Loading...
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.