Loading...
11-02-2023 PB Meeting Minutes1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board November 2, 2023 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on November, 2023, at 6:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Jeff Petroff, Chair   Colin Tarrant, Vice Chair Pete Avery Kevin Hine Hansen Matthews Cameron Moore Members Absent Clark Hipp Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use  Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor  Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor   Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Galen Jamison, Chief Project Engineer Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience. After the welcome remarks, Planning and Land Use Operations Supervisor Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance, and Chair Petroff provided an overview of the meeting procedures and read the Code of Ethics. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the August 3, 2023, Planning Board agenda review meeting were considered by the board members. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION to APPROVE the August 3, 2023, meeting minutes, SECONDED by Board Member Cameron Moore. The motion passed 6-0. New Business Rezoning Request (Z23-21) – Request by Ronald Carlock with CIP Construction Company, applicant, to rezone approximately 33.54 acres zoned R-15, Residential, B-2, Highway Commercial, and I-1, Light Industrial located at 8138 Market Street to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family Moderate High Density for a maximum of 348 single-family detached dwelling units. Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell gave a brief overview of the rezoning request. He stated that the site was located at 8138 Market Street was zoned R-15 and I-1 in the 1970s and that the purpose of the R-15 district was to ensure low density housing that was built on private water and septic systems; however public utilizes had since became available in the area. He stated that 2 | P a g e the I-1 portion of the subject parcel was approximately 0.15 acres and was intended to provide access between the B-2 and R-15 portions of the site. He added that the B-2 portion was rezoned in 1985 to accommodate several commercial uses but the lots were currently vacant. Mr. Farrell then displayed an aerial photograph of the site to show that it was bordered by commercial uses along the Market Street corridor and single family detached housing around the interior. He then provided example photographs of homes and businesses typically found in R-15 and B-2 districts as well as an example of what could be found in a townhome or single family attached development. A concept plan for the site, provided by the applicant, was then shown. Mr. Farrell explained that the site would contain a maximum of 348 dwelling units divided amongst 30 rows of attached dwelling units that ranged from five to 25 units per row. He stated that the units were arranged to be located away from existing single-family development and that homes along the northern boundary would be oriented to face away from existing homes. He added that County Engineering recommended a condition to provide overland drainage to the existing pond and proposed stormwater pond due to a history of drainage issues in the area. The site would also include an amenity area that would act as a transition from the commercial uses along Market Street to the proposed residential area. He explained that each row of units would consist of three-story units with garages bookended by two-story units without a garage. Mr. Farrell explained that there would be right-in, right-out access along Market Street and full access along Brays Drive. He explained that Brays Drive was a publicly dedicated road that had never been accepted by the NCDOT and had historically been maintained by the Porters Point Homeowners Association. Because of this, the applicant proposed gated emergency only access, but staff recommended full access to Brays Drive to provide more interconnectivity. He added that staff recommended pedestrian infrastructure to be expanded to the Brays Drive connection because of the projected bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects that were intended to be built along Porters Neck Road. He stated that there were several other developments, four approved traffic impact analyses, and one State Transportation Improvement Project in a one-mile radius of the proposed site. He added that the new Military Cutoff Extension was expected to further reduce traffic issues in the area. He explained that there would be an estimated 131 AM and 170 PM peak hour trips, which would be 25 more AM trips and 49 less PM trips than current zoning and was over the 100 peak hour trip threshold to require a TIA. Mr. Farrell explained that the TIA recommended installation of a traffic light at Cypress Pond Way, construction of a right-turn lane from Market Street into the site, and a stop sign for individuals leaving onto Market Street with a 150-foot internal protected stem. He added that while the TIA approval was for two access points, it also evaluated the possibility of gated emergency only access to Brays Drive, and that the only difference was a longer internal protected stem on Market Street. He stated that if the Board approved of gated emergency only access onto Brays Drive, a new TIA approval letter would be required before completion of the project. He stated that there would be an estimated 60 more public school students generated in comparison to current zoning. He then explained the compatibility of the project with the surrounding area. He 3 | P a g e stated that the project would be in one of the county’s more densely developed corridors and within one of the three growth nodes. He added that additional commercial and residential growth was expected because of the access to public utilities. The proposed site plan was designed to have dwelling units as far from existing units as possible, and the units closest to existing homes would be oriented to limit impacts. He explained that that the proposal was generally consistent with the General Residential and Urban Mixed Use place type with a density of 10.94 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Farrell reiterated that the applicant proposed that access to and from Brays Drive be gated and restricted to emergency vehicles only while staff recommended full access. He stated that staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the following applicant and staff proposed conditions: 1. Buffers against residential properties are widened beyond New Hanover County minimum buffer width requirements as shown on the conditional zoning plan, The buffers and open space areas are variable widths and will contain a mixture of preserved existing trees and/or augmented vegetation. 2. Areas of buffer and open space outside of essential site improvements and easements will preserve existing trees that are not dead, dying, or otherwise hazardous. 3. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure shall be installed up to the property line where internal roads connect to adjacent parcels. 4. An overland relief path within a public drainage easement will be provided from the existing pond to the proposed pond outfall. 5. Buildings will be a maximum of three stories. He then concluded his presentation and stated that development of the site would be subject to additional development review, then introduced Jamar Johnson and Scott James of the WMPO and Galen Jamison of County Engineering, who were available to answer any questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding the greenway and pedestrian infrastructure, Planning & Land Use Director Rebekah Roth replied that a multi-use path along Porters Neck Road was included both in the County-City Greenway Plan, as depicted on the presentation map, but was also on the project list developed for the 2022 quarter-cent sales tax ballot initiative. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant for their presentation. Allison Engebretson, Paramounte Engineering, gave a brief overview of the application. She stated that the site was near several shopping centers along Market Street and would be bordered by several residential developments on the sides and rear of the property. She explained that the split of the site being in two different place types was carefully considered in the planning process. She then explained the 348-unit concept plan. She stated that there were several existing conditions that dictated how the site could be designed, such as an existing pond and ditch, and a marsh area. She explained that the buildings would be clustered in a way to create as much open space and 4 | P a g e separation from existing homes as possible, with 19% more open space provided over the 20% requirement. She stated that there would be more traditional buffering for the section along Market Street. Ms. Engebretson explained the recommended traffic improvements from the TIA. She stated that there would be a traffic signal installed on Market Street to allow signalized left-turns/U-Turns onto Cypress Pond Way. She added that two existing right-turn lanes on Market Street would be connected to create a nearly half mile long right-turn lane that would end at the Porters Neck Road intersection. She then explained the conditions for approval of the rezoning request. She stated that based on discussions with the neighboring developments they found it was best to have gated emergency only access onto Brays drive to prevent additional traffic from going through the Porter’s Pointe neighborhood and from adding additional vehicles into an already challenging turn onto Porters Neck Road. She stated that she had spoken to neighbors and that they did not want pedestrian access connected to their communities so the applicant did not propose it, but if they were aggregable to the access being built, the applicant would agree to the condition. She added that she would agree to the other staff recommended conditions of an overland relief path and to limit all buildings to three stories. In response to questions from the Board regarding the existing pond, Ms. Engebretson replied that she was not sure if it was man-made or natural, but it was part of a Conservation Overlay District. Chair Petroff then opened the floor for opposition. Al Kennedy, 8219 Brays Drive, stated that the HOA supported the approval of the rezoning request but with the condition that Brays Drive would be gated emergency only access. He expressed his concerns about allowing full access to Brays Drive because it was a private road maintained by the HOA and the increased traffic would create an increased burden on the community, the increased traffic would create safety concerns for children and pets, and that there could be a negative impact on property values. He added that he would be more inclined to support full access to Brays Drive if it also connected to the other neighborhoods that bordered the proposed site. Lily Salsbury, 377 Shackleford Drive, expressed her concerns about having a multi-family development in between three single-family home neighborhoods, concerns about noise pollution, stormwater drainage issues, and impacts on animal habitat. She asked for the Board not to approve of full access onto Brays Drive and for the number of units to be decreased. Steve Hamburger, 8501 Emerald Dunes Road, expressed his concern about the density of dwelling units, the potential impact on the school system, and the impact on traffic on Market Street. Mike Rose, 339 Hughes Circle, expressed his concerns about traffic issues, the proposed density of the development, and the potential impact on the school system. With no further opposition comments, Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for rebuttal. Don Bennett, of Davenport Engineering, explained that the TIA anticipated an additional four seconds of delay exiting Brays Drive onto Porters Neck Road if full access was allowed and no anticipated change if emergency only access was permitted. 5 | P a g e Ms. Engebretson stated that the proposed density was not much higher than if the development was built with a special use permit in the existing B-2 and R-15 areas. She explained that there would be pocket parks built into the design and that much of the exterior space would be usable. Rob Balland, of Paramounte Engineering, stated that he believed most of the drainage issues would be solved with the outfall that would be constructed. With no further rebuttal, Chair Petroff reopened the floor to opposition. Don Curtis, 372 Shackleford Drive, expressed his concerns about the impact additional traffic would have on exiting Brays Drive onto Porters Neck Road if the townhomes were allowed full access onto Brays Drive. Renee Artischeck, 534 Windstar Lane, expressed her concerns about potential impacts on the school system, traffic issues, and if the sewer system would be able to support so many additional units. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to board discussion. In response to questions from the Board regarding the legality of requiring full access onto Brays Drive, Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards replied that Brays Drive was a public road that had not yet been adopted by the NCDOT and as part of the maintenance agreement the residents were responsible for maintaining it until it was adopted. She explained that because it was a public road it could be connected to other roads with no legal ramifications. In response to questions from the Board regarding the proposed traffic improvements, John Davenport, Davenport Engineering, replied that the extended right-turn lane should make it easier to turn onto Market Street and the signalized left-turn/U-Turn lane would provide breaks in traffic to ease traffic congestions. He stated that these improvements exceeded what the TIA required. In response to questions from the Board regarding what scenarios were approved by the TIA, Mr. Davenport replied that both the possibility of gated emergency only access and full access onto Brays Drive were approved. In response to questions from the Board regarding if there was a threshold for density necessary to require multiple access points, Mr. Davenport replied it relied more on the number of trips and not the proposed density. In response to questions from the Board regarding staff’s reasoning for requiring full access to Brays Drive, Ms. Roth replied that it was based on UDO connectivity requirements that were intended to decrease traffic on major roadways and to increase connectivity to Porters Neck Elementary. Mr. Davenport stated that the gated emergency access can be opened if needed so residents would not be trapped if something happened to the primary access. He added that he did not anticipate adding any additional traffic to the intersection of Market Street and Porters Neck. In response to questions from the Board regarding what factors determine asking for full access to roads, Ms. Roth replied the number of access points and connectivity. 6 | P a g e In response to questions from the Board regarding on-site parking, Ms. Engebretson replied that each unit on the interior of a block of homes would have a garage and the end units would have surface parking in front of the unit, with visitor and guest parking along the streets. In response to questions from the Board regarding trash collection, Ms. Engebretson replied that there would be a valet trash service that would take trash to a communal compactor to be picked up by waste management. In response to questions from the Board regarding stormwater drainage requirements, Mr. Balland replied that it would be built to the New Hanover County Stormwater Ordinance guidelines and the outfall would address drainage issues by the existing pond. In response to questions from the Board regarding usable greenspace, Ms. Engebretson replied that there was ample grassy area that could be used for picnics or other activities. In response to questions from the Board regarding a possible affordable housing component, Dennis Burton, CIP Construction Company, replied that he was not sure if they would be for sell or for rent and could not commit to an affordable housing aspect. Chair Petroff stated that Mr. Davenport eased some of his concerns about having one primary access point and that he was in support of requiring pedestrian connections to Brays Drive. Vice Chair Tarrant stated that he had concerns about how dense the proposal was for the Porters Neck area, that increasing walkability in the area was necessary, and that it could be difficult getting to the proposed left-turn lane on Market Street. He added that the local schools were already above capacity and that there was some kind of disconnect in the process of generating the number of estimated public school students and reality. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that the proposed parallel parking on site could hamper the roads on the site from being approved by the NCDOT and that if Brays Drive were to be adopted by the NCDOT it could create through traffic in the proposed development and hold the residents liable for maintenance. He added that he supported the connection onto Brays Drive to be emergency only and to build pedestrian access. Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that he was in support of gated emergency only access to Brays Drive and that he liked how much open space there would be but that he wanted to see a more defined concept of it being usable. He added that he would like to see an affordable housing aspect for a project of this size. Board Member Kevin Hine thanked the opposition speakers for coming out. He stated that there was huge demand for homes in the area and that he supported emergency only access to Brays Drive but he was in favor of building pedestrian access. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Engebretson affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of rezoning request Z23-21 as it was consistent with the purposes and intent 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densities that are appropriate for properties located in both the Urban Mixed Use and General Residential place types, and that recommending approval was 7 | P a g e reasonable and in the public interest as the application would provide housing and an appropriate transition from the commercial node to the lower density residential areas in the east, with the following conditions : 1. Access to Brays Drive shall be gated and restricted to emergency vehicles only. 2. Buffers against residential properties are widened beyond New Hanover County minimum buffer width requirements as shown on the conditional zoning plan, The buffers and open space areas are variable widths and will contain a mixture of preserved existing trees and/or augmented vegetation. 3. Areas of buffer and open space outside of essential site improvements and easements will preserve existing trees that are not dead, dying, or otherwise hazardous. 4. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure shall be installed up to the property line where internal roads connect to adjacent parcels. 5. An overland relief path within a public drainage easement will be provided from the existing pond to the proposed pond outfall. 6. Buildings will be a maximum of three stories. SECONDED by Vice Chair Colin Tarrant. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z23-21) passed 4-2, with Board Members Pete Avery and Hansen Matthews dissenting. Mr. Avery stated that he supported the project but did not support the condition regarding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure included in the motion. Mr. Matthews stated that he opposed the proposal because it did not include any affordable or workforce housing components. Ms. Roth clarified that condition four did not require the applicant to construct pedestrian infrastructure along Brays Drive, only up to the property line. Rezoning Request (Z23-19) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, to rezone approximately 7.95 acres zoned (CZD) R-10, Residential and R-20, Residential located at 1728 Rockhill Road to (CZD) R-10, Residential for a maximum of 24 dwelling units. Mr. Farrell gave a brief overview of the rezoning request. He stated that the site was located at 1728 Rockhill Road and was zoned R-20 in the 1970s to allow for homes to be built on private wells and septic systems at low densities but public sewer and water utilities have become available in the area. He explained that in March 2021 a portion of the site was rezoned to (CZD) R-10 for Phase 1 of the Legacy Landing subdivision and that the purpose of the application was to rezone the remaining R-20 section and integrate it into the rest of Legacy Landing. 8 | P a g e He explained that the site was bordered on all sides by single-family residential homes. He then provided example photographs of a home built during Legacy Landing Phase 1, a similar existing home from the surrounding R-20 district, and an example of an attached single family dwelling. Mr. Farrell then explained the applicant’s concept plan. He stated that Phase 1 of Legacy Landing was intended to be a 10-lot subdivision on Dorsey Lane, with areas for stormwater, and a road stub to the north for future development. The proposed Phase 2 would add 2.7 acres to Legacy Landing, consisting of seven attached dwellings that would total 14 units, extend Dorsey Lane north to connect to Rockhill Road, provide an additional area for stormwater management, and include open space along Rockhill Road and between the single family and attached housing units. He stated that there were four other developments, and an approved TIA in a one-mile radius of the proposed site. He stated the site had full access onto Reminisce Road, that the extension of Dorsey Lane would create full access to Rockhill Road, and that Castle Hayne could be accessed from Rockhill Road or Oakley Road. He explained that there would be an estimated 14 AM and 17 PM peak hour trips generated and that the expected trip generation was under the 100 peak hour requirement for a TIA. He added that neither the NCDOT nor WMPO had traffic data related to Rockhill Road or Reminisce Road as there was not heavy enough traffic to warrant monitoring. He stated the estimated traffic generation would be minimal and would be subject to the NCDOT driveway permitting process. He added that there would be an estimated five additional public- school students generated. Mr. Farrell described the compatibility of the proposed project with the existing community. He stated that the property is centrally located along Rockhill Road, approximately midway between Castle Hayne Road and higher density residential west of the I-140 corridor, the Wrightsboro community to the North, and the GE employment center to the south. He added that comparably zoned neighborhoods had been in existence since the initial zoning for the area and that future additional residential growth was anticipated in this area with the extension of public utilities. He stated that the proposed project was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the General Residential place type as the density of 3.1 dwelling units per acre and the proposed housing types were in line with the recommendations for the place type, and that approval would be in the public interest as it would act as an appropriate transition from the road to existing residential development. Mr. Farrell concluded his presentation and stated that development of the site would be subject to additional development review, and that Mr. Johnson and Mr. James of the WMPO and Mr. Jamison of County Engineering were available to answer any questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding a possible tree plan for the site, Mr. Farrell replied that would be a question for the applicant. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant for their presentation. Cindee Wolf, Design Solutions, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, gave a brief overview of the application. She stated that Habitat for Humanities’ vision was a world where everyone has a decent place to live and a mission to bring people together to build homes and communities. She explained that the purpose of the application was to expand Legacy Landing and to build seven attached single-family homes. She added that completing the project and connecting Reminisce Road with Rockhill Road would increase interconnectivity in the area by creating a loop. 9 | P a g e She explained that there was a tree survey for the site and that as many trees would be maintained as possible. She stated that there was a two- or three-bedroom floorplan available, and the actual construction would be determined when the families who the homes are being built for were selected. She stated that the homes constructed during Phase 1 were generally well received by neighbors as expressed at the community meeting. In response to questions from the Board regarding where the stormwater would drain, Ms. Wolf replied that it would drain south to the other stormwater pond. In response to questions from the Board regarding the sewer system, Ms. Wolf replied that it would be gravity fed and connected to the existing sewer system. In response to questions from the Board regarding issues with utility services in the area, Ms. Roth replied that she was not aware of any issues with utility services but was familiar with issues for homes not connected to the public water system. In response to questions from the Board regarding who owned the property, Ms. Wolf replied that Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity owned the entire parcel and that none of the houses had been sold to a new owner yet. In response to questions from the Board regarding the formation of an HOA, Ms. Wolf replied that there would be an HOA who would be responsible for maintaining the private road. Board Member Hansen Matthews expressed his support for the affordable housing aspect and the design of the site. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. Vice Chair Colin Tarrant made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of rezoning request Z23-19 as it was generally consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density and housing type was within the recommendations for the General Residential place type and approval was reasonable and in the public interest as it provided additional housing diversity to the area. SECONDED by Board Member Cameron Moore. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request Z23-19 passed 6-0. Rezoning Request (Z23-20) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, to rezone approximately 2.20 acres zoned (CZD) O&I, Office & Institutional located at 2117 Castle Hayne Road to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business for a maximum 18,000 square foot flex commercial business space with limited uses. Associate Planner Amy Doss gave a brief overview of the rezoning request. She explained that the site was located at 2117 Castle Hayne Road and had been zoned (CZD) O&I in 2016 to develop commercial office space but the area had experienced a transition to higher density residential and commercial districts. She stated that the site was currently undeveloped. She explained that the B- 2 district was meant to provide the appropriate location for and be designed for auto oriented uses and to meet the needs of the motor public or rely on pass by traffic. A concept plan for the site, provided by the applicant, was then shown. She explained that the Hanover Lakes subdivision bordered the site on the west and south, an R-20 single family 10 | P a g e residence to the north, and Castle Hayne Road to the east. She stated that the site would consist of an existing vegetative buffer in the south-west corner, three 6,000 square foot buildings, two fenced outdoor storage spaces, and a stormwater pond in the north-west corner. She added that the site would have full access onto Castle Hayne Road, but the Castle Hayne Road widening project was being designed and could limit the site to right-in/right-out access in the future. Ms. Doss explained that there were multiple subdivisions under construction, three approved TIAs, and two STIPs in a one-mile radius of the site. She explained that the rezoning request was not anticipated to create any additional peak hour trips in comparison to current zoning and the site would be conditioned to allow a maximum of 99 trips per day. She then explained the compatibility of the site with the surrounding area. She explained that due to the size and location of the site it was less likely to be developed residentially. She added that the area was trending towards more commercial development but there were additional conditions in place to mitigate the impact on existing residents. She stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as Community Mixed Use place type which included commercial uses and encouraged infill development and the site could act as an appropriate transition from Castle Hayne Road to nearby residential development. Ms. Doss explained that the four existing conditions would remain, as well as several new proposed conditions. She stated that if approved staff recommended the following conditions: 1. No more than a total of 100 peak hour trips can be generated from the use of combinations of uses located within the zoning district. Change of use proposals must be reviewed and approved by the County in order to verify compliance with the zoning district standards. 2. The development shall comply with all provisions of an approved NCDOT driveway permit prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Freestanding signage shall be limited to monument signs, in that the sign must have a support structure that is a solid-appearing base constructed of a permanent material, such as a concrete block or brick. Freestanding signs supported by poles and any flashing, digital signs shall be prohibited. 4. Existing vegetation must remain within the bufferyards and be supplemented as necessary to provide the 100% visual opacity requirement. 5. Building height be restricted to 25 feet. 6. Outdoor storage areas to be enclosed with a minimum 8-foot opaque fence. 7. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not 11 | P a g e directed at adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet. 8. A bicycle and pedestrian easement will be located along Castle Hayne Road as shown on the concept plan. 9. Permitted Uses shall be limited to: • Indoor Recreation Establishment (Shooting Ranges prohibited) • Animal Grooming/ Veterinary (Kennel or Daycare prohibited) • Business Service Center • Contractor Office • Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities • Personal Services, General (Tattoo Parlors prohibited) • Instructional Services & Studios • Retail Sales, General She then concluded her presentation and stated that development of the site would be subject to additional development review, then introduced Mr. Johnson of the WMPO and Mr. Jamison of County Engineering, who were available to answer any questions. Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation. Ms. Wolf gave a brief overview of the application. She explained that the 2016 O&I rezoning was to build one 12,970 square foot building with a large parking area and that there were no conditions that limited the uses for the site. She stated that the site would act as the primary location for the business Backyard Specialists and would consist of a show room, office space, and storage area. There would also be two other buildings that could be utilized for other uses. She stated that the rear building would be used by Backyard Specialists, the middle building could be used by commercial businesses that needed a storefront as well as a utility use area, and the building closest to Castle Hayne Road could house any other common storefront uses. She explained that the site plan had changed based on feedback provided at community meetings, with changes that included moving the Backyard Specialists office from the front building to the rear building, dividing the other two buildings into smaller units that could be used for a variety of uses, and adding sidewalk and a pedestrian entrance along Carolina Beach Road. She explained that no existing vegetation would be disturbed, and an eight-foot-high screening fence would be installed along the southern boundary from the front edge of the rear building to the street frontage. In response to questions from the Board regarding the length of the sidewalk, Ms. Wolf replied that the sidewalk would be in front of all the buildings and run towards Hanover Lakes to allow residents to walk to businesses they were interested in, and a pedestrian easement would run along the entire frontage. She added that there was currently nothing to the north of the property to walk to. Ms. Roth clarified that the staff condition only required a pedestrian easement to run along the frontage and not a sidewalk. Chair Petroff then opened the floor for opposition. 12 | P a g e Wesley Buffalo, 2304 Lakeside Circle, expressed his concerns about drainage issues and the need for the businesses in the area. Mary Kimel, 2256 Lakeside Circle, expressed her concerns about drainage issues, noise issues, and traffic issues. She also proposed several additional conditions she would like to see implemented, including: 1. The US Army Corps of Engineers shall confirm a non-jurisdictional or 404 wetlands delineation prior to rezoning. 2. Retention pond outfall to be identified not to adversely affect Hanover Lakes. 3. Additional trees be planted for visual and noise abatement. 4. Minimum exterior lighting to reduce light pollution. 5. Hours of operation are limited from 7 AM to 8 PM. 6. A traffic study be conducted for this site and the planned Bill Clark Home development to the north. Tracy Hollock, 2304 Lakeside Circle, expressed her concerns about drainage issues, the possible effects on Hanover Lakes residents who live on the shared property line, possible noise pollution, and traffic issues. Robert Porzio, 305 Hanover Lakes Drive, expressed his concerns about traffic issues and the possible affects on residents of Hanover Lakes who live on the shared property line. With no further opposition comments, Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for rebuttal. Ms. Wolf stated that county stormwater management standards should address any drainage issues. She explained that the wetland classification was issued before Hanover Lakes was built and that building developments near wetlands often changes the hydrology of the area. She added that they were in the process of obtaining non-jurisdictional wetland confirmation from the Corp of Engineers. She stated that the expected traffic impacts would be less than the current O&I zoning. With no further rebuttal, Chair Petroff reopened the floor to opposition. Debbie Bowden, 2124 Patoka Lake Road, expressed her concerns about traffic issues. Ms. Roth explained that because the applicant added restaurants to the condition that limited uses and changed their concept plan, they would have to be added as conditions to the application. The changes included the eight-foot fence from the storage area to the frontage, reducing the amount of storage areas to one, the dumpster would be located in the northern parking area, and sidewalk would be built along the front building. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to board discussion. 13 | P a g e In response to questions from the Board regarding whether Hanover Lakes was a by right development, Ms. Doss replied that it was rezoned R-15 in 2006 and that the subject parcel was part of the rezoning. She added that the Corp of Engineers had no comment about the wetlands. In response to questions from the Board regarding what could be typically found in a community mixed use place type, Ms. Doss replied that it was typically used to support neighborhood services and pass-by traffic and residential uses. In response to questions from the Board regarding the condition limiting the site to 99 peak hour trips, Ms. Roth replied that the traffic would be counted as more uses moved in and that would dictate what could be located there, but staff had not analyzed the impact of the restaurant use. In response to questions from the Board regarding what would be needed for a driveway permit, Ms. Wolf replied that the types of uses would dictate the needed improvements, but she anticipated needing a right turn lane. She explained that Backyard Specialists would move in first and then the traffic impact would be tallied as more uses move in. In response to questions from the Board regarding stormwater outfall, Ms. Wolf replied that it would be directed to the passive open space behind the site. In response to questions from the Board regarding existing stormwater patterns in the area, Galen Jamison replied that directing the stormwater towards the ditch on Castle Hayne Road was a better option. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that he believed the sidewalk should be extended all the way across the property line on Castle Hayne Road. In response to questions from the Board regarding the conditions requested by Ms. Kimel, Ms. Wolf replied that lighting was already being limited to wall lights and 12-foot poles in the parking area. She added that there would only be one contractor on site, and it had normal business hours that would not create noise at 7 AM. She added that she was aggregable to limiting business hours to 7 AM-8 PM if it was a sticking point. Board Member Kevin Hine stated that there was a wide variety of uses along Castle Hayne Road that were not as attractive as this proposal and that applicant made many concessions to work with Hanover Lakes residents. He added that the proposed uses should not create any problems for appearances of the area. Vice Chair Tarrant stated that there were already many instances of businesses abutting residential areas and that would probably become more prevalent as the area developed. He added that the site was already zoned for commercial use, so it is not much different than what was already allowed. He acknowledged that this development was not ideal for the Hanover Lakes residents, but the applicant did their best to address possible issues. Chait Petroff stated that he was in favor of adding a condition to limit hours of operation. Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that Hanover Lakes was a very nice neighborhood. He explained that it was very unlikely that the site would be used for office space and that the applicant took many issues into consideration. 14 | P a g e Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. In response to questions from the Board regarding hours of operation, Ms. Wolf replied that it would be 7 AM-8 PM seven days a week. Mr. Moore stated that it should be considered to allow the possible restaurant to have later operating hours. Chair Petroff proposed to limit the contractor’s office hours to 7 AM-8 PM and allow flexibility for other uses. Board Member Kevin Hine made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPRROVAL of rezoning request Z23-20 as it was generally consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed scale and density would provide an appropriate transition from a commercial corridor to residential districts, and approval was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed uses were less intense and more in line with current development patterns, with the following conditions: 1. No more than a total of 100 peak hour trips can be generated from the use or combination of uses located within the zoning district. Change of use proposals must be reviewed and approved by the County in order to verify compliance with the zoning district standards. 2. The development shall comply with all provisions of an approved NCDOT driveway permit prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Freestanding signage shall be limited to monument signs, in that the sign must have a support structure that is a solid-appearing base constructed of a permanent material, such as a concrete block or brick. Freestanding signs supported by poles and any flashing, digital signs shall be prohibited. 4. Existing vegetation must remain within the bufferyards and be supplemented as necessary to provide the 100% visual opacity requirement. 5. Building height be restricted to 25 feet. 6. The outdoor storage area (only one) to be enclosed with a minimum 8-foot opaque fence. 7. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet. 8. A bicycle and pedestrian easement will be located along Castle Hayne Road as shown on the concept plan, including the installation of a sidewalk from the southern border to the northern border. 15 | P a g e 9. Permitted Uses shall be limited to: a. Indoor Recreation Establishment (Shooting Ranges prohibited) b. Animal Grooming/ Veterinary (Kennel or Daycare prohibited) c. Business Service Center d. Contractor Office e. Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities f. Personal Services, General (Tattoo Parlors prohibited) g. Instructional Services & Studios h. Retail Sales, General i. Restaurant (Drive-Through Prohibited) 10. The dumpster is to be located in the northern portion of the property. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery, The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request Z23-20 passed 6-0. Text Amendment Request (TA23-03) - Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend Articles 2 and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to incorporate standards for electric vehicle charging stations. Mr. Farrell gave a brief overview of the text amendment. He reminded the Board that this text amendment was tabled at the previous meeting to address some issues that the Board had and reiterated some facts such as the number of EVs in New Hanover County had been steadily increasing. He added that at the previous meeting the Board identified areas of the amendment that needed more work, they included: 1. Add definitions and a range of requirements for different uses. 2. Create a cap for the maximum number of spaces required. 3. Clarify technical language regarding electric circuits. 4. Ensure that EV-ready spaces count towards minimum parking requirements. 5. Look into the feasibility of land use incentives in exchange for EV parking. Mr. Farrell stated that based on Board feedback three definitions were added to the amendment to differentiate between an EV ready parking spaces, EV charging assemblies, and EV charging stations. He then explained that the charging assembly was the physical equipment installed at the parking space to make it a charging station. He explained that any project resulting in 25 or more parking spaces shall provide EV ready parking spaces as required by Table 5.1.2.D.1, which stated that multi-family residential/apartments, hotels/motels, and parking structures would provide 30% EV ready parking spots, while all other uses excluding single-family residential would provide 20%. 16 | P a g e He stated that staff could not find any other jurisdiction that had a cap on the requirement to provide a certain number of EV ready spaces and that the town of Apex originally had a cap but later removed it. He explained that staff decided on a cap of 15 parking spaces but that was not a final number and could be raised or lowered as the Board saw fit. He added that the language specifying an electrical circuit was removed and replaced with capacity sufficient to serve each charging spot. He explained that EV ready spaces and ADA EV ready spaces would count towards minimum parking requirements. He explained that staff could not find an example of other jurisdictions providing land use incentives in exchange for providing EV parking but there were some private and state level financial incentives. Board Member Kevin Hine thanked staff for their hard work on the text amendment but thought the 20% requirement was still high. In response to questions from the Board regarding if single-family attached homes would be exempt from the requirement, Mr. Farrell replied that they would be exempt. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that he would like to see amenities at single-family developments to be added to the exempt list. In response to questions from the Board regarding the definition of single-family in the UDO, Ms. Roth replied that there were multiple definitions that included the term single-family, and that multi-family meant any building with five or more units. Board Member Kevin Hine made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPRROVAL of TA23-03 as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provided up to date tools to promote business success and environmentally responsible growth, and it was reasonable and in the public interest because it provided clear development standards, with the amendment to include amenities at single-family developments as an excluded use. SECONDED by Vice Chair Colin Tarrant. The motion to recommend approval of text amendment TA23-03 passed 5-1, with Board Member Pete Avery dissenting. Board Member Pete Avery dissented because he believed that the market would address future EV charging needs without county requirements for electric vehicle infrastructure. Text Amendment Request (TA23-05) – Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend Section 5.4 and Appendix 1 of the Unified Development Ordinance related to landscape bonds and plat certificates. Mr. Farrell gave a brief overview of the text amendment. He stated that no public comments were received but the DOT gave an additional recommendation. He explained that the intent of the amendments was to ensure that the UDO was current to the needs of the DOT and County as a whole. He explained that the first amendment related to the requirements for landscape bonds. He stated that ordinance gave the authority to the Board of Commissioners who then delegated it to staff. He explained that the intent of the amendment was to direct individuals to County staff first. 17 | P a g e Mr. Farrell explained that the second set of amendments were to the appendix of the UDO relating to private roads. He stated that when a subdivision is built the roadway must be dedicated public and built to NCDOT standards to be considered for adoption into the state maintenance program or private and be built to the county’s Private Road Standards and be privately maintained. He explained that the DOT reviewed the plat certificates and recommended to remove some language to clarify the DOT process for adopting roads. He stated that language stating that roads could be re-platted as a publicly designated road was removed from Appendix L Certificate of Disclosure: Private Roads, language referring to the state General Stature regarding roads was added to Appendix M Private Roads Certification, and Appendix P was added to include the Stormwater Disclosure from County Engineering. In response to questions from the Board regarding the certification of private roads, Mr. Farrell replied that the design, installation, inspection, and review were all certified to meet County requirements. He added that the DOT wanted to clarify that they will never adopt a privately dedicated road. Vice Chair Colin Tarrant made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPRROVAL of TA23-05 as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provided up to date zoning tool, and it was reasonable and in the public interest because it provided clear and effective ordinance standards. SECONDED by Board Member Cameron Moore. The motion to recommend approval of text amendment TA23-05 passed 6-0. Other Items Adoption of 2024 Meeting Calendar Ms. Roth explained that the Board needed to approve the schedule for 2024 Planning Board meetings so that the application deadline could be posted for the January 2024 meeting. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION for ADOPTION of the 2024 Planning Board Meeting Calendar. SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews. The motion to adopt the 2024 Planning Board Meeting Calendar passed 6-0. Western Bank Study Presentation Ms. Roth gave a brief overview of the Western Bank Study. She stated that the Board of Commissioners received a presentation of the findings at their October 16th meeting. She explained that the next steps would consist of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance. She stated that the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would relate to creating a specific riverfront area place type and development tier, and strategies for staff to prepare for what might come in the future. She added that the UDO amendment would create a Riverfront specific zoning district and Integrated Mixed-Use Project to outline what could be done by right and what could be asked of developers. She added that the timeline was expected to be six to nine months for completion. 18 | P a g e In response to questions from the Board regarding the availability of the report and presentation, Ms. Roth replied that she would like to give an in-depth presentation the Board at their next meeting and that stakeholders had access to the report in order to provide feedback. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting, SECONDED by Chair Jeff Petroff. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:51 PM.