05-04-2023 PB Minutes1
Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board
May 4, 2023
A regular mee�ng of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on May 4, 2023 at 5:00 PM in the New
Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present
Jeff Petroff, Vice Chair
Pete Avery
Kevin Hine
Clark Hipp
Hansen Mathews
Colin Tarrant
Staff Present
Rebekah Roth, NHC Director of Planning & Land Use
Karen Richards, NHC Deputy County Atorney
Ken Vafier, NHC Planning & Land Use Supervisor
Robert Farrell, NHC Senior Current Planner
Zachary Dickerson, NHC Current Planner
Amy Doss, NHC Current Planner
Rachel LaCoe, NHC Senior Long Range Planner
Wendell Biddle, NHC Current Planner
Sarah Lipkin Sularz, NHC Housing Planner
Members Absent Scot James, WMPO Transporta�on Planning Engineer
None Galen Jamison, NHC Chief Project Engineer
Vice Chair Jeff Petroff called the mee�ng to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience. He held a moment
of silence in memory of Donna Girardot, who passed away on April 11 while serving as Chair of the Planning
Board. He recognized Ms. Girardot’s contribu�ons to the board through her leadership of the Unified
Development Ordinance task force, representa�on of the board at Technical Review Commitee mee�ngs, and
her dedica�on to considering the development applica�ons that came before her for review and considera�on.
A�er the moment of silence, Planning & Land Use 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 March 2, 2023 Planning Board mee�ng were presented to the board members. No changes
or amendments were iden�fied. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member
Colin Tarrant, to APPROVE the minutes as dra�ed.
The mo�on to approve the March 2, 203 Planning Board minutes passed 6-0.
New Business
Public Hearings
Rezoning Request (Z23-09) – Request by Rob Tanner with Impeccable Development, applicant, on behalf of
Andrea Jones, Gwendolyn Horton, Christin Deener, Dwayne Barr, and Kimberlee Barr, property owners, to
rezone seven (7) parcels totaling approximately 11.77 acres of land located at 6800, 6808, 6814, 6818, 6820,
6824, and 6828 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to 2.37 acres to (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business
and 8.66 acres to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density for a convenience store with fuel
stations and a maximum 128 unit multi-family development. This item was continued from the March 30, 2023,
meeting.
2
Senior Planner Robert Farrell provided an overview of the proposed applica�on and staff analysis included in
the staff report. He described the loca�on of the site, sta�ng it was located at the 6800 block of Carolina Beach
Road at the intersec�on of Carolina Beach Road and Myrtle Grove Road. The subject parcel was originally zoned
R-15 in the 1970s, and at that �me, the purpose of the district was to ensure housing densi�es remained lower
due to the need for private wells and sep�c systems. Since then, public water and sewer had become available
in the area.
Mr. Farrell stated that the site was bordered by a manufactured home park to the north and described how parcels to the south were recently rezoned for a similar use of a convenience store with fuel pumps and
triplexes. The Old Cape Cod neighborhood also bordered the mul�-family component of the proposal to the
south, and the area to the west of the site was dedicated conserva�on land held by Cape Fear Community
College and the NC Coastal Land Trust.
A�er providing the board with photos of the site’s current condi�ons, examples of development typical under
current zoning, and examples of development typical of the requested land uses, Mr. Farrell described the
requested rezoning in detail. He stated that the proposed conceptual plan included a convenience store with
fuel pumps, a private access road, 128 mul�-family dwelling units divided between six apartment buildings with
a stormwater pond, amenity area, and perimeter parking. The eastern por�on of the project consisted of the
convenience store with fuel pumps, an access road along the northern por�on of the property at the
intersec�on of Carolina Beach Road and Myrtle Grove Road that provided access to both the residen�al and commercial por�ons of the project with perimeter landscaped buffers on the property lines and between the
commercial and residen�al sec�ons. He stated there were also two significant live oaks along Carolina Beach
Road that were condi�oned to be preserved onsite and that the applicants were also providing a pedestrian
facility as either a sidewalk or mul�-use path along Carolina Beach Road with an easement to connect to future
off-site pedestrian facili�es.
Mr. Farrell stated the mul�-family por�on of the project was immediately west of the convenience store site
and accessed from the same northern access road. He described how an amenity area acted as a transi�on
between the commercial and residen�al uses. Possible amenity uses ranged from open space to indoor and
outdoor ameni�es such as a swimming pool, clubhouse or other similar ac�vity for the residents. The
stormwater facility for both por�ons of the project was in the northwest corner of the site and a condi�on had
been included requiring coopera�on between the two por�ons of the project for future maintenance. The mul�-family area consisted of five 3-story mul�-family structures and one 2-story structure at the southern end
of the site. That building was closest to the neighboring residen�al proper�es to the south so it had been
condi�oned to remain 2-stories in response to concerns expressed at the community mee�ng. The parking lot
circled five of the buildings as an addi�onal spa�al buffer, and another future amenity and tree save area had
been provided in the center of the site. A condi�on had been provided requiring the preserva�on of trees in
this area that were not removed for essen�al site improvements.
Mr. Farrell described that access to the site would be provided by a full access drive at the signalized intersec�on
at Carolina Beach Road and Myrtle Grove Road and an addi�onal right-in/right-out drive south of the
intersec�on. The project was es�mated to generate approximately 330 more AM peak hour trips and 250 more
PM peak hour trips than would be expected if developed under current zoning. The explained that new
developments an�cipated to generate more than 100 trips during any peak hour were required to submit a
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as part of their rezoning applica�on. The TIA for this project was approved by the
WMPO and NCDOT in March 2023 and incorporated all proposed development intensity, a full project buildout
year of 2024, November 2022 traffic counts, and an an�cipated background growth rate for the area of 1.5%.
Required improvements included the extension of the exis�ng northbound U-turn lane on Carolina Beach Road
with a new traffic signal for the U-turn movement, construc�on of a new southbound right turn lane at the
intersec�on into the site with modifica�ons to the signal �ming, and construc�on of a right-in/right-out
secondary access to the south of the intersec�on.
3
Mr. Farrell described development in the immediate area of the request. In addi�on to two subdivisions
currently under construc�on, two addi�onal rezonings had been approved within one mile of the site, totaling
approximately 200 new residen�al units.
Mr. Farrell stated that based on the current general student genera�on rate the poten�al increase in residen�al
units between the proposal and what was possible under current zoning would result in approximately 21
addi�onal students than would be generated under current zoning. He explained that the genera�on rate was
updated annually using actual student numbers provided by the school system and provided a county-wide picture of the number of students each new residen�al unit was likely to yield, taking into account that most
new residen�al units in the county do not provide homes for large numbers of school age children.
Mr. Farrell presented that due to the size of the site and its access onto Carolina Beach Road, it was less likely
to be developed with lower density detached single-family housing. He stated that the applicant had provided
addi�onal condi�ons that reduced poten�al impacts on adjacent parcels and increased pedestrian
infrastructure along the road corridor. He explained that the proposed project was the third convenience store
with fuel sta�ons at an intersec�on that is transi�oning into a commercial node and that, while the commercial
projects involve the same land use, the density of commercial uses in an area was outside the scope of staff
review.
Mr. Farrell stated that the Comprehensive Plan designated the property as Community Mixed Use, 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 1-3 stories. He described ow the proposed concept plan included
commercial development at the intersec�on intended to serve the surrounding community and travelers on
Carolina Beach Road and that the proposed atached housing increased housing diversity in the area. He
further described that the proposed density of 14 dwelling units per acre was below the maximum allowed for
the RMF-M zoning district and slightly less than the maximum recommended for the Community Mixed Use
place type and that addi�onal condi�ons related to pedestrian infrastructure increased walkability for the
immediate area with opportuni�es for future extensions.
Mr. Farrell stated that staff’s recommenda�on was based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan, zoning considera�ons, and technical review. He described that the Carolina Beach Road corridor had been
designated as Community Mixed Use within the comprehensive Plan and that the scale and density of the
proposed development conformed with the recommenda�ons for the place type and provided appropriate transi�ons between uses. He further described how proposed improvements required by the TIA
accommodated the addi�onal traffic generated from the site and included improvements to the signalized
intersec�on and exis�ng U-turns on Carolina Beach Road, and addi�onal condi�ons had been provided related
to tree reten�on and pedestrian infrastructure that increased walkability and provided opportuni�es for future
extensions along Carolina Beach Road. As a result, staff recommended approval of the request subject to
condi�ons outlined in the staff report related to privacy fencing, tree preserva�on, the height of the
southernmost building, exterior ligh�ng, pedestrian accommoda�ons, and stormwater maintenance.
Mr. Farrell stated that staff had not received any addi�onal comments regarding the applica�on since the
agenda packet was finalized and reminded the board that should the rezoning be approved, development of
the site would be subject to addi�onal development review to ensure all land use regula�ons were met. He
concluded the presenta�on by informing the board that representa�ves of the WMPO and county Engineering
were in atendance in case of any ques�ons and that the applicant had prepared a presenta�on.
In response to ques�ons from Board Member Pete Avery regarding a recently approved development
immediately to the south, Mr. Farrell described the access point loca�on for each of the developments. WMPO
Transporta�on Planning Engineer Scot James presented that the driveway had not been reviewed by NCDOT
yet and that was when it would be decided how the driveway access would func�on.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Avery regarding WMPO’s authority to make sugges�ons to NCDOT, Mr. James
indicated that the WMPO did not have authority in the driveway permi�ng process.
4
Vice Chair Petroff recognized the applicant.
Amy Schaeffer, represen�ng the applicant, presented an overview of the site and the surrounding uses. She
provided a summary descrip�on and history of the proposed project and stated that an engineer with Kimley
Horn was present to discuss engineering of the project if needed. A�er presen�ng, illustra�ve eleva�ons, she
referred to the county’s Housing Needs Assessment and offered an addi�onal condi�on that 10% of the mul�-
family units would be affordable at 80% Area Median Income (AMI).
Ms. Schaeffer provided an overview of the TIA and required improvements and described how the proposal was supported by the Comprehensive Plan goals. She stated that the proposal because of its loca�on at a traffic
light was different from other projects in the area and would provide more opportunity for traffic dispersal and
filled a need for housing in the area.
In response to ques�ons from Board Member Clark Hipp regarding the proposed ameni�es and phasing of the
project, Ms. Schaeffer responded that the developer was solidifying the specific ameni�es that would be
provided and their lease agreements and would then proceed with the commercial project. The developer was
looking for partners for the housing por�on.
In response to a ques�on from Board Member Hipp about the stormwater, Alex Kimbrell, a civil engineer with
Kimley Horn, explained the stormwater control design and that there would be a maintenance agreement
established between the mul�-family and commercial por�ons.
In response to follow-up ques�ons from Vice Chair Petroff regarding the stormwater facili�es, Mr. Kimbrell
stated that there were no differences in stormwater provisions for the two separate land uses.
In response to ques�ons from Vice Chair Petroff regarding the traffic numbers and driveway design, Rynal
Stephenson, traffic engineer with Ramey Kemp, stated that the traffic study incorporated traffic already on the
road and the gas sta�on was not crea�ng many new trips. He stated about 85% of the traffic would be
generated by the gas sta�on use, while only about 15% was generated by the residen�al use. In response to a follow-up ques�on about the southern driveway, Mr. Stephenson stated that the driveway spacing was not
uncommon and would not create an issue as there were no le� turn movements.
In response to a ques�on from Vice Chair Petroff about the gas sta�on approved nearby, Ms. Shaeffer confirmed
that the applicant was aware of the project and had conducted a market analysis and were prepared to proceed.
With no further ques�ons for the applicant, Vice Chair Petroff opened the hearing for opposi�on public
comment.
John Ward, resident of 7906 Myrtle Grove Road, requested to know more about the traffic signal and how it
would be impacted. He described the many accidents that currently occur at that loca�on and how dangerous
the light was. He expressed concerns related to access, u�li�es, and chemicals from the gas sta�on.
With no further opposi�on comments, Vice Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for rebutal.
M. Kimbrell stated that water would be provided by Cape Fear Public U�lity Authority and that Aqua would
provide sewer to the site.
Mr. Stephenson explained the traffic movements at the intersec�on and site access points. He stated that if
the project were approved, more work would be done to finalize the traffic intersec�on design and signal plan.
Ms. Shaeffer stated that this work would improve safety at the intersec�on.
With no further applicant comments, Vice Chair Petroff recognized the opposi�on for rebutal.
Mr. Ward expressed his concerns about the current safety of the signal and suggested they be addressed right
away. In response to ques�ons from Board Member Hansen Mathews, he described his concerns about safety
on his property.
Vice Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened for board discussion.
5
In response to ques�ons from Mr. Avery regarding the rela�onship between CFPUA and Aqua, Mr. Jamison
stated that he could not address that rela�onship as the state worked with them individually.
In response to ques�ons from Mr. Hipp regarding poten�al modifica�ons to the site plan, amenity space, and
stormwater, Mr. Farrell described what was possible as a minor devia�on if the project were to be approved
and what would require considera�on by the Boards.
At the comple�on of board discussion, Vice Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to withdraw
their applica�on, request a con�nuance, or proceed with a vote. Ms. Shaeffer requested to proceed with the
vote.
Board Member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning, finding it
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density and
housing type is within the recommenda�ons of the Community Mixed Use place type and the commercial
development Acts as an appropriate transi�on between the highway corridor and residen�al development and
finding RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because
the project provided interconnec�vity and housing diversity at an appropriate density to act as a transi�on
between exis�ng commercial and residen�al development, and including the following condi�ons:
1. An opaque fence shall be provided along the property line adjoining any exis�ng residen�al
development. The fence loca�on may be adjusted by Planning staff to accommodate any u�li�es,
easements, or saved/protected trees.
2. The two (2) specimen trees shown on the concept plan along Carolina Beach Road shall be retained
and preserved on site.
3. Exis�ng trees onsite will be preserved that do not impact required land grading or other improvements
and future ameni�es as iden�fied in the required Tree Removal Permit.
4. The southernmost mul�-family structure as shown on the concept plan shall be limited to two stories
in height.
5. Exterior ligh�ng will be designed and installed to maintain adequate ligh�ng levels on the proposed
site while assuring that excessive light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent property,
neighboring areas, or motorists.
6. A sidewalk or mul�-use path shall be installed along Carolina Beach Road extending from the northern
property line to the southern property line with stubs for connec�on to exis�ng or future pedestrian facili�es on adjacent parcels. Pedestrian crossing labeling mee�ng NCDOT minimum requirements for
pedestrian safety shall be installed at both driveway entrances. The pedestrian facility along Carolina
Beach Road shall be within a dedicated public access easement.
7. A stormwater maintenance agreement shall be made between the convenience store with fuel pumps
and the mul�-family development if they are on separate parcels or under separate ownership.
8. Ten percent of the units will be offered at the HUD high home rate for no higher than 80% of AMI.
In response to Board ques�ons, Senior Planner Rachel LaCoe provided language for the last condi�on that had
been reviewed by staff in consulta�on with the Deputy County Atorney, which read:
The project will include a minimum of 10% of the units as workforce housing units that will be made
available for a period of no less than 15 years with rental limits based upon HUD income limits of 80%
AMI.
An agreement between the developer and county will be required before the issuance of a Cer�ficate
of Occupancy for the mul�-family por�on of the project. The agreement will specify:
• The number of affordable units provided;
6
• The income limits;
• Rent limits subject to annual change;
• The period of �me workforce housing units must remain affordable;
• Any other criteria necessary for compliance and monitoring
• An established �meframe for annual repor�ng from the developer or owner of the development
to New Hanover County. Annual reports shall provide the following minimum informa�on:
o Unit number
o Bedroom number
o Household size
o Tenant income
o Rent rate
• The developer or owner of the development shall report any mid-year lease changes to workforce
housing units to New Hanover County to ensure lease changes remain compliant with the
agreement.
If the total number of workforce housing units falls below the minimum of 10% of the units before the
expira�on of the minimum 15-year period of affordability, the development will be subject to
enforcement measures found in Ar�cle 12 Viola�ons and Enforcement of the Unified Development
Ordinance.
The mo�on was SECONDED by Pete Avery.
Mo�on to recommend approval of the proposed (CZD) B-1 and (CZD) RMF-M rezoning passed 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/
Recrea�onal Vehicle (RV) Parks.
Current Planner Zachary Dickerson stated the applica�on was ci�zen-ini�ated text amendment request
proposing to reduce the number of spaces required for 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 had also proposed
language that would update and clarify the minimum requirements for bathroom facili�es and the area for
laundry, vending machines, and retail sales counter.
He stated RV Parks and Campgrounds were permited by-right in the B-2 and PD districts and required Special
Use Permits in residen�al districts where allowed. The ordinance required a minimum of 25 spaces and a
minimum space size of 2,000 square feet, along with addi�onal use specific standard. The current standards
were designed for large-scale campgrounds for i�nerant use.
Mr. Dickerson reported that staff had received increased numbers of calls and requests from the public for RV
use in the County. He stated that staff had researched regula�ons from other jurisdic�ons for RV parks and had
found a range of regula�ons regarding the number of spaces per acre, setbacks between camping/RV spaces,
and various minimum space requirements. Research indicated that while RV parks and campgrounds were
commonly regulated across jurisdic�ons, there were not consistent best prac�ces.
Mr. Dickerson stated that while RV Parks and Campgrounds were not specifically addressed in the 2016
Comprehensive Plan, they were common in North Carolina coastal communi�es, including New Hanover
County, and were able to support tourism and public access to water and other natural resources. The 2016
Comprehensive Plan recommended suppor�ng business success and promo�ng place-based economic
development. Tourism was a large contributor to the county economy, and the request to allow a lower number
of spaces and smaller space requirements would allow for smaller-scale RV parks to operate in the County,
increasing the opportunity for tourist-oriented businesses on smaller sites.
7
He stated that the proposed amendments were ra�onal; however, smaller sites would allow poten�ally
increased numbers of RV Park and Campground development in residen�al areas. The Unified Development
Ordinance required Special Use Permits for RV Parks and Campgrounds in residen�al areas, and projects would
also be reviewed by the County’s Technical Review Commitee; however, staff had determined addi�onal
research was needed regarding poten�al impacts the proposed amendment could have on residen�al areas.
Further insight regarding the loca�ons and zoning districts appropriate for small-scale and large-scale parks was
s�ll needed, and addi�onal ordinance standards may be necessary to mi�gate impacts on adjacent residen�al
uses.
Mr. Dickerson stated that staff recommended con�nuing the applica�on to a future mee�ng to allow addi�onal
�me for staff research. He requested feedback from the Planning Board to guide staff but stated that staff had
provided an alternate mo�on should the Board decide to act on the request.
Vice Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Applicant Michael Faulkner, 152 Brentwood Dr., provided an overview of his vision for his Brentwood Rd.
property, sta�ng that Castle Hayne Farm Park was a smaller, approximately 2-acre site intended for “glamping”
as a smaller, bou�que homestead unlike tradi�onal RV parks. He stated there was a demand for RV sites from
traveling nurses because the KOA campground didn’t have leasing or camping op�ons for longer-term stays.
Board Member Hansen Mathews requested clarifica�on on the site address, and Mr. Faulkner stated the
property was located at 152 and 154 Brentwood Drive.
Board Member Colin Tarrant stated that the proposed amendment reduced the space size to 1,200 square feet,
which was less than allowed in comparable jurisdic�ons and inquired how Mr. Faulkner had decided on the
1,200 square foot space size request. In response, Mr. Faulkner stated that he had ini�ally staked out his
property for 2,000 square foot spaces but found there were smaller Mercedes Sprinter model camper vans that
did not require as much space.
Board Member Kevin Hine stated that the requested text amendment appeared to be specific to Mr. Faulkner’s
parcel rather than addressing the county as a whole and asked whether that assessment was correct. Mr.
Faulkner stated that the proposed amendment addressed his intended project but also addressed trends in the
market and culture surrounding RV camping and was intended for longer-term stays.
Mr. Hine concurred that he had also noted a trend in RV camping but expressed his concern that a proposed
change to the ordinance may have unintended consequences for the county. He stated that he agreed with the
spirit of the amendment but deferred to the staff’s request for addi�onal research.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he concurred with Mr. Hine, sta�ng he found staff’s request for addi�onal
research appropriate and no�ng he had ques�ons regarding the proposed amendment regarding changing the
requirement from bathroom facili�es to bathroom area. He indicated his assessment that there should be a
physical bathroom facility rather than temporary measures such as portable bathrooms. He stated the change
in space sizes appeared reasonable but that the change in the minimum number of spaces from 25 to 8
appeared to be a large change.
Mr. Faulkner responded that because the ordinance had a minimum space size, it dictated how many spaces
could be accommodated in an acre. He indicated that he agreed with the statement regarding the bathroom
facili�es and explained that his original plan was to avoid a sep�c system by using a portable bathroom facility,
but that nearby development would make it feasible to connect to public sewer in the future.
Vice Chair Petroff stated there was no one present to speak in opposi�on, closed the public hearing, and opened
to Board discussion.
He stated that the text amendment request appeared valid but wanted to allow staff �me to fully vet the
request.
8
Mr. Hipp stated that he agreed with vice Chair Petroff because the origin of the text amendment was specific
to a site but would be applied throughout the county. He stated it was important for staff determine how the
text amendment to determine how the text amendment could impact the county as a whole.
Mr. Hine concurred with Mr. Hipp and stated his concern was related to the density of the parks. He requested
staff research how other jurisdic�ons addressed density in campgrounds.
Vice Chair Petroff inquired as to whether it was necessary to ask Mr. Faulkner how he would like to proceed
given the staff request for a con�nuance. Ms. Roth advised that the applicant was aware of the staff’s
recommenda�on prior to the mee�ng.
Mr. Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Mr. Mathews to CONTINUE the proposed amendment of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to modify the language in Sec�on 4.3.4.E.2 to the June 1
Planning Board mee�ng in order to allow for more �me for staff research and review.
The mo�on to con�nue to the June 1 Planning Board mee�ng carried 6-0.
Text Amendment Request (TA23-02) – Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend
Sec�on 10.2.3 Community Informa�on Mee�ng to clarify expecta�ons and standards for Community
Informa�on Mee�ngs required for applica�ons for condi�onal rezonings, planned developments, and
intensive industry special use permits.
Planning & Land Use Director Rebekah Roth presented the staff amendment and analysis outlined in the staff report. She stated that the amendment was intended to clarify for all code users the requirements for
community informa�on mee�ngs, which are required for applica�ons for condi�onal rezonings, planned
developments, and intensive industry special use permits. She said staff wanted to make sure that applicant
teams, adjacent residents, and board members had a common understanding of the mee�ng’s intent, what
was acceptable in terms of format, and the type of informa�on that would be included when an applica�on moved forward to a public hearing. She outlined when the ordinance required the mee�ngs and stated that
the conversa�ons that occurred at that stage in the planning process o�en resulted in modifica�ons to the
proposal so that would be submited in an applica�on, reviewed by planning and technical staff, and shown to
the public in advance of the public hearing to help them determine whether or not they wished to atend the
hearing to make comments.
Ms. Roth stated that the amendment included two types of standards, an actual amendment of the Unified Development Ordinance that could only be amended by the Board of Commissioners at a public hearing and
documents outlining administra�ve requirements. Those documents were intended to be approved ini�ally by
the Board of Commissioners but could be updated as necessary with approval of the County Manager.
Ms. Roth outlined the key features of the ordinance amendment. She stated that it included specifica�on that
submi�ng an applica�on for a condi�onal rezoning, planned development, and intensive industry special use permit without holding an actual mee�ng was no longer an op�on. The ordinance currently allowed for
applicants to provide a report detailing why a community mee�ng was not held, but staff had been unable to
iden�fy a situa�on where it would be appropriate for someone to move forward with an applica�on and public
hearing without holding one.
She described a modifica�on from the public comment dra� that was made in response to a request for more
flexibility. The proposed amendment had been modified to allow someone to hold and submit the required
informa�on during the applica�on completeness review window immediately a�er the applica�on deadline in
cases where something unforeseen happened, such as a technical outage or a storm event if an outdoor
mee�ng had been planned. She said that the review window was the point in the process when applicants
were able to correct any deficiencies found in the applica�on and the provision would not impact staff’s review.
9
Ms. Roth stated that if the purpose of the mee�ng was to allow for an opportunity to resolve conflicts and to
allow the applicant �me to modify the proposal in response to concerns of the adjacent property owners, the
mee�ng needed to take place no later than the applica�on completeness window because if the applica�on
changed later during the process it would impact staff’s ability to adequately review what was presented.
She stated that the proposed amendment would allow for mee�ngs to be in-person, hybrid, or virtual given the
growing familiarity with virtual mee�ng pla�orms over the past several years. She also stated that the
amendment clarified that the purpose of the mee�ng was to inform the adjacent residents of the project, to allow them to learn about the proposal and ask ques�ons, and for the applicant to explain the basics of the
review process and to iden�fy ways that the proposal could be modified in order to address concerns. She said
that as noted in the staff report, the expecta�on that the proposal could be modified was first ar�culated in
the crea�on of the Unified Development Ordinance in 2020, so the new language was intended to highlight this
so it was clear to code users who might not be aware of that change as the board members seemed to expect
them to be familiar with it.
Ms. Roth noted that staff did receive public comments with ques�ons about whether it was appropriate for the
applicant to provide informa�on on the review process, but she explained that the intent of that provision was
to let the community know that the item would be going to the Planning Board, which then makes a
recommenda�on, then to the Board of Commissioners for final decision so that they would know the �ming of
how the mee�ngs happened. She did state that staff would help prepare some of the materials that could
assist applicants in presen�ng that informa�on.
She stated that the amendment also specified that no�ce should be provided to the Planning Department when
it was sent to adjacent property owners so that it could be sent out to the Sunshine email list and posted on
the website, that a list of everyone invited must be submited as part of the applica�on, and that staff was able
to establish administra�ve requirements.
Ms. Roth presented that the administra�ve guidelines would be ini�ally approved by the Board of
Commissioners but could then be updated with the approval of the County Manager and provided details about
scheduling mee�ngs used to sa�sfy the code requirements. She had received comments that highlighted that
not every neighborhood or community was available at the �mes ini�ally dra�ed, so considera�ons regarding
the demographics of the community had been outlined as recommenda�ons instead of requirements. She
stated that the guidelines outlined expecta�ons for how the mee�ngs would be conducted, the type of informa�on that applicants were an�cipated to provide, and recommenda�ons regarding appropriate loca�ons
and formats based on the demographics of the surrounding community. The guidelines also provided
informa�on on what mee�ng no�ce should include and on the requirements for the report submited with an
applica�on.
She stated that the dra� no�fica�on template included in the review documents outlined the informa�on that
must be provided to adjacent residents and what informa�on must be included in the descrip�on of the
proposal. She explained that some applicants currently provided more detail than others, leading to ci�zen
ques�ons, so staff was intended into ensure that there was some standardiza�on so people could have their
expecta�ons met for what they were likely to receive. Lastly, she stated that the template included instruc�ons
for virtual mee�ngs.
Ms. Roth also described the dra� applica�on report form intended to provide more consistency in the
informa�on that was provided to staff and boards with the applica�on.
She stated that staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment and associated administra�ve
documents. She informed the board that staff had received 12 total comments, 8 in support, 2 in opposi�on,
one with some suggested changes to wording, and one that did not indicate support opposi�on reques�ng a
new provision be added to the amendment. She stated that several comments had requested that provision
to expand requirements for community informa�on mee�ngs to include industrial special use permits in the I-
1, Light Industrial, district. She explained that it was staff’s interpreta�on that the requested provision was
10
beyond the scope of the amendment previously discussed and no�ced, was received a�er the public comment
period, and for transparency, staff recommended that it would be inappropriate to add the provision at this
point in the process. She also indicated that the request was beyond the scope of maintenance amendments
ini�ated by staff, which were either ini�ated for technical reasons or at the direc�on of the Board of
Commissioners.
Ms. Roth concluded her presenta�on by sta�ng that if the Planning Board elected to move forward with the
amendment, it would be scheduled to be considered by the Board of Commissioners at a public hearing at their
June 5, 2023 mee�ng.
Vice Chair Petroff stated that board members had received ques�ons about changing language regarding
community mee�ng requirements in certain zones and that he concurred with Ms. Roth’s point that the request
were outside the scope of this text amendment. Ms. Roth added that the addi�onal provision had not been
communicated to a variety of stakeholder over the past several months.
In response to a ques�on by Mr. Avery about what other jurisdic�ons required for community informa�on
mee�ngs, Ms. Roth said that requirements depended on the jurisdic�on and described how the City of
Wilmington had more stringent requirements than were being proposed as well as a longer staff review period
prior to applica�on, but Brunswick County recommended the mee�ngs but did not require them. Other
jurisdic�ons required community informa�on mee�ngs for specific uses, more in line with what New Hanover
County required, such as Pender County.
Vice Chair Petroff opened the public hearing for public comments in support.
Dr. Robert Parr, 6706 Falcon Pointe Road, commended Ms. Roth and the Planning staff for the work they had
done. He stated that the ci�zen informa�on mee�ng was the founda�on of public input into good planning.
He stated that the recommended addi�on of requiring a community mee�ng for special use permits in the I-1
district was in good faith with this process and that it was the appropriate �me to insert addi�onal requirements. He described a community mee�ng in Castle Hayne in 2016 where the ci�zens were able to
learn about an asphalt plant and concerns were able to be addressed as well as a community mee�ng for a
sand mine project on Suton Lake Road and how ci�zen comments had a posi�ve effect on the ul�mate
proposals.
Ms. Roth clarified an earlier point a�er checking her notes and specified that while Pender County required
community informa�on mee�ngs she had not determined when they were required.
Vice Chair Petroff opened the hearing for opposi�on public comments.
Brad Schuler with Paramounte Engineering opened by sta�ng that Pender County did require that applicants
go through the Technical Review Commitee process prior to applica�on. He then stated his concern with the
proposed amendment as it set an expecta�on that the applicant would make changes to the plan based on
feedback during the mee�ng. He stated that while mee�ngs could and o�en did lead to good changes, that
should not be the standard. He also stated concerns with limi�ng the flexibility that the current code provided
related to allowing the applicant to not hold a mee�ng and submit reasons why that community mee�ng could
not be held. He referenced unforeseen circumstances including storms and the pandemic and that there were
�mes when it was appropriate for applicants not to have a community mee�ng and to receive comments over
phone or email. He stated the proposed change only allowed the community mee�ng report to be submited
three days a�er the deadline in the event of technical issues or storm events. Mr. Schuler said that o�en
community mee�ngs were held within a week of the submital deadline so with the required 10 day no�ce it
would make it impossible to re-no�ce those mee�ngs and s�ll meet the deadline.
Vice Chair Petroff opened the hearing for supporters’ rebutal.
Dr. Parr reiterated the importance of community informa�on mee�ngs and referred to examples of where they
had helped improve projects, including the example of the Walmart development in Porters Neck.
11
Vice Chair Petroff opened the opposi�on’s rebutal period, but with no further opposi�on comments, he closed
the public hearing and opened for board discussion.
Board Member Clark Hipp thanked staff for reviewing and upda�ng the requirements for community mee�ngs
to make it clearer to applicants what is expected. He asked Mr. Schuler about his comment that the amendment
would set the expecta�on that applicants must make changes to the proposal in response to public feedback.
Mr. Schuler indicated that was how he had interpreted the amendment language that stated that input
provided during the community informa�on mee�ng should be considered by the applicant and impact the proposal submited. He indicated that the ability for the applicant to make revisions based on the type of
feedback provided at community mee�ngs as not all would be feasible. Mr. Hipp clarified that he did not have
the expecta�on that every applica�on would be able to be modified to address resident concerns and did not
interpret the proposed amendment would require that.
Mr. Hipp further stated that he supported the proposed amendment’s provisions for flexibility and did not
consider addi�onal modifica�ons necessary. He also expressed his surprise that community informa�on
mee�ngs were not required for special use permits in the I-1 district as industrial projects may have a larger
impact on the community than some of the smaller projects for which they were required. He stated that he
would like this to be a priority for staff.
Vice Chair Petroff stated that he did not consider this hearing to be the appropriate place to add the provision
since it had not been publicly adver�sed and worked on like the rest of the amendment had been.
Board Member Hansen Mathews stated that he understood how frustra�ng community informa�on mee�ngs
could be for applicants but that the step allowed them to get feedback prior to a board mee�ng.
Board Member Colin Tarrant indicated he found the proposed changes reasonable and stated that all applicants
had an inherent interest in working with the community and that these mee�ngs provided that opportunity.
Board Member Kevin Hine acknowledged Dr. Parr’s concerns but concurred with Vice Chair Petroff that this
hearing was not the �me to introduce the addi�onal amendment.
Following Board discussion, Mr. Mathews made a MOTION to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed
amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to clarify expecta�ons for required
community informa�on mee�ngs and the proposed administra�ve documents, finding them CONSISTENT with
the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because they clarify an important part of the planning
process necessary to support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for a vibrant community suppor�ve of private investment that also conserves and enhances our sense of place and finding RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it clarifies expecta�ons
for applicants, ci�zens, and board members related to community mee�ngs.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Hipp regarding whether a condi�on to direct staff to look into expanding
the provisions for community mee�ngs to I-1 industrial special use permits could be added to the mo�on,
Deputy County Atorney Karen Richards stated that the Planning Board could request the Board of
Commissioners to request staff to review the provision, but it wouldn’t be a condi�on of the recommenda�on
for the text amendment.
Ms. Roth stated the usual way staff received direc�on was through the direc�ve of the full Board of
Commissioners and stated it might be more appropriate to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that
staff look into the provision rather than providing that direc�on as the Planning Board.
Mr. Avery highlighted the quasi-judicial nature of the special use permit process, and Ms. Roth described work
staff was currently undertaking to improve that process and the public’s understanding of their role.
Mr. Hipp withdrew his sugges�on and SECONDED the ini�al mo�on.
12
Mo�on to recommend approval of the staff proposed text amendment and administra�ve documents passed
6-0.
Preliminary Forum
Special Use Permit Request (S23-02) – Request by Lynda Kachman with Rising Stars of North Carolina, LLC,
applicant, on behalf of Sandfiddler Proper�es, LLC, property owners, for the use of Child Care Center at the
approximately 0.82-acre parcel located at 320 Van Dyke Drive, zoned I-1, Light Industrial.
Current Planner Amy Doss began her presenta�on by sta�ng this was a Preliminary Forum for a Special Use
Permit (SUP) request for a Child Care Center. She stated that neither the Planning Board nor staff would be
making a recommenda�on regarding this request but that the purpose of the Preliminary Forum was for the
Board, public, and applicant to discuss and consider the request before it move to the Board of Commissioners
for a quasi-judicial hearing and final decision.
Ms. Doss provided informa�on pertaining to loca�on, land classifica�on, access, and zoning. She showed maps,
aerials, and photographs of the site and surrounding area and provided an overview of the proposed
applica�on.
She stated that the site was located at the corner of Amsterdam Way and Van Dyke Drive, in the Dutch Square
Industrial Park. She stated that the parcel was originally zoned R-15 in the early 1970s and was rezoned to I-1,
Light Industrial, in 1979 for the development of an industrial complex.
Ms. Doss pointed out exis�ng site features related to the side area that would be fenced for children, the front
entrance of the building, and a cell tower behind the building.
She stated that Child Care Centers are permited in most commercial districts but require the addi�onal steps
of the SUP in residen�al and industrial districts to ensure they were appropriately evaluated for the specific site
and surrounding uses. She stated that the requested Child Care Center would serve up to 60 children ages 0-12 years and that the request would allow the exis�ng center at 6743 Amsterdam Way to expand the number
of children they could accommodate. She explained that the exis�ng commercial structure would be converted
for the proposed use and a fenced outdoor area would be provided but no other changes were proposed for
the site.
She explained that the Child Care Center was located within the boundary of areas classified as the Employment
Center place type in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and that the types of uses encouraged included commercial uses designed to serve the needs of the Employment Center. She said that the site would have direct access to
and from an exis�ng NCDOT maintained local road as indicated on the most recent officially adopted
Wilmington MPO Func�onal Classifica�on Map.
Ms. Doss noted that the exis�ng driveway on Van Dyke Drive would be used and shared that the proposed
development would increase traffic by approximately 39 AM and 37 PM peak hour trips.
Ms. Doss concluded her summary of the applica�on by providing an overview of the applicant’s concept plan
and reitera�ng the purpose and intent of the Preliminary Forum. She noted that staff from NHC Engineering
and the WMPO were present to answer ques�ons this might come up regarding site engineering and traffic and
that the applicant was in atendance and had prepared a presenta�on.
Vice Chair Petroff opened up to board ques�ons.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Hipp on whether the exis�ng use was permited or nonconforming, Ms.
Doss explained that the structure in ques�on was currently vacant. In follow-up, she further explained that the
applicant had an exis�ng Child Care Center facility located around the corner from the subject site and the
requested use would allow the applicant to accommodate 500 children on a wait list at a separate loca�on.
Ms. Doss also shared that there were several other day care centers located within the industrial park.
13
With no further ques�on, Vice Chair Petroff thanked Ms. Doss and reminded the audience that per state law,
the Planning Board would not make a decision or recommenda�on regarding the request; instead, the decision
on the applica�on for a Child Care Center would be made by the Board of Commissioners following a quasi-
judicial hearing. He explained that the public par�cipa�on at the Commissioners’ hearing would be limited to
par�es with standing and witness providing evidence through sworn tes�mony and encourage any members
of the audience wishing to ask ques�ons or make comments at the Preliminary Forum to sign up to do so.
He then welcomed the applicant for her presenta�on.
Lynda Kachman, applicant, shared that she had been with Rising Stars of North Carolina for nearly 7 years. She
said that the demand for childcare was exploding and there was nowhere to place the children. Ms. Kachman
confirmed Ms. Doss’s statement that there were about 500 children on her wait list and add there were mul�ple
calls each day. She stated that the goal for the request was to expand the center they were in currently
opera�ng by allowing for the transfer of preschool children to the new loca�on. This move would allow the
center to increase capacity to accommodate about 60 addi�onal children.
Ms. Kachman explained the benefits of the proposed loca�on, as it was close to the current school and would
allow parents with mul�ple children to pick up and drop off in close proximity to each school. She indicated an
addi�onal benefit of the project would be the 8-10 more employment posi�ons that would be created and that
the use would allow more spaces for families who used subsidized childcare. She further explained that several
public schools benefited from the current center and illustrated a map detailing the distance between the two
facili�es.
Vice Chair Petroff opened to board ques�ons.
Mr. Avery expressed his support for the applicant but his frustra�on with the Preliminary Forum process since
the Planning Board would not be providing a recommenda�on. In response, Mr. Hipp stated he recognized the
Forum as an opportunity for the public to be informed and comment on the project and asked staff if there had
been any comments from the public.
Ms. Doss stated she had received one phone call from a neighboring business owner who had expressed his
concern for the safety of the children and had wanted to know how the proposal would affect the nearby
businesses. She explained that she had noted the other uses within the industrial park, such as warehouses,
other childcare centers, gymnasiums, offices, dog boarding facili�es, cell towers, and general repair shops.
Vice Chair Petroff expressed that he saw value in hearing opposi�on at the Planning Board so par�es could be beter prepared for the Commissioners’ mee�ng. He indicated that he thought the Commissioners would be
aware of the need for daycare spaces and recommended that a descrip�on of the uses in close proximity be
expanded as part of the presenta�on to the Commissioners.
Ms. Roth informed the board and audience that the Planning Department did not take public comment for
quasi-judicial items the way it was done for legisla�ve decisions like rezonings and text amendments. She
explained that if anyone had a ques�on about the process or how they might be able to par�cipate, they should
contact Ms. Doss. She further explained that due to the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings, it was important
that applicable informa�on is presented at the quasi-judicial hearing in front of the Board of Commissioners to
make sure that everybody was hearing the same informa�on at the same �me and so people had the ability to
ask ques�ons about any evidence that was presented.
With no further board or public comments or ques�ons, Ms. Doss concluded the forum by explaining that staff
would be preparing the staff report and materials for the Monday, June 5 Board of Commissioners mee�ng.
The hearing at that mee�ng would be quasi-judicial, which is an evidence-based procedure requiring sworn
tes�mony and expert witnesses. The hearing would be adver�sed, including mailed public no�ce to adjacent
residents and legal no�ces in the newspapers.
14
She explained that there would be four principal conclusions that the Board of Commissioners must make in
order to approve the Special Use Permit: (1) that the use would not materially endanger the public health or
safety if located where proposed and approved; (2) that the use meets all required condi�ons and specifica�ons
of the Unified Development Ordinance; (3) that the use would not substan�ally injure the value of adjoining or
abu�ng property, or the use is a public necessity; (4) 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 is located and
in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County.
Ms. Doss noted that due to the nature of the quasi-judicial hearing, public comments would not be compiled
and should not be submited before the public hearing so if anyone wanted to provide tes�mony regarding
they request, they should plan to atend the June 5 mee�ng.
Other Items
Discussion Regarding Planning Board Officers
Ms. Roth stated that Ms. Girardot’s death had created both a vacancy on the board and in the Chair posi�on.
Based on the guidance of the County Clerk’s office, the Board was able to elect a new Chair but was not required
to, as the Vice Chair who could chair the mee�ngs un�l her seat was filled in August, when officer elec�ons
were generally held.
A�er board discussion, the board elected to not elect a new Chair at that �me.
Discussion Regarding Planning Board Mee�ng Times
Ms. Roth presented that the change to the mee�ng �me to 5 pm ini�ated with the adop�on of the 2023
calendar had caused frequent conflicts with staff availability due to their required presence at the Board of
Commissioners agenda reviews, which were o�en held star�ng at 4 pm immediately prior to the Planning Board
mee�ngs and took place across town at the Government Center facility. She requested the board adopt a
revision to the 2023 calendar to re-establish the Planning Board mee�ng �mes at 6 pm.
A�er board discussion, Mr. Hipp made a MOTION to amend the 2023 calendar to establish a 6 pm start �me
for the regular Planning Board mee�ngs, SECONDED by Mr. Avery.
The mo�on to amend the 2023 Planning Board Regular Mee�ng Calendar to establish the mee�ng start �me
as 6 pm passed 6-0.
Vice Chair Petroff adjourned the mee�ng at 8:35 pm.