08-03-2023 PB Minutes1
Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board
August 3, 2023
A regular board of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on August 3, 2023, at 6:00 PM in the
New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present
Jeff Petroff, Chair
Colin Tarrant, Vice Chair
Pete Avery
Kevin Hine
Clark Hipp
Cameron Moore
Hansen Mathews
Staff Present
Rebekah Roth, NHC Planning & Land Use Director
Karen Richards, NHC Deputy County Atorney
Ken Vafier, NHC Planning Opera�ons Supervisor
Robert Farrell, NHC Development Review Supervisor
Zachary Dickerson, NHC Senior Planner
Wendell Biddle, NHC Development Review Planner
Karlene Ellis-Vitalis, NHC Long Ranger Planner
Galen Jamison, NHC Chief Project Engineer
Jamar Johnson, WMPO Transporta�on Planning Engineer
Vice Chair Jeff Petroff called the mee�ng to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience.
A�er the welcome remarks, Planning Opera�ons Supervisor Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance, and
Vice Chair Petroff provided an overview of the mee�ng procedures and read the Code of Ethics.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the June 1, 2023 Planning Board mee�ng were considered by the board members. No
changes or amendments were iden�fied. Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION, SECONDED by
Board Member Clark Hipp, to APPROVE the minutes as dra�ed.
The mo�on to approve the June 1, 2023 Planning Board minutes passed 7-0.
Elec�on of Officers
Deputy County Atorney Karen Richards led the annual elec�on of officers and requested a nomina�on for
Chair. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Mathews
to elect Vice Chair Petroff as Chair.
The mo�on to elect Jeff Petroff as Chair of the Planning Board passed 7-0
Ms. Richards opened for nomina�ons for Vice Chair. Mr. Moore made a MOTION, SECONDED by Mr. Avery
to elect Colin Tarrant as Vice Chair.
The mo�on to elect Colin Tarrant as Vice Chair of the Planning Board passed 7-0.
2
Chair Petroff announced that there was a requested amendment to the agenda. Planning & Land Use
Director Rebekah Roth informed the board that Adam Sosne, the applicant for Item 2, rezoning request
Z23-17 to rezone approximately 12.68 acres at 5322 Carolina Beach Road from B-2 to (CZD) RMF-M, had
requested a con�nuance.
Amy Schaefer, representa�ve of the applicant, presented the request for con�nuance, sta�ng that it was
the first �me this request had been on a Planning Board agenda and there were unresolved issues that
were being addressed. She requested that the Board grant a con�nuance of the public hearing to their
September 7, 2023 mee�ng.
In response to ques�ons from the Board, Ms. Schaefer indicated that there were members of the public
in atendance who had signed up to speak on the item.
Mr. Moore made a MOTION, SECONDED by Mr. Avery to con�nue the public item for this request to the
September 7 mee�ng.
The mo�on to con�nue the public hearing for rezoning request Z23-17 to the September 7, 2023 Planning
Board mee�ng passed 7-0.
New Business
Rezoning Request (Z23-14) – Request by Wes Reynolds with SB Cotages Investment, LLC, applicant, to
rezone four parcels totaling approximately 7.37 acres of land located at 7641, 7645, and 7647 Carolina
Beach Road from R-15, Residen�al to (CZD) R-5, Residen�al for a maximum of 45 atached single-family
dwelling units. This item was continued from the July 6, 2023 regular meeting.
Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell stated that the item had been con�nued from the July 6,
2023 mee�ng to allow the applicant to make revisions to the proposed concept plan in response to
feedback from the Planning Board and the public during the July mee�ng.
Mr. Farrell provided a general overview of the proposal and staff analysis included in the staff report,
sta�ng that the original zoning was applied during the 1970s to ensure housing densi�es remained lower
due to the need for private wells and sep�c systems, while water and sewer u�li�es were now available
in the area. He displayed aerial photography of the site showing the single-family residen�al development
located to the north, east, and south, and the Service Road and Carolina Beach Road corridors to the west.
He provided current photographs of the site and representa�ve images of development in the R-15 and
R-15 districts.
Mr. Farrell con�nued his presenta�on by highligh�ng a number of revisions to the amended concept
proposal. He stated that the revised project consisted of a maximum of 46 atached single-family dwelling
units in the form of quadraplexes, triplexes, and duplexes and represented a 4-unit reduc�on from the
original proposal for 50 dwelling units.
He stated that in addi�on to the proposed improvements to the exis�ng, unimproved access easement, a
condi�on was included whereby, should the adjacent parcels to the north be developed, there would be
an op�on for future connec�vity to Seabreeze Road, as well as the inclusion of an internal, private loop
road that effec�vely reduced the number of driveway access points along the exis�ng easement.
He stated that since several significant trees were iden�fied on the property, a condi�on was included that
would ensure preserva�on of trees that would not impact essen�al site improvements.
He outlined that twelve stormwater infiltra�on basins were proposed throughout the site, which
represented an increase of eight stormwater infiltra�on basins compared with the previous proposal.
3
Addi�onally, two units were removed from the floodplain and four areas of the property were shown as
wetlands. The Army Corp of Engineers had confirmed that the wetlands were considered waters of the
state and were not federally regulated, a determina�on that was made prior to recent changes to the
federal defini�on of wetland.
Mr. Farrell stated that a 20-foot-wide spa�al buffer was required along the perimeter of performance
residen�al developments and in some areas along the project boundary, the proposed 20-foot buffer
would be parallel to an exi�ng 20-foot buffer along the adjacent development, which would increase the
buffer zone to 40 feet.
He stated that there was one approved traffic impact analysis (TIA) and three approved subdivisions within
a one-mile radius of the site. The site had full access onto the Service Road that ran parallel to Carolina
Beach Road. Access to Carolina Beach Road would be from a signalized intersec�on at Seabreeze Road.
He stated the proposed development would generate approximately 18 AM and 24 PM peak hour trips
and since the es�mated traffic genera�on for the proposal was under the 100 peak hour threshold, the
ordinance did not require a TIA. Since access to the Service Road was near the signalized intersec�on onto
Carolina Beach Road, there would be increased poten�al for vehicle conflicts on entry to the intersec�on.
Mr. Farrell noted that the local roads did not connect to other parts of the surrounding network and
therefor had low daily es�mated vehicle counts. The lack of available NCDOT transporta�on data indicated
the roads did not experience traffic volumes significant enough to warrant monitoring. While no specific
data was available to indicate current or an�cipated impacts to roadway capacity, the increase in the
es�mated trips generated by the proposed development was minimal.
He stated that based on the current general student genera�on rate, the project would generate
approximately eight more students that would be generated under the current R-15 zoning.
Due to the size and loca�on of the property and its access to Carolina Beach Road, Mr. Farrell stated it was
less likely to be developed as lower density, detached single-family housing.
Mr. Farrell informed the board that several environmental areas were iden�fied on the property, including
state regulated wetlands, the AE Special Flood Hazard Area, pocosin conserva�on resources, and regulated
trees. Addi�onal condi�ons had been included to guarantee tree reten�on, u�lity service and access for
proper�es located along the exis�ng easement, connec�vity, stormwater, and the reduc�on of
development in floodprone areas.
Mr. Farrell stated that according to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the property was designated as
Community Mixed Use, which was intended to promote a mix of retail, office and residential development
at moderate densities of up to 15 units per acre and building heights from 1 to 3 stories. A goal of the
2016 Comprehensive Plan was to promote environmentally responsible growth by promoting a mixture
of uses where appropriate and cluster development in an effort to minimize impacts on natural resources.
Mr. Farrell stated that the proposed rezoning request was generally consistent with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density and housing types were in accordance with the
recommendations of the Community Mixed Use place type and the proposed development would be an
appropriate transition between the highway and existing detached, single-family residential
development.
As a result of the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning consideration, and technical
review, staff recommended approval of request with conditions related to utilities, tree retention, access
to the existing easement future connectivity and additional requirements for storm water infrastructure.
4
Mr. Farrell concluded the staff presentation by stating that several additional public comments were
received regarding the request since the Planning Board packet was published and were provided to the
board before the meeting began. He informed the meeting that representatives of the WMPO and county
engineering staff were present to respond to questions and the applicant was present as well.
Chair Petroff opened for ques�ons from the board ques�ons for staff.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Avery regarding maintenance of the Service Road, Mr. Farrell confirmed
that it was the responsibility of NCDOT.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Moore about the Cypress Village development used to represent R-15
development, Ms. Roth stated that while the property was zoned R-15, the project had received a special
use permit to allow addi�onal density, and staff would need to find another example of representa�ve R-
15 development.
With no further ques�ons for staff, Chair Petroff opened the floor for the applicants’ presenta�on.
Sam Franck, representa�ve of the applicant, stated his presenta�on would be less than the alloted 15
minutes and requested the unused minutes be added to the applicant rebutal period.
Mr. Franck reiterated that the proposal was an item which was con�nued from the previous planning board
mee�ng and that the concept plan was amended to reflect several changes, which included the reduc�on
in the number of units from 50 to 46, by the reloca�on of units out of SFHA and AE flood zone to reduce
impact on nonregulated wetlands, and removal of one dead-end road to improve the internal circula�on.
Mr. Franck stated that the goal of the development was to provide a desirable diversity of housing op�ons
in the southern part of the county and address the missing middle housing. He stated that the proposal
was an infill development which was designed to respond to that need in the southern part of the county.
Mr. Franck stated that through community engagements and in response to neighbors' comments at the
previous public hearing, the concept plan was revised to incorporate a wider buffer between the proposed
higher density residen�al and the exis�ng adjacent single-family homes, by mirroring the exis�ng 20-foot
buffer on adjacent proper�es to the east and southeastern boundaries.
He stated that addi�onal drainage areas would be incorporated to allow water to flow over a shorter
distance toward the infiltra�on ponds and to improve the overall drainage. He stated that although
mul�ple infiltra�on ponds would be expensive it would make the development more atrac�ve.
Mr. Franck reiterated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan iden�fied this area as the Community Mixed Use
place type, which encouraged a diversity of housing op�ons and the need for addi�onal housing in
southern part of the county.
He referenced the 2022 Bowen Housing Needs Assessment report, which es�mated a housing demand
gap of approximately 29,000 units and stated that approval of the proposal would facilitate a more efficient
housing op�on, which would be well oriented to address the more affordable missing middle by providing
a greater diversity of housing op�ons. He stated that the project created a desirable buffer between
intensive land use along the highway and exis�ng single family housing to the east and would arguably fit
very well with the intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Franck added that by proposing only residen�al uses, less significant traffic would be generated by the
project compared to other uses which were permited by right in the R-15 district. He posited that the
current R-15 zoning was no longer appropriate since it was the default residen�al district established over
50 years ago when development in the area was dependent on individual well and sep�c systems.
5
Mr. Franck informed the mee�ng that Mr. Wes Reynolds, applicant representa�ve, and Mr. Jimmy Fentress,
engineer, were present and available to respond to ques�ons.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Avery regarding conversa�ons the applicant may have had with NCDOT
about the Service Road, Mr. Franck stated that concerns were raised about the close proximity of the
Service Road and Seabreeze Road intersec�on with Carolina Beach Road and argued that this was an ideal
situa�on for the development of the property since no addi�onal curb cuts would be required on Carolina
Beach Road and Seabreeze Road provided an opportunity to get to the signalized intersec�on to access
Carolina Beach Road. He stated that according to the NCDOT, Seabreeze Road was significantly under
capacity and presented a copy of an email from Stonewall D. Mathis of NCDOT, which stated there were
not significant concerns with the proposed development as it pertained to the proximity of the Service
Road/Seabreeze Road intersec�on to the signalized intersec�on on Carolina Beach Road. He stated that a
development with a mixed-use concept would generate more trips and be more problema�c.
Chair Petroff commented that while Seabreeze Road had capacity to accommodate addi�onal traffic, the
geometry of the intersec�on could cause difficul�es, though the issue did not necessarily rest with the
applicant and would be more appropriately directed to the NCDOT or WMPO.
In response, Mr. Franck referenced the por�on of the email from Mr. Mathis that stated there were no
significant concerns with the proposed development in terms of the proximity of the Service Road
intersec�on with Seabreeze Road.
Jamar Johnson, Transporta�on Planning Engineer with the WMPO, stated that the distance between the
Service Road and Carolina Beach Road was about 35 feet and, based on the es�mated number of trips per
day es�mated for the roadway, a poten�al mi�ga�on could include Right-In/Right-Out access only. He
stated that while he could not comment on what NCDOT would require during the driveway permit
process, he believed the issue was solvable.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Hipp about the traffic impact of the project, Mr. Franck confirmed that
there would be a minimal increase in traffic but added that there were by-right R-15 uses that would have
more of a significant traffic impact.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Hipp about the condi�on s�pula�ng the road be dedicated for public
use and poten�al access to Seabreeze Road, Mr. Franck stated the condi�on was proposed by staff and
was intended to allow access for the purpose of interconnec�vity. He stated that he was usure who would
be responsible for the maintenance or dedica�on of the private road for public use.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Hine as to whether the stormwater facili�es would include ponds or
dry basins, Jimmy Fentress, engineer for the applicant, responded that there would be a combina�on of
dry basins and wet ponds, adding that the southwestern por�on of the site was most suitable for
infiltra�on, where water would be released while other ponds would be holding ponds with infiltra�on
basins to recharge groundwater. The eastern facili�es would be dry basins with the purpose to gather and
hold water.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Hines regarding an�cipated conflicts between construc�on of the
drainage basins and protec�on of the root systems of the specimen oaks, Mr. Fentress indicated that
extensive design strategies would be employed during the construc�on of the ponds to reduce the impacts
on the root networks. He informed the Board that the specimen trees were located on the southwestern
side of the property between the first eight units along the Service Road.
In response to Chair Petroff’s request for more details about the stormwater plan for the project, Mr.
Fentress outlined the progress of the work which included the conduct of a geotechnical and water table
analysis and facili�es which would be interconnected. He described the general topography of the
6
property as ‘bowl’ which indicated that, for the most part, the site was located in a depression. He showed
the exis�ng drainage flows towards the northeast and due south; and stated that the runoff would
primarily be in the current direc�on. He stated that the drainage designs would be implemented according
to county and state regula�ons to accommodate 25-year storms which would yield approximately 10
inches of rainfall.
In response to Mr. Mathews’ ques�on whether the first proposal met minimum standards and if the
amended design exceeded them because of a change in the regula�ons, Mr. Fentress informed the board
mee�ng that they received the infiltra�on study within the past week, and it was their inten�on to iden�fy
the areas which would be considered for infiltra�on or collec�on. He stated that it was evident from the
soil study that the most suitable areas for infiltra�on were on the southwest por�on of site, and to address
the concerns regarding drainage, it would be the preferred op�on to provide as much volume containment
on site.
In response to Mr. Moore’s comment regarding the use of collec�on versus infiltra�on for stormwater
management, Mr. Fentress stated that infiltra�on would be to address water quality, while collec�on and
containment would be to address the volume.
With no further ques�ons from the board, Chair Petroff opened for comments in opposi�on.
Ms. Audra Moore, 804 Hateras Court, stated that she was a member of the Seabreeze Community, an
area which had a rich history. She stated that the people who lived there were stewards of history and had
gathered in opposi�on for several reasons. She expressed that at previous mee�ngs the issues and
concerns regarding the wetlands on the property were downplayed and that only people who lived in the
community could atest to the nature of the wetlands.
She showed pictures of standing water in the southwest corner and images taken from the far back of the
property of sunken land and fluted trees which were typical of wetland vegeta�on. She showed other
images of the same area during normal rainfall, taken during the summer of 2021, showing flooding,
consistent with average rainfall of 61 inches and another of the wetlands as they retained water through
the winter months.
Ms. Moore presented a FEMA map imagery for the area which showed most of the land within zone D
which was categorized as ‘undetermined flood zone risk’. She opined that the current R-15 zoning was
invaluable to the area and was in line with the purpose of the R-15 district. She stated that all the
surrounding proper�es would be nega�vely impacted by the development and showed a picture of the
site from the vantage point of the upper story of her property to illustrate the approximate loca�on of the
townhomes and the proposed road. She showed photographs of other adjacent single-family homes in
the area that would be impacted, in par�cular, the adjacent proper�es in proximity to the southern border
where the proposed townhomes would be located. She concluded her comments by sta�ng that the
rezoning request was spot zoning, which was illegal in North Carolina.
Ms. Kathy Tylee, 1056 South Seabreeze Road, stated that neighbors would con�nue to come out in
opposi�on to development that would change the character of the Seabreeze area. She surmised that
there were other areas of the county where R-5 and R-7 high densi�es worked beter. She stated that since
there were no changes to the community which would warrant the rezoning, it was the community’s vision
to retain its exis�ng character, by developing at R-15 density. She further stated that the exis�ng R-15
zoning would be more appropriate due to wetlands and the impact on the school system and traffic.
She stated that she wanted to be provided with more detail on the concerns at the Service Road
intersec�on, and conducted an in-person traffic study, not from an expert’s point of view but an actual
experience driving through the intersec�on, several �mes every day, to observe specific concerns. She
7
stated that the distance from Service Road to Carolina Beach Road was one car length, and envisioned the
number of vehicles which would be backed up without blocking the access to Pelican’s SnoBalls from South
Seabreeze Road Ms. Tylee showed a diagram which depicted poten�al traffic movements and conflicts
that would result from increasing density without the improvement of the infrastructure and requested
that the board deny the request for the rezoning since project would not preserve the character of the
exis�ng neighborhood, has the poten�al to impact environmental conserva�on resources and increase
vehicular conflict.
With no further comments from the opposi�on, Chair Petroff opened for applicant rebutal.
Mr. Franck responded to comments regarding the desire to look out one’s window and look at
undeveloped property rather than townhouses and stated that a private property owner should be
allowed to build on their property. He referred to the pictures which were shown by Ms. Moore and stated
that the loca�on shown in the photograph would be almost completely within the proposed buffer.
Regarding how flood water typically worked, Mr. Franck showed pictures taken August 22, 2022, of the
unregulated wetlands following two rainstorms which totaled 3.75 inches of rain. He stated that
unregulated wetlands did not look like marsh grass nor standing water and that changes to the site as a
result of proposed site development modifica�ons would improve the drainage, to the extent that the
volume of water from the site would be reduced. He stated that the intent of the engineered drainage
system would be to direct the water into specific loca�ons so that it could be infiltrated and treated on
site.
He stated that the increase in vehicular traffic would be nominal since the es�mates showed that one
addi�onal car every 30 minutes in the AM peak hour and one every 15 minutes in the PM peak hour would
be generated from the new development. He stated that the requirements for driveway permits were
determined by the NCDOT, and current issues were beyond the applicant’s control. He reiterated that the
proposed change would not have an incremental, meaningful impact on S. Seabreeze Road, ci�ng that the
opera�ng capacity was less than 20%, per the staff report. Mr. Franck agreed that the geometry of the
intersec�on was poten�ally challenging but objected to the presump�on that the proposal would create
an unreasonable burden on Seabreeze Road
With no further rebutal from the applicant, Chair Petroff opened for opposi�on rebutal.
Ms. Kate Scanlon, 1068 S Seabreeze Road, asserted that the pace of approval of rezonings should be in
tandem with the pace that the county updated and modernized the infrastructure at the county and
community level. She agreed that more housing was needed, however the infrastructure had not kept
pace with the housing construc�on and felt that the taxpayers were not reaping the benefits of their tax
dollars.
She stated that the addi�onal density was a concern for people in the neighborhood and noted that the
proposed townhomes were 3,000 square feet, larger than many houses in the area. She contended that if
that represented the county’s vision for the development of the county as a whole; the members of the
community did not share the county’s vision. She expressed her concerns regarding the amount of
undeveloped land in the area that would access water and sewer services from Aqua.
She concluded her comments by sta�ng that she was both a resident of the community and an owner of
12 acres of property which was under contract to be developed at R-15 zoning. She stated that community
members were taking their overall vision for development into considera�on for Seabreeze and if new
developments were compa�ble with that vision, it could be profitable and there would be no need to
rezone to higher densi�es. She asked that the planning board deny the rezoning un�l the developers
submited a plan which was a beter fit the exis�ng community.
8
Mr. Harold Van Essendel�, 814 Roscoe Freeman Avenue, commented that a lot of new informa�on had
been presented at the mee�ng which he had not had the opportunity to assess. He stated that the 2016
Comprehensive Plan was a plan, not a mandate, ci�ng four applica�ons for Seabreeze that were recently
denied by the planning board. He recalled that at the last public hearing, the developer brought up
financial considera�ons and stated that water and sewer upgrade would be a benefit to the community
however the benefit was only a benefit to the developer. Mr. Van Essendel� stated that decisions should
not be based on the developer’s financial considera�ons, and just because people wanted to live in the
community didnt mean the planning board was obligated to acquest to every development proposal. He
referenced other projects in the vicinity and reiterated that Seabreeze was a single-family area. He
commented that traffic was bad and there were no solu�ons to address the traffic, the landfill was running
out of capacity, schools were overcrowded, and although the development was a small area, it contributed
to problems and commented and that despite an up�ck in the economic prosperity it did not result in a
reduc�on of his taxes.
Mr. Van Essendel� stated that it was difficult if not impossible to place a value on greenspace, much of which would be replaced by impermeable surfaces as well as the construc�on of 46 units, unlike the
exis�ng proper�es which had trees, wildlife, aesthe�c appeal, calmness and nature. He said that unless
changes were made to the plan which he was unaware of, Seabreeze was and should be R-15, and that
the zoning designa�on was not obsolete.
Mr. Laird Flournoy, 909 Salt Spray and 7531 Carolina Beach Road, stated that according to case law if a
rezoning was found to be a detriment to the neighbors it would be illegal to rezone the property.
Chair Petroff closed public hearing and opened to board discussion.
Mr. Avery asked if there were proper�es zoned B-2 at the end of Seabreeze Road, for which uses were
permited by right and would generate higher traffic. Ms. Roth confirmed that there were proper�es which
totaled approximately 10.5 acres which poten�ally could generate higher traffic.
Mr. Hipp sought clarifica�on from Mr. Johnson on the poten�al to route traffic right-in, right-out only into
Seabreeze / Service Road Mr. Johnson stated that the sugges�on to reroute the traffic would be a poten�al
op�on, however that decision would be the purview of the NCDOT driveway permit process. Mr. Hipp
asked if it was possible for the county to put a condi�on for rerou�ng the traffic. Mr. Johnson declined a
response. In response to Mr. Hipp’s sugges�on, Chair Petroff stated that he would be cau�ous about
condi�oning traffic improvements.
Mr. Hipp commented that he had some measure of difficulty to recommend an approval of a proposal
which would increase traffic at the intersec�on of Service Road and Seabreeze Road He added that the
uses which were allowed by right in R-15, such as schools, parks, libraries, etc., were uses that he would
support despite their poten�al to increase traffic because they were for public use. He stated that the
project provided connec�vity within the development but did not provide connec�vity to the adjacent
roads. He added that the rezoning from R-5 to R-15 was not a seamless transi�on.
Mr. Moore referenced the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the Seabreeze Small Area Plan and inquired
about the ra�onale for Community Mixed Use designa�on in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan for the
Seabreeze area. Ms. Roth responded that the Community Mixed Use designa�on was partly a result of
what was contained in the Seabreeze Small Area Plan and discussions during public hearings for other
proper�es in the area which centered around the atempt to revitalize the B-2 district.
Mr. Moore posed a ques�on to Mr. Farrell regarding the proposed 20-foot buffer requirement. Mr. Farrell
responded that due to the proposed housing type adjacent to the single family residen�al, the type of
buffer would be would a Type A Opaque buffer.
9
Mr. Moore sought clarifica�on that in the R-15 district, a variety of housing types were allowed if specific
standards would apply. Mr. Farrell confirmed that Mr. Moore was correct and added that under
performance developments, addi�onal buffers would be required.
Mr. Moore referenced Ms. Moore’s comments regarding the proposed townhomes “backing up to the
single-family residen�al” and commented that the townhomes were in fact single-family homes which
were structured and built differently as opposed to a mul�-family development. He added that the zoning
that dictated the height was not different from what was dictated for other proper�es in the exis�ng
adjoining single-family development. Ms. Roth confirmed that the height limit would be 40 feet, the same
for all residen�al districts except where they were required to be built on pilons in flood zones, the
maximum height would be 44 feet.
Mr. Hine commented that it was useful to iden�fy compelling reasons for and the benefits to the overall
community when considering a rezoning request. He commented on some posi�ve impacts of certain
elements of proposal on the Seabreeze community, such as the proposed drainage designs and the and
the efforts to priori�ze tree reten�on, however he con�nued to have discomfort about the proposed
density and concentra�on of the number of units along the southern border with the exis�ng the houses,
and in that regard, he did not find the concept plan compelling.
Vice Chair Tarrant recalled that at the last mee�ng he was outspoken about the concerns regarding the
wetlands, and proposed drainage for the proposal and felt that a substan�al revision would be necessary
to address the issues that were raised. He stated that a�er reviewing the revised proposal, he thought
that the revised plan was much improved, did not have an issue then or a�er, the use of the townhomes
as a transi�on was what was desired rather than mul�-family with more height and sightline issues and
the proposal provided a buffer from a highly trafficked roadway. He noted that the property was not
located within the interior of the Seabreeze community and was adjacent to the Carolina Beach Road
thoroughfare. Vice Chair Tarrant also expressed his view that the drainage issues would be delt with during
the design stage of the project.
Mr. Mathews commended the neighbors for their level of organiza�on, civility, and the quality of their
presenta�ons. He stated that decisions regarding rezonings for higher densi�es were challenging given the
considera�ons such as the proximity to and level of intrusion of these developments into established
neighborhoods.
He acknowledged the difficul�es with the access to a controlled intersec�on due to its proximity to the
intersec�on of Seabreeze road and Service Road and opined that while it was not the ideal situa�on, as a
controlled intersec�on there would be some level of reregula�on. He commended the revisions which
were made by the applicant such as revisions to the stormwater management, decreased density,
proposals for interconnec�vity and tree preserva�on, and expressed his support for the proposal.
Chair Petroff closed the board discussion and invited applicant and asked if based on the board discussion
and items presented during the public hearing, would they like to withdraw their pe��on, request a
con�nuance, or have the board proceed with the vote.
Mr. Franck requested that the board proceed with the vote.
Before the board proceeded with the vote, Mr. Avery informed the mee�ng that Mr. Farrell received a
comment from a property owner earlier that day which asserted that endangered species were located
on property which was a wildlife mecca consis�ng of owls and woodpeckers. Mr. Avery stated that owls
were not endangered and although Red Cockaded woodpeckers were, the project loca�on was unsuitable
as their habitat. He added that as a mater of public record, the public should refrain from making
statements that were not true.
10
Mr. Mathews made a MOTION to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) R-5
Residen�al for a maximum of 56 atached single family dwelling units finding it consistent with the
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density
and housing type and is within the Community Mixed Use place type. He also found recommending
APPROVAL of the project was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal provides
housing diversity at an appropriate density to act as a transi�on between the highway and residen�al
development to the east and proposed addi�onal condi�ons would reduce impacts on environmental
concerns with the following addi�onal proposed condi�ons:
1. The project as shown and submited site plan shall be developed with water and sewer
connec�ons to a private wastewater system and private well and sep�c systems will not be
allowed for residen�al development as contemplated on the site plan as iden�fied on the site
plan.
2. Certain exis�ng trees would not be removed.
3. The zoning and approval will not impact the current and future lot owners on the following parcels
R0815-001-0014-004, R08518-002-000 and R08518-001-005-002 and the access easement shown
on the concept plan nor shalal be zoning approval contemplated therein and create any addi�onal
burdens on those lot owners to contribute to the cost of the maintenance of the access road.
4. The northern access easement she be designated for public use and to allow poten�al future
connec�vity to and through the adjacent parcels to Seabreeze Road.
Ms. Roth asked whether he had intended to leave out the proposed condi�on 5, which stated that all
infiltra�on basins shown on the concept plan be required, though changes to the general shape of the
basins as required by essen�al site improvements could be accepted administra�vely by Planning staff.
Mr. Avery stated that condi�oning a requirement for stormwater areas was not appropriate and did not
request an amendment to the MOTION.
The MOTION was SECONDED by Mr. Moore.
The mo�on passed 5-2 (Mr. Hipp and Mr. Hine vo�ng in dissent).
Rezoning Request (Z23-16) – Request by Aaron Hutchens with Summit Design and Engineering Services,
applicant, to rezone approximately 1.34 acres zoned R-15, Residen�al located at 4580 S. College Rd. to
(CZD) CB, Community Business for a vehicle service sta�on, minor and other limited uses.
Development Review Planner Wendell Biddle provided informa�on pertaining to the loca�on, land
classifica�on, access, transporta�on, and zoning of the subject property as included in the staff report. He
showed maps and aerial and s�ll photographs of the subject site and surrounding area and provided an
overview of the proposed applica�on. He stated that the site and surrounding area were originally zoned
R-15 in 1969 when the purpose of the district was to ensure that housing densi�es remained lower due
to the need for private wells and sep�c systems. Public water and sewer have become more available,
though access to sewer service would require a mainline extension.
He stated that the surrounding uses to the west included the Jasime South subdivision as well as single-
family and atached residen�al development within the City of Wilmington. The Whiskey Branch planned
development was located to the northeast, and the adjacent proper�es to the north and south, while
zoned R-15, consisted of non-residen�al uses.
11
He described the proposed concept plan for the project and stated that the proposed 6,000 square foot
structure was designed with 10 bay doors, 5 on the eastern side facing S. College Rd. and 5 on the western
side. Each bay door would serve a single vehicle, which allowed up to 10 vehicles to be serviced
simultaneously. Mr. Biddle stated that two stormwater ponds and a Type A- Opaque buffer along the
southern boundary which transitioned from 10 to 20 foot-wide, were also proposed.
Mr. Biddle noted that while public sewers were available in the general area, the closest u�lity connec�on
within proximity to the development site was over 800 feet. In lieu of a connec�on to public sewer, an
individual sep�c system was proposed. Mr. Biddle informed the mee�ng that Class III soils were iden�fied
at the site which typically presented severe limita�ons for the installa�on of sep�c systems. Mr. Biddle
stated that as a condi�on, an evalua�on of the soils would be conducted by a soil scien�st to determine
the suitability of construc�ng a sep�c field at the site, if it was determined that the soils were unsuitable,
the applicant would be required to iden�fy an alterna�ve sep�c system or connect to the main sewer line.
Mr. Biddle informed the mee�ng that that the proposed use, Minor Vehicle Service Sta�on, was permited
by right within the CB district together with addi�onal use standards for the proposal which prohibited
automo�ve towing opera�ons, required repair work to be performed within the principal building, service
or customer vehicles to be parked on the premises in a manner that would not create traffic hazards or
interfere with the area designated for vehicles to maneuver on and off site and that the premises would
not to be used for the sale of vehicles.
Mr. Biddle stated that the proposed development would be accessed at two points, South College Road
corridor and Jasmine Cove Way, however according to the planned highway improvements in the area,
NCDOT recommended that the sole access egress point to and from the site would be Jasmine Cove Way.
Mr. Biddle detailed the means of access to the site, all the points of egress from the site, and two loca�ons
where motorists would execute U-turns, approximately 1,000 feet away from the site.
Mr. Biddle stated that there were two approved high-density projects under development in the vicinity
of the proposed project; a subdivision and a planned development, which required a Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) as per the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and one State
Transporta�on Improvement Program (STIP), which were detailed in the staff report.
Mr. Biddle stated that the es�mated trip genera�on for the proposed development was approximately 66
AM and 67 PM peak hour trips, which was under the 100 peak hour threshold that would require a TIA.
Mr. Biddle explained that although the project was not considered in the Whiskey Branch Planned
Development’s TIA, general traffic growth for the area was considered as part of the recommended
improvements to accommodate future growth.
Mr. Biddle informed the board that the project was located along a local roadway (Jasmine Cove Way)
which was perpendicular to a major arterial roadway that was nearing planning capacity. He added that
the local road was accessible by a right turn in and that exi�ng would be a right turn out, and that a U-turn
was necessary to go north on the South College Road corridor was approximately 1,000 feet south bound.
In addi�on, the project would be subject to NCDOT driveway permi�ng.
Mr. Biddle stated that due to the area of the site and its proximity to the College Road corridor, less than
a mile from the Monkey Junc�on growth node, the property would be less likely to be developed as
residen�al. He noted that while the immediate loca�on of the South College Road corridor had
experienced commercial growth, the CB district was designated to provide lands which would
accommodate development of businesses that would serve surrounding neighborhoods with goods and
services for a variety of short and long-term needs.
12
Mr. Biddle stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the property in the Community Mixed
Use place type which included commercial uses and encouraged infill development along highway
corridors. In addi�on to serving as a transi�on between the highway and neighboring residen�al uses, the
proposed project would provide a use that would be appropriately located in nodes as well as transi�onal
areas and provide service to nearby residen�al development.
Mr. Biddle stated that staff found that the proposed zoning request was consistent with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because the proposed project would provide the types of commercial uses which
were recommended within the Community Mixed Use place type. Addi�onally, the proposed project was
found to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal was a service-oriented use that
would be an appropriate transi�on between the highway and the exis�ng residen�al uses. He stated that
as a result of the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning considera�ons and technical
review process, staff recommended approval of the request with the proposed condi�ons related to buffer
yard requirements, driveway access, tree reten�on, u�li�es, and a limit to the permited uses for the
rezoned property.
Chair Petroff opened for ques�ons from the board ques�ons for staff.
Mr. Avery requested more clarity on the defini�on of Minor Vehicle Service Sta�on, and the services
ac�vity such as �re sales would not be included as part of the proposal. Mr. Biddle explained that the
extent of the services would be wheel alignment, �re repairs, exhaust installa�on and repair, oil change,
and chassis lubrica�on.
Chair Petroff thanked Mr. Biddle for his presenta�on and added that since there would be no outdoor
ac�vity the proprietors would not be able to engage in any other ac�vi�es, which were not permited
under the zoning codes. Mr. Biddle further explained that a Minor Vehicle Service Sta�on use was
intended for the service of private use vehicles and not fleet or commercial vehicle.
Mr. Moore ques�oned the circumstances that would necessitate the servicing of a vehicle over an
extended period. Mr. Biddle deferred to the applicant for a response.
Mr. Hipp requested clarifica�on of the NCDOT’s comments, opinion and or recommenda�ons for the
proposed driveway access egress from South College Road Mr. Farrell stated that the NCDOT was consulted
regarding the proposed access and that the NCDOT informed that there were planned improvements
which would include widening of College Road and that the roadway expansion could impact the proposed
driveway, therefore their preference would be to avoid that poten�al conflict, however there was no
confirma�on that the access would be prohibited.
Mr. Moore referenced the difficul�es with construc�ng a sep�c field on the subject property due to the
soil type and asked for clarifica�on regarding CFPUA’s mandate regarding access to their sewer
infrastructure. Mr. Biddle stated that access to CFPUA required a maximum distance of 500 feet the closest
sewer line was located approximately 800 feet away.
With no further ques�ons for staff, Chair Petroff opened the floor for the applicants’ presenta�on.
Mr. Aaron Hutchens, applicant representa�ve and engineer, introduced project engineer, Mr. Craig
Thompson. He provided an overview of the type of business which Chris�an Brothers Automo�ve
provided. Mr. Hutchens stated that the business included the top five services provided at their facili�es:
diagnos�cs, brake replacement, fluid maintenance, oil changes, and cooling systems. He stated that their
opera�ons were environmentally friendly and that their hours of opera�on were, Monday to Friday from
7 AM to 6 PM, with one excep�on being Saturdays, the first 180 days of opera�ons at a newly established
loca�on.
13
Mr. Hutchens described the typical site requirements and Chris�an Brothers’ reputa�on and track record
at exis�ng loca�ons which were designed for high quality customer experience. He showed maps of
project and its vicinity and described steps which were taken to prepare the project proposal for public
hearing, including a pre-applica�on conference, examina�on of exis�ng condi�ons, confirma�on that
there were no code requirements prohibi�ng bays facing South College Road and consulta�ons with
NCDOT regarding driveway placement. He informed the board that he was awai�ng percola�on test results
from soil experts to evaluate the feasibility of a sep�c field. He confirmed that a tree inventory was
completed on April 11, 2023, as well as community engagement efforts which included a community
mee�ng in coordina�on with Cedar Grove Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility and ongoing
conversa�ons with residents.
He informed the board that in response to residents’ concerns they shared informa�on regarding the
proposed buffer improvements, the proposed designs, building materials, and vegeta�on that would
buffer the noise from South College Road, in addi�on to proposed consulta�ons with NCDOT to address
poten�al traffic impacts. He stated that the site was not fully engineered for stormwater management since the results of infiltra�on study were not yet available; however they would consider the use of
permeable pavement in parking areas.
Mr. Hutchens concluded his presenta�on and informed the mee�ng that Mr. Thompson, project engineer,
was also present and available to respond to ques�ons.
Mr. Hipp commented that the proposal was an atrac�ve one and asked if the concept plan was a
prototype used in other loca�ons. Mr. Hutchens confirmed that it was the ten-bay prototype which was
the larger of the two.
Mr. Hine asked since the zoning did not permit yard storage, where would equipment, materials and
vehicles be kept if they were required to do so. Mr. Hutchens explained that there would be adequate
space inside the building to store vehicles overnight.
Chair Petroff expressed the preference for public sewer service although he understood the circumstances
for the use of an individual sep�c system at the site. Chair Petroff requested addi�onal informa�on on
stormwater management given its proximity to a poten�al site for sep�c fields for which designs were not
yet completed. In response, Mr. Hutchens stated that in general, he was aware of the direc�on of runoff
in the general direc�on of a rela�vely flat ditch along Jasmine Cove Way, which did not have sufficient
capacity for addi�onal runoff as well as a larger NCDOT maintained ditch. He stated however, that since
the prac�ce was not to increase the runoff, they would be inclined to implement methods of control and
containment on the development site. He agreed with Chair Petroff’s thoughts that under those
circumstances, underground channeling would be included in the design.
In response to Chair Petroff’s ques�on about requirements for water separators given the nature of the
proposed opera�ons Mr. Hutchens stated that as a safety mechanism a 750-gallon oil & chemical separator
interceptor would be on site to capture poten�al spills and added that at any given �me, there would only
be 615 gallons of chemicals kept onsite.
Mr. James Moore, 118 Tanglewood, treasurer and member of Wilmington Shrine Club (property owner)
stated that he was at the public hearing in support of the proposal and would answer ques�ons if there
were any.
Mr. Louis Smith, also a member of Wilmington Shrine Club and head of the eastern region, stated that he
was present in the capacity of an observer at the public hearing and commented that in the past, for years
his organiza�on offered the property for lease or sale without success. He stated that he was pleased with
the aesthe�cs presented in the concept and thought that it was a good fit for the community.
14
Mr. Hipp referenced Mr. Smith’s comment about the recent offers to purchase the property and asked if
those offers included residen�al land use as it was currently zoned. Mr. Moore responded that there were
three offers which included a commercial project.
Mr. Danny Gore, president of Wilmington Shrine Club, stated that he had had long standing conversa�ons
regarding offers for the use of the property in the past, but thought they were not the right fit for the
neighborhood and the Shrine Club. He stated that as a commercial project, the proposal seemed to be
one which would have the least impact in comparison to those which were previously considered.
Chair Petroff opened for opposi�on, seeing there were none, recognized the applicant for rebutal. The
applicant declined the offer for a rebutal.
Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened for board discussion.
Mr. Hipp stated that he appreciated the merits of the applica�on and thought that the proposal was a
good use of the property, although he would have preferred that the driveway entrance onto South College
Road would be reconsidered, given its the proximity to the church.
Mr. Mathews commented that he was familiar with property and the atempts to iden�fy a suitable use.
He commended the architectural design efforts and commented that the ameni�es which were included
in the type of use were unusual.
Chair Petroff closed the board discussion and invited applicant and asked if based on the board discussion
and items presented during the public hearing, would they like to withdraw their pe��on, request a
con�nuance, or have the board proceed with the vote.
Mr. Hutchens requested that the board proceed with the vote.
Vice Chair Tarrant moved the MOTION to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning finding it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provided for
the types of commercial uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type. He also found that
recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the
proposal allowed a service-oriented use that would serve as an appropriate transi�on between the
highway and exis�ng residen�al uses with the following condi�ons:
1. A Type A: Opaque Buffer yard shall be provided along the rear property line of the abu�ng
residen�al lot located on South College Road. The buffer would taper from a 20-foot-wide
vegeta�ve cover to a span of 10 �. wide consis�ng of vegeta�ve cover and a fence buffer.
2. A street yard buffer shall be provided along the property line that bordered Jasmine Cove Way
consis�ng of an 18-foot wide vegeta�ve field that tapered to a 10-foot wide space, omi�ng the
Jasmine Cove Way access point.
3. Planning staff may accept changes to the driveway access loca�ons as required by NCDOT.
4. Exis�ng trees iden�fied on the concept plan shall be retained on site that were not required for
removal due to essen�al site improvements.
5. The applicant would be required to have a soil scien�st evaluate the Class III soil on site to
ensure that the loca�on could accommodate a sep�c system. The applicant would seek an
alterna�ve sep�c system or �e into the CFPUA line in the event that the Class III soil prevented
the use of a sep�c system.
6. Permited uses shall be limited to Vehicle Service Sta�on, Minor; Business Service Center; Repair
Shop; Offices for Private Business and Professional Ac�vi�es; Retail Sails, General; and Child
Care Center.
15
The MOTION was SECONDED by Mr. Hipp
The mo�on passed 7-0.
Special Use Permit Request (S23-04) - Request by Douglas Grant, property owner, for the use of
Campground and RV Park at three parcels located at 8102, 8104, 8106 Sidbury Road, zoned R-15,
Residen�al, and totaling approximately 19.21 acres.
Development Review Supervisor, Robert Farrell stated that the item was a Preliminary Forum for a Special
Use Permit (SUP) request for a proposed Recrea�onal Vehicle (RV) Park in an R-15 zoning district and
stated that the and that the purpose was to allow the Planning Board to provide advisory review,
comments, and sugges�ons to the applicant and public on poten�ally relevant and material evidence,
findings of fact, and issues or areas that the Board of Commissioners would need to reach a required
conclusion at their public hearing. Mr. Farell noted that neither the Planning Board nor staff would make
recommenda�ons on the request at the preliminary forum.
Mr. Farrell stated that the Board of Commissioners would evaluate the request for approval, to determine
that four condi�ons would be met; the public health and safety would not materially be endangered
where proposed and approved, all required condi�ons and specifica�ons of the Unified Development
Ordinance would be met, the use would not substan�ally injure the value of adjoining or abu�ng property,
the use was a public necessity, and the loca�on and character of the use if developed according to the
plan as submited and approved, would be in harmony with the area in which it was located and was in
general conformity with the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County.
Mr. Farrell stated that the site was located in the 8100 hundred block of Sidbury Road and described the
site from aerial photography which showed that the site was wooded and bordered by single family
residen�al to the north and south, an equestrian facility to the east and a NCDOT owned mi�ga�on land
to the west. He showed other aerial photographs of the site with images of the direct, full access to
Sidbury Road, the unimproved private right-of-way access from Farm Road site to the east in proximity of
the proposed Hampstead bypass that had an an�cipated comple�on date in 2030.
Mr. Farrell stated that the parcels were originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s when the purpose of the district
was to ensure housing densi�es remained lower due to the reliance on private wells and sep�c systems.
He noted that while public u�li�es were not currently available, New Hanover County funded the
extension of sewer infrastructure through the northern por�on of the county to the proposed Hampstead
bypass.
Mr. Farrell further stated that due to the existence of NCDOT wetland mi�ga�on land, and the Seagreen
Farms conserva�on land to the southeast, and exis�ng sewer u�li�es from Pender County, future
development east of the bypass was an�cipated to be served by private sep�c systems or through u�li�es
provided by Pender County.
Mr. Farrell informed the mee�ng that RV parks were permited with a Special Use Permit in most low to
moderate density residen�al districts to ensure they were appropriately evaluated for the specific site and
surrounding uses.
He stated that Sec�on 4.3.4.E.2 of the UDO contained supplementary standards for RV parks that
regulated the number and size of spaces, open space, setbacks, access, and requirements for
Environmental Health approval of private wells and sep�c systems.
16
Mr. Farrell described the proposed concept plan for a 66-unit RV park that included a maintenance
building, a management office and laundry facility, a clubhouse with bathrooms and 0.40 acres of passive
recrea�onal open space adjacent to a proposed stormwater pond. He stated that the proposed site would
be served by private well and sep�c system and 4 loca�ons of the property would be designated for sep�c
fields. Addi�onally, a 50-foot vegetated perimeter buffer was proposed as well as the preserva�on of the
exis�ng trees.
Mr. Farrell stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated this property as Community Mixed Use
place type which was intended to promote a mix of retail, office and residen�al development at moderate
densi�es up to 15 units per acre and a building height range of 1 to 3 stories.
Mr. Farrell reminded the mee�ng of the four condi�ons that must be met when that the Board of
Commissioners evaluated the request for approval during quasi-judicial hearing and advised the mee�ng
that the purpose of the Preliminary Forum was to discuss the components of the proposal which were
unclear, or where addi�onal informa�on was needed to understand the project. He stated that the forum
was also an opportunity to provide advice to the applicant on the presenta�on they would make at Board
of Commissioners mee�ng, advice par�es in opposi�on on what they would want to consider when
preparing for the Board of Commissioners mee�ng, and the poten�al issues that should be addressed.
Mr. Farrell outlined the next steps of the SUP process and informed the mee�ng that the request would
be presented at the next Board of Commissioners mee�ng for a quasi-judicial hearing on Tuesday,
September 5th. He stated that each side would have 15 minutes total with an addi�onal 5 minutes each
for rebutal, since the proceeding would be quasi-judicial hearing, public comments could not be
submited prior to the hearing, evidence related to the case was required to be presented in-person at
the hearing and must be based on factual evidence, not opinion and that staff would post the staff report
materials that would be sent to the Board of Commissioners on the County’s Development Ac�vity Page.
Mr. Farrell concluded the staff presenta�on and informed the mee�ng that representa�ves of the WMPO
and County engineering were present, and the applicant prepared a presenta�on as well.
Chair Petroff invited the applicant to make their presenta�on.
Mat Nichols, the atorney represen�ng the applicant, Mr. Douglas Grant, described the property and
other proper�es owned by the applicant adjacent to the rear of the site. He stated that it was the inten�on
of the property owner to own and operate the Recrea�onal Vehicle (RV) park. He described the site plan,
showing the layout of RV parking spaces which would be located toward the center and rear of property,
the three proposed structures and their intended uses, the proposed 50-foot vegeta�ve buffer along all
boundaries of the parcel and a privacy fence which would be installed along Farm Road and at the
entrance.
He described the differences between what was proposed and what was possible under current
development and stated that the proposed use would have lower and different AM and PM traffic impact,
and site the loca�on in proximity to the bypass and Community Mixed Use place type.
Mr. Nichols listed the benefits of the SUP proposal, ci�ng the opportuni�es for restricted uses, inclusion
of addi�onal condi�ons, wider setbacks, buildings which would not be tall, lower traffic impact, zero
impact on schools, a limit of 30 days per stay and the poten�al for the proposal to support tourism and
the local economy.
Mr. Nichols also showed pictures to describe the use of proper�es within the vicinity such as non-
residen�al uses to east and west, and the owner/applicant’s residence to the south.
17
Mr. Moore commented that informa�on pertaining to staffing, hours of opera�on, provision and loca�on
of cleanout sta�ons, pump sta�ons at the RV park should be included in the presenta�on, since the site
would be gated. He also inquired about the specificity of certain site ameni�es such as rock concrete vs
rock pads for the RV bays, types of RV models which would be allowed or restricted, if cabins would be
provided or allowed or whether there would be storage of RVs at the site.
Mr. Nichols stated that it was an�cipated that the RV park would be staffed with about three employees
plus Mr. Grant. He informed the board that vehicular access through the site would be asphalt while the
RV parking bays would be paved and addi�onal pads would be constructed for the purposes of si�ng
ameni�es that would typically be found at a campground such as cooking grills and fire pits. He also
confirmed that park models would not be allowed, and the park would be restricted to Class A and Class
C travel trailers. He stated that no storage was shown nor will be considered, and the maximum stay would
be 30 days. He stated that there would be individual water and sewer connec�ons at each of the 66 sites
and no pumps nor permanent cabins would be constructed at the park.
Chair Petroff ques�oned the usefulness of stormwater ponds on a site that was rela�vely flat and inquired
whether there were any suitable outlets for stormwater given the area of impervious surfaces which would
be constructed and would possibly be in conflict with the loca�on of the of sep�c fields on the site.
Mr. Nichols stated that the stormwater pond would be located in a low-lying area of the property. He
acknowledged that addi�onal considera�ons would be necessary to refine the plan and noted that the
designers were in the process of doing so.
With no further ques�ons from the board, Chair Petroff opened for public comments and ques�ons.
Ms. Mary Phillips, 7708 Sidbury Road, stated that she was a member of the board of the Coastal
Therapeu�c Riding Program, at Russell’s Reach Farm, located at 8120 Sidbury Road She stated that the
program was supported by New Hanover County as well as other large donors, made up of mostly
volunteers. She said that they had developed the property, which was adjacent to the subject site and
shared boundary of approximately 550 feet with the proposed RV park. She stated that the Sidbury area
was a very rural area, their (RV Park) property was approximately 17 acres, her property was approximately
15 acres. There was a new sheltered arena for their clients, who were drawn from three coun�es.
Ms. Phillips stated that she did not think that the RV park would be in harmony with a program that offered
therapeu�c services, and pointed out that there would be no physical barrier between the RV park and
the horses housed on Russell’s Reach Farm. She stated that should the request for the RV park be
approved, the developer should include 10- to 12-foot privacy wall along the shared property line. Ms.
Phillips indicated the land doesn’t percolate, so there would be drainage issues. She expressed her
concerns regarding the presence of black bears in the area that would be atracted to the trash generated
from the RV park and ques�oned what measures would be put in place to avert that possibility.
Mr. Roger Brooks, 350 Island Creek Dr., stated that he resided in Sidbury for 25 years and expressed his
concerns regarding the poten�al for high speed, oversized RVs to safely access/egress the RV park at a
speed limit of 55 mph. He also stated his concerns regarding what visitors would poten�ally be engaged
in for entertainment/tourism given the remote loca�on of the project.
Ms. Leonora Wortman, 7536 Sidbury Road resident for 44 years, recalled when Sidbury Road was a dirt
road, and concurred with the concerns voiced about the maneuverability of large vehicles in and out of
the proposed RV park. She stated that she had ques�ons about signage, development on either side of
Sidbury Road, the proposed hospital at Scot’s Hill, road safety, and the availability of any assessment
which may have been conducted by NCDOT on the capacity of the carriage way of the road to
accommodate large recrea�onal vehicles.
18
Mr. Kevin Hudson, 8100 Sidbury Road, stated that his property shared the same access as the proposed
site and when the bypass came it would be an overpass, addi�onally the proposed fencing would block
part of his driveway. He shared his concerns about the impact of addi�onal ligh�ng, noise, signage and
the transient use (RV) on a quiet neighborhood. He informed the mee�ng that it was his understanding
that Farm Road, which is located south of the subject parcel, was a NCDOT road and could provide access
to the proposed site.
Mr. David Ray, atorney represen�ng Seagreen LLC NC, owner of approximately 500-600 acres which were
dedicated to conserva�on of natural habitat, stated that he was in atendance for informa�on purposes
only and did not wish to offer any comments on the proposal nor ques�ons regarding the issues raised.
Chair Petroff opened for applicant response.
Mr. Nichols stated that he was glad to answer ques�ons from the board and was willing to work with Mr.
Hudson regarding the fence. He noted that the proposal would have less traffic impact than if property
was developed for other uses permited under R-15.
Mr. Nichols requested that the public hearing be held at the October mee�ng instead of September due
to a conflict with a City Council Mee�ng and to allow addi�onal �me to prepare.
Chair Petroff stated that it would be helpful for the applicant to outline the process that they would have
to consider including proposals for driveway permits, traffic, stormwater, and sep�c.
Mr. Hipp referenced the quasi-judicial process and level of standing required to present evidence which
should be facts supported by data. He advised that evidence which would be presented such as the
poten�al impact the horse farm should be tangible and applicable to the permissible uses. He added that
the SUP process should include informa�on on the driveway permi�ng process among other
requirements and reminded the mee�ng that the SUP process was an eviden�ary hearing which required
a higher level of tes�mony compared to the public hearing where people could talk about what they
desired and how they felt regarding other board requests.
Chair Petroff requested addi�onal explana�on of the defini�on of standing in rela�on to the SUP at the
quasi-judicial hearing before the Board of Commissioners mee�ng, for the benefit of those in opposi�on
and deferred to Ms. Roth for a response. Ms. Roth stated that standing would be determined by the Board
of Commissioners at the mee�ng, however, Ms. Richards, Deputy County Atorney, would provide
informa�on on what would be considered to make that determina�on.
Ms. Richards stated that standing would be determined by property ownership and the presenta�on of
evidence which was confined to the owners’ property and the impacts on the owner’s property. She added
that if issues such as road safety or storm water were presented, evidence would be required from expert
tes�mony supported by facts.
Chair Petroff sought to clarify if only adjacent property owners or property owners within a specific radius
would qualify for standing. Ms. Richards stated that it was usually an adjacent owner, however there was
no specified radius. She added that to have standing, evidence that the speaker could provide direct input
on the loca�on was necessary. She stated that those with standing could also be represented by counsel
individually or as a group.
Mr. Farrell described the next steps which would be followed for the SUP process.
Ms. Roth described the public no�ce components which included direct mailing to property owners within
the vicinity of the proposal, the placement of a legal adver�sement in local newspapers, as well as via
email for those who subscribed to the county’s mailing list and informed the mee�ng that staff would be
available to provide addi�onal informa�on.
19
Chair Petroff closed the preliminary forum for the SUP.
Chair Petroff then inquired about addi�onal staff updates. Ms. Roth stated that the agenda for the joint
work session was nearing finaliza�on and that the mee�ng could be extended to 12:30 PM. An update
would be sent out soon.
Chair Petroff entertained a Mo�on for an Adjournment.
The MOTION to Adjourn was Made by Mr. Avery and SECONDED by Mr. Hine.
Mo�on to Adjourn passed 7-0.
The mee�ng was adjourned at 8:42 PM.