12-07-2023 PB Minutes1 | P a g e
Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board
December 7, 2023
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on December 7, 2023, at
6:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in
Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present
Jeff Petroff, Chair
Colin Tarrant, Vice Chair
Pete Avery
Kevin Hine
Clark Hipp
Hansen Matthews
Cameron Moore
Staff Present
Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use
Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor
Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor
Kemp Burpeau, Senior 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 October 31, 2023 and December 5, 2023, Planning Board agenda review
meetings were considered by the board members. No changes or amendments were identified.
Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Kevin Hine.
The motion passed 7-0.
New Business
Rezoning Request (Z23-22) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, to
rezone approximately 2.0 acres of a 7.8-acre parcel zoned R-20, Residential, located at 4224
Castle Hayne Road to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business for a Contractor Office.
Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that an associate at his firm was the listing agent for the
property, but he was not the listing or selling agent. Senior Deputy County Attorney Kempy
Burpeau explained that because Mr. Matthews would earn no immediate benefit from the
transaction it would not be a conflict of interest for him to participate in the hearing.
Associate Planner Wendell Biddle gave a brief overview of the rezoning request. He explained that
the purpose of this application was for the adaptive re-use of an existing 5,000 square foot
structure. He stated that the parcel was located at 4224 Castle Hayne Road and was zoned R-20 in
2 | P a g e
the 1980s to allow for homes that needed to be built on private septic and well systems to be built
at low densities. He added that there was currently no plan for developing the remaining 5.8 acres
of the parcel. He explained that there had been a variety of rezonings in the area resulting in light
and heavy industrial, rural agricultural, residential, and conditional commercial uses.
He explained that the site had an existing well and had been approved for a septic system and had
been conditionally granted a variance for a 15-foot interior side setback between the existing
structure and the northeastern property line to accommodate the B-2 district’s additional
requirements when adjacent to residential properties. He explained that contractor’s office was
defined as an establishment engaged in the day-to-day administration and clerical services for
businesses providing contracted services such as landscaping and could include some on-site repair
and material preparation work.
Mr. Biddle then explained the applicant’s concept plan. He stated that the site would contain an
existing well and 5,000 square foot structure, a proposed stormwater pond, a driveway and
employee parking, and an Environmental Health permitted septic system that would be in the
remaining R-20 portion of the lot. He stated that a 30-foot Opaque buffer would be required
between the site and any residential development, and the applicant had proposed an enhanced
buffer along the northeast property line due to the proximity of the structures. He explained that
the site would have full access to Castle Hayne Road.
He explained that there were several Traffic Impact Analyses and one State Traffic Improvement
Program in the area. He stated that if rezoned the site would be expected to generate an additional
six AM and eight PM peak hour trips in comparison to current zoning and was under the 100 peak
hour trip threshold to require a TIA. He explained that the site’s proximity to the I-140 interchange
and with the area transitioning to more commercial and industrial uses, it was more likely to
become a service node rather than be developed for more single-family homes. He added that two
nearby homes had been adaptively reused for the operation of a dental office and a spay & neuter
clinic, but development had been constrained due to the lack of public water and sewer access. He
explained that the 2016 Comprehensive plan designated the site as a Community Mixed Use place
type, which included commercial uses and encourage infill developments, and Employment Center
place type which provided areas for employment and production hubs.
Mr. Biddle explained that the proposed conditions for the rezoning request included:
1. The non-conforming side setback of the existing structure to the northeastern boundary
will be mitigated with enhanced buffering to include alternate planting of evergreen trees
to enhance the opaque buffer yard. No activities shall occur in that area.
2. 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 be maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed to adjacent
properties, neighboring areas, or motorists.
3 | P a g e
3. An aeration system will be installed in the stormwater pond of mitigation against insect
infestations.
4. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to Contractor Office, prohibiting
the outdoor storage of yard debris, retail sales, and fleet vehicle maintenance on site.
Mr. Biddle concluded his presentation and stated that development of the site would be subject to
additional development review, and that Jamar Johnson of the WMPO and Galen Jamison of
County Engineering were available to answer any questions.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the condition related to the aeration system, Mr.
Biddle replied that neighbors had concerns about possible insect infestations in the pond and the
aeration system was a solution.
In response to questions from the Board regarding what numbered fixtures meant, Mr. Biddle
replied that he was not sure what the applicant meant by that, but he assumed it meant that the
lighting system would be numbered on the site plan.
Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation.
Cindee Wolf, Design Solutions, gave a brief overview of the rezoning request. She explained that
Castle Hayne Road had become an ideal area for businesses that did work at job sites but needed
an office area because of its proximity to I-140. She explained that the structure was used as a
home, garage, and workshop before, but any residential features would be abandoned in the
transition to commercial use and that the aesthetics would be improved to look more appealing
from the road. She stated that the business was expected to operate Monday to Friday from 6 AM-
7 PM, with employees arriving then going to a jobsite or working in the office, with little public
interaction.
She explained that there were no doors or windows in the back of the building, and that an
enhanced buffer would be built between it and the nearby homes. She stated that similar uses were
in the area, including a CZD B-2 rezoning that she applied for in 2018 for another landscape
contractor.
She explained that numbered lighting meant the number of lights on the property and that it was a
traditional condition. She added she was not sure if the stormwater pond would be necessary but
if it was found to be needed it would be aerated and located as far as possible from the shared
property line.
Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to board discussion.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the length of the enhanced buffer, Ms. Wolf
replied that it would be the entire property line with a fenced buffer directly behind the building.
In response to questions from the Board regarding what would become of the remaining 5.8 acres,
Ms. Wolf replied that there would be an access easement if it was developed in the future.
Board Member Pete Avery expressed his support for adaptive reuse.
4 | P a g e
In response to questions from the Board regarding the wording of the condition for the aeration
system and insect infestation, Planning & Land Use Director Rebekah Roth replied that the
condition could be reworded to indicate that if there was the need for a stormwater pond it would
be aerated for pest control.
Vice Chair Colin Tarrant made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of rezoning request
Z23-22 as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because
the proposed use was generally encouraged in the Community Mixed Use and Employment Center
place type and was reasonable and in the public interest because the application limited uses to
those more appropriate to the area and additional conditions reduce potential impact on adjacent
residential areas, with the following conditions:
1. The non-conforming side setback of the existing structure to the northeastern boundary
will be mitigated with enhanced buffering to include alternate planting of evergreen trees
to enhance the opaque buffer yard. No activities shall occur in that area.
2. 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 be maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed to adjacent
properties, neighboring areas, or motorists.
3. If a stormwater pond is required by TRC, an aeration system will be installed in the
stormwater pond of mitigation against insect infestations.
4. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to Contractor Office, prohibiting
the outdoor storage of yard debris, retail sales, and fleet vehicle maintenance on site.
SECONDED by Board Member Cameron Moore.
The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request Z23-22 passed 7-0.
Other Items
Western Bank Study Presentation
Ms. Roth gave a presentation about the results of the Western Bank Study. She explained that the
intent of the presentation was to give the Board an overview of the results and what the next steps
would be. She stated that the Western Bank had been defined as the unincorporated land between
the Cape Fear Memorial and Isabelle Holmes Bridges, and included areas such as Eagle’s Island,
Point Peter, and an existing industrial site across from the Live Oak Bank Pavilion. She explained
that the parcels were zoned for mainly commercial and industrial use but there was one mixed-use
parcel and that the Comprehensive Plan had a vision to develop the area to mirror what could be
found on the other side of the river.
She explained that two years ago two projects were submitted for development at Eagles Island
and Point Peter were submitted, and they were the first submittals for projects in that area for years.
5 | P a g e
She explained that information submitted during the public hearing process for the Point Peter
request raised questions about the current vision of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically in
relation to sunny day flooding and indications that water levels in the area were rising faster than
previously anticipated. She added that since then the projects had either not moved forward or had
been withdrawn, and the Board of Commissioners had held a series of work sessions to determine
how to move forward in the area.
Ms. Roth explained that in Spring 2022 staff provided information on risks related to flooding and
what might be feasible from a development standpoint, in Summer 2022 staff outlined a variety of
development scenarios and their potential impacts and the Board of Commissioners requested a
study to inform how to best move forward. She added that at that point in time no discrete technical
study was possible to advise what was possible in the area, so staff moved forward with a planning
study to inform what the next steps would be. She explained that the first step of the study was to
find out what was possible if zoning was not considered and to find out what was the most
technically and financially feasible. She stated that the area was subject to the State Coastal Area
Management Act and rules and polices of the North Carolina Coastal Resource Division so
development in the area would be subject to CAMA permitting and review from multiple state
departments. She explained that the normal highwater line was not static and required review each
year. She added that CAMA concerns made it unlikely that hardened structures like those found
on the other side of the river could be built due to flooding and erosion issues and that the exact
CAMA regulations and their impact would not be available without the site plans.
She explained that there was a chance that an approved rezoning project might end up not meeting
CAMA regulations because CAMA staff could not determine the feasibility of the project based
on a conceptual plan. She explained that the area was in the FEMA AE flood zone and that the
county’s current regulatory flood rate maps for the area were established in 2018 but the area had
seen more frequent flooding. She explained that the area around Eagles Island usually flooded
worse than areas around the northern bank because of the topography of the area. She added that
development could also be affected by the necessary infrastructure improvements needed to
accommodate new developments such as additional roads and the extension of CFPUA water and
sewer.
Ms. Roth explained that the feasibility of development would be site specific and was possible
from an engineering standpoint but could become more difficult or impossible over time as
conditions change. She stated that the cost for those engineering solutions and permitting and
review costs could be very costly and make developers hesitant to pursue development. She
explained that NOAA models indicate that water levels could rise as high as 3.28 feet by 2080 and
that water levels over the last five years were higher than trendlines predicted, but the models were
very broad and did not provide much local data. She explained that staff identified four possible
scenarios depending on the level of flooding and development to identify how different groups
should face the possible risk for the area based on a resiliency framework created by a workgroup
comprised of various county departments. She explained that they found that underserved and
vulnerable groups should avoid the risk associated with the area, populations with adequate
resources could attempt to mitigate the risk, private investment groups could attempt to mitigate
6 | P a g e
the risk or bear the possible burden, public investments and natural resources should avoid the risk,
and historic or cultural amenities should be used as much as possible while still available.
She explained that the key takeaways from the study were:
1. That an update to the comprehensive plan was needed to ensure that property owners and
the community were aware of the risk and potential for future development and to use past
studies to recommend design and architecture that would mitigate impact on downtown
Wilmington.
2. The UDO would need to be updated to allow for uses with the least impact and risk by-
right and eliminate uses that should be avoided based on current risk.
3. Establish a process to request higher impact uses that better mitigates risk.
4. Shift the cost burden from the public to the private sector if future development were to
occur, however existing site contamination could require public assistance to protect
natural resources.
5. Collect data to better monitor changing conditions and to inform when policy changes need
to be made such as measuring what is happening in the river currently to better understand
if the data that is currently know accurate in regard to rising water levels.
She explained that the Board of Commissioners had authorized staff to update the UDO and
Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would
include creating a specific riverfront area place type, implantation strategies related to
development agreements and brownfields programs, to articulate the financial constraints in a way
that was clear for all plan users, and to outline monitoring studies and trigger points for
reconsideration of policies and stands. She explained that the UDO amendments would include
creating a riverfront-specific zoning district that would limit the by-right uses but allow for higher
intensity mixed use or commercial projects with new district-specific processes for conditional
zoning requests, and site design and architectural standards based on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment. She added that the UDO amendments would include an Integrated Mixed-Use Project
use that could also be used in other instances, and to outline provisions to allow for nonconforming
uses to remain and expand. She explained that the new district would be incorporated through a
staff-led rezoning. She stated that staff would have a more concrete timeline early next year and
that feedback was welcome.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the Integrated Mixed-Use Project use, Ms. Roth
replied that there were examples of it in downtown Wilmington where residential units were built
above commercial uses and there was not a similar use in the UDO so a conditional rezoning was
needed to allow for a mix of uses on a property.
7 | P a g e
In response to questions from the Board regarding who would conduct the proposed river
monitoring, Ms. Roth replied that UNCW would provide the labor and analysis and the county
would pay for the study. She added that it would be paid for by the Planning and Land Use budget.
In response to questions from the Board regarding how conservation and recreation factored into
the study, Ms. Roth replied that there was a large number of stakeholders who wanted to see
recreation and conservation in the area and that staff would support those uses if proposed. She
added that staff did not designate areas for conservation because they did not want to take an
individual’s ability to use their property, but property owners could designate the property for
conservation.
In response to questions from the Board regarding possible incentives for certain projects, Ms.
Roth replied that a riverwalk was currently required but site difficulties could make its installation
challenging. She stated there was a desire for a public amenity to be included to mirror the other
side of the river.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the status of the Trumpet Interchange for the
Isabelle Holmes Bridge, Ms. Roth replied that it was scheduled to begin construction in 2029.
Additional Staff Updates
Ms. Roth stated that staff would share the Technical Review Committee packet with the Board to
keep them informed on projects that did not require their review.
Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting, SECONDED by Vice Chair
Colin Tarrant.
The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:56 PM.