07-06-2023 PB Minutes1
Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board
July 6, 2023
A regular board of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on July 6, 2023, at 6:00 PM in the
New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present
Pete Avery
Kevin Hine
Clark Hipp
Hansen Mathews
Colin Tarrant
Staff Present
Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use
Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor
Zachary Dickerson, Senior Planner
Wendell Biddle, Current Planner
Karlene Ellis-Vitalis- Long Range Planner
Members Absent
Jamar Johnson, WMPO Transporta�on Planning
Engineer
Jeff Petroff Galen Jamison, NHC Chief Project Engineer
Ranking Member Colin Tarrant, called the mee�ng to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience.
A�er the welcome remarks, Planning & Land Use Director Rebekah Roth led the Pledge of Allegiance, and
Ranking Member Tarrant deferred the floor to Ms. Roth to lead the vote to determine the Ac�ng Chair of
the mee�ng in the absence of Vice Chair Jeff Petroff. Board Member Pete Avery made a mo�on to
nominate Board Member Tarrant, seconded by Board Member Hansen Mathews. All were in favor.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant provided an overview of the mee�ng procedures and read the Code of Ethics.
New Business
Rezoning Request (Z23-12) – Request by William Block with Olympus Holding Company Castle Hayne,
LLC, applicant, on behalf of Patricia Roseman with Blue Tank, LLC and Holly Tank, LLC, property owners,
to rezone approximately 23.01 acres zoned I-1, Light Industrial and approximately 49.38 acres zoned I-1
and R-15, Residen�al located at 5210 Holly Shelter Road and 5735 Blue Clay Road to (CZD)RMF-L, Residen�al Mul�-Family – Low Density for a maximum of 521 residen�al units consis�ng of mul�-family,
a�ached, and detached residen�al dwelling units. This item was con�nued from the June 1 Planning
Board mee�ng.
Development Review Supervisor, Robert Farrell stated that the item was con�nued from the June 1
Planning Board in order to come to an agreement on an addi�onal condi�on. He informed the Board that
an agreement had been reached the previous day and that the updated informa�on was provided to the
Planning Board accordingly.
Mr. Farrell con�nued his presenta�on by providing a general overview of the proposal and staff analysis
included in the staff report. He stated that the site, which is located at the corner of Holly Shelter and Blue
Clay Road, was ini�ally zoned a mix of R-15 and I-2, heavy industrial in the 1970s and was subsequently
rezoned to I-1 in 2000; however, the parcels remained undeveloped.
2
Mr. Farrell provided aerial photography of the site showing exis�ng industrial development to the north,
single family detached housing to the east and south, and a FAA air naviga�onal tower located on the
property to the west as well as pictures showing typical exis�ng development along the boundaries of the
subject site such as the R-15 district, I-1 district, and examples of mul�-family and single family atached
housing.
He stated the project consisted of a maximum of 521 dwelling units which would be developed in four
phases; a 278 mul�-family unit apartment complex in Phase 1 and a 243-unit single family atached and
detached housing component in Phases 2, 3 and 4. The proposal included amenity open space, stormwater
infrastructure and bicycle and pedestrian access between to the areas designated for mul�-family and
atached housing development. He added that although no vehicular access was proposed between the
two housing types, a condi�on has been provided to ensure bicycle and pedestrian interconnec�vity.
Mr. Farrell stated that the proposed development was an�cipated to generate approximately 237 AM and
288 PM peak hour trips, 170 AM and 73 PM fewer peak hour trips than es�mated for the current zoning.
He informed the board that new developments that were an�cipated to generate more than 100 trips
during any peak hour were required to submit a TIA as part of their rezoning applica�on. The WMPO and
the NCDOT conducted an analysis of the TIA, which was approved in January 2023, with an an�cipated full
project build out in 2026. He stated that the traffic counts which were taken in 2022, took into
considera�on an an�cipated background growth rate for the area of 2% and iden�fied several
improvements including signalizing the intersec�on of the I-40 eastbound ramp and Holly Shelter Road,
signalizing the 1-40 westbound ramp or construc�ng an exclusive northbound right turn lane on the ramp,
construc�ng right-turn lanes on Holly Shelter and Blue Clay Road and construc�ng a right turn lane at the
access on Holly Shelter Road.
To further illustrate exis�ng development within the immediate vicinity of the subject site, Mr. Farrell
provided maps of the immediate area, the proposed project’s loca�on along two NCDOT maintained
roads, both of which were under capacity, and its proximity to the I-40 and Holly Shelter Road interchange
and NHC’s future Holly Shelter Business Park, which is also expected to generate addi�onal commercial
traffic.
Mr. Farrell stated that based on the current general student genera�on rate, the project was es�mated to
generate approximately 115 addi�onal students than would be generated under the current zoning. He
informed the board that the student genera�on rate was updated on an annual basis by using actual
student enrolment numbers which were 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 did not provide homes for large numbers of school age children.
Mr. Farrell stated that the project was proposed at the intersec�on of two major collector roads in an area
with exis�ng heavy industrial development (I-2) and lower density single-family homes (R-15).
He stated that Holly Shelter Road was currently func�oning as an industrial corridor which served exis�ng
and future non-residen�al development including the county’s future business park and while the
proposed project could provide housing to support the commercial and industrial development in the
area, the project would be dependent on the county’s addi�onal water and sewer investment intended to
serve the industrial area.
Mr. Farrell stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the proper�es as the General Residen�al
place type, which provided opportuni�es for low to moderate density housing, and although the
maximum allowable density in the RMF-L district is 10 dwelling units per acre, the project proposed
density was 7.19 dwelling units per acre. He stated that the proposal was generally consistent with the
3
density range of the place type and the project also proposed a variety of housing in an area between
Employment Center and Commerce Zone place types.
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. Staff found that the applicant’s request
was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan based on proposed density and diversity of housing
types. Addi�onally, the proposal was found to be reasonable and in the public interest since the proposed
housing could support nearby commercial development. As a result, staff recommended approval of the
request with the condi�ons related to bicycle and pedestrian connec�vity and structure height.
Mr. Farrell also stated that since the proposal would be located within the vicinity of exis�ng commercial
and industrial ac�vity, a condi�on of approval was developed through consulta�on with the applicant,
County Manager’s and County Atorney’s office, whereby full disclosure of poten�al impacts from nearby
commercial and industrial development would be made to future residents.
Mr. Farrell stated that staff did not receive any addi�onal comments regarding the applica�on, and 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 and informed the board that
representa�ves of the WMPO and NCDOT were present and available to answer any ques�ons and
indicated that the applicant would also be presen�ng their applica�on to the board.
At the conclusion of Mr. Farrell’s presenta�on, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant opened the floor for ques�ons from
the board.
Mr. Avery requested an explana�on of what cons�tuted single family atached and single family detached
since the proposal showed townhouses with four and five units on average while the other buildings
contained 27 units.
Mr. Farrell stated that the single-family atached units included duplexes, triplex, and quadruplexes.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant recognized the applicant.
Allison Engebretson, an architect and landscape planner from Paramount Engineering represen�ng the
applicant, started by responding to a ques�on posed by Mr. Avery by sta�ng that, as a func�on of the TIA
process applicants are required to indicate the maximum number of units at the allowable density for the
zoning district.
She presented general characteris�cs of the site such as its loca�on within the I-1 and R-15 zoning,
proximity to employment centers along Holly Shelter Road, schools and a community mixed use area
where goods and services are available.
She described some of the features of the proposal such as the maximum building height to be 45 �.
instead of the 55 �. height allowance since the project area was within the vicinity of a FAA VOR
naviga�onal tower, addi�onal buffers of up to 75 � since the proposal residen�al development would be
located in a commercial and industrial area, clustering of residen�al buildings toward the internal por�ons
of the site to reduce the environmental disturbance, landscaped areas to be created to include some of
the ponds so that a significant por�on of the site (42%), would be le� in open space.
Ms. Engebretson concluded her presenta�on by men�oning some of the TIA improvements which were
detailed by Mr. Farrell and expressed that it was the right thing to put people in a growing part of the
county.
Board Member Clark Hipp asked Ms. Engebretson if she could describe the poten�al connec�vity for
pedestrian and bike connec�vity between the two areas.
4
Ms. Engebretson stated that since there was a significant ditch that ran through the area there was no
vehicular connec�on and although they had agreed to plan a pedestrian and bicycle connec�on, there
wasn’t anything specifically iden�fied since they would need to look at it cumula�vely with the rest of the
development to limit impacts as much as possible in order to make a connec�on.
Mr. Avery asked if the developers were aware of the all the offsite improvements being recommended by
WMPO and NCDOT and if they were acceptable to them. Ms. Engebretson responded that they were and
were in the process of cos�ng them.
With no further comments, from the applicant, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant opened public hearing for opposi�on
public comment.
Mr. Randall King stated that he was represen�ng Old Castle, an industrial manufacturing facility which
produces concrete masonry units which is located at 5225 Holly Shelter Road, Castle Hayne. He stated that
he was opposed to the phase one part of the project which proposed homes directly across the street
within 50 yards of the Old Castle facility. He described opera�ons at the facility and the noise generated
from constant movement about the property by 5 tractor trailers and 5 li� trucks which were housed on the property, customers’ trucks loading, unloading and the prepara�on of products for delivery
throughout the day and night, 20 hours a day, 4 to 5 days a week. He added that addi�onal noise and
traffic was generated from ac�vity associated with the 30 to 40 trucks in or near the plant that slow down
and accelerate to and from the facility throughout the day.
Mr. King recounted his experience in similar situa�ons at other loca�ons where rezonings facilitated
residen�al development near industrial plants. He recalled that in each of those situa�ons, they
experienced a great deal of pain through monetary compensa�on among other things because people
asked to reduce their noise level. He remarked that people ul�mately didn't like living next to an industrial
facility.
He recalled the problems at their Myrtle Beach facility where the company closed opera�ons due to
complaints about the plant a�er zoning and the planning boards allowed residen�al development to
encroach all the way to the borders of their property. He stated that there was a myriad of difficult
situa�ons with homeowners’ associa�ons and individuals within those proper�es because over �me
buffers which were le� by the original builders were removed.
Mr. King stated that since he was one of the persons who helped with the purchase, Old Castle did their
due diligence and sa�sfied themselves that adjacent industrial zoning was located along the boundary
when they bought the property in 2001. He stated if they had to do it over again and the property was
zoned high density residen�al instead, they would not have had this problem since they would not have
bought their property because they were aware that their opera�ons do not coexist well with residen�al
development. In closing, he reiterated his opposi�on to phase 1 of the project and commented that the
rest of the property had a nice buffer and shouldn’t be an issue for them.
Board Member Kevin Hine referred to Mr. King’s statement that the homes were fi�y yards away from the
Old Castle property boundary and asked how far away were they from the actual produc�on area.
Mr. King responded that they were about 150 �. and probably 75 �. from the gate to the plant itself. He
added that the concrete block machine pounded down and had a low hum. They had conducted noise
assessments in the area and although the noise was not projected offsite very much, it was audible,
especially on a nice clear fall day. He stated that residents would have dust on their windows and in their
homes and that was why it would be inappropriate for them to be located close to the plant.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Mathews regarding the circumstances where the company suffered
monetary damage, Mr. King stated that it was not due to any changes in the noise regula�ons and
5
explained that there were three proper�es that bordered the Myrtle Beach facility, and each homeowners’
associa�on on separate occasions requested that they conduct mul�ple noise and air quality studies which
cost $50-$60,000 over the course of one year.
Mr. Mathews followed up by asking if any burden of proof was placed on the people who requested
inves�ga�ons. Mr. King replied that there was not and cited their Mooresville loca�on where they
experienced the same problem, although the plant had existed since 1974. He alluded to their difficul�es
where they were prohibited from expanding or upgrading their facility with new machines.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant asked what type of communica�on, if any, did his company have with the applicant,
prior to the board mee�ng, and Mr. King replied that he was aware that a leter was sent from his company
to the developers.
Mr. Avery asked if there was enough space at the current site for substan�al expansion and if expansion
of the facility would require the purchase of more land. Mr. King confirmed there was none, and purchase
of more land would be necessary to expand.
Mr. Mathews asked if Mr. King objected to the phase one or the par�cular type of construc�on and the
proposed density. Mr. King responded that the density was an issue, and the buffer zone between Old
Castle and the proposal should be much greater before being considered for approval.
Mr. Hine asked Mr. King if he was aware of a condi�on that was being discussed with the applicant
regarding the recorded statement that would follow the chain of �tle that gives no�ce to each subsequent
owner that industrial ac�vi�es could occur day and night. Mr. King replied that he was made aware of the
condi�on at the current board mee�ng. In response to the proposed condi�on, he stated that homes
would be shown on weekends when the concrete plant may not be in opera�on. He added that the
homeowners may not make the best possible decisions and although the statement was available, he did
not think that it would carry any weight when the residents open their windows a�er 6 months.
In response to Mr. King’s comments, Mr. Mathews added that together with the recorded statement,
there would also be a condi�on to include a statement of acknowledgement that would be presented to
poten�al residen�al lessees.
With no further opposi�on comments, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant recognized the applicant for rebutal.
Ms. Engebretson asked Mr. King if he was from Old Castle which is directly across Holly Shelter. Mr. King
acknowledged that he was, and Ms. Engebretson clarified that it would be lease apartments and not
townhomes that would be situated directly across from Old Castle.
Ms. Engebretson stated that, at the least, the buffer was 50 �. and went up to 150 �. along the Holly
Shelter Road corridor. She stated that exis�ng trees in the buffer would be le� since they were very thick,
and it was the developers’ inten�on to augment the buffer so that it would not be an en�rely newly
planted buffer. She also acknowledged that although noise would be in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed development site, it was the developers’ decision to provide atainable housing in that area of
the county, close to services and jobs in places like the Old Castle plant where people could work. She
alluded to the amount of effort that went into the project, such as the market studies and the many hours
spent pu�ng together a design that worked in harmony with the surroundings.
Mr. Hipp asked for a more defini�ve descrip�on of the buffer along Holly Shelter Road and Ms.
Engebretson explained that there was a grassy shoulder of about 30 �. along Holly Shelter Road which
transi�oned into an incredibly thick wooded area which was 50 to 70 �. tall, consis�ng of wax myrtles and
red maples.
6
In response to ques�ons from Mr. Hipp regarding the construc�on physical structure such as a wall for sound
atenua�on, Ms. Engebretson responded that a wall was not discussed however, it was not outside the
realm of possibili�es.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant recognized Mr. King for rebutal, however Mr. King declined.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened for board discussion.
Mr. Hipp stated that he was recently involved in a project that dealt with sound and did a study about ways
to negate sound. He stated that vegeta�on was good but physical structures such as berms were beter at
reducing sound, and the developer should be encouraged to consider a physical wall to address the noise
issue along the Holly Shelter Road since it was a heavily trafficked road.
He suggested that the inclusion of a physical structure could be set as a condi�on for the applicant to
consider.
In response to a ques�on from Mr. Avery regarding the recommended height for such a structure, Mr. Hipp
stated that typically 6 �. or more was considered a reasonable height along highways with heavier traffic;
however, for streets like Holly Shelter Road, about 6 �. would be reasonable.
Mr. Mathews commented that he had driven along major highways and roads in places like Raleigh and
asked if certain types of material were considered more suitable than others. Mr. Hipp stated that the
material should be solid, possibly masonry, and although it would not be an insignificant expense to the
developer, it certainly would have a posi�ve impact on reducing the sound.
Mr. Avery asked if the sugges�on could be put in a mo�on, to be included as an addi�onal condi�on or for
general considera�on.
Mr. Hipp agreed that the decision should be put to a mo�on to provide some type of sound atenua�on
wall of 6 �. but the applicant should be asked if they would be willing to accept the condi�on.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant proposed that when the board was ready to include the condi�on, the board would
ask the applicant. If the moving party would like to include it as a condi�on, the applicant would be asked
if it was acceptable.
Mr. Hine stated that the exis�ng 150-foot vegeta�ve buffer was appealing and although a wall would be
helpful, since the loca�on was somewhat rural, he was not in favor of making it a condi�on. He added that
although he considered Mr. King’s comments extremely appropriate, the county had an affordable housing
issue regarding the supply of rental or purchase units. He stated that the proposal was on point with the
needs of the area and regarding the rental product, the marketplace would dictate whether the condi�on
should be included. He commended the efforts to dra� the condi�on for a recorded disclosure and
expressed that whether people took advantage of the informa�on which was available and do their due
diligence was their responsibility.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant expressed that he too echoed the concerns of his fellow board members regarding
issues that would be created by loca�ng a residen�al development next to an exis�ng industrial property
and agreed that there would be some level of protec�on provided by the inclusion of the recorded
statement within the records at the NHC Registry, where the public could access informa�on. He
referenced Mr. Hine’s comment regarding people’s responsibility to do their due diligence when making
decisions. He agreed that that Mr. King’s concerns and his experiences at other loca�ons should be
considered especially when naviga�ng the complexi�es of providing a variety of residen�al op�ons and
the possibility of encroaching on exis�ng developments which were not compa�ble with residen�al uses.
7
In reference to the student genera�on projec�ons in the staff reports, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant pointed out
that Laney High School was reportedly at 114% of its capacity, yet 36 addi�onal high school students would
be generated from the new development. He stated that despite being over capacity, more students would
be added to the school system across the county as new developments were built and without a plan to
address the issue. He commented on the reported student genera�on and stated that the informa�on
that only 115 students would poten�ally be generated from 521 residen�al units seemed low. He
concluded that he liked the proposal since it met the board’s desired criteria regarding density, variety and
type.
Mr. Mathews stated that according to the site plan, there was a significant area of frontage along Holly
Shelter Road which was not extended immediately behind the proposed buildings and asked if the
developer would consider providing a wall behind the 3 buildings in that loca�on.
The developer, Mr. William Block, stated that his company’s number one objec�ve was to offer atainable
rental housing and would not be involved in the construc�on of the townhome development. He stated
that for his company to do so there were several off-site improvements included in the project, such as
water and sewer; however, with addi�onal costs inputs, the rents would increase. He stated that their goal
was to operate within a market where the for-rent product was $2-$300 below other proper�es. He added
that it was possible because they had replicated it before and created a niche market for themselves. He
offered that his company had done enough already.
Regarding the ques�on of the wall behind the 3 buildings, Mr. Block disclosed that they had been in
discussions to include some kind of insulated glass and insula�on to reduce the noise. He stated that he
had visited the site and heard the noise which Mr. King spoke about; however, they were prepared to move
forward with the project since it would not be much of an impact. He referenced Mr. Hine’s comments
regarding market determinants and stated that leases were only for a year and tenants would leave if they
were dissa�sfied. He stated that he would be happy to answer general ques�ons but requested that the
board not add the wall as a condi�on.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant asked the applicant if based on the board discussion and the public comments if they
would like to withdraw their applica�on, request a con�nuance, or have the board proceed with the vote.
Mr. Block requested that the board proceed with the vote.
Mr. Hine made a MOTION to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to (CZD)RMF-L, Residen�al
Mul� -Family – Low Density finding it CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the project
provides for the intensity and range of housing op�ons recommended in the general residen�al place type.
The project could also serve as a transi�on between adjacent industrial zoning and adjacent low density
single family residen�al uses. He also found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project is reasonable and
in the public interest because the proposal could accommodate residen�al uses that can support the
nearby Employment Center and Commerce Zone place types with the following condi�ons:
Applicant proposed condi�ons:
1. The applicant number one the applicant provides bicycle and pedestrian connec�vity between the
mul�family phase development and the single-family phase development.
2. No structure on the parcel shall exceed 45 feet in height and a maximum of 3 stories.
3. A declara�on statement shall be recorded in the property 's chain of �tle of the New Hanover
County Registry sta�ng that the property is in proximity to exis�ng and future commercial and
8
industrial ac�vi�es that may result in noise vibra�on, heavy vehicle traffic on area roadways which
ac�vi�es may occur any�me during the day or night. Such declara�on shall be provided with all
future releases.
The MOTION was SECONDED by Mr. Avery.
The mo�on to recommend approval of the proposed (CZD)RMF-L rezoning passed 5-0.
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 56 atached single family
dwelling units.
Mr. Farrell began his presenta�on by providing a general overview of the proposal and staff analysis
included in the staff report. He described the general loca�on and characteris�cs of the site and stated
that it was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s when housing densi�es remained lower due to the need for
private wells and sep�c systems. He added that since then, public sewer and water u�lity services were
available in the area.
He provided the board with aerial photography of the site showing single-family residen�al development
to the north, east, and south, and Carolina Beach Road and a service road along the western boundary as
well as photographs of developments which typically exist in the R-15 district and examples of
development in the R-5 district.
He stated that the proposed conceptual plan included 50 atached single family dwelling units in the form
of quadraplexes, triplexes, and duplexes, the upgrade of an exis�ng unimproved easement to the county’s
current private road standards, and the construc�on of four stormwater infiltra�on basins.
Mr. Farrell stated that four areas on the property were delineated as wetland; however, the Army Corps
of Engineers confirmed that they were not considered waters of the United States and as such, were not
federally regulated, a determina�on which was made before recent changes to the federal defini�on of
wetlands.
Mr. Farrell stated that one approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and three subdivisions currently under
construc�on were located in the area. The proposed development would generate approximately 20 AM
and 26 PM peak hour trips. No TIA was required since the es�mated traffic generated from the proposal
was under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggered the ordinance requirement.
Mr. Farrell stated the project was located along Service Road, which ran parallel to a major arterial roadway
with available capacity in the southern por�on of the county, that access to Service Road was near a
signalized intersec�on onto Carolina Beach Road, increasing the poten�al for vehicle conflicts entering the
intersec�on, and that the local roads did not connect to other parts of the surrounding network and
therefore have low daily es�mated vehicle counts.
He stated that lack of available NCDOT data indicated the roads did not currently experience heavy enough
traffic volumes to warrant monitoring. While there was no specific data available to indicate current or
an�cipated impacts to roadway capacity, the increase in es�mated trips which would be generated by the
proposed development was minimal.
Mr. Farrell stated that based on the current general student genera�on rate, the poten�al increase in
school-age children resul�ng from the proposed development would be approximately 8 students above
9
what would be generated under current R-15 zoning. The genera�on rate was updated on an annual basis
using actual student numbers provided by the school system and provides 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 did not provide homes for large numbers of school-aged children.
Mr. Farrell stated that due to the size of the property and access onto Carolina Beach Road, the property
was less likely to be developed with lower density detached single family housing.
Mr. Farrell stated 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, access to
current owners along the exis�ng easement, and the poten�al to reduce development in flood prone
areas.
Mr. Farrell stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated this property as Community Mixed Use
which was intended to promote a mix of retail, office and residen�al development at moderate densi�es
of up to 15 units per acre and a building height range of 1 to 3 stories. A goal of the Comprehensive Plan was to promote environmentally responsible growth by promo�ng a mixture of uses, where appropriate,
in an effort to cluster development and minimize impacts on natural resources.
He stated that the proposed rezoning request was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
since the proposed density and housing type were in line with the recommenda�ons of the Community
Mixed Use place type and the proposed development would be an appropriate transi�on between
Carolina Beach Road and exis�ng detached single-family residen�al development.
Mr. Farrell stated that as a result of the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning
considera�ons, and technical review, staff recommended approval of the request with condi�ons related
to u�li�es, tree reten�on, access to the exis�ng easement and allowed modifica�ons to limit development
in the floodplain.
Mr. Farrell informed the board that staff had received several addi�onal comments regarding the
applica�on since the agenda packet had been finalized, which had been provided to them earlier that day.
In conclusion, he stated that if the rezoning were approved, development of the site would be subject to
addi�onal development review to ensure all land use regula�ons were met. He added that representa�ves
of the WMPO and NHC Engineering Department were present and available to respond to ques�ons.
At the conclusion of Mr. Farrell’s presenta�on, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant opened the floor for ques�ons from
the board.
Mr. Avery asked if the triangular area shown along the northern boundary was available for purchase to
be included in the development. Mr. Farrell responded that it was not a part of the development and
deferred to the applicant for clarifica�on.
Mr. Hipp requested the standard in the current development ordinance for dwelling units per acre in the
R-15, R-10 and R-7 zoning districts. In response to the ques�on, it was clarified that the maximum density
in R-15 was 2.5 units per acre for performance residen�al, 3.3 for R-10, and 6 for R-7, respec�vely.
With no further ques�ons for staff, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant recognized the Applicant.
Applicant Representa�ve, Clint Cogburn, a land-use atorney with the firm Ward and Smith, introduced
the applicant’s team, acknowledged ground covered by staff representa�ve, and expressed apprecia�on
for their par�cipa�on and collabora�on throughout the process. He provided a descrip�on of the subject
site’s loca�on, acreage and access and indicated that the two exis�ng single-family units on the property
would be demolished to facilitate the proposed development.
10
He noted that at the introduc�on of the proposal, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant men�oned that the proposal
contained a maximum of 56 units and clarified that following community engagement and outreach, the
development would be reduced to 50 townhomes, which would include a mix of duplex, triplex and
quadruplex units. He explained that the goal of the development was to provide a desirable improvement
to the diversity of housing op�ons in the county.
He informed the board that they had facilitated a community mee�ng which had significant par�cipa�on,
and the applicant had worked to address the issues to the community’s sa�sfac�on. In addi�on to the
reduc�on of the proposed number of units, a buffer was added around the property to mi�gate any
impacts to the adjoining proper�es which mirrored an exis�ng 20-foot buffer on the adjoining residen�al
parcels.
Ci�ng that the es�mated daily trips did not meet the threshold to generate a TIA, Mr. Cogburn informed
the board that they retained the services of Davenport Engineering to provide a traffic study. The study
indicated that the difference in the trip genera�on in the current R-15 zoning and the proposed R-5 zoning
was 10.
Regarding stormwater, Mr. Cogburn stated that a team was present to respond to ques�ons and
acknowledged that they were obligated to treat and not generate addi�onal stormwater than was already
being generated from the undeveloped site. He added that the fully engineered site would benefit the
surrounding neighborhood.
He referenced the future land use and 2016 Comprehensive Plan considera�ons for the Community Mixed
Use place type for the loca�on as indicated by staff and pointed out that there was a desire to have a
diversity of housing op�ons and housing types to provide the missing middle housing type that was
desperately needed across the state. He stated that the approval of the development would facilitate a
more efficient alterna�ve housing op�on, which was well oriented to address those missing middle
housing types. He added that in terms of consistency with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, provisions for a
buffer between Carolina Beach Road and the single-family homes adjacent to the site were consistent.
Mr. Cogburn addressed the issue of the proposed density and stated that according to the 2016
Comprehensive Plan, moderate density was recommended in this area as the Community Mixed Use place
type allowed for a density of 15 units per acre, the density in the proposed development would be 6.8
units an acre, below the allowable density in R-5 and closer to the R -7 threshold.
He stated that an increase in popula�on growth necessitated the need for addi�onal housing types and
since homes in that area of the county had access to water and sewer services from a provider it negated
the need to have larger lots.
Mr. Hipp asked for a descrip�on of the shared access and clarifica�on of how the access would be
maintained and who would maintain the road in that access easement. Mr. Cogburn explained that the
rights of the persons accessing Service Road would not be impacted and the private road would be
maintained as part of the development’s maintenance. He added that as per staff ’s presenta�on it would
meet the county’s requirements and standards for private road maintenance.
Mr. Avery redirected his earlier ques�on regarding the availability of the triangular por�on of land on the
northern boundary which was not included in the proposal. The applicant, Mr. Wes Reynolds responded
that the property was owned by Mr. Billy Freeman and if it was available for sale, they would incorporate
it into the proposal.
Mr. Avery followed up by asking if the recorded easement on record provided access to the property and
if that access was the only access to the parcel. Mr. Reynolds responded yes to both ques�ons. Mr. Avery
followed up by asking if the recorded easement on record provided access to the property. Mr. Cogburn
11
assured the board that as a condi�on of their approval they would not atempt to ex�nguish or impair the
rights to the easements.
Mr. Avery commented that the site plan showed several areas of infiltra�on for stormwater management
and asked if soil tests were done to determine if the proposed system was suitable at the loca�on. In
response, Jimmy Fentress of Stroud Engineering stated that they had visited the site, reviewed the soil
conserva�on maps, and were confident that the soils would infiltrate stormwater at the volumes shown.
He stated that had not conducted any soil tests; however, based on his 30 plus years of experience, it was
his opinion that it could be done.
Mr. Hine sought to clarify if there was a proposal for a buffer which was above the requirements. Mr.
Cogburn confirmed that there was and added that it was a Type A opaque, 20-foot performance buffer
surrounding the property and it was added following the community mee�ng. Ms. Roth responded to Mr.
Hine’s request for the standards governing the buffers and Ms. Roth explained that it was a requirement
in circumstances where single family atached residen�al abuts single family detached development, to
have an opaque buffer which could also be a 10-foot vegeta�ve buffer if there is a fence. In addi�on, there
was also a periphery setback required for clustered or performance subdivisions to prevent encroachment
of structures.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant opened the public hearing for public comments in opposi�on.
The first speaker, Audra Moore, 804 Hateras Court, expressed sadness that there was yet another rezoning
request. She said she wanted it to be clear that there was no opposi�on to growth and development of
the area, but she was opposed to rezonings that puts the environment, safety, displacement of the natural
wetlands and neighboring homes at risk. She stated that her rear boundary bordered the project and
according to the plan the condos would be constructed on top of the wetlands. She recalled that a�er the
passage of Hurricane Isaias which was rela�vely mild, the standing water remained for weeks, and the
wetlands were nicknamed “Cape Hateras.” She claimed that this event was brought to the aten�on of
the developer who stated that he could build over and do what he wanted. She recalled that when their
homes were built, they were required to take the wetlands into considera�on and not discharge water
irresponsibly, jeopardizing exis�ng structures and communi�es.
She stated that the biggest issue was Service Road, since it was just that, a service road. Without any
markings, barely room for 2 lanes and a dead end. The increase of 50 homes with 2 cars per unit did not
add up to 10 extra trips in the morning or night. Service Road connected to South Seabreeze Road at the
intersec�on of Carolina Beach Road and would create issues and backups poten�ally delaying emergency
personnel from quickly accessing the other neighborhoods. This was the same intersec�on where a Sheetz
gas sta�on would be built, causing addi�onal traffic paterns than the developer had accounted for.
She opined that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan map for Seabreeze was outdated and did not match the
planning and land use goals which the board had previously acknowledged and agreed upon regarding a
proposed rezoning on Seabreeze Road earlier in the year. Townhomes with an average of 3 to 4 persons
per household would add 150 or 200 individuals to the area and would put the current environment and
safety at risk. She implored the board to keep the current R-15 zoning so that when homes were built,
they did not have to worry about flooding and excessive traffic and could enjoy walking and biking.
She expressed that it was unfortunate that out-of-town developers develop land near the water without
taking into considera�on how the land func�oned when there was severe weather that they had not seen.
She stressed that people loved moving to Wilmington because it was not a big city. Sustainable growth did
not mean immediate growth and maximizing profits, but that keeping character sustained while growing
responsibility would keep people loving Wilmington.
12
Ms. Sandra Roff, 7763 Carolina Beach Road, stated that she was in agreement with the comments made
by Ms. Moore and turned over her �me over to someone else.
Ms. Kathy Tylee,1056 S. Seabreeze Road, said that she was also opposed to the rezoning and stated that
she had hoped that she would have had the opportunity to par�cipate in the review of the future land use
plan for the Seabreeze area. She stated her agreement with the comments made by Ms. Moore, however
she wanted to draw aten�on to the traffic difficul�es at the intersec�on at Service Road which would be
compounded by the addi�onal trips which would be generated from the proposal as well as the Sheetz
development.
Mr. Brad Moore, 804 Hateras Court, also agreed with the comments made by Ms. Moore and expressed
his concern that the exis�ng wetlands would be built on.
Ms. Sharon Van Essendel�, 814 Roscoe Freeman Avenue stated her agreement with the comments made
by Ms. Moore and ques�oned the validity of the traffic es�mates which were projected for the proposed
project. She also echoed the traffic difficul�es at the intersec�on at Service Road.
Mr. Donovan Taylor, 7600 Scout Camp Hatalia Road said that he was a resident for over 45 years, and
stated his opposi�on to the rezoning, ci�ng the poten�al for increased traffic, loss of wetlands and its
impact on the character and quality of the community. He too voiced his agreement with Ms. Moore’s
comments.
With no further comments in opposi�on, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant recognized the applicant for rebutal.
Mr. Cogburn began his rebutal by addressing issues regarding environment and safety, specifically related
to wetlands and standing water. He reiterated that the site would be fully engineered to provide
stormwater mi�ga�on and deten�on as required by state and county law. He added that through their
efforts to mi�gate the issues of standing water, the surrounding community stood to benefit.
Regarding traffic impact, Mr. Cogburn referred to the findings of the traffic informa�on in the staff report
and Davenport’s Memorandum were in agreement that peak hour trips would increase by only 10 trips
under the proposed R-5 rezoning.
Mr. Cogburn stated that state law, specifically 160-D, required the county to regularly maintain the 2016
Comprehensive Plan. According to the North Carolina School of Government’s interpreta�on,
maintenance meant upda�ng the Comprehensive Plan every 10 years. Therefore, the 2016
Comprehensive Plan was relevant and valid for the purposes of the applica�on.
He put forward the case that the proposal is consistent with the transi�onal type of housing per the
Community Mixed Use Place Type in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. He added that developers had put in
the necessary efforts, in consulta�on with staff and the community, to refine and develop the project
which met the policy objec�ves of the county by providing diversity of housing types.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant referred to the site plan in the staff report showing an overlay of proposed buildings
on a shaded area and sought clarifica�on if the said wetlands were unregulated. Mr. Cogburn responded
that all the wetlands located on the property were unregulated wetlands and would not be subject to
permi�ng and the delineated wetland areas would not be impacted by the development of structures nor
cri�cal infrastructure. Ac�ng Chair Tarrant requested addi�onal clarifica�on on whether the shaded area
where the buildings were overlaid was in fact wet. Mr. Mathews added that the clarifica�on was in regard
to the wetlands upon which buildings were proposed. The engineer, Mr. Fentress agreed, that the area in
ques�on were undesignated wetlands on which buildings would be constructed.
Mr. Hine asked if stormwater would be managed en�rely through infiltra�on or augmented by the
installa�on of stormwater structures. Mr. Fentress confirmed that the management of storm water at the
13
site would be done en�rely by infiltra�on. He added that the ground would be elevated to the effect that,
the areas will hold water un�l it percolates as per normal.
When asked by the Ac�ng Chair Tarrant if he had observed the area in a heavy rain event, Mr. Fentress
replied that he had not; however, the applicant, Mr. Reynolds confirmed that he and the wetlands
delinea�on consultant, David Scabada, have observed the site mul�ple �mes during a rain event.
With no further ques�ons for the applicant, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant recognized the opposi�on for rebutal.
Mr. Laird Flournoy, 909 Salt Spray and 7531 Carolina Beach Road, ques�oned how the diversity component
of the proposal would benefit anyone in the community and pointed out that the infrastructure in
Seabreeze had been neglected by the county for decades, there were dangerously deep ditches in the
community, and there were residents with no access to water and sewer.
Ms. Moore added that the developers had not had the opportunity to observe the environmental issues
during a major storm, par�cularly since the water table in wetlands is higher. She ques�oned the decision
to site residen�al buildings in a loca�on that had standing water. She contended that the proposed town
homes were not affordable housing given their proposed size and cost. She also expressed concern that
the increased number of residents in their community would change the character of the exis�ng R-15
zoning.
Ms. Tylee referred to the claim that the buffer was increased to 20 �. a�er the community mee�ng and
said that it was a requirement for a Performance Development not a courtesy.
Mr. Harrold Van Essendel�, Roscoe Freeman Drive, ques�oned the validity of the 4- 10 of trips per day
ci�ng that each of the 50 units would have at least one car. In the same vein he concurred with Ac�ng
Chair’s allusion earlier regarding the validity of the student genera�on numbers which indicated that only
8 more addi�onal students would be generated from the 50 units seemed low.
Ms. Roff recounted the difficul�es of living in a wetland area and contended that the lower density R-15
zoning designa�on was geared towards coping with those difficul�es hence her objec�on to rezoning it to
a higher density.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened for board discussion.
At the start of the board discussion, Mr. Hine addressed members of the community who were in
opposi�on and desired to keep the subject parcels under the current R-15 designa�on. He stated that
whether this proposal was approved or not, it was likely that the future land development would not be
under the current R-15 designa�on. He stated that the zoning designa�on was over 50 years old when
sewer and water services were unavailable in the community. He observed that there was litle land
available for development and many people who wanted to live in New Hanover County. He acknowledged
the issues of the availability of sewer and water and added that typically, developers brought in the
resources to improve the infrastructure and the drainage.
He commented that generally, when there was a request for a rezoning, there were compelling reasons
which made the project worthy of considera�on. However, given the proposed setbacks and the proposed
layout, he did not find the atributes of the proposal compelling to warrant the change.
Mr. Hipp stated that he shared Mr. Hine’s view regarding future development at higher densi�es. He
expressed that the R-5 may be too dense and suggested that the R -7 was more appropriate. He added
that the project could be done at the R-7 designa�on; however, he shared the residents’ concerns
regarding the wetlands and stormwater management. He explained that his preference for a lower density
designa�on was also influenced by the poten�al traffic impact on Service Road and the intersec�on at
Seabreeze Road and Carolina Beach Road. He ques�oned the methodology used to determine the trip
14
genera�on and the poten�al for it to be misleading. He agreed that there was a solu�on that would
provide increased residen�al densi�es but was not convinced that the proposed R-5 density solved more
problems than it created.
Mr. Mathews informed the board that he had visited the site on the day of the board mee�ng and could
not visibly iden�fy the wetland areas shown on plan on ground although it had rained the night before.
He observed specimen oaks, many of which would be protected according to the site plan. He stated that
the provision of extensive vegeta�ve buffer in addi�on to a 20-foot setback demonstrated the applicant’s
efforts to reduce the impact of the proposal on the exis�ng development. He agreed that the intersec�on
at Service Road was not ideal, however it being signalized provided some measure of control. Regarding
the density, Mr. Mathews echoed the applicant’s posi�on that the densi�es provided in the proposal were
closer to the minimum threshold for R-7 designa�on. He expressed the view that there were few loca�ons
where R-5 densi�es could be accommodated, which in his opinion, presented a compelling reason its
establishment.
In response to Mr. Avery’s ques�ons about Aqua wastewater and water u�lity services, Mr. Fentress
explained that the Aqua wastewater treatment plant had a million gallons a day capacity, was recently
upgraded, and that wells on their system were distributed at mul�ple loca�ons in the Cape Fear Region.
He informed the board that Aqua expressed the desire to locate a well at the project to improve their
service as well as other wastewater improvements. He further explained that the system was completely
reliant on ground water and the discharge from the water treatment plant was the Cape Fear River.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant expressed his concerns about the wetlands in the rear sec�on of the proposal where
the apartments were proposed, par�cularly considering the accounts given by residents who had resided
in the neighborhood for decades. He agreed with his fellow board members that property adjacent to a
major thoroughfare was likely to be developed at a density greater than R-15.
With no further comments or mo�ons from the board, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant invited the applicant to the
podium.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant asked the applicant 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. Cogburn stated that based on the comments from the board and the public there
were addi�onal considera�ons that could be made to refine the plan and address the concerns of the board
and the public. He the requested a con�nuance for the August board mee�ng.
Mr. Mathews ques�oned whether the applicant would have sufficient �me prepare to re-present at the
August board mee�ng. Mr. Cogburn assured the board that they would be prepared for the August board
mee�ng.
Mr. Hine stated that he shared Mr. Mathews’ views regarding the possibility for the wetlands to be
adequately drained and built on; however, he was more concerned about the proposed setbacks and
having a plan which was more in harmony with the exis�ng community.
Mr. Avery made MOTION to CONTINUE the item to the next scheduled board mee�ng in August but
paused to inquire whether the applicant would need to have a follow-up community mee�ng before
represen�ng at the August board mee�ng. Ms. Roth stated that there was no need to schedule another
community mee�ng since it was a con�nuance not a withdrawal, unless the board saw it fit to recommend
one.
Mr. Hipp asked if there were significant modifica�ons to the proposal what procedures were in place to
allow the residents to comment. Ms. Roth indicated that the new informa�on would be posted on the
15
county’s website as well as provided by mail. She encouraged those present to sign up with their e-mail
contact so that they would receive the mee�ng no�fica�ons expedi�ously.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant acknowledged MOTION to CONTINUE made earlier by Mr. Avery and resumed the
move for it to be seconded. The MOTION was SECONDED by Mr. Hine.
The mo�on to con�nue the (CZD) R-5 Residen�al rezoning to the next scheduled board mee�ng in August
2023, passed 5-0.
Rezoning Request (Z23-13) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu�ons, LLC, applicant, to rezone
four parcels totaling approximately 0.92 acres of land located at 4801, 4805, 4809, and 4813 Shelley
Drive from R-15, Residen�al to (CZD) R-5, Residen�al for a maximum of 7 single family residen�al lots.
Senior Planner Zach Dickerson stated that the subject proper�es were vacant and were located at the
intersec�on of Shelley Drive and the east bound side of N College Road. They were bordered to the north
and east by the Kings Grant (R-15) Residen�al development and Shelley Drive to the south. The proper�es
along Shelley Drive, directly opposite the subject parcels, were zoned Regional Business (B-2). Proper�es
within the wider vicinity, south and west of the development site were within the R-10 zoning districts.
Mr. Dickerson provided a review of the concept plan which consisted of the subdivision of the R-15
proper�es into 7 lots on which 7 single-family, detached residen�al units would be constructed. Lot
numbers 1-6 were just under 6,000 sq feet, while lot number 7 was approximately 6,400 square feet.
Approximately 18,000 sq. �. of open space would be provided along the rear boundaries of the proposed
lots where a stormwater management system would be accommodated. Access to the proposed lots
would be via four access points from Shelley Drive; lot number 1 would be accessed via a single driveway
across the lot while lot numbers 2-7 would be accessed by 3 shared driveways.
Mr. Dickerson reported that that there were two projects located within the vicinity of the proposal with
Traffic Impact Analyses under development, namely Estrella Landing and Azalea Landing. Addi�onally,
NCDOT planned to make improvements to N College Road over the next several years, which would result
in the placement of the highway in closer proximity to residen�al uses and the eleva�on of the road
adjacent to the subject site.
He stated that the proposed (CDZ) R-5 Residen�al zoning would generate approximately 2 more AM and
3 more PM peak hour trips than under than under the current R-15 zoning and was below the 100 peak
hour threshold, so no TIA was required as per the UDO.
Mr. Dickerson stated that according to the current student general genera�on rate, the project would
generate approximately 1 more student than the current R-15 zoning designa�on.
For reference, Mr. Dickerson showed photographs of examples of the exis�ng R-15 development within
the Kings Grant neighborhood and typical detached single-family units within an R-5 residen�al district.
Mr. Dickerson described the context of the proposal in greater detail and stated that while most of the
surrounding area was residen�al, the proper�es on the opposite side of Shelley Drive were zoned B-2 and
consisted of developments such as a fuel sta�on and convenience store. He noted that NCDOT’s planned
improvements to the N College Road corridor would be concentrated between New Centre Drive and
Gordon Road and that the concept plan showed land demarcated for the purposes of future Right of Way
acquisi�on. Addi�onally, while the planned improvements would impact the intersec�on of Shelley Drive
and N College Road and the way the parcels were accessed, NCDOT had stated that access to the proposed
lots could be factored in during the design process.
16
Mr. Dickerson stated that while the project served as a transi�on from higher intensity uses and traffic,
the NCDOT planned improvements project would impact these transi�ons and place the highway in closer
proximity to exis�ng residen�al uses.
Mr. Dickerson stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the area as General Residen�al, and the
proposal was generally consistent with the recommenda�ons for the General Residen�al place type. As a
result, staff recommended approval of the proposed (CZD) R-5 district with proposed condi�ons that no
accessory dwelling unit would be permited on the proposed lots, land would be demarcated for right-of-
way acquisi�on by NCDOT for the future highway project, all trees would remain in the open area except
those to be removed for stormwater management, and access easements over the shared driveway space
would be provided across lots 2 & 3, lots 4 & 5, and lots 6 & 7 respec�vely.
Mr. Dickerson reminded the board that should the rezoning be approved; all development of the site
would be subject to Technical Review Commitee and zoning compliance review in order to ensure full
compliance with all ordinance requirements. He concluded the presenta�on and informed the board that
Mr. Galen Jamison from NHC Engineering and Mr. Jamar Johnson from the WMPO were present and
available to respond to ques�ons and the applicant had prepared a presenta�on.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant recognized the applicant.
Ms. Cindee Wolfe, applicant representa�ve for Rolina Homes, stated that the subject parcels, which were
part of the original Kings Grant subdivision, had remained undeveloped since. She described the general
context of the proposal, its loca�on in proximity to the establishments in the B-2 Regional Business district,
and the street view of those exis�ng developments.
She stated that although the four lots could easily be subdivided into eight, it was necessary to take into
considera�on the future improvement of N College Road and its impact on the proposal, since part of
Shelley Drive would no longer have access directly to N College Road. Ms. Wolfe explained that the
premise for the demarca�on of the 20- foot buffer along the highway frontage along lot no. 1 was in
an�cipa�on that land would be required for ROW acquisi�on. Similarly, the 18,000 sq. �. of land along the
rear boundary of the proposed lots would be reserved for open space and stormwater management.
She stated that although recent changes had facilitated the development of accessory dwelling units to
allow eight units on the four exis�ng units, the applicant’s preference was for single family detached units
to the extent that there would be a condi�on that no accessory dwellings would be permited on the lots.
Ms. Wolfe commented on the proposed staff condi�on at the stage of the concept plan specifying the
loca�on of the proposed shared driveways and indicated that it should possibly be revised to four
driveways to be placed in the most suitable loca�on to accommodate specific site condi�ons.
Ms. Wolfe stated that the proposed R-5 density was an appropriate transi�on between the lower density
R-15 Residen�al development in the established Kings Grant neighborhood, the Regional Business district,
and the busy N College Road corridor. Addi�onally, the proposal was consistent with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan designa�on of General Residen�al, which promoted sustainable growth through
sensible infill and loca�on efficiency.
Mr. Hipp commented on the staff condi�on for the specificity of the loca�on of the driveways and agreed
that it might be premature since condi�ons may necessitate alterna�ve loca�ons for the single or
combined curb cuts to access the 7 lots. He suggested that a shared driveway should be proposed between
lot numbers 1 and 2 instead of a single driveway to lot number one so that the access would be farther
away from the intersec�on.
17
In response to Mr. Hipp’s ques�on regarding stormwater management on the open space area, Ms. Wolf
stated that no stormwater designs were prepared for the area and although it was not the preference to
develop a pond in that loca�on, the necessary soil tests would be required to make a decision.
Ms. Wolfe, in response to Mr. Hine’s ques�on regarding the depth of the open space, stated that it was
approximately 40 �.
With no one in opposi�on, Ac�ng Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened for board discussion.
Mr. Hine commented that the project was a good proposal with adequate buffers, less expensive housing
product, and an acceptable transi�on between the B-2 development and the established R-15 residen�al
development. Mr. Mathews, Mr. Avery and Ac�ng Chair Tarrant concurred with Mr. Hine.
With no further board discussion Ac�ng Chair Tarrant invited a Mo�on.
Mr. Hine made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning finding it CONSISTENT
with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides types, uses and
recommended density for the General Residen�al place type. He also found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
of the rezoning request to be reasonable and in the public interest and because the project will provide
housing in close proximity to residen�al uses, transi�oning from the high traffic corridors into a low-
density neighborhood, with the following condi�ons:
1. No accessory dwelling units would be permited on the lots.
2. Area for possible right away acquisi�on by NCDOT for future highway project would be set aside
in common area.
3. All trees would remain an open area except those to be removed for stormwater.
4. There will be driveways across lots 2&3, 4&5, 6&7 with access easements over the shared
driveway space.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant stated that based on the board discussion there was consensus that the specificity of
the loca�on of the shared driveways should be removed from condi�on number 4.
Mr. Hine amended his MOTION to revise condi�on number 4 as follows:
4. There would be no more than 4 driveway curb cuts for all 7 lots with access easements over the
shared driveway space.
The MOTION was SECONDED by Mr. Hipp.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant asked the applicant if they would like to withdraw their pe��on, request a
con�nuance, or have the board proceed with the vote. Ms. Wolfe requested to proceed with the vote.
Mo�on to recommend approval of the proposed (CZD) R-5 Residen�al rezoning passed 5-0.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant asked if there were any other maters for the board. Ms. Roth reminded the board of
the joint work session of the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners scheduled for Tuesday,
August 29, 2023, which would include discussions on the Comprehensive Plan update and a presenta�on
by the WMPO which may help clarify some of the traffic data which were presented.
Ac�ng Chair Tarrant entertained a Mo�on for an Adjournment.
The MOTION to Adjourn was Made by Mr. Avery and SECONDED by Mr. Hine.
18
Mo�on to Adjourn was passed 5-0.
Mee�ng was adjourned at 8.42 PM.