximum allowed parking would be allowed to put in a total of four
parking spaces. That would include the two parking spaces already assumed to be allowed in a
conforming residential use; therefore, they would be allowed to install two additional parking
spaces for a total of four parking spaces.
Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Attorney Greg Heafner of Chapel Hill spoke on behalf of Oxford House, Inc. and provided the
following presentation.
Last year, Oxford House requested a reasonable accommodation to accommodate an
Oxford House on 110 Lansdowne Drive. The zoning staff’s written response notified
Oxford House they had three options: 1) close and move; 2) conform to a family care
home (Staff now admits Oxford House cannot become a family care home because they
don’t provide family services and nobody lives there and runs it).; or 3) amend the text.
For that reason, Oxford House requested the proposed text amendment. He pointed out the
proposed amendment is much shorter than the amendment recommended by staff, but the
salient difference is Oxford House has proposed eight people be allowed in a group home
as opposed to six, for multiple reasons. One obvious reason is that the house for which the
amendment is being requested is a home to eight women so Oxford House does not fit into
what the zoning department has done to change their proposal. He expressed concern about
the mechanism to get an accommodation before the Board of Adjustment. In Subsection.6-
Page 11 of 41
Di and 6-Dii, there are approval criteria which the board would follow in order to grant an
exemption. Mr. Heafner stated that some of those criteria are in violation of the federal
law, specifically under the first heading – Reasonable. The accommodation is reasonable if
it would not undermine the purposes and effect of zoning regulation. That is not an
accurate statement of what is reasonable under the Federal Fair Housing Act. He noted he
had prosecuted the lawsuit with the Town of Garner and it was settled. The court issued no
order and told Garner to do nothing so what resulted in Garner’s ordinance was Garner
proposed and accepted, along with a large monetary settlement, and what was most
important, to accommodate eight people at that Oxford House at which they only wanted
to have six. Mr. Heafner noted the last parameter in this approval is a violation of the
Federal Fair Housing Act and he thought a misstatement of the law as far as zoning is the
very last part of the second criteria necessary, which says change to use and enjoy housing.
Staff has also added residential district in the county. That restriction is not included in the
Federal Fair Housing Act. The approval criteria and mechanism may sound good and may
work well, but when you put an already complicated issue that’s been brought before the
Planning Board and staff and put it before a lay Board of Adjustment, they are likely to get
it wrong. That will only cause further problems. It is not an accommodation to Oxford
House. An accommodation to the Fair Housing Act is just as this approval criterion gives
an example of, it is case specific, and Oxford House will have to ask for accommodation
because the County says close down your home for eight women - and without granting
reasonable accommodation unless you have eight. You can come back and ask for eight
later at some point. This ordinance amendment that starts at six is not an accommodation.
It doesn’t address Oxford House’s current situation, and quite frankly, it is an ordinance
that is ripe for challenge, if not by Oxford House, by someone in the future, through the
state court here, writ of certiorari to an outright challenge by Oxford House in federal
court. Mr. Heafner, therefore, asked the board to recommend adoption of Oxford House’s
original proposal, noting if the board was inclined to modify it with any of the language
proposed by staff, he would ask them not to change the number of residents from eight to
six. He yielded the balance of his time to Mr. Stevens.
Paul Stevens of Oxford House stated he was a person in long-term recovery and credited
his success of fourteen years without a drink in large part to his 2-1/2 years as a resident of
an 8-bed Oxford House in Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Stevens has worked for Oxford House
since then and is currently the regional manager covering the territory of Virginia, District
of Columbia, and Maryland. He stated that a six bed limit is not viable and is not an
accommodation in this case due to the financial liability for an Oxford House. Th is
particular house in New Hanover County is in a lease agreement for $2,500 per month and
has two single rooms and three double rooms. They are currently charging the women in
recovery in that house $125 per week. Thy will be debating whether to raise that amount
shortly in order to meet all their financial requirements as a result of utilities and rent, etc.
If the capacity of that house were lowered to six, it would not be financially viable because
it needs to stay within a reasonable range of competitiveness with other Oxford Houses,
Silver Homes or therapeutic environments. They often pay slightly more than market value
because of the nature of the rental agreement, but it must be considered what the women in
this situation are capable of paying. Employment is available in this area, but people
coming out of treatment often don’t have a high level of education, and are working low
Page 12 of 41
paying service jobs. Several women in this house are working two jobs to make ends meet
at service level jobs such as McDonalds. That is typical at this stage in their early recovery.
The rental market is changing and prices are increasing now. That house represents the
highest rental rate that has been paid at all of the 194 Oxford Houses in the state of
Virginia. Trying to reduce the number of occupants or the capacity of the house would
simply not work financially, considering $125 represents the highest weekly rate to date at
any of the 194 Oxford Houses. The number of vacancies on average in houses in North
Carolina over the last ten years averages around 1.5 vacancies per month or at any given
moment. This is not just a question of capacity but the reality of how many women will be
in this house at any given moment. They have eight women now, but typically houses 1.5
vacancies. Virginia averages 1.3 vacancies. If the number of residents was limited to six, in
reality you are looking at the house only having 4.5 to 5 residents, which would require a
weekly rate which would be prohibitive of this therapeutic environment existing at all.
Even at eight residents, there will be a lot of homes with only 6.5 to 7 members per month.
He noted they haven’t opened a 6-bed house in Virginia in ten years. There is only one 6-
bed house out of 116 in the entire state because it such a challenge financially and
operationally, and as far as transferring the benefit of the therapeutic environment of
Oxford House. Mr. Stevens stated he felt the request for eight residents was already a
compromise on Oxford House’s legal rights, noting almost one in five existing houses in
North Carolina have a greater capacity than eight They actually have nine or greater. There
has clearly been a long-standing success with houses even larger than that.
Mr. Stevens stated in regard to the therapeutic success of an Oxford House, DePaul
University and other universities have received federal grants and conducted several
studies on Oxford House over the years. One of those studies looked at the question of
larger houses of 8 or more versus smaller houses and found that the larger houses led in a
significant way to less criminal activity and aggressive behavior. Research has also
demonstrated that Oxford Houses in general, independent of size, lead to one-third the
recidivism rate of when people are assigned to other types of care facilities. Larger houses
lead to increased length of abstinence and increased length of abstinence leads to all types
of benefits for those people and the community. Another study showed that for women in
Oxford House, the size of their personal social network is not necessarily a predictor of
retention in the house; however, the presence of a number of Oxford House members in
their personal social network is significant in predicting the length of their stay there. The
length of stay has been shown in study after study to mean an increased long term
abstinence, the critical duration being six months or greater. It is even more important in a
female house that there be enough people in that house to create a situation in which they
have a number of people in their social network who are also members of Oxford House
going through this together. The women in this house are early in their recovery - four of
them have less than six months, and seven of the eight have less than nine months of
abstinence from drugs and alcohol. At that early stage, they would be vulnerable to relapse
if they did not have a robust social support network.
Mr. Stevens explained the system of operations at Oxford House, tried and true after forty
years, is highly challenged when capacity is limited to six residents. There are six elected
officers in each house, which is a self-run, self-governed, democratic model. The officers
Page 13 of 41
operate the house, run the meetings, take records, and deal with the finances. A house
limited to six people often won’t have enough people to elect to offices. In his experience
over the last twelve years, the ability of a house to operate through a healthy group
consensus becomes compromised when the number of residents is lower than eight, and
nine resident houses have always traditionally been viewed as working the best. In
addition, people often move into the house at the very beginning of their recovery having
just gotten out of treatment. If you lower the capacity of the house to six, four or five of the
women in that house just out of treatment will be moving into single rooms, instead of
double rooms. Oxford House is designed to combat isolation and loneliness to avoid the
high risk of relapse by sharing a double room with another recovering person.
Chairman Shipley opened the rebuttal period.
Shane Johnson stated he represents the Wilmington Regional Association of Realtors (WRAR)
and resides at 1821 Lincolnshire Lane. WRAR represents almost 2,000 realtors between New
Hanover and Pender counties. Prior to working for WRAR, he worked for a church for three
years and one of his jobs was head of a ministry that visited halfway houses and ministered to
hundreds of men dealing with addiction. These are people that need to be a part of our
community. The realtor association is strongly in support of the Federal Fair Ho using Act and
providing for fair housing for all. We need Oxford House in our community, but we also may
need Anderson House and Sunshine House. We can’t write a specific law for one house. Mr.
Johnson applauded staff, noting he had worked with Mr. Andrea and Ms. Girardot on making
extra efforts to take this opportunity. He also thanked Oxford House for bringing this issue to our
attention but we have to make sure the shoe doesn’t fit just one person, but fits several people in
our community.
Mr. Johnson stated it is ironic because the proposed language we generally support. He didn’t
know if they necessarily oppose changing the number from six to eight. From a fee perspective,
county funds are short. He said in this instance, if there is a time when an appeal is made, it
would be fair to have a user fee of $100 or $150. Mr. Johnson stated strong opposition to the
proposed language by Oxford House, noting under the OHI amendment, the term group house
would be defined to mean a home in which up to eight disabled persons live together as a self-
supporting and self-sufficient household unit without any in-home services or outside assistance.
Group homes must register with the County and shall be at least one-quarter mile from each
other. The proposed maximum of eight disabled persons apparently is based on the number of
unrelated recovering alcoholics or drug addicts that occupy the existing Oxford House use in
New Hanover County. There is no indication in the staff report, the OHI letter, or in any other
material reviewed that any other group home exists in New Hanover County whether operated by
OHI or any other entity, consequently the basis for the proposed one-quarter distance
requirement is unclear. Without evidentiary support, one could reasonably argue that both the
unrelated disabled persons maximum and the quarter-mile separation distance requirement are
arbitrary.
Mr. Johnson asked if eight is the necessary number of recovering alcoholics or drug addicts that
must reside together in order for a group home to provide substantial therapeutic benefits and
remain financial viable and why the appropriate number couldn’t be less than eight, or
Page 14 of 41
alternatively, more than eight. He inquired about the basis for the quarter mile separation
distance requirement and why the requirement shouldn’t be set as a greater distance such as a
half mile or a smaller distance such as 500 feet. Ironically, even if the county adopts the
proposed OHI amendment, it is conceivable that a group home operator can request a reasonable
accommodation from these numerical standards. For example, a group home operator could
request that the county waive the eight person maximum on the grounds that it needs at least ten
recovering alcoholics or drug addicts in order to make a proposed group home financial viable. A
group home operator could also request a waiver from the one quarter-mile separation distance
requirement in order to operate in closer proximity to an existing group home.
Mr. Johnson stated that WRAR believes the numeric standards contained in the proposed
definition of group home are arbitrary and might find themselves triggering a request for a
reasonable accommodation under the FFHA, which is the whole purpose and why they proposed
it. He stated he was not sure why that came about that way in that proposal. He thought
especially based on Mr. Heafner’s experience in this arena that these issues would have been
addressed. Mr. Johnson reiterated they are in favor of having Oxford House and other houses
like this in the community, noting it is important to make accommodation for these folks, and of
utmost important to comply with the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA), but the County can’t just
make a shoe to fit one group.
No one else spoke in opposition to the amendment.
Chairman Shipley closed the opposition portion of the hearing and opened the rebuttal period.
Greg Heafner stated most of Mr. Johnson’s comments were contained in the realtor’s
memorandum dated May 6, 2015, which the board received a copy, and he had written a lengthy
response to it on May 12, 2015, which board members had also received a copy of. He briefly
restated his response to the contention that the number of residents and spacing is arbitrary.
Someone saying that didn’t listen to Mr. Stevens or read the written rebuttal to the planning
board. They haven’t examined the case law or the survey submitted to staff of about half a dozen
major cities in North Carolina that have group home ordinances and the number of residents
allowed in their group home ordinances is eight. The number is anything but arbitrary and the
same with the spacing distance. The spacing distance and the maximum number of people are
two of the issues in these types of ordinances that are often challenged in court. A lot of court
precedence has been established dating back to 1990, the first case Oxford House brought again
a city in the State of Washington that was brought in the United States Supreme Court and was
with regard to the number of residents. The number of residents and spacing are taken from
what generally the federal courts have held to be within their rulings. Anything less than six is
almost always ruled to be a facial violation of the Fair Housing Act period. Any spacing greater
than half a mile has been struck down on its face. Mr. Heafner stated what the county has done
with their proposal has done just that. They have expanded the spacing, dropped the number of
people down, added a bunch of other parameters, and squished it down to where it’s probably
going to pass the muster test in a court of law. They have done the minimum that the law would
require a governmental entity to do. Mr. Heafner asked the County to do a little more and do
what they have asked them to do and if the board adopts a lot of staff’s changes, that the one they
don’t adopt is the number of residents and leave it at eight.
Page 15 of 41
During opposition rebuttal, Mr. Johnson stated he hadn’t heard anything that explained why
those numbers are not arbitrary.
Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
Jordy Rawl made a motion to close the public hearing. Chairman Shipley seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to close the public hearing.
Anthony Prinz asked Mr. Andrea and Mr. Heafner to explain what needed to be done to the staff
recommendation to get to the middle ground on the amendment, noting it sounded like they were
close if it is within the realm of what the courts have ruled to be reasonable standards for
separation. He commented he hadn’t heard anything about the reasonableness of parking. He
inquired how they could get to the point where all parties are comfortable with the staff
recommendation other than increasing the number of residents to eight. Mr. Prinz stated he
personally did not support the original request, which was a blanket approval of group homes in
any residential zoning district without standards.
Mr. Andrea stated he wasn’t sure staff had any further recommendation to reach a middle
ground. He re-emphasized that staff was writing a text amendment to accommodate any type of
group home, whether it be Oxford House or any other type of group home across the county. For
that reason, staff had to be very cautious in how they crafted that language. Given the
circumstances and the potential legal ramifications, staff felt the language they were
recommending was necessary.
Mr. Andrea stated in regard to Mr. Heafner’s comment that the language regarding the special
exception was not inserted into the Town of Garner’s ordinance, both the Department of Justice
website and the Town of Garner’s website talk about that language being added to their
ordinance in December of 2010 verbatim of what is in the proposal except for mentioning New
Hanover County.
Mr. Prinz then asked Mr. Heafner to cite the specific issues that Oxford House has with the
proposed staff text amendment beyond the number of residents and the increase in the separation
requirement over the one-quarter mile proposed by Oxford House.
Mr. Heafner stated Mr. Prinz had mentioned the major issues and stated his client read the
proposed text, the original and revised versions, and took issue with the request in regard to the
parking and the latest addition of the parameters by which the Board of Adjustment would make
a determination on a waiver request. He felt that was excessive, but the big issue is the number of
residents starting at six. With all due respect to everyone, he appreciates that Mr. Andrea and he
disagree, but they have talked a lot about this peacefully over the last six months. He stated he
had laid out why Oxford House needs eight residents. When he asked planning staff at the
workshop why the number was six, the answer was staff felt that was the right number. As
previously stated, behavior is not a land use issue. How someone feels about a use next to them
is also not a land use issue, and is certainly not an element of a reasonable accommodation under
the Federal Fair Housing Act or why courts decide what number or distance is because
somebody feels that it is enough or right. Mr. Heafner stated they had provided reasons why they
Page 16 of 41
need eight residents. The model of Oxford House requires eight residents. The fact that New
Hanover County is an affluent county and housing is high priced, but income is pretty much the
same as other places for people with entry level jobs, etc. shows that from an economic
standpoint, they require eight residents. From a therapeutic standpoint, specifically with these
women, they need eight. Mr. Heafner reiterated that eight was an allowable number, noting the
City of Wilmington has a base number of eight residents for small or medium homes and the
number of residents goes up from there. He again stated he had not heard why the number of
residents shouldn’t be eight.
Vice Chair Girardot thanked Mr. Heafner for working with the board so well at the work session.
She also expressed appreciation for the input and comments received from the realtors, the
chamber of commerce, BASE, and the public. She stated she was leaning first toward the
Charlotte ordinance, which starts with a smaller number in the residential districts and allows
larger numbers in other districts; however, she learned from staff that the larger numbers are
allowed in the multi-family and mixed use districts, which New Hanover County doesn’t have so
that isn’t an option for New Hanover County. The RA district is mostly in Castle Hayne so that
is also not viable. Vice Chair Girardot stated she agreed with Mr. Johnson in that she did not like
the idea of developing an ordinance specifically for one group or one individual. She cited the
tree ordinance previously discussed by the board. She inquired what other types of residential
care facilities or organizations would fit into the proposed category the ordinance was crafted to
address.
Mr. Andrea commented that any organization or type of facility that would fit into any definition
that is adopted would ultimately fall into that definition and be permitted or regulated in
whatever version of the amendment is adopted.
Vice Chair Girardot stated she understood how it fits into the facility category, but was uncertain
which other groups don’t have live-in support systems like Oxford House.
Mr. Andrea stated his knowledge was limited, but he was aware that there are other non-profit
organizations that have recovering substance abusers or alcoholics living in a home without an
onsite manager. He mentioned one such home exists very close to his home. He knows the
manager of the home and he doesn’t live onsite, but there are disabled persons that do live in the
home. There are other organizations out there besides Oxford House. Many are located in the
City of Wilmington’s jurisdiction.
In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s inquiry, Mr. Andrea stated to his knowledge, there aren’t
any other facilities currently established in the County’s unincorporated area with the exception
of Oxford House. He added that Oxford House has established their use without seeking any sort
of consultation from the County as far as what was permitted when they established that facility.
Mr. Andrea elaborated in regard to the number six versus the number eight; Oxford House has
almost created a hardship by moving into a four bedroom home without any language in the
County’s ordinance that would allow it. He didn’t feel staff was discrediting or dismissing the
logic behind the need for eight persons in an Oxford House-type facility, but the points Mr.
Heafner brought up as far as the reason for that would be good points to bring up in a special
exception process to demonstrate need. Staff doesn’t discredit Oxford House’s model having
Page 17 of 41
eight residents, but staff has concerns about allowing eight by-right whether at an Oxford House
or not in any residential district in the county.
Vice Chair Girardot stated her concern was with how other potential existing homes would come
into compliance when the County adopts an ordinance and sets an effective date.
David Weaver stated he was comfortable with staff’s recommendation. He understands that
Oxford House doesn’t care for the number limit, but there is an option in the proposed ordinance
to ask the Board of Adjustment to go up to eight people or more for any specific case. He
inquired if the county attorney was comfortable with staff’s recommendation if she had to defend
it given there may be a legal challenge.
Deputy County Attorney Huffman stated she was comfortable. She and staff have done much
research and talked to a number of people about this issue. As she explained at the last planning
board meeting, there is not any ruling from a court that provides the magic number of what will
pass muster. As Mr. Heafner said, there does seem to be rulings from courts that suggest that
anything less than six isn’t going to pass muster. The City of Wilmington has been in a couple of
lawsuits with Oxford House where the distance measurements up to a half mile have basically
been upheld so she is not concerned about the distance issue. The number of residents is the
issue, but she hasn’t found any case law that gives a magic number of what will pass muster. It is
true that many cities around the state have allowed group homes for disabled persons of up to
eight and more. She and Vice Chair Girardot reviewed and discussed the Charlotte ordinance,
which allows six residents in all the single family residential areas and increases to eight in the
mixed-use and multi-family districts. Ms. Huffman stated the County doesn’t have mixed-use
and multi-family districts like Charlotte, Wilmington and other large urban areas. She noted she
hadn’t received any information from Mr. Heafner or anyone else on ordinances of other
counties. She has only seen city ordinances, which typically have larger numbers in more urban
settings, like multi-family. She thought the ordinance suggested by staff is defensible, but didn’t
know whether a federal court would say it passes muster. Based on conversations and research,
she felt it was important that the County had the special exception language, which was not
proposed by Oxford House. It seemed to be very critical that the County have this special
exception language in order to pass muster. As Mr. Andrea alluded to earlier, what staff has
suggested is verbatim the language that was included in a court order involving the Town of
Garner, which was sued by the Department of Justice and Oxford House. A court o rder was
issued in that lawsuit from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the
federal court in Eastern North Carolina. It is a consent decree, which means the Department of
Justice and Oxford House and the Town of Garner all came to terms on what they agree d to and
then the court signed off on it. That court order reads it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed
and signed by a federal judge and within this order, there is the language that the Town of Garner
included in their ordinance for special exception that is verbatim what is being suggested to the
board tonight. She was unsure whether that language would pass muster in a lawsuit filed again
New Hanover County, but it is included in a federal court order so it’s certainly something to
argue. Deputy County Attorney Huffman stated while staff had never said this during their
discussions, she kept coming back to six residents because it is already in the county ordinance
and in state statute regarding family care homes and seemed to be a place to start.
Page 18 of 41
Chairman Shipley stated belief that staff’s recommendation is the middle ground in this case.
Staff should be commended, particularly Mr. Andrea, for his work on the amendment, as well as
Ms. Huffman, in trying to find something that would work. He stated support for staff’s
recommendation verbatim.
Anthony Prinz said the number of six people seems to be the minimum supported by case law
and is currently in the county ordinance, but he felt it was pretty arbitrary. There has been a lot of
compelling evidence provided by Oxford House as to why eight is the magic number for them
and given the environment that we live in here in New Hanover County, with the cost of housing
and the cost of living, it is understandable why they need more people. He noted he didn’t
currently support the amendment as drafted for that particular reason, but also because during the
planning board workshop, he thought discussions were held about standards as to what size the
home was, the number of bathrooms that it had, and how well a particular dwelling unit could
accommodate eight people. He felt that is truly the issue here - parking, the size of the home, and
separation. Two of those things have been addressed, but one of them has not. He thought they
had talked specifically about it in the workshop, but must have been mistaken. Mr. Prinz stated at
that point, he didn’t support the number six.
Tamara Murphy stated she would like to commend staff on the amount of work done with Mr.
Heafner, noting the board has reviewed the amendment a couple of times. She stated she was in
complete agreement with staff’s recommendations because there is an option for Oxford House
to have the number of eight people approved through the Zoning Board of Adjustment and she
also felt staff’s proposal was the middle ground.
Chairman Shipley entertained a motion from the board.
Tamara Murphy made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment
as presented under the staff recommendation as the Planning Board finds th is amendment is
consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the
amendment preserves the character of existing residential areas while broadening the
opportunities for housing supply for the County’s residents with special needs or disabilities and
that it is reasonable and in the public interest because the amendment balances the preservation
of residential communities while accommodating the needs of persons with disabilities.
Chairman Ted Shipley seconded the motion.
Hearing no discussion, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to call the question for a vote on
the text amendment. .
Dave Weaver made a motion to call the question for a vote on the text amendment. Chairman
Ted Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to call the question and proceed
to a vote on the text amendment.
The Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
A-421 as presented under the staff recommendation as the Planning Board finds this amendment
is consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the
amendment preserves the character of existing residential areas while broadening the
Page 19 of 41
opportunities for housing supply for the County’s residents with special needs or disabilities and
that it is reasonable and in the public interest because the amendment balances the preservation
of residential communities while accommodating the needs of persons with disabilities. (Ayes:
Girardot, Murphy, Shipley, Rawl, and Weaver) (No: Anthony Prinz)
Item 3: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (A-422, 6/15) – Request by Planning Staff to amend
Section 50, Table of Permitted Uses, to permit additional uses in the Airport Industrial Zoning
District.
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Benjamin Andrea provided the following staff report.
Mr. Andrea provided the following staff report.
This text amendment is proposed by staff and was discussed at the May 15th Planning
Board workshop. Staff proposes some minor changes to the language in the Airport
Industrial Zoning District, specifically in the Table of Permitted Uses; staff proposes to
add some uses that would be allowed in the Airport Industrial district. If you look at the
regulations for the Airport Industrial zoning district, the uses allowed are severely limited
and in some instances really not logical.
Over the years since the adoption of the Airport Industrial language, the airport has done
some planning efforts and it is staff’s feeling that the airport’s objectives are really
impeded by the current language of the Airport Industrial zoning district, specifically the
uses allowed in that district. For that reason, staff is proposing essentially a stepping stone
to allow some uses in the interim until the County reaches the point where we hopefully
undertake a zoning ordinance project and can have a more comprehensive look at this and
all other zoning districts and regulations.
Very early in the discussion, staff set some goals to achieve with this proposal. The first
goal was to separate indoor and outdoor recreation uses, which are currently lumped as one
use in the table of permitted uses. Finding it would be better if they were separated into
two uses, staff has done that. Staff also had a goal to allow more uses in this district of
equal or lesser intensity than what is currently allowed in the district. Staff is proposing to
only add uses that could be allowed either by right or special use permit of similar or less
intensity of what’s currently allowed in the district. This falls in line with maintaining the
spirit and intent of that zoning district.
The language from the zoning ordinance describes the airport industrial zoning district and
specifically what the focus of that district is. The language says some of the types of uses
that are most appropriate for that zoning district. Indoor manufacturing and distribution
type operations that can take advantage of the location of being in or around the airport
property, not only the airport, but the railroad line that is there, as well as the major
thoroughfares in proximity to the district. Another purpose of this district is to encourage
development that is compatible with aircraft operations. Certainly the uses around the
airport could augment or support airport services.
Page 20 of 41
Obviously staff wants to prevent creation of hazards to the airport, which goes along with
preventing destruction or impairment of the airport, and also protect the public investment
of the airport. Several months ago, staff began looking at the table of permitted uses and
planning staff met with airport staff. Planning staff appreciates the airport staff’s work and
coordination and support through this process. The meeting between the two staffs was
essentially a round table discussion about what uses would be logical to add to the
ordinance.
Staff evaluated that table and made some suggested changes, which include 25 new uses
that would be permitted by-right and three new uses which would be permitted with a
special use permit. No changes were made to any other language in the ordinance or to the
special use permit process.
After planning staff and the airport authority staff met, the ILM, the Airport Authority
Board, reviewed the changes being proposed at their April 1st board meeting and supported
those changes unanimously. Those changes were reviewed by the Planning Board at their
May 15th work session. Staff has not made any changes to the text amendment language
that was reviewed at the May Planning Board work session. He again noted staff proposes
25 uses be added to the Table of Permitted Uses that would be permitted by-right in the
Airport Industrial district.
Table of Permitted Uses – 25 proposed new by-right uses:
Kennels
Veterinaries
Special Trade and General Contractors with no Outside Storage
Wholesaling with no Outside Storage
Entertainment Establishments, Bars, Cabarets, Discos
Entertainment Establishments, Bars, Cabarets, in a Shopping Center
Farm Implement Sales
Food Stores
Furniture, Home Furnishing, and Equipment
General Merchandise Stores
Handcrafting Small Articles
Hardware
Landscaping Service
Miscellaneous Retail
Barber/Beauty Shop
Electrical Repair Shop
Equipment Rental and Leasing
Indoor Recreation Establishments
Indoor Theater
Personal Services
Watch, Clock, Jewelry Repair
Hospitals
Nursing Home/Rehabilitation Center
Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools, and Technical Institutions
Museums
Page 21 of 41
Staff additionally proposes three new uses be allowed by special use permit.
Table of Permitted Uses – 3 proposed new uses allowed by SUP:
Solar Power Farms
TV and Radio Broadcasting
Solar farm, and TV and radio broadcasting are both uses that could be permitted in
and around the airport, but may have some element of concern and so airport staff
felt it most appropriate to require a special use permit for those uses.
General Manufacturing –
Manufacturing, bulk storage, and/or handling of finished or unfinished products
primarily from extracted, raw, recycled, or secondary materials. Typical uses include
textile mills; textile product mills; apparel manufacturing; leather and allied product
manufacturing; wood product manufacturing; plastics and rubber products
manufacturing; nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing; transportation equipment
manufacturing; primary metal manufacturing; and fabricated metal product
manufacturing.
Industrial service firms engaged in the repair or servicing of industrial or commercial
machinery, equipment, products, or by-products. Typical uses include: welding shops;
machine shops; industrial tool repair; fuel oil distributors; solid fuel yards; and carpet
cleaning plants. General manufacturing facilities include those operations that do not
have significant negative external impacts on surrounding properties, water resources,
air quality and/or public health.
Example: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 3364)
o Aircraft Manufacturing
o Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
General Manufacturing is probably one of those uses that may not be logical to not
allow in an Airport Industrial zoning district. General Manufacturing is the definition
from the ordinance currently. He pointed out specifically that aerospace product and
parts manufacturing is not currently allowed in the Airport Industrial district, so this
is a use that would fall under General Manufacturing that could be allowed by a
special use permit if a special use permit is granted through the process in the Airport
Industrial district.
Mr. Andrea presented a map reflecting the Airport industrial zoning district, which is
unique in the county because it is limited to one geographical area around the airport.
The airport and the runways are shown, as well as the parcels that are under either
the ownership of New Hanover County or the Airport Authority. Ultimately, the
Airport Authority does choose what uses and who they lease their space to, so there
is still some control the Airport Authority could have for the types of uses in and
around airport property.
The map also reflects the areas that in the Airport Industrial district, but are not
under the control of New Hanover County or the Airport Authority. One of the
Page 22 of 41
underlying reasons staff wants to keep uses that are of a similar or less intensity is
because of these other areas where they could be permitted by right.
On the northeastern side of the airport there are some residential areas that abut the
Airport Industrial zoning district. A large tract on the northeastern portion of the
runway is used for farming activity now. It is important to keep in mind that this text
amendment could result in new uses in these undeveloped areas. The property
between the two runways is a section of the airport residential zoning district and is a
very rural area of the county. The AI zoning district on the west side of the airport
abuts an I-2 zoning district, which allows significantly intense uses that are allowed
either by right or by special use permit. Along South Blue Clay, there is another area
of residential use in Heritage Park between Blue Clay Road and Castle Hayne Road.
There is a small patch of R-15 zoning on 23rd Street and also a very large area of I-2
that abuts the Airport Industrial zoning district to the southwest. The area south of
Smith Creek is under the city’s jurisdiction, but are also zoned Airport Industrial.
Chairman Shipley asked if anyone else was present to speak in support of the text
amendment.
Jim Morton, a representative of the New Hanover Airport Authority, spoke in support of the
proposed Airport Industrial district text amendment. He stated appreciation of the planning
board’s consideration of the amendment, noting it had been a pleasure working with staff on the
airport industrial zoning amendment. He stated Mr. Andrea had done a wonderful job describing
what the amendment was trying to accomplish. As an overview, he stated airports in general
across the country are challenged. Many airports are subsidized by cities or counties. Our airport,
ILM, is self-sufficient through an enterprise fund. When we started reviewing permitted uses, we
realized some of those permitted uses may have limitations which are inhibiting some of our
economic development efforts. That is really the emphasis behind making this approach.
In response to the chairman’s inquiry, Mr. Morton confirmed the Airport Authority is in support
of the proposed Airport Industrial district text amendment.
No one else from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the text amendment.
Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
Anthony Prinz made a motion to close the public hearing. David Weaver seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to close the public hearing.
Chairman Shipley opened the planning board discussion. Hearing no comments from board
members, he entertained a motion for approval.
Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment as
presented by staff as this request is consistent with the purposes and intent of Policies 4.1, 4.2,
4.3, 5.7, and 15.5 of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the amendment would broaden the
uses allowed in the Airport Industrial Zoning District that would benefit from the location, the
zoning district will be supportive of airport operations while having minimal impact on
Page 23 of 41
surrounding businesses and residents, and is also reasonable and in the public interest as the
amendment would support the public investment in the airport and surrounding infrastructure
and transportation network while preventing hazards to the airport and minimizing impacts to the
surrounding community. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion.
David Weaver made a motion to call the question and move forward to a vote on the motion.
Chairman Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to move forward to a
vote on the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-422 as presented
by staff finding the request is consistent with the purposes and intent of Policies 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.7,
and 15.5 of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the amendment would broaden the uses
allowed in the Airport Industrial Zoning District that would benefit from the location, the zoning
district will be supportive of airport operations while having minimal impact on surrounding
businesses and residents, and is also reasonable and in the public interest as the amendment
would support the public investment in the airport and surrounding infrastructure and
transportation network while preventing hazards to the airport and minimizing impacts to the
surrounding community.
Chairman Shipley announced a five minute recess.
Chairman Shipley called the meeting back to order and recognized Long Range Planner Jennifer
Rigby.
Long Range Planner Jennifer Rigby introduced New Hanover County Fellow Megan Upchurch
to present the local school children’s ideas about the future of New Hanover County. She
explained that understanding the importance of the comprehensive plan and the impacts it will
have on our future generations, the public engagement plan outlined a strategy to engage young
people in the planning process. The purpose was two-fold, first, to begin a process of educating
our community on specific issues that are complex and have multiple sides, and second, to
acknowledge that young people have a unique perspective on our environment and gather input
from them.
New Hanover County Fellow Megan Upchurch presented the following presentation on the local
school children’s ideas about the future of New Hanover County:
Visions for the Future
Local school kids provided their ideas for the future of New Hanover County. The students
were a vital part of the public input for the plan.
Schools Involved
Over the months of January, February, and March, we visited four elementary schools -
Castle Hayne, Parsley, Bellamy, and Williams, one middle school -Trask, and one high
school Isaac Bear Early College.
School Children Participation
Page 24 of 41
With the Comprehensive Plan focusing on the next 25 years of New Hanover County, staff
found it would be essential to meet with students from various parts of the county. During
these meetings, staff engaged 75 elementary school children through artwork and
discussion. Staff met with students who represented the next generation of the counties
leaders, workforce, taxpayers, parents, and more during the implementation of the
comprehensive plan. Staff discussed the overall goal of the plan. Then the students came
up with their own ideas and goals for the future. After all the artwork was collected, staff
sorted each piece into one of the 6 principle themes. The following are some examples of
artwork associated with each of the themes.
Harmony with Nature
When looking at the Harmony with Nature group, many of the students expressed the want
for more trees for various reasons including that too many are being cut down in general,
important for clean, fresh air, and protection of animal habitats. Others also discussed
putting an end to littering in order to protect the animals and the beaches. This was also
addressed by the students who wanted more recycling bins to protect our water bodies and
to save space in the landfill. The ozone layer, air and water pollution, and forest fires were
among the other concerns expressed by the students. Other artwork included a more
ecofriendly community, cleaner businesses and technologies, protection of islands such as
Masonboro, and exploring and encouraging renewable energies and alternative fuels.
Healthy Community
The artwork pertaining to the Healthy Community group expressed wants for healthier
meals in school, less smoking and drinking, bike lanes, clean water, locally grown food,
less greasy foods, and more cancer research areas. Their main focus of the artwork though
was on parks and playgrounds. Some talked about more local and easily accessible parks
and one wanted to have a playground every five blocks. There were also wants for more
updated parks that could include trampolines, jungle gyms, and outdoor amphitheaters.
While others wanted more sports and recreational areas. Another student took it a step
further and addressed that by adding additional equipment, kids could have fun and
exercise at the same time.
Interwoven Equity
Student’s artwork pertaining to Interwoven Equity focused mostly on security. They
discussed a want for safe zones at each house, more security for neighborhoods with
booths and gates everywhere, more ways to prevent robberies including alarms, fences,
and password protected entry, more officers, less crime filled communities, safer ways for
children to walk to and from school, less violence, and more traffic cameras. They also
discussed educational wants such as making learning more exciting and fun through more
hands on lessons and a more expanse educational system such as more self-chosen
education, afterschool classes for whatever you are struggling with in school, and adding
more science, mechanics, reading, and math rooms. Other artwork included the
incorporation of cultural changes and animal and homeless shelters. Some students went
into more detail about the homeless shelters and drew how the county could create the
shelters by taking rundown hotels, apartments, and warehouses, and convert them for
shelters.
Page 25 of 41
Livable Built Environment
The Livable Built Environment artwork focused on many different aspects of the county.
The first were various activities and attractions including more dog parks, a skate park, and
motocross tracks. Some artwork went into more detail, such as, a restaurant with a floating
spiral staircase and a house next to it connected by a tunnel so one doesn’t have to walk
outside when it is snowing or raining. Another drew a house with a slide that went directly
into their pool. Infrastructure ideas and improvements were also discussed including
building further back in beach areas, better roads, metal streetlights, building up instead of
out, scheduled transportation routes, more roundabouts, multiple transportation options,
sidewalks within a 1 to 2 mile radius from schools, and less traffic. Other artwork included
affordable housing and a carpool program to and from school.
Resilient Economy
The student’s artwork for Resilient Economy included many different ideas. Some went a
more food and retail route by drawing more Britt’s Doughnut shops, ice cream trucks,
Sonics, Targets, 7/11’s, and an outlet mall. Others thought more about various activities
which included helicopter rides, a zoo, an amusement park, more museums, disc golf,
more sports events, and a water park. Higher paying jobs and more places to work were
also discussed. Other artwork included flying cars and a stadium with a zip line across it.
Responsible Regionalism
The Responsible Regionalism artwork included cars that can transport you anywhere you
want which would allow a person to save money on trips, a boardwalk that included
carnival rides, shops, arcades, and dip n dots, beautification of rundown areas, a military
base, less ads everywhere, less density, bike lanes and sidewalks in neighborhoods and
along all the roads because too many people are getting hurt, subways, and bigger roads
and airports.
Trask Middle School
Trask Middle School student council participated in a focus group in which the students
listed ideas for the future. Six locations were set up around the classroom in which each
represented one of the six principle themes. Students were encouraged to write their ideas
on the flip charts at each location. Staff spoke with students throughout the process to learn
more about their ideas and answer any questions they had.
Trask Middle School Input
Livable Built Environment
• More schools
• Housing affordability
• More energy sources
Health Community
• Gyms/parks/sidewalks/sport complex
• More grocery stores/Access to healthier choices
• Safe neighborhoods for people
Page 26 of 41
Harmony with Nature
• Clean our beaches and protect wildlife
• Revitalize existing communities
• Better environmental regulations
Resilient Economy
• Support small business
• More eco-friendly and green energy jobs
Responsible Regionalism
• Add more schools, more hospitals
Interwoven Equity
Accessibility for the elderly, handicapped, and disabled
Build more affordable homes
More sidewalks and bike trails
Isaac Bear Early College
Isaac Bear Early College’s student government listed goals pertaining to each of the six
principle themes. During this process, the students discussed positives and negatives that
stood out to them within the county along with possible solutions. After the goals were
discussed, the students then voted for the goals they believed were most important for the
future.
Isaac Bear Early College Future Goals (Main goals for each theme as voted on by the
class)
Healthy Community
Lower healthcare prices/ more options
Harmony with Nature
Community gardens, and pollution control
Responsible Regionalism
Have a tri county committee to express ideas
Interwoven Equity
More sidewalks, walkways, and bikeways
Livable Built Environment
Redevelopment and infill
Resilient Economy
Better job opportunities
Page 27 of 41
Observations
Young people have alternative perspectives and understandings of this area that differs
from adults. They see what affects their lives currently and what will affect them in the
future. Students discussed the future of the county and changes they would like to see in
order to stay in the area or come back to in the future. By engaging a range of students
from various areas and backgrounds, the staff was able to observe how students
perceive the area. The students input allowed us to gather information that would not
only benefit the next generations but also the current ones.
In conclusion, Ms. Upchurch thanked the board and reported that the artwork and input
from the children is available for review on the PlanNHC.com website on the Goals and
Implementation Strategies tab under School Involvement.
Chairman Shipley entertained questions or comments from the board.
Mr. Prinz commented that even though Ms. Upchurch mentioned a bit of disparity between the
way children see reality in our community and the way adults see it, he saw a lot of alignment
there also. It was really remarkable how children pick up on things that are impacting their lives
with their family, their parents, and their surroundings. The presentation was very insightful.
Item 4: New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan – Planning Staff will present Chapter 3:
Framing the Policy of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for hearing and consideration of a
motion to recommend adoption by the Board of Commissioners.
Jennifer Rigby presented the staff report.
Ms. Rigby expressed appreciation for Ms. Upchurch’s hard work with the school children,
noting there is an overlap between what the students are saying and what the adults are
saying within our community. Engaging our students is a way to peer into their homes and
engage their parents as well.
Process/Timeline
Started Comp Plan in summer of 2013
Chapter 1: (Public Engagement) adopted November 2013
Chapter 2: (Existing Conditions) adopted November 2014
Chapter 3: (Framing the Policy) today
Chapter 4: (Future Land Use) forthcoming this summer
CAMA requirements and Implementation Plan forthcoming.
Planning Principles
In the fall of 2014, New Hanover County became part of the American Planning
Association (APA) Pilot Community Program for Creating Comprehensive Plan Standards
for use by communities when developing or updating comprehensive plans for sustainable
communities. It was perfect timing for New Hanover County to take advantage of national
trends, data, and best management practices. Standards included guidance on principles,
processes, and attributes, which should be included in a comprehensive plan. Principles
were utilized by County staff to create the 6 theme committees, which included Livable
Page 28 of 41
Built Environment, Harmony with Nature, Responsible Regionalism, Interwoven Equity,
Healthy Community, and Resilient Economy.
Theme Committees
Theme Committees were comprised of interested individuals, organizations, and
businesses. Participation was requested through media outlets, personal contacts,
participants at previous meetings, and the Sunshine list, which resulted in 161 volunteers.
The philosophy was that of inclusivity and no one was turned away from participating.
Each theme committee met 3 times for 2 hours each over the lunch hour and a light lunch
was provided as approved in the public engagement plan.
Topics of discussion were:
• What are the issues within NHC as they relate to each theme?
• What are other communities doing to address these issues and what are BMPs?
• What might work for NHC?
Transition from Theme Committees to CAC
Results of theme committees were presented at an open house in the County
Commissioners Assembly Room in August 2014 and included 25 draft policy goals and
140 possible action steps. Staff organized the work by identifying overarching goals and
strategies and encouraged additional feedback and input on these goals from the
community. Information was posted on the Plan NHC website and at the NE Library for
comments and input.
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
As defined in the Public Engagement Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee was comprised of
6 individuals appointed by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners through an
application process, similar to other boards and committees. The remaining 6 individuals
were selected by their peers as a representative of each theme committee. This process was
outlined in the Public Engagement Plan and was created such that a broad and robust cross
section of individuals would be encouraged to participate. The purpose of the CAC was to
review and study the work of the theme committees and further refine the framework into
actionable goals and implementation strategies for the comprehensive plan. Ms. Rigby
recognized several Citizen Advisory Committee members in the audience and thanked
them for their commitment to the project.
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meetings
The CAC initially was designed to meet 3 times; however, the group elected to meet 4
times in an effort to further discuss some of the recommendations. The CAC decided to
make decisions based on majority instead of unanimously. The CAC decided to keep
meetings on tasks by starting and ending on time. CAC members were responsible for
research and reading materials prior to meetings. CAC meetings were structured with a
detailed agenda, but also allowed discussion. CAC members were also able to make
decisions and request additional information through an anonymous, online survey tool.
There are twenty (20) goals, which are a reflection of our community’s values and
aspirational goals. These were done through extensive public outreach as defined through
Page 29 of 41
our public engagement plan and were structured around best management practices across
the country. Because these goals are created by the people of New Hanover County, they
are specific to our community and include a variety of thoughts and ideas. It is critical to
understand these goals are not in order of priority. Ms. Rigby reiterated the goals are not in
order of priority, but are a collective consensus of 172 citizens and stakeholders in New
Hanover County empowered to stake a claim on how our community develops over the
next 25 years. The goals are intended to work together to support a sustainable community.
CAC members were asked how much they supported each goal, how they would like to
implement each goal, and where they would like to see each goal implemented.
Ms. Rigby presented the twenty goals:
1. Promote Environmentally Responsible Growth:
Where and how growth occurs can have an impact on environmental resources.
Responsible growth includes strategies to encourage the desired levels of new growth,
while minimizing negative impacts on natural resources.
2. Promote Fiscally Responsible Growth:
There is a cost to the tax payer to provide services and infrastructure for growth.
Appropriate growth patterns can help to achieve efficient provisions of services and
equitable distribution of costs between the public and private sectors.
3. Increase recycling and reduction of solid waste:
Solid waste management and recycling are ways to positively affect our community
and a focus on diverting waste can help eliminate constraints of future development.
4. Increase Public Safety by Reducing Crime through the Built Environment:
New growth and community investments can use design features to reduce crime in
areas.
5. Conserve Open Space for Long Term Agricultural and Rural Uses:
Agricultural lands provide opportunities for economic development by creating locally
sourced foods. These lands can contribute to the overall rural character, where
appropriate, in locations through the county.
6. Conserve environmentally critical areas:
Environmentally critical areas have a meaningful place in our community, providing
opportunities for outdoor recreation, supporting healthy watersheds, and maintaining
critical habitats.
7. Integrate Multi-modal transportation into mixed land uses that encourage safe,
walkable communities:
A mixture of land uses allows for individuals to perform daily tasks without the use of
an automobile. Incorporating walking, cycling, and transit into the built environment
increase the accessibility and safety of these areas.
Page 30 of 41
8. Promote place-based economic development in the region that is tied to our
natural resources:
The Cape Fear region is naturally bio diverse and home to many unique species. This
unique feature of our community can be used as a way to promote and encourage
economic development.
9. Preserve and protect water quality and supply:
NHC is located on the coast and therefore subject to many concerns regarding water
supply and quality. Accommodating more growth in our region will require more
strategies to conserve water resources and preserve water quality.
10. Increase physical activity and promote healthy, active lifestyles:
Our built environment has the ability to encourage active life styles, which directly
affects individual’s health. Creating development patterns that support walking and
biking encourages people to increase their level of physical activity.
11. Ensure NHC remains in attainment for Air Quality, in support of clean air and
improved public health outcomes in support of continued growth.
The EPA places requirements on communities with regards to air quality to protect
human health. The build environment has a direct relation to air quality. Protecting
our air quality supports public health and enables our community to retain and attract
quality development and industries.
12. Increase access to affordable and convenient healthy foods.
Providing access to healthy foods has a direct impact on individual health. Ensuring
the built environment encourages access to healthy foods increases the likelihood
individuals will consume them and improve health outcomes.
13. Provide for a range of housing types, opportunities and choices:
Understanding NHC is comprised of a diverse group of individuals with a diverse
group of needs in housing helps to ensure individuals do not become overburdened
with the costs or availability of housing.
14. Revitalize Commercial Corridors and blighted areas through infill and
redevelopment:
Areas of blight consist of underutilized properties within our community that likely
have access to services such as water and sewer. Reducing regulatory barriers to
redevelop underutilized property helps to provide for responsible growth strengthening
existing neighborhoods and supporting economic revitalization.
15. Link major natural habitats
Linking natural habitats promotes biodiversity, provides continuity for wildlife
corridors, access to open spaces and recreational opportunities.
16. Conserve and enhance our unique sense of place to attract individuals, companies
and organizations:
Page 31 of 41
NHC has a strong sense of place due to its history and natural environment with many
unique features. Using these features to create a sense of identity and pride
encourages businesses and individuals to locate in NHC.
17. Use public infrastructure improvement to leverage private investments:
Infrastructure is an expensive investment for a community. Where, how, and when
infrastructure investments are made has a significant influence on where private
investments will likely be made. Making infrastructure investments in areas where
growth is desired and positive financial returns allows the community to capitalize on
its public investments.
18. Support Business Success
Local and small businesses are a vibrant part of NHC’s economy. Working together
to create successful businesses can significantly benefit NHC’s economy. In addition
to incentives for large businesses, support for local and small businesses may include
strategies to ensure there are adequate locations for start-ups and programs to kick-
start small businesses.
19. Support health promotion and disease prevention while minimizing debilitating
effects of mental and physical disabilities.
Understanding the built environment and community policies can have a direct impact
on physical and mental disabilities through location of services, integrated land uses,
and sensitivity to the disabled population.
20. Support workforce development and economic prosperity for all.
The workforce of a community is a valuable tool for economic development.
Providing a place-based economic development strategy that attracts quality
workforce talent and provides opportunities to train our existing workforce is a
strategy to retain and attract businesses and companies to NHC.
The CAC stated that while total agreement was not reached on all goals and strategies,
overall consensus was achieved and the diversity of the committee provided broad, county-
wide representation and input to the staff and the consultant. The committee encourages
New Hanover County to use the goals and implementation strategies offered in this report
in the development of the 2015 comprehensive land use plan for New Hanover County.
Chairman Shipley asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in regard to the
comprehensive plan item.
Karen Dunne stated she had served as a Citizen Advisory Committee member and would like to
speak in support of Chapter 3. She explained the Theme Committees came up with 29 policies,
310 short-term strategies, and 122 long-term strategies, which were identified throughout the
whole public process. Many of the theme committees’ policies and recommendations overlapped
one another, creating this framework for the twenty. Every issue in the Citizens Advisory
Committee was resolved with an overwhelming majority of participants agreeing. There were no
overtly contentious issues involving land use, environmental protections or economic
Page 32 of 41
development opportunities that weren’t discussed at length and ultimately agreed upon by the
participants, including that these overarching goals should be listed within the plan without any
kind of prioritization. Ms. Dunne stated while not all the policies from the six theme committees
are included in Chapter Three, it was her hope these noteworthy concepts would remain
available for staff, the Planning Board and the County Commissioners to be used as useful tools
to formulate the comprehensive plan and then also land use policy and regulations.
Chairman Shipley asked if board members had any questions for Ms. Rigby or Ms. Dunne.
Mr. Prinz commented that he didn’t see a very strong educational component in the goals and
inquired about the reason for that. He noted two workshops earlier, Mr. Hance from the New
Hanover County School System, had presented the board with their anticipated infrastructure
needs over the next twenty to thirty years, which he felt were astounding. He expressed surprise
that none of those needs rose to the surface with this effort.
Ms. Rigby explained the next chapter presented will be the Future Land Use Map. That is where
staff intends on growing and developing and where the board will see a lot of the community
facility opportunities for the school district, for fire services, and so forth.
Mr. Prinz commented that Chapter Three talks about the need for more affordable healthcare,
housing, and those kinds of things so he was surprised to not see something about a wider variety
of educational opportunities and things of that nature.
Mr. Weaver commended Ms. Rigby on all the work and the fact that the chapter seemed to hit on
so many different goals and implementation strategies. He stated he had read the document more
than once before he came to the conclusion that another goal or implementation strategy needed
to be specifically mentioned – the preservation and conservation of our beaches, inlets, and
waterways. He noted we spend millions of dollars and lots of time trying to work on them and
it’s getting more and more difficult, given the fact that the state and the federal government are
pulling away from financial support for their maintenance. He explained those three things - the
beaches, inlets and waterways - generate millions of dollars for our local economy. They provide
sensitive coastal habitat for the environment and there is no question they are an invaluable
component of our high quality of life. He felt strongly there should be a specific mention of them
as an implementation strategy under the goal of Promote Place-Based Economic Development in
the Region that is tied to our Natural Resources. That would be a great place to put a specific
implementation strategy for their conservation and preservation. Mr. Weaver expressed curiosity
about the reason those things were omitted, noting he felt staff had done a great job on the
chapter.
Ms. Rigby stated there was not a particular reason those things were not included, so if it was the
pleasure of the board, staff could certainly include that information in this chapter and present it
to the Board of Commissioners as the work of the Citizens Advisory Committee with a few
additions from the Planning Board.
Mr. Weaver offered to provide some wording for the implementation strategy and confirmed he
would like to see it added to Chapter Three as a recommendation from the Planning Board.
Page 33 of 41
Chairman Shipley suggested that discussion could be held during the Planning Board discussion
period.
Vice Chair Girardot made a motion to close the public hearing. Anthony Prinz seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to close the public hearing.
Chairman Shipley opened the Planning Board discussion period.
Chairman Shipley clarified that Chapter Three has been the work of a lot of citizens over a
significant period of time. The board has read it and is here to possibly make some edits. He felt
that regardless of the edits made, staff could always present the plan as resolved and arrived to
by Ms. Rigby without the edits if they wish, but the Planning Board is charged with making a
recommendation to the County Commissioners, which can come in the form of a resolution that
includes edits. He clarified that the commissioners can be presented with both the document that
staff and the CAC prepared and with that document including the Planning Board edits and vote
on whichever they choose. Chairman Shipley stated he knows the report isn’t beyond reproach or
beyond being edited, but at the same time, he didn’t want somebody to come in and delete half
the document because a lot of people put a significant amount of time into it, including the
citizens so that should be considered as well.
Vice Chair Girardot congratulated everyone on the good report and stated words mean a great
deal to her given her background. She knows that words can come back and haunt you
sometimes so she really looked at the chapter carefully. Her first question was in regard to
Economic Development. The Commissioners’ first priority is “Promote a strong diverse
economy and high quality job growth. She noted that priority was nowhere in the document and
wondered if that was an oversight or should be included somewhere because she didn’t see
anything about creating jobs or anything to that effect in the chapter.
Ms. Rigby stated that a few of the goals address jobs, for example, support workforce
development and economic prosperity for all, as well as promote place based economic
development in the region that is tied to our natural resources.
Noting she had seen that, Vice Chair Girardot stated she thought that tended to lean more toward
tourism and toward developing your natural resources to create another economic development
area. She asked Ms. Rigby to consider it. She commented that page 6 of Framing the Policy talks
about environmental justice and promoting environmental justice under Interwoven Equity. Ms.
Rigby had said that meant, for example, landfill sites and low income housing and those types of
things. She felt that was an economic issue. A developer looks for cheaper land when building
affordable housing, etc., rather than expensive land. She wondered if some wordsmithing could
be done to use a word other than “promoting,” which is such an actionable adverb. She felt that
with the term “promoting” sometimes comes funding, regulation and rules. She suggested
substituting the word “consideration” of environmental justice as a possible alternative.
Vice Chair Girardot commented it was easy to miss the note on page 12 informing the reader that
the goals are not listed in order of priority in Chapter Three due to the small print. She inquired if
Page 34 of 41
that note could be shown in larger print and relocated to the large white space immediately below
it.
Ms. Rigby confirmed the font could definitely be increased to bring attention to the fact that the
goals are not listed in order of priority. She also expressed appreciation for the boards’ comments
about economic development and explained the project was done in tandem with the Garner
Study. Staff wanted to ensure they were not duplicating services, but rather were complementing
plans, and so let the Garner Study take the forefront as the economic development plan because
that was most appropriate. This was built in to be supplementary of the Garner Study, not
necessarily to diminish the value or distract from the Garner Study.
Vice Chair Girardot confirmed she was comfortable with the Interwoven Equity and
Environmental Justice goals on page 6 after doing some research on her own. She noted she had
a question about Bullet #8 on page 16, which says “Continue to develop standards to ensure the
retention, acquisition, management of natural vegetation.” She noted her only concern was
whether riparian buffers are only determined by the Coastal Resources Commission (CAC) or if
the County also sets riparian buffers.
Mr. O’Keefe commented that Mr. Weaver may be better to speak on that topic, noting the CRC
does a lot to regulate riparian buffers; however, within riparian buffers that can be set by the
state, the County can promote certain activities that will protect or enhance the effectiveness of
those buffers for filtering water quality or preserving habitat or any other number of things
riparian buffers are noted to be valuable for, so regardless of what the state does within riparian
buffers, policies can be done.
Vice Chair Girardot asked if it would be more appropriate and accurate to say “continue to
participate in the development of state standards to ensure the retention, acquisition and
management of natural vegetation and riparian buffers to preserve, maintain, and protect water
quality?”
Mr. Weaver stated he is a member of the Coastal Resources Advisory Council and noted she was
correct that is state terminology and is used more in the northern counties on the coast than it is
here. There are specific standards there. He explained the County does have what is the equal of
riparian buffers in its conservation overlay district. We don’t call them riparian buffers
specifically, but they are setbacks from mean high water lines and marsh lines, etc. where natural
vegetation has been encouraged to be preserved.
Vice Chair Girardot stated she would like to get that really accurate, noting she loved the county,
but doesn’t want to give the County more authority or rule-making authority than perhaps it
already has. Also, in regard to Subdivision Design Standards, she would like to add language to
say “continue to participate in the development of statewide regulation of subdivision design
standards to protect and improve water quality in sensitive areas.” She felt it would be more
appropriate to participate in statewide design standards.
Mr. O’Keefe state he thought those points are important and point to the importance of the topics
being discussed. We are not a state agency. I think the belief that Mr. Weaver also alluded to is
Page 35 of 41
that the state has specific riparian buffer widths that they have required in other parts of the state,
but they don’t necessarily talk about our riparian buffers in this area. A riparian buffer is a term
that is not in itself a restriction until you put requirements around it. The board could suggest the
County encourage the State to do it if they wished. The direction we can have an effect on is
what we do here in the County. He felt the comprehensive plan was taking that perspective.
Vice Chair Girardot stated the county can also work through the state as well, rather than hiring a
new person to do the job on the county level.
Vice Chair Girardot also offered the following suggestions: 1) Continue to develop and update
educational and other strategies to deal with point and non-point source impacts on water quality
consistent with the latest data coastal rules and regulations as they change; and 2) Continue
identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing an inventory of retrofit opportunities to help direct
protection and improvement measures. She felt a little wordsmithing would make those goals
more accurate and concise. She had a question regarding the last bullet under Air Quality on
page 17, which says “Consider a program to monitor and assess cumulative impacts of toxins
and pollutants on air quality and attainment.” She noted those are federal air permits and inquired
if the county would be starting a new program on the county level for that purpose.
Ms. Rigby explained the County currently has some air quality monitoring sites. The intent
would be to continue that monitoring effort and be able to monitor and assess the impacts of
those readings.
Chairman Shipley stated the planning board discussion phase was ongoing and no resolutions or
motions had been offered.
Mr. Weaver stated on page 15 under the goal of Promote Place-Based Economic Development in
the Region that is tied to our Natural Resources, he would like to add an implementation strategy
that would basically say “Preserve and conserve the beaches, waterways, and inlets vital to the
tourism economy, coastal environment, and recreational component of our quality of life” simply
because the beaches, waterways, and inlets are such a large part of our sense of place her e and
what we are.
Ms. Rigby shared that board members should keep in mind that the next chapter will be the
future land use map, and then after that will be a chapter called “Our Areas of Environmental
Concern,” which is where many of the policies not captured previously within the plan that do
relate to the sensitivity of the environmental features of our community will be located. The
CAMA requirements will also be located in that chapter of the plan.
Mr. Weaver stated he would consider his suggestion more of an implementation strategy because
the funding of these things is so huge and fleeting and so critical to the maintenance and
preservation of these things, as opposed to being a policy. .
David Weaver made a motion to add on page 15 under Promoting Place-Based Economic
Development in the Region, the line Preserve and conserve the beaches, waterways, and inlets
Page 36 of 41
vital to the tourism economy, coastal environment and recreational component of our quality o f
life.
Vice Chair Girardot stated she would second Mr. Weaver’s motion if he would amend his
motion to include the comments she had offered as well.
Chairman Shipley suggested if might streamline the process if Ms. Girardot would offer an
amendment to the motion to encapsulate Mr. Weaver’s motion and sum up for the group her
comments. Then a formal second could be made and the motion could be voted on.
Vice Chair Girardot stated she would need to go back and capture all those comments, but she
thought Ms. Rigby had written down many of those comments.
Mr. Weaver commented it may be simpler to go one by one because there is a diverse group of
amendments to be considered. For that reason, he would like to go forward with this one
amendment.
Chairman Shipley asked if Mr. Weaver’s motion had a second.
Mr. Prinz stated support for what Mr. Weaver was trying to accomplish and much of what Ms.
Girardot had said, as well as the educational component he felt strongly about and had addressed
earlier. He explained; however, he was uncomfortable with piecing all those things together into
a motion when the board really hadn’t had the opportunity to review them and the changes they
would make in the context of the overall scope of goals. He suggested the board take a different
strategy and make recommendations based on tonight’s discussion, send those recommendations
back to staff and the citizens advisory committee if that’s how staff wanted to handle it, and
come back with some well-thought out, crafted wordsmith language on a page that addresses all
those concerns that the Planning Board could then put their stamp on.
Chairman Shipley stated in regard to the timing issue, this chapter has been delayed once and we
know the citizens have spoken. He wasn’t sure sending it back to them for additional discussion
would be the best use of everyone’s time. He understood the suggestion to come back with
something written because it could be very confusing to have six different edits. In terms of
delay, it is plausible to come back in one month with something written, but sending it back to
the citizens and having staff review it again could result in a delay greater than o ne month so he
would be hesitant to do that. He asked Ms. Rigby to address the timing aspect.
Ms. Rigby addressed timing, explaining staff intended on having a future land use map before
the board prior to their next meeting. Staff has structured the comprehensive plan to be adopted
in incremental phases such that there isn’t too much information within each phase to ensure
there is enough time and attention given to all of the details. For that reason, she would be
hesitant to send the inventory and Chapter 4, the Future Land Use Map together because staff
doesn’t want to overwhelm the citizens or the public-at-large with the amount of information
contained in those phases and would like to give adequate time for dialogue.
Page 37 of 41
Ms. Rigby asked Ms. Huffman to provide input in regard to the amendments to the Citizen
Advisory Committee recommendations. The CAC was appointed by the Board of
Commissioners as well so he wasn’t sure if they would end up taking the CAC’s
recommendations to the Board of Commissioners and a separate version of the Planning Board
to the Board of County Commissioners.
Deputy County Attorney Huffman commented there isn’t any legal right way or wrong way to
proceed. A public hearing isn’t required; it is what staff chose to do. Timing wise, it would not
be favorable to continue what’s been presented for even one month so perhaps the better route
would be to ask the planning board for a recommendation that it go forward to the
commissioners by resolution blessing the information from the Citizens Advisory Committee,
and at the same time, prepare a separate draft that would go forward to the commissioners with
edits provided by the planning board. Basically, the commissioners would receive a
recommended version from staff and a recommended version from the Planning Board. That
situation occurs often with text amendments, where the planning board recommends something
entirely different from what the staff thinks is appropriate and steadfastly recommends. She
noted Mr. Weaver, Mr. Prinz, and Ms. Girardot have provided suggestions and there may be
others, who have suggestions, and could work with staff over the next week or so to do some
wordsmithing. Both of those versions could then be presented. Ms. Huffman reiterated there isn’t
any legal requirement that anything be approved, validated or resolved. Staff simply chose to
move the project forward in this manner so there is no right or wrong way to proceed.
Chairman Shipley commented the county commissioners are looking for a recommendation,
whether it is a recommendation to decline what the citizens have put forward and what Ms.
Rigby has put forward or accept it verbatim. It seems like tonight at least some people have input
over want to go change some of the language. The question really is whether or not to delay it
thirty days and whether or not that causes a significant logjam because we could be here for a
pretty long time trying to edit this thing. I think working things out with staff sounds good over
the next thirty days, when you actually get right down to it, this is the work of citizens who have
been put forward and the staff should stand behind the work of those folks and the folks at the
planning board who are in the position to make a recommendation, if they want to bring their
own written recommendations here and present that, we can have an up or down vote among the
seven members, that’s fine. I really don’t see how sending emails back and forth over the next
thirty days would accomplish anything.
Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to postpone the item for thirty days to allow folks who
want to edit the document to come forward with edits for an alternate version, not a competing
version, which can be presented to the commissioners.
Vice Chair Girardot stated she had written her resolution and would like to proceed as
recommended by Ms. Huffman with adopting the citizens’ recommendation and providing Ms.
Rigby with her recommendations as an attachment to the Commissioners, allowing the item to
move forward for approval.
Chairman Shipley asked how Mr. Weaver wished to handle his proposed resolution.
Page 38 of 41
Mr. Weaver noted he felt a recommendation from the planning board would carry more weight
than individual written statements from board members. He stated full support of the proposed
Chapter Three; however, felt there was a glaring omission that needed to be corrected. He would
be fine with whatever worked best for the timeframe and the efficiency of moving forward.
Chairman Shipley stated it appeared there could potentially be separate votes on resolutions to
add Mr. Weaver’s language and adopt Vice Chair Girardot’s proposal to tag along with staff’s
proposal.
Mr. Prinz commented he felt very strongly about the education piece and very strongly that the
project timeline shouldn’t determine due process. He knows how important it is to stick to the
timeline, but these are overarching goals for the plan. He explained the board is helping create
County policy so he would prefer not to push it through to fulfil the project timeline without
getting to what the board feels is the appropriate list of policies. In response to Chairman
Shipley’s inquiry, Mr. Prinz agreed that he would benefit by having the ability to come back in
thirty days with a proposed line or two regarding education.
Chairman Shipley entertained a motion from the board.
Mr. Rawl asked for a clarification that Chairman Shipley’s suggestion was that the board come
up with additional comments to attach to what had been created by the Citizens Advisory
Committee and basically wordsmith or recommend additional language, not necessarily create
any more policies.
Chairman Shipley stated the board could vote on each individual’s language and pass something
to tag along with the proposed chapter or continue the item for thirty days to allow board
members to submit written additions and language to the plan regarding education and
environment.
Jordy Rawl stated that Mr. Prinz, Mr. Weaver, and Ms. Girardot had made valid points of
context that needs to be added to the Comprehensive Plan. He felt there wasn’t enough time to
think through those additions and diligently incorporate that language as it needs to be refined to
prevent further wordsmithing.
Jordy Rawl then made a motion to continue the item to the next planning board meeting to come
back with additional items to be added into the twenty point plan. Chairman Shipley seconded
the motion.
David Weaver suggested that individual planning board members get their written comments to
staff within a week so they can have time to review it before the July meeting.
In response to the chairman’s inquiry about how board members should submit their comments,
Ms. Rigby stated she would ask the board to submit comments to her and allow staff the
opportunity to discuss the board’s comments and determine how to accomplish incorporating
that language. She explained they wanted to be respectful of the Citizens Advisory Committee
Page 39 of 41
and the individuals that participated in that process and be respectful of the Planning Board
members and their feelings.
Anthony Prinz made a motion to call the question and proceed to a vote on the motion. Chairman Shipley
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to proceed to a vote on the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to continue Item #4 - New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan Chapter
3: Framing the Policy until the July 9, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Comments from Planning Board
members will be forwarded to Planning staff within one week.
Technical Review Committee Report (April & May)
Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Reports:
The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once during the month of April
and reviewed two performance residential site plans.
Village at Motts Landing: Phase 2C
The Village at Motts Landing is located in the south central portion of our jurisdiction near
the 60 block Sanders Road on the north side and is classified as Urban on the County’s
adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. This phase of the project is a continuation of an existing
project that has been active since the turn of the century. To the north is Sycamore Grove,
which was developed in the mid-1990s. A portion of The Village at Motts Landing has
already been constructed and recorded and basically lies west of this Phase 2 site. Site plan
attributes for this phase include:
R-15 Residential Zoning
61 lots
28.58 acres
Private Water Service (Aqua of NC)
Public Sewer Service (CFPUA)
Pubic Roads with good road inter-connectivity & pedestrian access, which are planned
for this phase and for the entire project.
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the preliminary site plan for the Village at Motts
Landing: Phase 2C for a period of two years. Six conditions were attached to the plan and
are included in the Planning Board package.
Middle Grove
Middle Grove is located near the northeastern portion of our jurisdiction in the 7300 block
of Darden Road near Ogden Elementary School and is classified as Watershed Resource
Protection on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. Prior to subdivision review, the
property was rezoned from R-20 Residential to CD-(Conditional Use) R-15 by the Board
of County Commissioners. The performance residential project abuts Darden Road and
Middle Sound Road. Several established residential communities are located nearby,
including Princeton Place and Emerald Forest, which is to the right of the project, as well
as the Wendover projects off Wendover Lane to the north. The County’s lone EDZD
Page 40 of 41
project, known as Middle Sound Village, is located on the lower right side of this project.
.Site plan attributes include:
21 lots
Private Road network
Pocket park or recreational area
In a vote of 5-0, the Commissioners did approve this particular site plan. There were four
conditions attached to the plan. Those conditions are included in the Planning Board
package.
** The TRC granted a waiver from the cul-de-sac length requirements (500’) due to the
geographic shape of the property. **
The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met twice during the month of May
and reviewed two (2) performance site plans, one (1) revised plan, and one (1) General
Development Plan (GDP).
Pumpkin Creek Village (Road Re-Designation-Revised)
Pumpkin Creek Village is located in the northern portion of our jurisdiction near the 4300
block of Blue Clay Road. The residential project was preliminarily approved by TRC for
62 lots in February, 2015. The plan included publicly designated streets. The developer for
the project requested that the public road network within the project be re-designated from
public to private due to existing seasonal high water levels on site and the permanent
storage elevations in the proposed storm water pond, which prevented it from meeting
NCDOT’s technical specifications. To meet the NCDOT specification, approximately
three feet of fill on site would need to be added to prevent storm water from collecting and
remaining in the pipes.
After reviewing documentation from NCDOT and the developer’s request, the TRC voted
5-0 to re-designate the road network in Pumpkin Creek Village from public to private. All
terms and conditions from the preliminary site plan approval by TRC in February, 2015
will remain in effect, including the addition of the two private road certificates to the plan.
Dune Top @ Beau Rivage (Performance Plan)
Dune Top is located in the south central portion of our jurisdiction near the 6200 block of
Carolina Beach Road and is classified as Transition on the County’s 2006 adopted Land
Use Plan. This phase of the project is a continuation of the Beau Rivage Master Plan
approved by the County in 1986. The nine lots front along the entrance of the road of Beau
Rivage, with the Beau Rivage Clubhouse located to the west. Site plan attributes for this
phase include:
R-15 Residential Zoning District
9 lots
1.16 acres
Private water (Aqua of NC)
Private sewer (Aqua of NC)
Private Roads (primary access via Carolina Beach Road)
Page 41 of 41
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC preliminarily approved Dune Top with five conditions, which are
included in the Planning Board package.
Riverside Subdivision (Performance Plan)
Riverside subdivision is located in the north central portion of the County’s jurisdiction in
the 2500 block Castle Hayne Road and is classified as Transition and Conservation on the
County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. Site plan attributes include the following:
R-15 Residential Zoning District
238 lots
95.15 acres
Public water (CFPUA)
Public sewer (CFPUA)
Private roads (primary access via Castle Hayne Road)
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC preliminarily approved Riverside subdivision with seven
conditions, which are included in the Planning Board package.
Hanover Reserve (General Development Plan)
Hanover Reserve is located in the northeastern portion of the County’s jurisdiction at the
eastern end of Murrayville Road and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the
County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. A part of the Coastal Carolina development of
Quail Woods is located to the west of the project. Site plan attributes include:
R-15 Residential Zoning District
337 single family lots
134.77 acres
Public water (CFPUA)
Public sewer (CFPUA)
Private road network with access thru Rabbit Hollow Road, and potentially
Murrayville Road.
Based on a number of unresolved concerns between the developer and TRC revolving
ingress & egress into the project and whether two of the collector roads should be
designated as “public,” the TRC continued the item to its June 10, 2015 meeting. The vote
by the TRC to continue the item was 5-0.
**The developer has since requested the project be continued for another thirty days to
consider the information received from the TRC on May 27, 2015. **
Additional Items of Business
With no additional items of business, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to adjourn the
meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.