Loading...
06-01-2023 PB MINUTES 1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board June 1, 2023 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on June 1, 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 Jeff Petroff, Vice Chair Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use Clark Hipp Ken Vafier, Planning Supervisor Pete Avery Robert Farrell, Senior Current Planner Hansen Matthews Zachary Dickerson, Current Planner Colin Tarrant Amy Doss, Current Planner Kevin Hine Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Vice Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the March 30, 2023, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery, to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0. New Business After opening the meeting, Planning Board Vice Chair Jeffrey Petroff stated that the applicant’s team for Item 3 planned to ask for a continuance on this request. Vice Chair Petroff asked the applicant’s team to come forward. Allison Engebretson with Paramounte Engineering, representing the applicant, came forward. Rezoning Request- (Z23-12) – Request by Allison Engebretson with Paramounte Engineering and William Block with Olympus Holding Company Castle Hayne, LLC, applicant, on behalf of Patricia Roseman with Blue Tank, LLC and Holly Tank, LLC, property owners, to rezone approximately 23.01 acres zoned I-1, Light Industrial and approximately 49.38 acres zoned I-1 and R-15, Residential located at 5210 Holly Shelter Road and 5735 Blue Clay Road to (CZD) RMFL, Residential Multi-Family – Low Density for a maximum of 521 residential units consisting of multi-family, attached, and detached residential dwelling units. Ms. Engebretson, on behalf of The Oasis, requested a continuance until the next meeting in July in order to work through potential language for the staff recommended condition. Mr. Hansen Matthews made a motion, Mr. Pete Avery seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Vice Chair Petroff clarified with Ms. Engebretson that the continuance would be granted until next month’s Planning Board meeting on Thursday, July 6th. The motion to approve a continuance to the July 6, 2023, Planning Board Meeting carried 6-0. Text Amendment Request (TA23-04) – Request by Michael Faulkner with Castle Hayne Farm Park, LLC, applicant, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance requirements pertaining to Campground / Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parks. Current Planner Zachary Dickerson stated the application was a citizen-initiated text amendment request proposing to reduce the number of spaces in RV parks from 25 to 8 and to reduce the minimum required size for each space from 2,000 square feet to 1,200 square feet. The applicant has also proposed language that would update and 2 | Page clarify the minimum requirements for bathroom facilities and the area for laundry, vending machines, and retail sales counter. Mr. Dickerson stated RV parks and campgrounds are permitted-by-right in the B-2 and PD districts and require Special Use Permits in residential districts where allowed. New Hanover County requires a minimum of 25 spaces and a minimum space size of 2,000 square feet, along with additional use specific standards in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The current standards are designed for large scale campgrounds for itinerant use. Mr. Dickerson stated county Planning staff had received increased calls and requests from the public for RV use in the county. Mr. Dickerson stated the Planning Department had received the text amendment application request by the deadline for the May 4 Planning Board meeting. Staff requested a continuance at the May 4 meeting to allow staff time for additional research. Mr. Dickerson stated Planning staff researched regulations from other jurisdictions for RV parks and found jurisdictions that regulated the density of spaces per acre of development and others that were similar to New Hanover County’s current requirements of minimum required number of spaces. Mr. Dickerson went on to state that reducing the number of minimum spaces required would allow smaller parcels to become viable for RV development. Additionally, smaller RV parks may be managed by an individual rather than a company such as a KOA campground. Mr. Dickerson stated smaller sites would allow potential increased RV park and campground development in residential areas. Mr. Dickerson provided images of the existing campground at Snow’s Cut on River Road as an illustration of the type of development currently allowed by ordinance. By way of comparison Mr. Dickerson showed images of the Ocean’s RV Resort in Holly Ridge, NC highlighting the smaller space sizes allowed by Holly Ridge, NC. Mr. Dickerson stated that beyond density or lot size requirements staff reviewed amenities such as restroom and shower facilities, open space, and recreational areas common in commercial RV parks. Another issue raised by members of the Planning Board during the board’s agenda review after the staff report had been finalized was related to the use of permanently parked RVs for temporary tenancy. Mr. Dickerson stated the UDO outlines that RV use in designated parks should only be on a temporary, intermittent basis however the term “intermittent” was not defined by the ordinance. Other jurisdictions regulate the length of stay in RV parks through vehicle registration records with the park. Mr. Dickerson stated staff recommended creating a new use in the UDO for small RV parks that would require a conditional rezoning for approval rather than a special use permit which would provide different safeguards for the applicant, board, and public in the review process. Mr. Dickerson reiterated staff’s concern from the May 4 meeting that the special use permit review process may no longer be the most appropriate way to ensure potential projects are in harmony with the surrounding community. Since the proposed amendment could allow additional properties to be eligible for use as an RV park, the conditional zoning process grants more latitude for policy direction from the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. Mr. Dickerson stated staff recommended the use “Campground / RV Parks, Small” be subject to all other current regulations for Campground / RV Parks, with the exemption of the required lot number and size requested by the applicant. In addition, staff recommended the new use only be allowed within a Conditional Rural Agricultural or Conditional R-20 district. Staff also recommended retaining the requirement for a bathroom structure but accepting the other changes proposed by the applicant regarding the bathroom facilities. Mr. Dickerson stated as the Comprehensive Plan did not provide specific policy direction for campgrounds and RV parks, staff’s recommendation was based on an assessment of the potential implications of the proposal. The recommended amendment was intended to balance the ability to ask for the use with safeguards related to potential impact on nearby communities. Mr. Dickerson stated that if the Planning Board was in support of the applicant’s request and staff’s recommended amendments, staff had provided an example motion to the board. 3 | Page Staff’s draft amendment did not address tenancy, if the board would like to add language addressing tenancy the language should be included as part of a motion. Mr. Dickerson concluded staff’s presentation stating representatives of the WMPO and county Engineering were present to answer any questions and the applicant was present to answer questions as well. Vice Chair Petroff opened the public hearing for questions from the board. Mr. Clark Hipp inquired whether the question of tenancy referred to onsite management personnel or the length of time an RV is in a park. Mr. Dickerson responded it referred to an RV’s length of stay in the park. Mr. Matthews inquired whether the amendment included showers in the required provision for bathroom facilities. Mr. Dickerson stated the bathroom facilities would be required to meet the minimum requirements of Environmental Health and the current ordinance standards did not address showers specifically. Planning Supervisor Ken Vafier stated the current ordinance standards would apply to smaller RV parks which include sanitary facilities. There being no further questions for staff at that time Vice Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for their presentation. Mr. Michael Faulkner, applicant, 152 Brentwood Drive. Mr. Faulkner stated the Planning staff had been thorough in their review of the request. Regarding the length of stay in the park, Mr. Faulkner stated his intention to enforce a 5-night maximum for tent camping and a 6-month maximum for RV camping. Mr. Faulkner stated his intention was to appeal to temporary workers and longer-term stays are more like a manufactured home park. Mr. Faulkner stated while the county’s proposed amendment created an additional burden for his planned project he found staff’s proposed amendment reasonable. Mr. Faulkner concluded his presentation and Vice Chair Petroff opened the floor to questions from the board. Mr. Hipp stated the proposed amendment reduced the number of required spaces from 25 to 8. Mr. Hipp inquired how tent camping applied to an RV space, or if a tent could be placed in any available open space. Mr. Faulkner stated he was open to recommendations for addressing the question. Mr. Faulkner stated his assumption would be the size of the available facilities would dictate the number of users. Vice Chair Petroff stated the question would be better suited for staff. Mr. Matthews inquired to confirm Mr. Faulkner intended to limit RV camping to 180 days. Mr. Faulkner stated between 180-190, a general range of 6 months. Vice Chair Petroff stated no one was signed up to speak in favor or opposition to the request and closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Petroff asked Mr. Dickerson to address the question of tent camping. Mr. Dickerson stated the current and proposed ordinance amendment only addressed RV camping and not the number of camping spaces. Mr. Dickerson stated the RV parking areas are typically separate from the tent camping areas. Mr. Hipp inquired whether staff anticipated that a conditional rezoning application would include the proposed number of tent spaces for a site. Mr. Dickerson stated it was not within the scope of staff’s consideration for the amendment. Planning Director Rebekah Roth stated it would be something the Planning Board could consider as part of a conditional rezoning request even if it is not specifically listed in the ordinance. Mr. Hipp inquired whether staff considered a units-per-acre standard for RV spaces in their analysis. 4 | Page Mr. Dickerson stated staff performed an analysis to determine the approximate minimum acreage required for RV parks under the current and proposed requirements taking into account approximately 20% of the area would be dedicated to internal roads and open space. Mr. Dickerson stated that staff concluded the conditional rezoning review process would be more beneficial than a standard density requirement. Mr. Hipp stated that addressed his question as the conditional rezoning would allow specific communities to weigh in on specific projects. Vice Chair Petroff inquired whether the proposed amendment addressed a scenario where one individual or organization owned all of the RVs in a park and rented them out to other parties. Mr. Dickerson stated neither the current requirements or the proposed amendment addressed ownership of the RVs. Mr. Dickerson stated recent court decisions have given guidance to local governments regulating short-term rentals. Mr. Kevin Hine asked staff to clarify the minimum acreage necessary to operate an RV park. Mr. Dickerson stated staff had calculated an approximate minimum size of 2 acres by accounting for the minimum number of spaces, their size, and an estimate for the amount of space necessary for roads and open space. Mr. Hine stated that 2-acre calculation applied to the current standards. Mr. Hine inquired about the approximate size under the proposed amendment. Mr. Dickerson stated the amendment applies to the RA and R-20 district. Any development would be required to meet the minimum lot size in those districts. Because the conditional rezoning process is required for approval, the board could decide whether a proposed small RV park is appropriate for a given area. Mr. Hine stated there had been a proliferation of short-term rentals in the county and asked if staff were concerned about RVs appearing in residential areas as short-term rentals. Ms. Roth stated the county currently received calls regarding RV’s being used as temporary lodging. The proposed amendment served as a legal avenue for additional RV spaces in the county. Mr. Hipp stated he calculated approximately 20,000 square feet as the minimum size necessary for a small RV park under the proposed amendment. Mr. Hipp stated he identified several concerns such as provisions for water and sewer for a park that would dictate the size of a park. Mr. Hipp inquired whether open space was addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Dickerson stated the ordinance required open space but did not set a specific acreage or percentage. The board could consider open space as part of the conditional rezoning process. Vice Chair Petroff stated his concern that smaller RV parks could become dilapidated in residential areas. The amendment proposed by staff allowed the board to make decisions on the proposed concept plan for each project. Vice Chair Petroff stated he believed the current ordinance language could be improved, such as a definition for “itinerant use” and the requirement for special use permits. Vice Chair Petroff stated the proposed amendment made sense; however, it exposed issues with the current ordinance. Mr. Pete Avery inquired about the number of RV park applications staff had received in the past 5 years. Ms. Roth stated there had been 2 applications several years ago for extensions to existing parks. Mr. Avery stated he did not believe the proposed amendment would result in an increase in requests for RV parks. Mr. Colin Tarrant stated he believed there is a limited number of areas that the smaller RV parks could go in the future. And the conditional rezoning process allowed the board to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Matthews inquired whether the proposed amendment included the reduction in space size to 1,200 square feet. 5 | Page Mr. Dickerson confirmed the 1,200 square foot RV space size applied to the use “Campground / RV Park, Small.” Mr. Matthews stated he had visited the Snow’s Cut campground which has 2,000 square foot minimum space sizes and believed the 1,200 square foot size was not adequate. Mr. Matthews stated 1,800 square feet could be more acceptable. Vice Chair Petroff stated he concurred with Mr. Hansen’s concerns; however, the 1,200 square foot size was only a minimum and the conditional rezoning process and market demand would drive the space size. Mr. Matthews inquired whether the board could require larger spaces as part of the conditional rezoning process. Vice Chair Petroff confirmed that could be a consideration during the rezoning process. Mr. Hipp requested staff confirm the proposed amendment for Campground / RV Park, Small was for parks less than 25 spaces and would require conditional rezoning approval. Mr. Dickerson confirmed Mr. Hipp was correct. Mr. Tarrant stated he concurred with Mr. Matthews concerning 1,200 square foot space sizes and inquired that if the board would consider requiring larger spaces during the conditional rezoning process, should the ordinance allow spaces as small as 1,200 square feet. Mr. Hine stated there could be scenarios that could allow for RV camping with smaller spaces and the market would help dictate those sizes. Vice Chair Petroff inquired whether the board could make changes to the proposed ordinance language. Ms. Roth confirmed the board could make changes as part of their recommendation. Vice Chair Petroff inquired whether, based on board discussion, Mr. Faulkner would like to withdraw his application, request a continuation, or proceed with a vote. Mr. Faulkner stated he would like to proceed with a vote and requested the ability to provide additional information to clarify the board’s discussion. Vice Chair Petroff allowed Mr. Faulkner to clarify Mr. Faulkner stated smaller, one vehicle campers exist but would not always be the standard size in a park. Several different sized spaces would be provided to accommodate different customers. Mr. Faulkner stated food truck operators also look for areas to park their food trucks overnight or for extended periods. Mr. Avery inquired whether food truck parking and storage was allowed under the ordinance. Ms. Roth stated food truck parking and storage would not be allowed. Mr. Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Pete Avery to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the staff recommended amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to modify the language in Section 2.3, Table 4.2.1 and Section 4.3.4.E.2, finding it to be CONSISTENT with the goals of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan to support business success and promote place-based economic development. They also found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to be reasonable and in the public interest because it allows for flexibility in site design and accommodations for a changing market and demand. The motion was approved 5-1 with Mr. Hansen Matthews dissenting. Rezoning Request (Z23-11) – Request by Allison Engebretson with Paramount Engineering, applicant, on behalf of Jarrod Covington with Hermitage Property Holdings, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 17.9 acres of land located at 4012 Castle Hayne Road from R-20, Residential to (CZD) CS, Commercial Services for a commercial business park consisting of 95,500 maximum square feet of industrial flex space, offices, business services and other limited uses. 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. 6 | Page Mr. Dickerson stated that the request was to rezone one parcel totaling 17.9 acres at 4012 Castle Hayne Road to a Conditional CS, Commercial Services district. He then presented a zoning map of the area and stated the subject property was located on the eastern side of Castle Hayne Road. The surrounding area to the North, East and South was primarily residential. He stated to the west, across Castle Hayne Road, was the GE Campus, zoned I-2 and further to the east, along Hermitage Road, there was a Conditional CS district along with some I-1 zoned parcels. He stated that as is seen in the aerial photo, the property was bounded to the west by Castle Hayne Road and the parcel also had road frontage on Hermitage Road. The property was currently wooded. Mr. Dickerson presented a slide reflecting existing site conditions showing road frontages on both Castle Hayne and Hermitage Roads. He then explained that the applicant’s proposed concept plan included a maximum of 90,500 square feet of industrial flex space and a maximum of 5,000 square feet of business services space shared across 10 proposed commercial structures. He stated the square footage of the development on the site was capped and included as a condition, the septic area was indicated on the concept plan, a 50’ buffer is provided along the boundary of adjacent residential lots, and the buffer will include both vegetation and a 6-10’ solid wood fence. He stated this buffer changed to 30’ north of the Castle Hayne Road access point and 30’ was the minimum buffer requirement for the CS district. He stated there were wetlands and an existing stream on-site and the 50’ non-development buffer on either side of the stream, as noted on the concept plan, was required by the State Department of Environmental Quality. He stated the site had access on both Castle Hayne Road and Hermitage Road, and the applicant had proposed that primary access would be on Hermitage Road. Mr. Dickerson provided information on two projects in the vicinity under development, the Hermitage Road Flex Park and Blue Clay Industrial to the northeast. He stated there was a recent rezoning for a Tractor Supply store just to the south of the I-140 interchange. He stated development under the site’s current zoning would generate approximately 28 AM and 36 PM peak hour trips. He stated the applicant had met with the WMPO and discussed trip generations for the intended uses for this site and with the maximum square footage of each use as shown on the slide, the site’s total traffic generation would be approximately 91 AM and 93 PM peak hour trips. He concluded the site’s traffic generation did not trigger the UDO’s requirement for a traffic impact analysis. Mr. Dickerson presented a slide reflecting two examples of what one would typically see in an R-20 development and a slide showing representative developments of Commercial Services districts within the City of Wilmington. He stated the property had frontage on Castle Hayne Road and Hermitage Roads and was just north of the I-140 interchange. 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 to the east, the Hermitage Road corridor was developed for heavy commercial and some industrial, while the Castle Hayne Road corridor in this area, aside from the GE campus, remained largely low-density residential. He stated the parcels surrounding the subject site were zoned for low-density residential and were used as such, and there were two parcels adjacent to the site that were owned by GE. He stated GE also owned approximately 10 acres of land on the south side of Hermitage Road, adjacent to the approximately 58 acres of land owned by NC State University which was used for agricultural research. Mr. Dickerson said the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified this area as both Community Mixed Use and Employment Center and 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. He stated that this project was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations for the Employment Center and Community Mixed Use place type. 7 | Page He stated staff recommended approval of the proposed (CZD) Commercial Services district with the following proposed conditions: 1. A 50’ rear buffer yard shall be provided along the rear property line of the abutting residential lots located on Castle Hayne Road south of the Castle Hayne Road access point. The buffer shall include both vegetation and a 6-10’ solid wood fence. 2. A 30’ buffer yard shall be provided along the rear property line of the abutting residential lot located on Castle Hayne Road north of the Castle Hayne Road access point. This area already proposes buildings and vehicular use areas far away from the site due to the location of the on-site septic system. 3. No more than 95,500 square feet of building area shall be allowed on the site, of which no more than 20,000 square feet shall be allowed for general office use. 4. The applicant shall not place any impervious area or stormwater outfall within the 50’ natural vegetation buffer on either side of the stream. 5. All uses permitted in the CS district in UDO Table 4.2.1 are allowed with the exception of the prohibited uses in the Table of Prohibited uses included with this application. He stated that if approved, all development on-site would be subject to Technical Review Committee and zoning compliance review processes in order to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. He mentioned Galen Jamison was there with NHC Engineering & Stormwater and Jamar Johnson was there with the WMPO to answer any questions that may come up under those topics. Vice Chair Petroff thanked Mr. Dickerson and asked if there are any questions for staff. Mr. Hipp asked staff to elaborate on the traffic numbers. Mr. Dickerson deferred to the WMPO. Jamar Johnson explained generators for daily trips and the traffic count numbers. He said because the proposed project was more of a light industrial use there was not a high generation of trips. He said if the office were to increase in size a TIA might be triggered. Mr. Hipp thanked Mr. Johnson. Vice Chair Petroff turned it over to the applicant. Mr. Sam Franck, a representative of the applicant, responded to Mr. Hipp’s question regarding trip generation. He presented an overview of the application and proposed project. He provided an explanation for the request, proposed uses, and uses of surrounding land. He presented illustrative plans for the site and proposed conditions and prohibited uses. Mr. Frank discussed how their plan is supported by the Comprehensive Plan goals and the Employment Center place type. He then discussed the applicant’s response to community concerns expressed during community meetings including buffers, traffic, and access. Mr. Franck suggested that the wording of condition number four be changed to accommodate the bridge on the site plan. Mr. Franck provided suggested wording in the presentation. Vice Chair Petroff asked if there were any questions for the applicant. 8 | Page Mr. Hipp asked questions regarding access and phases of the project. Mr. Franck asked Allison Engebretson to answer. She gave an overview of the access and roads needed for specific phases. Mr. Franck discussed the proposed uses. Chair Petroff commended the applicant regarding the improved plan. He asked about stormwater and if the whole site would be handled by one stormwater pond. Mr. Franck asked Jeremy Blair, their civil engineer, to answer the question. Mr. Blair stated the primary pond would be collecting the stormwater and discharging it to the stream. Mr. Pete Avery asked Mr. Blair a question regarding an area set aside for septic systems. He asked if the land is suitable for septic use. Mr. Blair stated this area was determined to be suitable for septic disposal by a licensed soil scientist. Mr. Hipp asked if the list of prohibited uses was shared at the community meeting. Ms. Engebretson stated they had only removed additional uses since the community meeting. Vice Chair Petroff asked if there were any more questions for the applicant. He stated there was no one else signed up. He then closed the public hearing and opened for Board discussion. Mr. Hipp expressed concerns regarding access. He asked if Staff looked at conditions regarding safe access during the TRC process. Mr. Dickerson explained Staff would work with NCDOT and the WMPO during the TRC process to address concerns. He said generally if there are site access concerns from NCDOT, the site plan will have to be edited to address those concerns. He stated that NCDOT said that the developer will be required to add a right turn lane on Castle Hayne Rd. Chair Petroff added that Fire services would weigh in also. Mr. Matthews acknowledged the applicant was asked to revise and work with Staff the previous month. He stated many uses had now been prohibited, and the driveway access had been improved. He stated there was good collaboration between staff and the applicant. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote. Mr. Franck asked to proceed. Mr. Dickerson interjected and stated the applicant asked for an edit to condition number 4 as contained in the applicant’s presentation. Mr. Hipp made a motion to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a Conditional CS district. While to be CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the rezoning provides for the types of uses recommended in both the Community Mixed Use and Employment Center place types. He found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project was reasonable and in the public interest because the application limited uses to those which were more appropriate for the area and additional conditions reduced impact on adjacent residential areas. He asked to include the proposed conditions: 9 | Page 1. A 50’ rear buffer yard shall be provided along the rear property line of the abutting residential lots located on Castle Hayne Road south of the Castle Hayne Road access point. The buffer shall include both vegetation and a 6-10’ solid wood fence. 2. A 30’ buffer yard shall be provided along the rear property line of the abutting residential lot located on Castle Hayne Road north of the Castle Hayne Road access point. This area already proposes buildings and vehicular use areas far away from the site due to the location of the on-site septic system. 3. No more than 95,500 square feet of building area shall be allowed on the site, of which no more than 20,000 square feet shall be allowed for general office use. 4. Other than the proposed road crossing depicted on the site plan and stormwater outfall improvements, no other impervious area or other stormwater BMP will be constructed within the 50’ natural vegetation buffer on either side of the stream. 5. All uses permitted in the CS district in UDO Table 4.2.1 are allowed with the exception of the prohibited uses in the Table of Prohibited uses included with this application. Table of Prohibited Uses: Wholesale Nursery Live/Work Caretaker Unit Group Home Animal Shelter Community Center Food Pantry Religious Assembly Colleges, Universities & Professional Schools Vocation or Trade School Emergency Services Facility Government Offices and Buildings Post Office Medical and Dental Office and Clinic Urgent Care Facility Community Garden Park and Recreation Area Bus and Taxi Terminal Marina, Commercial Railroad Freight Depot Railroad Passenger Terminal Water Transportation Facilities Electric Substation Electronic Gaming Operation Bar/Nightclub Outdoor Recreation Establishment Event Center Veterinary Service Kennel Commercial Parking Lot or Facility Bank or Financial Institution Microbrewery/Microdistillery Commercial Kitchen, Catering Dry Cleaning/Laundry Plant Restaurant Food Market Convenience Store Pharmacy Grocery Store Retail Sales, Building and Construction Supplies Retail Nursery Car Wash Boat Dealer Mobile Home and Prefab Building Sales Fuel Sales Vehicle Sales Vehicle Rentals Vehicle Service Station, Minor Vehicle Service Station, Large Vehicles Vehicle Towing Service and Storage Yard Vehicle Service Station, Major Beverage Manufacturing All Food Manufacturing (Use Code 311) Sawmills and Wood Preservation All Textile Product Mills (Use Code 314) Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing Agricultural, Construction and Mining Machinery Manufacturing Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Engine, Turbine and Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing 10 | Page Commercial Recycling Facility, Large Collection Dry Stack Boat Storage Facility, Stand-Alone Commercial Recycling Facility, Processing and Collection Commercial Recycling Facility, Processing Commercial Recycling Facility, Small Collection The motion was seconded by Pete Avery. The MOTION passed 6-0. Preliminary Forum Special Use Permit (S23-03) – Request by Chris Bake, applicant on behalf of the Sanctuary Church of Wilmington, property owner, for the use of Child Care Center at the approximately 7.47-acre parcel located at 6687 Carolina Beach Road, zoned R-15, Residential. Vice Chair Petroff stated that this item, (S23-03), was a preliminary forum with the purpose being to facilitate an open and transparent discussion of the Special Use Permit application and to provide an opportunity for public comments and questions. Vice Chair Petroff noted that per state law the Planning Board would not be making a decision or recommendation and that instead, the decision on the application would be made during the Board of Commissioners’ quasi-judicial hearing. At that hearing, public participation would be limited to parties with standing and witnesses providing evidence or sworn testimony. Anyone wishing to speak in support or opposition to the project should sign-in and speak this evening, regardless of standing on this matter. Vice Chair Petroff explained that Staff would introduce the application and the applicant would be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation. Following the applicant’s presentation there would be 20 minutes for public questions and comments. From there the applicant would be allowed time to address those questions and comments. Board members would then provide their comments and ask questions of the applicant. At the end staff would give an overview of the next steps in the Special Use Permit process, at which time the Board would close the forum. Vice Chair Petroff introduced Current Planner Amy Doss. Ms. Doss provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and zoning. She 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. Ms. Doss stated that due to the nature of the requested Special Use Permit, the evening’s meeting was preliminary forum for the applicant’s request for a Child Care Center. She explained that preliminary forums allow the Planning Board to provide advisory review, comments, and suggestions to the applicant and public on potential relevant and material evidence, findings of fact, and issues or areas that the Board of Commissioners may need more information on in order to reach a required conclusion. Ms. Doss noted that neither the Planning staff nor the Planning Board will be deliberating recommendations on the applicant’s request. Ms. Doss explained that when the Board of Commissioners evaluated the request for approval, they must determine that the following four conditions were met: 1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved. 2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or the use is a public necessity. 11 | Page 4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. Ms. Doss detailed that the site was originally zoned R-15 in the early 1970’s and remained R-15 today. At the time, the purpose of the residential zoning district was to ensure housing densities remained lower due to the need for private wells and septic systems. Showing an aerial photograph, Ms. Doss explained that the existing structure and its location off of Carolina Beach Road, in addition to the surrounding development of single-family homes in the area, could be seen. She stated that there would be no changes to the proposed site, buildings, driveway, or parking area. Ms. Doss explained that Child Care Centers were permitted in most commercial districts but required the additional steps of the SUP in residential districts to ensure it was appropriately evaluated for the specific site and surrounding uses. She stated that this particular Child Care Center would serve up to 60 children aged 0-12 years old and that there were no proposed changes to the existing building or site. Ms. Doss stated that the existing development had an existing right-in and right-out driveway access to Carolina Beach Road. The proposal would increase traffic by approximately 41 AM and 37 PM peak hour trips. The site was located within the boundary of areas classified as Community Mixed Use and General Residential place types in the Comprehensive Plan. The types of uses encouraged include residential, recreational, institutional, and commercial uses. Ms. Doss reiterated that the Board of Commissioners must determine that the following 4 conditions have been met at the quasi-judicial hearing: 1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved. 2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or the use is a public necessity. 4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. Ms. Doss stated that the next steps following the evening’s meeting were for the applicant to present their case before the Board of Commissioners for the quasi-judicial hearing. She noted that staff from NHC Engineering & Stormwater and the WMPO were present to answer any questions that could come up regarding site engineering and traffic. She also stated that the applicant was there and had prepared a presentation. Vice Chair Petroff thanked Ms. Doss and asked fellow board members if there were any questions for staff at that time. Mr. Avery asked Ms. Doss if the hours of operations had been mentioned to which Ms. Doss offered to have the applicant answer that question. Vice Chair Petroff invited the applicant up to the podium asking for their name and address and stating that they had 15 minutes for their presentation. 12 | Page Mr. Chris Baker of 6687 Carolina Beach Road, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. Mr. Baker stated that his goal was to provide affordable childcare for people within the community. Mr. Baker shared that there was a large gap in affordability for childcare within the community. Mr. Baker answered Mr. Avery’s question stating that the hours of operation would be from 6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. to accommodate working hours for their clients. Vice Chair Petroff stated that there was not anyone signed up for opposition. He then recommended to the Board that they could provide the applicant with advice and guidance for when the applicant presented their case to the Board of Commissioners. He instructed that the applicant bring more details similar to what other applicants have brought before such as licensing information, statistics on the need for childcare in the area, and details of the other center’s going rates for childcare. Vice Chair Petroff asked the applicant about outdoor space requirements set by the state to which Mr. Baker responded by saying he did not know at that moment what the minimum requirement was, but that there was an outdoor space on the grounds already and that is what they were going to use for their center. Vice Chair Petroff asked his colleagues what other information they could relay to the applicant. Mr. Tarrant stated that he would recommend that the applicant would touch on the four criteria set out by the staff report and use those as a guiding principle. To ensure that during the applicant’s presentation he touched on those characteristics and explained how he satisfied each element of those four criteria. Mr. Tarrant said that doing that would help the applicant by giving an outline to follow in their presentation. Mr. Tarrant reiterated that those details did matter along with providing as much material as possible to present to the Board of Commissioners so that they could find in favor of the application. Vice Chair Petroff suggested that the applicant put together a presentation for the Commissioners with some slides detailing the requested information and corresponding answers. Mr. Hipp suggested that as a result of the developments proposed along Carolina Beach Road, the applicant reinforced their idea to the Board of Commissioners that those communities would be in need of that childcare service as the density in that area increased. Vice Chair Petroff closed the public hearing requesting that Ms. Doss explain what the next steps were for the applicant. Ms. Doss stated that following the preliminary forum that evening, Planning staff would prepare the staff report and materials to be submitted for the Monday July 17th Board of Commissioners meeting. The Board of Commissioners would hold a quasi-judicial hearing, an evidence-based procedure requiring sworn testimony and expert witnesses. That hearing would be advertised again including mailed notice and legal notice in the newspaper. Ms. Doss explained that there were four principal findings of fact that the Board of Commissioners must answer in the affirmative in order to approve a Special Use Permit. Following the public hearing, the Board of Commissioners will consider a motion on the request. Anyone who wanted to provide testimony regarding the request should plan on attending the July 17 Board of Commissioners meeting. Vice Chair Petroff thanked Ms. Doss and before closing the preliminary forum he asked staff if there were any other items that need to be considered. Director Rebekah Roth stated that there were not any further items to be considered, but that the Planning Board should have received an email requesting Board members to hold a couple of dates for the joint work session with the Board of Commissioners that is anticipated for late August. She explained that this work session was a discussion of a couple of different items that had come up in recent conversations regarding transportation information and plans for the upcoming update to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff would be providing the Board members with some finalized information over the next several weeks. 13 | Page Ms. Roth stated that she did believe that currently there was a quorum of members for the July 6 Planning Board meeting and that staff did have items submitted for that agenda. Ms. Roth requested that if any of the board members intended not to attend the meeting after all, to inform her as soon as possible just to make sure that staff had everything in place for the evening. Before Vice Chair Petroff adjourned the meeting, Ms. Roth reminded the Vice Chair that in his presumed absence for the July 6 meeting, that now may be a good time for the Board to discuss who might chair the procedure so staff can correspond with that member and make sure they were able to address any questions the interim Chair might have. Vice Chair Petroff thanked Director Roth and stated that the board would make that determination at the next hearing. A motion for adjournment was made by Mr. Hipp. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion, the Board voted aye for adjournment. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting