03-02-2023 PB MINUTES
1 | P a g e
Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board
March 2, 2023
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on March 2, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. in the New
Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present Staff Present
Donna Girardot, Chair Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning
Jeff Petroff, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Colin Tarrant Robert Farrell, Senior Current Planner
Hansen Matthews Zachary, Dickerson, Current Planner
Clark Hipp Julian Griffee, Current Planner
Pete Avery Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney
Kevin Hine
Chair Donna Girardot called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Girardot welcomed the new Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the February 2, 2023, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments
were identified. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant, to approve the
minutes as drafted.
Motion to approve minutes carried 7-0
NEW BUSINESS
Rezoning Request (Z23-03) – Request by James Yopp with River Road Construction, LLC and Hoosier Daddy, LLC, applicant
and property owner, to rezone 29 parcels totaling approximately 42.10 acres of land, including 5741 Carolina Beach Road
and 18 unaddressed parcels on Shiloh Drive north of Manassas Drive, from R-15, Residential to (CZD) R-5, Residential
Moderate High Density for 10 single-family residential lots and 327 residential townhomes with associated open space
and amenity center. This item was continued from the February 2, 2023, meeting.
Senior Planner Robert Farrell provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and
zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the
proposed application as referred to in the staff report.
Mr. Farrell stated that the request was to rezone approximately 42.10 acres from R-15 to a CZD R-5 district. He stated
that site was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s and at the time the purpose of the district was to ensure housing densities
remained lower due to the need for private wells and septic systems, but since then public water and sewer had become
available to the area. He stated that the applicant’s concept plan included 10 single-family lots with 327 single-family
attached dwellings in the form of quadraplexes, triplexes, and duplexes and could be broken into two interconnected
portions.
He stated that the southern portion at Shiloh Drive and Manassas Drive would include 24 quadraplex residential units, 2
triplex units, and 1 duplex for a total of 104 dwelling units. He that the southern portion of the project would connect with
existing road stubs at Sweet Gum Drive, Sand Ridge Avenue, and Black Ash Run in the existing Tarin Woods Subdivision
providing multiple points of ingress and egress through the development. Mr. Farrell stated that Shiloh Drive was also
proposed to extend north and connect to an adjoining commercially zoned parcel on Carolina Beach Road owned by the
applicant. He stated that while not under consideration as part of the proposed rezoning, future commercial services on
the adjacent parcel would be accessible by vehicles through the connection. He stated that the concept plan also showed
2 | P a g e
the attached single-family units situated perpendicular to the rear of existing houses to reduce potential visual impacts
which had been included as a condition of the project.
Mr. Farrell stated that the northern portion of the project included 10 single-family residential lots that transitioned from
Tarin Woods to the south into 23 quadraplex units, 40 triplexes, and 1 duplex for a total of 224 single-family attached
residential units. He described the roadway network, including an easement connection to the eastern end of Rosa Parks
Lane that would allow for the potential for future access, and the road that continued north to the new proposed roadway
connection onto Carolina Beach Road. He stated that the new proposed access road would provide a continuous
connection from Carolina Beach Road, through the proposed development and existing Tarin Woods, south to Manassas
Drive and back to Carolina Beach Road with additional access east to Myrtle Grove Road. Mr. Farrell stated that the
placement of the proposed attached housing on the Ironwood Drive extension was designed to reduce the number of
individual driveways to ensure the road served as a connector through street between Carolina Beach Road and Tarin
Woods. He stated that under the proposed R-5 zoning district sidewalks would be required on both sides of the roads in
the development.
Mr. Farrell stated that access was proposed at Manassas Drive, a NCDOT-maintained secondary road from Carolina Beach
Road, a NCDOT-maintained Urban Principal Arterial highway, and a new proposed access road into the northern portion
of the site parallel to Rosa Parks Lane. He stated that access at Manassas Drive was right-in/right-out with a stoplight on
Carolina Beach Road and that the new proposed access to the north of the site would be right-in/right-out. She stated
that the proposed northern access road was currently under review by NCDOT and would increase internal circulation for
existing developments and help mitigate additional traffic on Carolina Beach Road between The Kings Highway and
Manassas Drive.
He stated that the proposed development would generate approximately 170 AM peak hour trips and 200 PM peak hour
trips, and that new developments that were anticipated to generate more than 100 trips during any peak hour were
required to submit a Traffic Impact Analysis as part of the rezoning application. He stated that the approved Traffic Impact
Analysis was for more dwelling units and more peak hour trips than the development under consideration, resulting in a
reduction of 33 AM and 54 PM peak hour trips. He stated that while the intensity of the proposed development is less
than what was analyzed by the TIA, the applicant had included a condition guaranteeing the construction of all roadway
improvements required by the TIA. He stated that the proposed development would be built over three phases with several
roadway improvements including a new access road, turn lanes, and a U-Turn Lane on Carolina Beach Road. He stated
that the TIA also required the developer to construct a future third access into the site meeting NCDOT roadway standards.
Mr. Farrell stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the property as General Residential and Urban Mixed
Use and because of the general nature of place type borders, sites located in proximity to the boundaries between place
types could be appropriately developed with either place type, allowing site-specific features and evolving development
patterns in the surrounding area to be considered. He stated that the subject parcels were located between existing lower
density residential neighborhoods to the east and the Carolina Beach Road commercial corridor to the west, which was
envisioned for the more intensive Urban Mixed Use place type. He stated that the proposed attached housing type
increased housing diversity in the area and acted as an appropriate transition between existing commercial and residential
development. He stated that roadway additions and improvements proposed as part of the development increased
connectivity and opportunities for vehicles to exit Caroling Beach Road sooner to reach their destinations.
Mr. Farrell stated that staff found the request generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and recommended
approval because the proposed density, housing type, and increased interconnectivity were in line with the
recommendations of both the General Residential and Urban Mixed Use place types and the proposed development acted
as an appropriate transition between existing commercial and residential use in the area.
He stated that the applicant and staff had proposed the following conditions related to reducing visual impacts on
adjacent properties, roadway improvements, access, and stormwater:
3 | P a g e
1. Attached residential dwellings on the east side of Shiloh Drive shall be sited perpendicular to neighboring single-
family residential lots.
2. The improvements required as part of each phase of the approved 2022 Traffic Impact Analysis must be
completed by the end of the build out year listed in the TIA for each phase. Planning staff is authorized to accept
changes to the timing provided such changes are approved by NCDOT and the WMPO. While not shown on the
proposed development, the TIA required future third access into the site meeting NCDOT roadway standards for
Phase 2 must be completed by the build out year of 2026 unless otherwise approved by NCDOT and the WMPO.
3. Existing trees shall be retained, or another appropriate traffic prevention measure shall be established at the
eastern terminus of Rosa Parks Drive to prevent vehicular ingress and egress until such time a written agreement
is reached to provide connectivity. An access easement shall be recorded on the final plat from the edge of
pavement to the property line with Rosa Parks Drive to ensure the possibility of future access.
4. Any portion of the proposed development that utilizes any portion of the existing stormwater management
system for Tarin Woods Subdivision that is not accepted into the Tarin Woods property owners’ association, must
enter into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the Tarin Woods property owners’ association.
Mr. Farrell stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and zoning
compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements.
In response to questions from the board about additional emails that were received in opposition to the project, Mr. Farrell
stated the comments the board received earlier that day were in addition to comments received since the last meeting
that had been provided in the agenda packet.
In response to questions of the board about the TIA requirements for access to Carolina Beach Road, Mr. Farrell stated
that the proposed access road located just above Rosa Parks Lane was included in the concept plan and was being
reviewed by NCDOT, and that a future third access road would be required but would have to be identified at a later date.
He stated that the new road by Manassas would be one connection and the new road north of Rosa Parks Lane would be
the second connection.
In response to questions of the board about the road stub shown on the south end of the project being part of the plan,
Mr. Farrell stated that the road stub was part of the conceptual plan and that the stub would end at the property line. He
stated that the applicant did own the adjacent property and showed the stub extending through for any future
development. He stated that the applicant’s intent was to install the proposed access road first allowing construction
traffic to access the site from the northern end.
Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Mr. James Yopp, applicant, provided a summary description and history of the proposed project. He stated that the
proposal was a revision to a rezoning request submitted previously and now reflected 43 acres with additional open space
and buffers to the adjacent residential properties. He stated that the change in density was reduced from 499 homes to
327 homes limited to 4 homes per dwelling. He stated that access would be provided along Shiloh Road and that
improvements had been made along Manassas Drive with dual right turns exiting out of the site. He stated that a leftover
from their initial Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) had been added at the Harris Teeter Shopping Center and that the initial TIA
had covered all of the density proposed at this time. He stated that after going before the County Board of Commissioners
for the previous proposal, it was suggested that an additional means of ingress and egress be requested in order to receive
approval. He stated that they moved forward to acquire access north of Rosa Parks Drive and then received a new TIA
study. He stated that the connectivity worked in harmony with Duke Energy, AT&T, Spectrum and Piedmont Natural Gas.
He stated that CFPUA has a current proposal asking for a cost share agreement to increase water capacity for future
development and easements along the access along Carolina Beach Road. Mr. Yopp provided information on the plan for
traffic flow along Rosa Parks Drive, and access points to school districts. He stated that the proposal was consistent,
reasonable and in the public’s best interest.
Mr. Don Bennett, Senior Transportation Engineer for Davenport, stated the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared
according to the NCDOT’s Congestion Management Guidelines as well as NCDOT’s Division 3 Supplemental Guidelines
4 | P a g e
which tend to remove capacity in the analysis. He stated the actual density of the rezoning request was much less than
what was proposed in the TIA, and the capacity modeling for the surrounding network was also constrained. He stated
that improvements required by the TIA accommodate the traffic impacts of the development. Mr. Bennett stated that the
study identified improvements that were necessary to address the impacts of the proposed project, and those
improvements would be a requirement of the NCDOT driveway permitting process in accordance with the TIA approval
letter.
Mr. Howard Resnick, Engineer, CSD Engineering, stated that all of the existing stormwater control measures on the Tarin
Woods II site were designed to meet the New Hanover County’s stormwater management requirements which included
attenuating the 25-year storm and ensuring it could handle the 50-year storm. He stated that from past community
meetings they had received positive feedback on how the stormwater management control managements were
functioning.
In response to public comments received, Mr. Yopp gave brief responses to each question.
Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
Prior to opposition, Chair Girardot allowed a speaker in support.
Mr. Joseph Franchetti, 1116 Short Leaf Way, spoke in support of the project and expressed his approval of Mr. Yopp’s
proposal and intent to create a project that would be beneficial to the community.
Ms. Vivian Radecsky, 6001 Appomattox Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the
decrease in value of her property, the increase in traffic on the proposed road. She stated that she felt that the double
land would be a safety hazard. She expressed her concern with the high density of the project.
Ms. Chass Hood, 777 Liberty Landing Way, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern about the increase
in traffic and high density building in the area. She stated that the quality of life is changing but not for the better. She
expressed her concern regarding hurricane season and no way out of the area based on the impact of the increase traffic.
Ms. Brenda McCombie, 1150 Kings Highway, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with protecting
the schools and keeping the students safe both regarding traffic and the proximity of other structures. She asked the
requirement of Hoosier Daddy having a third access to the site in addition to the proposed egress point parallel to Rosa
Parks Drive and where it would be located. She opposed it being located along Kings Highway. She also inquired about
the final 12.8 acres that backed up to Coastal Christian High School.
Mr. Charles Williams, 6110 Shiloh Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the increased
density of the project, and stated that they did not need any more ghettos in that part of town. He expressed his concern
that it appeared that traffic would be coming out of Manassas Road.
Ms. Michelle O,Brien, 5949 Appomattox Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the
density of the project. She stated the applicant was not using a current traffic count for the project and did not include
seasonal traffic. She stated that the proposal has one extra additional access to US 421 and some extensions of u-turn
lanes and deceleration lanes. She stated that adding additional burden and traffic conflict to same highway was not
interconnectivity. She expressed concern about issues not addressed in the staff report and the starting price point was
not considered affordable housing.
Mr. Shawn Bungey, 6119 Tarin Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with safety concerns
within the New Hanover County School system and the addition of at a minimum 327 new students and added traffic
count within the subdivision. He stated the proposal was not congruent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. He expressed
his concerns about increased traffic during evacuation.
Mr. Chris Birkmeyer, 6149 Sweet Gum Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the
developer’s conditions of improvement are not being in writing and that the R-7 zoning would be more appropriate for
the project.
5 | P a g e
Ms. Gayle Tabor, 6130 Shiloh Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the increase in the
volume of traffic and the crowding of the neighborhood schools.
In rebuttal to the opposition, Mr. Yopp stated that the items that they were committed to provide private funding within
the community and not by county taxpayer dollars. He shared information about the number of vacant parcels located
from Monkey Junction south to Snows Cut. He stated that they were trying to improve the connectivity between these
areas. He stated that conditions have been planned and added to assist in the community to provide diversified housing,
housing affordability in connections to commercial and retail services as the county grows.
Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened for Board Discussion.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that there was too much density of the proposal. He stated that rezoning from R-15 to
R-5 would be too much of a drastic change and would have too much of a significant impact on the existing
neighborhoods. Vice Chair Petroff agreed with Mr. Hipp and stated that from a planning perspective, the northern portion
of the project combined with the southern portion of the project made it unobtainable for this area. Board Member Pete
Avery agreed that the transition to R-7 would make more sense. Chair Donna Girardot stated that the stacking lanes on
Carolina Beach Road were inadequate. She stated that there was an evacuation issue in the southern part of the county
as there was only one way in and one way out. She stated that when the new traffic study was received the applicant was
welcome to submit a new rezoning application based on new information.
Based on Board member discussion which focused on the added density, traffic capacity and the 78/proposed R-5 zoning
request, Mr. Yopp requested a continuance to the March 30, 2023.
Board Members expressed their concerns with having another public hearing or community meeting for the same plan as
the original concerns had not been addressed and that there were no significant changes. Board Member Pete Avery
made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant, to DENY a CONTINUACE of the proposed rezoning to (CZD)
R-5.
The MOTION to DENY a CONTINUANCE of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) R-5 carried 7-0.
Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant, to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the
proposed rezoning to (CZD) R-5. The Board found it to be INCONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density of the development exceeds the density recommended for the
Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also found recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request was reasonable
and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community
and the density will adversely impact adjacent neighborhoods.
The MOTION to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed (CZD) R-5 rezoning request carried 7-0.
Rezoning Request (Z23-06) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and
Tanya Vlacancich, property owners, to rezone approximately 4.65 acres of land located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road from
R-15, Residential to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density for a maximum 72-unit multi-family
development.
Senior Planner Robert stated that the applicant had requested to rezone approximately 4.65 acres from R-15, residential
district to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density district, but on the advice of the county attorney’s
office, before the public hearing there was an item the board would need to consider and act on before proceeding. He
stated that the applicant had previously held a community meeting for another multi-family project on this property. The
applicant withdrew that application and had submitted the multi-family project under consideration this evening. He
stated that community meetings were typically held before submitting conditional rezoning applications. He stated that
Section 10.2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance allowed applicants to submit an application without holding a
community meeting; however, applicants were required to submit a report documenting the reasons why they did not
hold the meeting.
Mr. Farrell stated that before proceeding with the public hearing, the Planning Board should make a determination on
the adequacy of the report and make a motion to either accept the report submitted with the application or find the report
6 | P a g e
was not adequate and require the applicant to hold a community meeting before holding a public hearing at a future
date.
Chair Girardot requested guidance from Deputy County Attorney, Karen Richards in making a determination as to whether
the reasoning for not holding the Community Information Meeting was adequate.
Chair Girardot recognized the applicant.
Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, provided a summary of the purpose of a Community Information Meeting and stated that its
purpose was to inform owners and residents of nearby land about the proposed application and to provide the applicant
an opportunity to hear comments and concerns about the development proposal as a means of resolving conflict and
outstanding issues where possible. She stated that a public meeting was held back in August and the people that were
appealing that the public meeting was not held were at the meeting and on the original sign in list. She stated that the
initial proposal was withdrawn, and the alternative plan was submitted. She stated that all of the particulars of the original
application remain the same; however, the difference is solely the size, height, style and now the multiple buildings. She
stated that a letter and plan was sent out and published on the New Hanover County website at least 10 days before the
February 1 submittal deadline. She stated that it explained the updated plan and provided her contact information and
had not been contacted. She stated the questions indicated in the appeal had all been covered in the past and could
certainly be readdressed in her presentation this evening. She requested that the hearing proceed on schedule, but if the
justification in support of the petition was found lacking, then a continuation of the decision was always an option.
Chair Girardot opened the floor for Board discussion.
Board member Clark Hipp expressed his concern with the new application not going through the Community Information
Meeting process for such a significant change in design. He stated that he did not believe that a the 4-story building as
originally proposed had the same impact that six smaller buildings would have. He stated that the significance of the
change suggested to him that a community meeting was warranted and that he had concerns about proceeding with the
application without a formal community meeting. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff agreed with Mr. Hipp’s concerns.
Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to NOT ACCEPT the applicant’s request
to waive the Community Information Meeting for the proposed request to rezone approximately 4.65 acres of land located
at 6634 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density for a
maximum 72-unit multi-family development.
The MOTION to NOT ACCEPT the applicant’s request to waive the Community Information Meeting for the proposed
request carried 4-3. Vote: Yes – Jeff Petroff, Donna Girardot, Hansen Matthews, Clark Hipp; No – Pete Avery, Colin Tarrant
and Kevin Hine. The applicant was directed to hold a Community Information Meeting and then the public hearing would
be rescheduled at a later date.
Rezoning Request (Z23-07) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Ernest Faison II,
property owner, to rezone approximately 0.96 acres of land located at 6505 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential
to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business to convert an existing single-family home for a contractor’s office with an accessory
structure and outside storage and other limited commercial uses.
Current Planner Julian Griffee provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and
zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the
proposed application as referred to in the staff report.
Mr. Griffee stated that the proposal was to rezone 0.96 acres from R-15 to CZD B-2 to convert an existing single-
family home for a contractor’s office and other limited commercial uses with an accessory structure and outside
storage. He stated that the applicant had indicated the use was for a plumbing contractor’s office but had also
requested other uses as part of the request. He stated that the applicant proposed to limit future uses to Business
Services, Offices for Private Business and Professional Services, Services & Studios, and Personal Services, and that
the applicant had delineated bufferyards from the existing structure and the abutting residential uses, associated
parking, and a stormwater basin.
7 | P a g e
Mr. Griffee provided information depicting the estimated trip generation for the site. He stated that the proposed
development was estimated to generate a slight increase in the number of trips than the current use and that the
trips were dependent on the type of use of the parcel. He provided information on the requested uses with their
estimated peak hour trips, based on the approximate size of the existing Single-Family dwelling.
He stated that the subject site was located along Carolina Beach Road, a major arterial roadway. He stated that
there was residential and commercial zoning within the general vicinity of the subject site with established
residential uses to the south and east and commercial to the north and across the roadway to the west. He stated
that the development could serve as a transition between these areas and that there was an anticipated gradual
conversion of residential properties into commercial along the Carolina Beach Road corridor.
He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the area as Community Mixed Use which recommended a
mixture of uses that include low moderate intensity retail and services that could support nearby neighborhoods.
He stated that the subject site was located along Carolina Beach Road, between established residential uses and
commercial establishments where transitional commercial uses could be appropriate, and the proposal was in line
with the uses recommended within the Community Mixed Use place type.
Mr. Griffee stated that staff found the request to be generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and in
the public interest, as the project provided for the types of uses recommended for the place type and could serve as
a transition between the roadway, adjacent commercial uses, and the abutting residential uses and that staff
recommended approval of the request with the applicant’s proposed conditions:
1. Permitted uses of the site are limited to Business Services, Business & Professional Offices, Instructional Services
&Studios, and Personal Services.
2. The existing access drive to Carolina Beach Road will be upgraded to a commercial driveway with permitting by
NCDOT.
3. Streetyard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet current landscape requirements.
4. Any free-standing sign(s) on the site shall be monument style with landscaping around the base of the sign. No
pole signs shall be permitted.
5. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged, or shielded so as not to cast
illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the
ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage
and glares are not directed to adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas or motorists. Light posts shall be no
taller than twelve (12) feet.
Mr. Griffee stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and
zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements.
Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, agreed with the information provided by Mr. Griffee and provided a summary description of
the proposed project. She stated that the proposal included an existing house located on Carolina Beach Road just south
of Heathcliff Drive. She stated that this would be an opportunity for adaptive rehabilitation of older housed along this
corridor to become businesses. She stated that the existing building would be used as offices. She stated that the
additional possible uses proposed were added if eventually the business were to move on transition, it would allow for
other appropriate uses. Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant’s intent would be to build a garage in the back and have a
laydown yard towards the back since he is a contractor. She stated the property would be buffered to the house that is to
the south and that the laydown yard itself was proposed to be screened with a solid wood screened fence, and that the
applicant had no intention of disturbing the wooded area at the rear of the site. She stated any use of the rear of the site
would require the applicant to return for medication of any approval of the rezoning. She indicated that there were a few
trees that would need to be removed to allow for the driveway onto the site.
Ms. Wolf stated that the project was consistent, reasonable and in the public’s interest because it designates the land as
proposed for the Community Mixed Use place type which promotes fostering sustainable growth through sensible infill
and location efficiency. She stated that adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of existing building facilitate re-development
8 | P a g e
options that will enhance an area’s character and required building code and ordinance upgrades, while approval by
Conditional District ensures compatibility and minimization of impacts on adjacent residences. She stated that the
proposal provided an orderly and acceptable transition between the busy Carolina Beach Road corridor and properties
beyond the busy roadway.
In response to questions from the Board about outside storage area lighting, Ms. Wolf stated that because it would be
fenced in there would just be the customary wall lighting but no tall security lighting.
In response to questions from the Board about equipment being seen from the road, Ms. Wolf stated that the existing
building, the garage and the proposed screening fencing would prevent any visibility from the road.
Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
With no one signed up to speak in opposition or with questions, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to
Board discussion.
Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the
proposed rezoning to (CZD) B-2 district with the following conditions:
1. Permitted uses of the site are limited to Business Services, Business & Professional Offices, Instructional Services &
Studios, and Personal Services.
2. The existing access drive to Carolina Beach Road will be upgraded to a commercial driveway with permitting by
NCDOT.
3. Streetyard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet current landscape requirements.
4. Any free-standing sign(s) on the site shall be monument style with landscaping around the base of the sign. No pole
signs shall be permitted.
5. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination
in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall
be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glares are not directed
to adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet.
The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project
provided for the types of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also found recommending
APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal allows service-oriented
uses that could serve as an appropriate transition between the residential uses and the commercial uses along the heavily
traveled roadway, the proposed use types allowed for services that are relatively low traffic generators.
The motion to recommend Approval of the proposed (CZD) B-2 carried 7-0.
Rezoning Request (Z23-01) – Request by David Long with Castle Hayne Development Group, LLC, applicant, on behalf of
James Stone with Ashton & Avery, LLC, property owner, to rezone four parcels totaling approximately 11.5 acres of land
located at 3400 Castle Hayne Road from R-20, Residential, to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business for general retail and outdoor
display.
Current Planner Zach Dickerson provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation,
and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of
the proposed application as referred to in the staff report.
Mr. Dickerson stated that the proposal was to rezone five parcels totaling 11.5 acres at 3400 Castle Hayne Road to
a CZD B-2, Regional Business district in order to develop an intended Tractor Supply store. He stated that the
applicant is proposing to construct a 22,000 sq ft retail building with a 4,000 sq ft garden center and 13,000 sq ft
fenced outdoor display area. He indicated that the concept plan showed the proposed street yard along the southern
boundary of the site, adjacent to the utility easement with power lines. He stated that access to the site was
proposed from Castle Hayne Road, an NCDOT maintained minor arterial roadway. Ingress and egress would be full
access, with a northbound right turn lane required by NCDOT as part of the driveway permit review process. He
stated that State Transportation Improvement Project U-5863 planned to widen Castle Hayne Road but that there
9 | P a g e
had not yet been a final determination on whether there would be a median or a center turn lane on this section of
Castle Hayne Road. If there was a median, future site access would be limited to right-in/right-out.
Mr. Dickerson stated that under the site’s current zoning, the development would generate approximately 10 AM
and 13 PM peak hour trips. He stated that using the ITE code for a farm supply store, the retail development would
generate approximately 0 AM and 55 PM peak hour trips, and for general retail use under the B-2 zoning with similar
building square footage, the site would generate approximately 61 AM and 169 PM peak hour trips. If the site were
developed for a general retail use other than farm supply, it would exceed the 100 peak hour trips which would
trigger the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis.
He stated that the property was located on Castle Hayne Road, near the I-140 interchange, and because of its
proximity to that interchange, this area was likely to transition to a service node in the coming years, serving both
local and highway traffic. He stated that the site features, including the utility easement, reduced impact on
neighboring residential uses. Mr. Dickerson stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies this area as both
Community Mixed Use and General Residential. He stated that because of the general nature of place type borders,
sites located in more than one place type could be appropriately developed with either place type, and that this
project was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations for the Community Mixed Use
Place Type.
He stated that staff found the proposal was consistent with the recommended uses for the Community Mixed Use
place type and with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the proposed zoning district and use was
compatible with this area, which over time was likely to transition into a commercial node. He stated that staff
recommended approval with the following conditions proposed by the applicant:
1. No development shall occur within the existing utility easement, as shown on the proposed Conditional Rezoning
Site Plan. This constitutes an additional, undisturbed buffer of 172.5’ wide adjacent to the existing residential uses
on Gladiolus Road. The required secondary street yard will make the total separation between the proposed
development and Gladiolus Rd 178.75’ wide.
2. Site access is restricted to Castle Hayne Road. Vehicular ingress and egress to the site from Gladiolus Road is not
permitted.
Mr. Dickerson stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and
zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements.
In response to questions from the Board about the traffic impact analysis requirement should the business type
change, Director of Planning, Rebekah Roth stated that the Planning Board nor the Board of Commissioners were
able to condition any improvement for a specific brand of store. She stated that because this type of store fell under
the general retail use description that is what is allowed; however, the intent was to have the project as a Tractor
Supply store. She stated that if this was to ever change, the necessary traffic study would be required at that time
but was not currently required. She stated that this would be considered a change of use by the NCDOT and WMPO
and would not fall on the Planning Board
Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Mr. Mike Nichols, representative for the applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project and agreed
with the information provided by Mr. Dickerson. Mr. Nichols stated that at the December 12, 2022, Community Meeting
there were no concerns with the exception of a request to put a traffic light on the corner of Chair Road and Castle Hayne
Road. He stated he had to inform them that the request was not part of this proposal, but that NCDOT was currently
looking at that corridor. He stated that the lower 34 percent of the site would not be disturbed as it is an easement for
two different easements for power companies and is considered to be the additional buffer for the project. He stated that
they were proposing 120,500 square feet of impervious surface and water and sewer being available to the site and
located within 2000 linear feet from the interchange at I-140. He stated that they proposed to provide spacial buffers
between the existing residential on Gladiolus Road, restricting site access from Castle Hayne Road and not allowing any
access from Gladiolus Road, and having little impact on wetlands by raising the site for stormwater to ensure it stays
above the wetland area.
10 | P a g e
In response to questions from the Board about the deceleration lane, Mr. Nichols stated when submitted to NCDOT for
preliminary review, they were informed that would have to put in a deceleration lane.
In response to questions from the Board about an existing house under the power lines, Mr. Nichols stated that there was
a house that was located just to the north of the power lines and a well pump that was there that would be demolished.
Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
Mr. Emerson Whitted, 3502 Emerson Drive, spoke in support of the project and stated that he welcomed the project but
did want to ask for the speed to be reduced on Castle Hayne Road and to extend the lane at the intersection of Chair Road
where the development would be located.
Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion.
Board Member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the
proposed rezoning to (CZD) B-2 for general retail and outdoor display with the following conditions:
1. No development shall occur within the existing utility easement, as shown on the proposed Conditional Rezoning Site
Plan. This constitutes an additional, undisturbed buffer of 172.5’ wide adjacent to the existing residential uses on Gladiolus
Road. The required secondary street yard will make the total separation between the proposed development and Gladiolus
Rd 178.75’ wide.
2. Site access is restricted to Castle Hayne Road. Vehicular ingress and egress to the site from Gladiolus Road is not
permitted.
The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provided for the
types of uses encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type and was compatible with projected commercial nodes.
The Board also found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because
it provided for the types of uses that serve the surrounding community, and the site was designed to create a visual
transition from adjacent residential areas to the south and east.
The motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) B-2 carried 7-0.
Rezoning Request (Z23-08) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Bayshore Estates, INC,
property owner, to rezone approximately 2.74 acres of land located at 7620 Market Street from R-15, Residential to (CZD)
B-1, Neighborhood Business for a two-story commercial structure and to remove the Special Highway Overlay District
(SHOD) from the property and other limited commercial uses.
Current Planner Julian Griffee provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and
zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the
proposed application as referred to in the staff report.
Mr. Griffee stated that the proposal was to rezone 2.74 acres from R-15 to a CZD B-1 to develop a 2-story
commercial structure and to remove the Special Highway Overlay District from the property. He stated that the
subject site was bounded to the west by the Market Street right-of-way with commercial and institutional uses
fronting the roadway, single-family residential existed to the south and east, and a vacant commercial property to
the north. He stated that the applicant had provided a conceptual plan, which depicted the proposed 2-story, 20,800
square feet commercial structure, associated parking, site access, and bufferyards from residential-abutting parcels.
He stated that an underground stormwater system was proposed underneath the parking lot.
He stated that the applicant had requested the following uses be allowed as part of the development: Bank and/or
financial institution, business services, restaurant (no drive-thru permitted), offices for private business &
professional activities, instructional services and studios, personal services, general (no tattoo parlor permitted),
and retail sales, general.
He stated that the subject site was located within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) which was established
to ensure consistency of development and scenic beauty along specific roadways within the County. He stated that
the Special Highway Overlay District contained regulations pertaining to larger frontyard setbacks of 100 feet for
11 | P a g e
non-residential structures, outdoor storage, parking and loading, lot coverage, and signs. He stated that the
applicant was seeking to remove the Special Highway Overlay District designation; however, the applicant had
conditioned the request to develop the project in accordance with all current Special Highway Overlay District
requirements aside from the 100-foot frontyard setback. This setback was to allow for future widening of the
corridor.
Mr. Griffee stated that access to the property was proposed to be provided from a new right-in, right-out driveway
access onto Market Street which was subject to NCDOT permitting. He provided information depicting the current
estimated trip generation for the site along with typical development under the current zoning and stated that the
proposed project would generate approximately 49 AM and 94 PM peak hour trips.
He stated that the property was located along Market Street, a major commercial corridor, between the Porters
Neck growth node and the City of Wilmington. He stated that much of the surrounding land to the North and West
is used or zoned for commercial purposes along the heavily traveled roadway, while parcels to the South and East
are residentially zoned properties and that the development could serve as a transition between these uses. Mr.
Griffee stated that it was expected that traffic would be alleviated within the general area upon completion of the
Military Cutoff Road extension and Market Street Improvements, which were scheduled for completion this year.
He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the property as Community Mixed Use, which was intended
for compact, mixed-use developments that support more density along major roads and that developments could
serve as a transition to lower densities when adjacent to existing lower intensity residential neighborhoods. He
stated that the project was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it would provide for the types of
uses recommended for the Community Mixed Use Place Type.
He stated that staff found the proposal was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and was in the
public interest as the project provides for commercial and office uses along a major corridor, possesses uses
consistent with those recommended within the Place Type, and could serve as a transition between the heavily
traveled corridor and lower-intensity residential uses. As such, staff recommended approval of the request with the
applicant’s proposed conditions:
1. The permitted uses will be limited to Bank and/or Financial Institutional, Business Services, (no drivethru), Offices
for Private Business & Professional Activities, Instructional Services & Studios, Personal Services (no tattoo
parlors), and General Retail Sales.
2. Development of the site will be subject to all applicable standards of the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD)
described in Section 3.5.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance with the exception that the front property
setback shall reflect the minimum setback of 25 feet as currently prescribed for the B-1 zoning district.
3. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast
illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the
ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage
and glares are not directed to adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas or motorists. Light posts shall be no
taller than twelve (12) feet.
4. Tree protection fencing shall be installed along the proposed fence line prior to onset of any clearing or grading,
and the area behind shall be left totally undisturbed.
Mr. Griffee stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and
zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements.
Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project and provided visual information of
the proposed development to the site. Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant was proposing the elimination of the Special
Highway Overlay District as part of the rezoning was because their choices with the location of the powerline would be to
put the parking in the front and the building in the back; however there is residential to the rear of the site and it made
more sense to place the building in the front not only screened for aesthetic purposes, but also to provide additional
12 | P a g e
mitigation of effects on the adjacent residential property. She stated that they were proposing that the back 30 feet
setback be a buffer. She stated that at the Community Information Meeting it was agreed that tree protection fencing
would be installed prior to the onset of clearing and grading along a 10 foot offset from the back of the parking; no
disturbance of vegetation would be permitted and prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy and completion of
construction, an 8-foot high screening fence would be along a 5-foot offset of the parking lot which would provide for the
vegetation that is already along the back of the site to be preserved. She stated that the types of proposed uses were all
6-to-7-hour types of uses, were appropriate to the request, and would be adequately buffered. Ms. Wolf stated that the
proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area along Market Street.
In response to questions from the Board about the applicant’s request to remove the Special Highway Overlay District,
Ms. Wolf confirmed that it would not make a difference because all of the other Special Highway Overlay District’s
standards, with the exception of the 100-foot setback would apply because of the Market Street expansion.
In response to questions from the Board about development in the area to the southwest, Ms. Wolf stated at this point
there was no development to be made at that location; the applicant would have to return before the Planning Board for
a modification for further development.
In response to questions from the Board about outdoor seating, Ms. Roth stated there were no restrictions in the Unified
Development Ordinance.
In response to questions from the Board about the number of parking spaces, Ms. Wolf stated that there were 92 parking
spaces. She stated that the bottom floor was intended to be commercial and that there were 5 parking spaces per
thousand and for the top floor there were 4 parking spaces per thousand.
Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
Mr. Scott O’Berholzer, 7623 Lost Tree Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the safety
of his family and having a parking lot behind their home, high illumination of lighting onto his property from the parking
light, and removal of the buffer in which he would now be able to see Market Street. He also spoke about the increase in
traffic on Market Street.
Mr. Joseph Davis, 7722 Lost Tree Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with increased light
illumination into neighboring properties and property damage to owners.
Ms. Elizabeth Sites, 7604 Lost Tree Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with underutilized
properties and vacant buildings that could be an opportunity to be used for the proposed business. She stated that the
ongoing development in the Ogden area was an intrusion on residential quality of life. She expressed her concern with the
increased light illumination in the neighborhoods along with the increase noise from Market Street. She expressed her
concern with the types of businesses that would be backing up to their neighborhood and the fence line. She spoke about
the continued demolition of natural areas being replaced with businesses that are already available locally and excessive
signage in the Special Highway Overlay District.
In rebuttal to the opposition, Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant’s plan specifically addresses lighting limited to the 16-
foot height and directional controls as part of their conditions. She stated that the parking lot was positioned against the
powerline so that the bufferyard beyond that area would be in excess of what would be required. She stated that at the
community meeting the applicant agreed that they would put in the fence protection and would not grade in the buffer
so that the existing vegetation could remain. She stated that in regard to the security of the neighborhood, the applicant
was providing in excess of the size of buffer that was required and leaving the vegetation but also an 8-feet fence.
In response to Ms. Wolf’s rebuttal, Mr. O’Berholzer stated that he agreed with Ms. Wolf in regard to development in the
area; however, that it was getting too close to neighborhoods and that they just need to meet somewhere in the middle
where a parking lot wasn’t going to be located right up against residential. He stated the parking lot in the back could be
dangerous after hours.
In response to Ms. Wolf’s rebuttal, Mr. Davis stated that the proposal does not fit within the neighborhood. He stated it
was zoned residential and is being converted to business. He stated that there was not nearly enough buffer to protect
the neighborhood.
13 | P a g e
In response to Ms. Wolf’s rebuttal, Ms. Sites stated that as she stated earlier that there were more than enough vacant
properties for the types of uses being proposed.
Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion.
Board discussion focused on the requirements of removal of the Special Highway Overlay District for the area and potential
excessive noise and lighting illumination affecting the neighbors. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED
by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed (CZD) B1 and the removal of the Special Highway
Overlay District with the following conditions:
1. The permitted uses will be limited to Bank and/or Financial Institutional, Business Services, Restaurant (no drive
thru), Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities, Instructional Services & Studios, Personal Services (no
tattoo parlors), and General Retail Sales.
2. Development of the site will be subject to all applicable standards of the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD)
described in Section 3.5.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance with the exception that the front property
setback shall reflect the minimum setback of 25 feet as currently prescribed for the B-1 zoning district.
3. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast
illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the
ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage
and glares are not directed to adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller
than twelve (12) feet.
4. Tree protection fencing shall be installed along the proposed fence line prior to onset of any clearing or grading,
and the area behind shall be left totally undisturbed.
5. No outdoor amplified music is allowed at any time.
6. Outdoor seating would be placed between the front of the building and Market Street.
The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it was located in
an area designated as Community Mixed Use, is located along a major roadway corridor between the City of Wilmington
and the Porters Neck growth node where transitional uses would be appropriate, and provided for the uses that are
recommended within this area. The Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable
and in the public interest because the proposal provided neighborhood-serving commercial development.
The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to CZD B-1 carried 7-0.
OTHER ITEMS
No items to discuss.
Chair Donna Girardot adjourned the meeting at 8:44 PM.
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.