[5:04] Test 1-2.

[15:47] Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for your patience. I'm sorry I had my hip replaced two weeks ago, so I'm thinking a little bit longer to get around.

[15:55] So we'll go ahead and call this meeting of the Brunswick County Planning Board to order this afternoon, August 10, 2026.

[16:05] Welcome, everyone. My name is Cliff Cheek and I would like to welcome you to the Brunswick County Planning Board meeting.

[16:10] Members of the board are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the county

[16:14] commissioners. The planning board serves as both an advisory and decision-making

[16:18] body on land use and development matters in the county. It reviews zoning

[16:23] changes, subdivision plans, and development proposals. The final approval authority for major subdivisions, major site plans, and plan development.

[16:33] With special state legislation, the Planning Board also

[16:36] approved rezoning subject to appeals

[16:39] to the Board of Commissioners.

[16:41] The Planning Board makes recommendations

[16:43] on the order that's been submitted,

[16:44] long-range plans, and planning policies.

[16:47] While it helps shape development standards,

[16:49] it does not have the authority to require

[16:51] tree preservation or mandate NCPOT

[16:54] runway improvements.

[16:56] At this time, I ask that you please

[16:58] turn off your cell phones or put them in a silo mode.

[17:01] Thank you.

[17:03] And if you will, please remove your hats for the invocation.

[17:11] Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing this together this evening.

[17:14] Please guide us during our deliberations and discussions that I was presented tonight.

[17:19] And help us to keep accounting the community and our citizens of our...

[17:24] Please safeguard our beliefs, firefighters, first responders,

[17:28] and protect our servicemen and women wherever they may be, domestic or abroad.

[17:32] And you're heavily named, right?

[17:34] Amen.

[17:36] All right.

[17:37] Pledge of allegiance to the flag

[17:46] of the United States of America

[17:52] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God,

[17:58] and indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[18:02] Would

[18:11] you go and become the local force this afternoon?

[18:14] Thank you.

[18:15] Will you amend your present?

[18:20] Yes, Cruz.

[18:21] Present.

[18:23] Clifton Sheik.

[18:24] Present.

[18:25] Howard Stocks.

[18:26] Present.

[18:27] Robert Needham.

[18:28] Present.

[18:30] All right.

[18:31] And everyone received the packet by email this last week.

[18:36] Did everyone have a chance to review any changes to the minutes from the previous meeting?

[18:45] We have a motion to approve the minutes as presented.

[18:50] Motion second, all in favor say aye.

[18:53] Aye.

[18:53] Any opposed?

[18:54] All right.

[18:55] The minutes are approved as presented.

[18:59] On to the next item, agenda amendments.

[19:02] Do we have any agenda amendments?

[19:05] No, but I want to make everybody aware of scam emails.

[19:08] Attention all applicants and property owners.

[19:11] Please be aware that fraud or emails are being sent to applicants and property owners in cases that they have before the Brunswick County Planning Board.

[19:18] It happened this month. Two of our applicants received scam emails requesting money.

[19:26] If you do receive any email requesting payment, do not pay.

[19:30] Immediately contact the Brunswick County Planning Department.

[19:32] Please note that we will never request any fees via wire transfer or gift cards.

[19:38] so please be aware of that too. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

[19:45] All right. Next on the agenda,

[19:47] we've got public comment. Public comment is an opportunity included at the beginning of every

[19:52] planning board meeting for the public to discuss items that are not on the agenda for a public

[19:56] hearing. You must sign up prior to the meeting to speak. Time is limited to three minutes

[20:01] per speaker and eight minutes for a speaker representing a group. The time will be

[20:06] We tracked with a timer that we have over here.

[20:09] And Ms. Conny, did we have anyone sign up for public comment?

[20:13] Yes, sir.

[20:14] Carla White.

[20:26] Good afternoon.

[20:27] Hey.

[20:28] Carla White, 1775 Clemens Road, Bolivia.

[20:33] I wanted to talk to you guys about the Swiss cheese model.

[20:36] It's something corporations use.

[20:38] The Swiss cheese model is a way of explaining how accidents, disasters, or other harmful

[20:43] Several outcomes usually don't happen because of one single mistake.

[20:48] Instead they happen when several layers of protection each have weaknesses and those weaknesses

[20:53] happen to line up.

[20:55] Imagine several slices of Swiss cheese stacked on top of each other.

[21:00] Each slice equals a safety barrier.

[21:02] Each hole equals a weakness, a failure, an oversight or a gap.

[21:07] Most of the time a hole in one layer is blocked by another layer, but occasionally

[21:12] those holes line up. A simple example. Say you're trying to prevent flooding from a development.

[21:19] Layer one, proper stormwater design. Layer two, wetland protection. Layer three,

[21:25] adequate drainage and infrastructure. Layer four, county inspections. Layer five, emergency

[21:31] planning. Then layer six, existing roads, ditches capable of handling runoff. Each one is supposed

[21:39] to provide protection. But imagine wetlands are removed, that's one hole. Drainage is

[21:46] undersized, another hole. More houses are increased, more houses increased runoff, more

[21:52] houses increased runoff, another hole. Then a major storm happens. The holes line up

[21:57] and disaster happens, flooding. The resulting flooding isn't necessarily caused by one

[22:02] decision, is the result of multiple weaknesses occurring together. Just like one development

[22:07] might meet the requirements that's good enough or minimum requirements, but each

[22:13] development adds to the problem. The resulting flooding isn't necessarily

[22:17] caused by one decision. It's the result of multiple weaknesses occurring

[22:20] together, and sometimes the most frustrating part is that every individual

[22:24] layer can look good enough by itself until you stack them together and you

[22:28] realize the cheese has more holes than protection. Thank you.

[22:35] Thank you.

[22:41] Shirley Sullivan.

[22:52] Good afternoon.

[22:54] Good afternoon.

[22:55] Hope you're feeling better.

[22:56] I know how that goes.

[22:58] Shirley Sullivan 5002, Seward Court, Southport.

[23:03] So much has been approved over the last several years.

[23:06] It's hard to know where to start.

[23:09] The approval of developments and land use amendments will return to the commissioners

[23:13] effective with all applications dated July 2nd, 2026 and going forward.

[23:18] board. The responsibilities of the planning board will greatly diminish. However, you are

[23:24] still responsible for final approval for those applications dated prior to July 2nd. I would

[23:31] like to ask that you pay close attention to all of the public hearing items before you

[23:37] today. Citizens are studying state statutes following bills studying UDOs, staff reports,

[23:44] TRCs and TIAs more than ever before. They are also sharing their concerns here and

[23:51] everywhere. It is your responsibility to listen to the community. It is not the

[23:57] sole input by the Planning Department and their recommendation alone that should

[24:01] drive you. It has appeared that most decisions have been predetermined. The

[24:07] very first purpose of the UDO is to promote the health, safety, and general

[24:12] welfare of the residents of Brunswick County. The residents have not been heard for quite

[24:18] some time now. In fact, attendance at planning board meetings and commissioner meetings has

[24:24] declined. Here continually, they're going to approve it anyway, as the most common reason

[24:31] residents don't show to these meetings. I have witnessed residents being shut down

[24:36] in their public comments, disrespected, and ignored. Residents get three minutes

[24:42] to share their concerns. Applicants, developers, engineering firms and planning staff have

[24:48] unlimited time to present and are allowed to return to the podium. Please take what each

[24:54] resident has to say into consideration before any decision is made. Minimal discussion without

[25:01] consideration of the community's concerns is not acceptable. Thank you.

[25:07] thank you that

[25:18] was the last one okay thank you all right moving on to the

[25:26] public hearings the first item on the agenda this afternoon is a major site

[25:30] plan 2026-02 Victolic Company consideration of a major site plan for a

[25:38] building greater than 75,000 square feet the applicant requests a maximum

[25:43] The minimum building size allowance be granted for a one-story industrial warehouse located

[25:49] at 2010 Enterprise Drive northeast in the Leland Industrial Park near Leland, North Carolina.

[25:55] The project overall acreage is 22.52 acres.

[26:00] And do we have a report from staff?

[26:02] Yes, sir.

[26:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[26:04] Thank you.

[26:05] The applicant requests a project building size adjustment for a building expansion

[26:10] located at 2010 Enterprise Drive in the Leland Industrial Park that's near

[26:15] Leland, North Carolina. The Victolic Company is a global company based in

[26:21] Pennsylvania that produces mechanical grooved pipe coupling systems for use

[26:27] in construction and mining activities. The project covers three tax

[26:32] parcels and the overall project size is 22.52 acres. All tax parcels would

[26:38] be recombined and recorded prior to zoning approval for construction.

[26:45] The applicant requests a 230,000 square foot expansion of an existing warehouse for a maximum

[26:52] building size allowance of 338,135 square feet for a one-story industrial warehouse.

[27:01] Administratively, staff can approve a total building size up to 75,000 square feet.

[27:05] Structures greater than 75,000 require approval by the planning board.

[27:09] The project was reviewed twice by the County's technical review committee and this is the

[27:14] last step for approval.

[27:17] So photos of the sites includes the picture of the building as well as their property

[27:25] on Highway 74.

[27:27] These are views from Enterprise Drive.

[27:32] These are all in your packet as well.

[27:34] Well, these are from trade street which is located in the rear.

[27:39] And then on Mercantile Drive, which is on the other side of the property.

[27:47] And then this is additional information, all the stuff behind the construction fencing

[27:53] is the subject site for tonight's discussion.

[27:59] Playing staff has determined that the proposed request for maximum gross building size

[28:05] allowance of 338,135 square feet, meets or exceeds the apical standards of the UDO

[28:12] and therefore we recommend approval based on the conditions outlined in the staff

[28:16] report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have and I believe the

[28:22] applicant is also here to answer questions sir. Thank you. All right.

[28:26] Thank you sir. Does anyone have any questions for staff? Do I hear a

[28:33] motion to open the public hearing?

[28:37] I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to open the public

[28:40] hearing. Motion is second. All in favor say aye.

[28:44] Aye. Any opposed? All right. The applicant, do we have the applicant or representative

[28:50] of the applicant here to address the board? Come on down.

[28:59] Anything you'd like to add

[29:00] to the report? No, I think you... Yes, please state your name for the record.

[29:07] Scott Bungo, Director of U.S. Manufacturing for Victolic, located at this location right

[29:13] now. No, we were a mechanical pipe-joining company. We're proud to say that we employ

[29:21] about 500 people right now of all the surrounding counties, Columbia and New Hanover and Pender

[29:28] and of course Brunswick.

[29:32] We're growing. Our business is growing. We're very excited

[29:35] about that and we're looking forward to the future. If there's any questions I

[29:40] could answer for you,

[29:43] please, please ask. Okay. I'm not sure if anybody has any

[29:49] questions, but we're excited for you that you're growing your company there. Yeah,

[29:53] it's exciting as I was sitting in here I looked up and the sprinkler heads

[29:57] above your head is what we make. So we make life

[30:00] Life-saving devices. Anywhere you go, if you go to a restaurant or to a hotel, it's a very

[30:08] good possibility that the sprinkler in that system is one that we built right there at

[30:13] that location. So it's pretty cool stuff.

[30:16] Well, thank you. All right.

[30:17] All right, thank you.

[30:18] Thank you. All right, Ms. County, did we have anyone sign up to speak to this?

[30:23] No, sir.

[30:24] No?

[30:32] Does anyone have any questions for the applicant or do I hear a motion to close

[30:36] a public hearing? I'll make a motion we close public hearing. I second. All right

[30:44] motion in a second to close the public hearing.

[30:48] It was pretty cut and dry. What

[30:53] is the wishes of the board in regards to

[30:56] Victolic Company's building consideration?

[31:06] Make a motion to approve.

[31:19] Pull it

[31:19] to approve. Do I hear a second? Motion to second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right.

[31:28] The major site plan 2026-02 for Victolic Company has been approved.

[31:36] Thank you.

[31:40] All right. Next

[31:41] item on our agenda this evening, rezoning case Z940. Consideration of rezoning case

[31:48] Z940 request to rezone tax parcel 046000102, a total of 67.52 acres from RR World Residential

[32:03] to RR7500, medium density residential, located off of Mako Road Northeast, NC 87, near Leland

[32:11] North Carolina. And do we have a report from staff?

[32:15] Yes, sir, we do. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[32:19] The applicant, Ed Lewis, requests to rezone the aforementioned tax parcel from RR,

[32:24] rural residential to R7500, medium-density residential.

[32:27] This rezoning request is conventional. Therefore, no conditions or site plans are proposed.

[32:32] All owners and adjacent owners have been notified via first class mail.

[32:36] The subject parcel was changed from RU, rural to RR,

[32:39] rural residential in 2007 with the adoption of the Brunsett County Unified Development Ordinance.

[32:44] The zoning of the subject possible has remained the same since then.

[32:48] The proposed zoning district R7500, medium-density residential, the R7500, R6000, and SBR6000

[32:56] districts are established to provide an orderly, suburban residential development, a limited

[33:02] number of commercial and civic uses are allowed subject to the restrictions necessary

[33:07] to preserve and protect the residential character of the neighborhood.

[33:10] A special permit process for higher intensity developments is also allowed.

[33:16] Using discretion to balance issues of higher density with improved amenities due to the

[33:23] higher intensity developments contained in this district is intended to be applied to

[33:29] property serviced, served by public sewer and water systems.

[33:39] Existing blueprint, 2040 plan place type is open space conservation 1 and BM density residential.

[33:47] Open space conservation 1 are the areas consistent, consists primarily of underserved open space

[33:53] such as floodways and flood plains, high-risk flood areas, the majority, and as you can

[33:59] see here on the future lane use map, the majority of the site is within that open

[34:05] and space conservation one. Roughly the 97-98% is designated as OSC-1. And at the very top,

[34:12] that orange color is medium-density residential. So it's just a small portion of the medium-density

[34:17] residential that is located on this parcel. So roughly 1-2% is designated medium-density

[34:23] residential. The OSC-1 place type is not consistent with the Blueprint Brunswick

[34:28] 2040 plan existing place type.

[34:33] Planning staff recommends the now of rezoning case

[34:36] Z940 because majority of the parcel once again 97 to 98 percent is located

[34:42] within the flood hazard zone A zone. Resoning the parcel from RR from the

[34:49] RR zoning district to the R7500 zoning district would increase the

[34:53] density for resident residential development in the flood hazard A zone.

[34:58] also the parcels about biodiversity and wildlife habitats assessment scored in

[35:05] the 6 to 7 range out of 10. A higher score indicates more biodiversity and

[35:10] wildlife on the site. Also the rezoning could affect school capacity in the

[35:17] northern area of the county. This parcel is located within the Town Creek

[35:22] Elementary School District. Town Creek Elementary is nearing capacity. There

[35:26] There is a new elementary school plan for the Jackie Creek area near Leland, but increasing

[35:31] density for this parcel still could cause some capacity issues for schools in the northern

[35:35] area of the county.

[35:36] Staff feels the current rezoning of RR rule residential is the appropriate zoning district

[35:42] for this parcel in the surrounding area.

[35:51] Staff recommends the Nile of rezoning case Z940 with the existing place type designation

[35:57] as open space conservation one and medium density residential based upon the

[36:02] following information provided surrounding area current uses the

[36:07] blueprint runs a 2040 comp plan and other adopted Brunswick County plans and

[36:12] policies per North Carolina general statute zoning regulation shall be made

[36:17] in accordance with a comprehensive plan prior to adopting or rejecting any

[36:20] zoning amendments a statement regarding plan consistency shall be adopted this

[36:24] This request is not consistent with the blueprint Brunswick 2040 comp plan place type designation

[36:30] is not consistent with the goals, recommendations, and policies of plans adopted by Brunswick

[36:35] County.

[36:35] Staff also finds the request not reasonable, appropriate, or in the interest of the public

[36:40] based upon the following findings.

[36:42] Number one, the majority of the proposal is designated as open space conservation

[36:45] one.

[36:46] The R7500 zoning district is not consistent with this land use designation.

[36:51] Number two, the COMP plan goals and objectives do not support the rezoning.

[36:55] It is not consistent with goals and objective NR-4 reduced the potential for property damage and impacts due to natural hazards by minimizing potential impacts of flooding.

[37:07] Number three, most of the subject parcel, approximately 66 acres is located within the flood hazard A zone.

[37:14] A flood study is needed for this parcel.

[37:16] Number four, a higher wildlife habitat sport indicates higher biodiversity and

[37:21] wildlife located on the parcel. And number five, the capacity in the northern

[37:27] part, school capacity in the northern part of the county.

[37:37] And here are the

[37:38] slides for the school capacity. So as you can see there, Town Creek Elementary

[37:42] School, it's not over capacity but it's it's over 90 percent capacity so it's

[37:47] in capacity.

[37:50] And then Town Creek Middle School has capacity and North Brunswick High School

[37:57] have capacity.

[38:00] And here are some photos from the site. The view on the left is the view

[38:04] across Mako Road. On the left, on the right is the view of the property.

[38:11] On the left

[38:11] is the view facing north on Mako Road. And on the right is the view facing south on

[38:16] Mako Road.

[38:21] And this was a, all this was a summary of the staff report that you have

[38:29] before you. So all the information is in the staff report. So this was just a brief

[38:33] review of the staff report. So if you have any questions, anything in the staff

[38:38] report or in this presentation, we'd be happy to answer. And that concludes the

[38:42] staff report. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Connor. A question for you. What is the

[38:49] I mean, the site has water and sewer to it, correct, or availability?

[38:56] So as far as county water and sewer, it does not have county utilities are now available.

[39:02] So county water or county wastewater are not available for this site.

[39:06] But H2Go utilities, they do have utilities available for this site.

[39:12] So water is available via a 12-inch water main, and wastewater is available via a

[39:17] eight-inch sewer force main from H2Go?

[39:22] Correct me if I'm wrong, but for H2Go,

[39:24] they would need to be incorporated into Leland, though.

[39:27] Is that?

[39:28] They would have to reach out to H2Go and Leland

[39:31] and talk to them about that process.

[39:33] There's an agreement between H2Go and Leland,

[39:36] but since Leland is by statute, not allowed to annex,

[39:41] that they found some ways pass forward for some projects,

[39:45] but that is generally, yes, the requirement,

[39:47] but they have found paths forward.

[39:50] Okay.

[39:51] And if you will, remind us what the density is for RR versus R7500 if the capacity wastewater

[40:00] was there.

[40:03] You got ordinance.

[40:06] It is 2.9.

[40:10] I think RR is 2.9.

[40:12] Yeah, RR is 2.9 that is with water and sewer.

[40:17] and then it is 5.8 with water and sewer and the R7500 and I'm assuming that

[40:23] they'll have the H to go when I say that. Okay, thank you. All right does anyone

[40:30] else have any questions for staff?

[40:36] Seeing none do I hear a motion to open the

[40:38] public hearing?

[40:42] I'll make a motion we open public hearing. Second. All right

[40:47] Motion and a second, all in favor say aye.

[40:50] Aye.

[40:51] Any opposed?

[40:52] All right.

[40:53] Public hearing is open.

[40:55] Do we have the applicant or a representative of the applicant

[40:58] here to address the board?

[41:04] Good afternoon.

[41:06] If you will, please state your name for the record.

[41:09] My name's Ed Lewis.

[41:12] I made a copy of my presentation.

[41:14] May I share it with the board?

[41:15] Yes, sir.

[41:16] Thank you.

[41:27] Thank you.

[41:30] You got a copy?

[41:49] Thank you for allowing me to appear before you this afternoon. I've met with the staff on

[41:57] several occasions and I fully understand what their proposal is and why. But I just wanted

[42:02] share with you our thoughts. The county is still the fastest growing county in

[42:07] the state as we all know and we need to provide housing for the people that are

[42:11] coming in and the owner of this particular piece of property would like

[42:15] to participate in sharing and creating housing for the population in this

[42:20] county. This particular piece of property is located very close to our

[42:24] way 17 gives us good thoroughfare going into Wilmington or Myrtle Beach

[42:30] to wherever, wherever the work location and pleasure locations are. Close to the

[42:37] beach, of course,

[42:41] and the owner has said that he would provide the connection for

[42:45] the water and the sewer at his own expense. So I think there's a possibility

[42:51] of a win-win here for both the county as well as for the owner if the board

[42:57] would appreciate that position. We would certainly appreciate it and we

[43:01] I hope that you vote to resound this particular piece properly.

[43:05] Any questions for me?

[43:11] Does the board have any questions for this time?

[43:14] Not right now.

[43:15] OK.

[43:16] All right.

[43:17] Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

[43:18] Thank you very much.

[43:18] We may have some questions in a minute.

[43:20] Thank you very much.

[43:20] Thank you, sir.

[43:26] Ms. County, do we have anyone sign up to speak to this one?

[43:29] No, sir.

[43:30] No?

[43:30] OK.

[43:38] Does the board have any questions for anyway?

[43:40] Anyone?

[43:43] Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing?

[43:46] I'll make a motion when we close public hearing.

[43:50] Second.

[43:51] Motion and a second.

[43:52] All in favor say aye.

[43:53] Aye.

[43:54] Any opposed?

[43:55] All right.

[43:58] What is the pleasure of the board in regards to rezoning case Z940?

[44:22] Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we denies rezoning case Z940 as recommended by staff.

[44:29] We

[44:33] have a motion for denial of Z940 based upon the findings by staff.

[44:41] I second.

[44:42] Motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

[44:45] Aye.

[44:46] Any opposed? All right.

[44:49] Would you amend your motion to include the consistency statement?

[44:53] Yes.

[44:53] To adopt the consistency statement.

[44:57] Brian, do we need to restate it or?

[45:00] Is his acceptance of the consistency?

[45:03] That's, might as well start over because it has to be seconded and everything.

[45:07] Okay. Do we need a motion to redact?

[45:12] No. Just a motion to also include.

[45:15] I'll make a motion to also include the consistency statement that's presented by the staff.

[45:23] Like, a second.

[45:24] Okay.

[45:24] All right.

[45:25] Motion and a second to also adopt the consistency and reasonableness determination as provided

[45:32] by staff.

[45:33] All in favor say aye.

[45:35] Aye.

[45:36] Any opposed?

[45:37] All right.

[45:37] Motion carries.

[45:40] So, Z940 is denied as presented based upon the consistency and reasonableness.

[45:48] Five items provided by staff.

[45:52] Thank you.

[45:53] Can we add that they have 15 days to appeal to the commissioners?

[45:58] Yes.

[46:02] Let's see, where is the...

[46:07] Any person with standing may appeal the decision of the Planning Board to the Brunswick County Board of Commissioners.

[46:13] Notice of the appeal must be provided in writing within 15 days.

[46:17] If no appeal is received, then the decision of the Planning Board shall be final.

[46:22] If an appeal is received in the allotted time,

[46:24] And the case will move forward to the Brownsville County Board of Commissioners for a public

[46:27] hearing and their consideration.

[46:40] Next item on the agenda, rezoning case Z941.

[46:47] Consideration of rezoning case Z941 is a request to rezone tax parcel 2120002112, a total

[46:56] of 13.11 acres from CLD, commercial low density, and our 7,500 medium density residential to

[47:05] CLD, commercial low density. It's located at 95 Oceanile Beach Road southwest near Oceanile

[47:12] Beach. Additionally, consideration of proposed land use amendment LUM-941 for rezoning

[47:20] case Z941, a request to amend the official Brunswick County Cameland use plan map from LDR, low-density residential, to MDRM, medium-density residential mixed use for tax parcel 2120002112, located at 95 Ocean

[47:42] Beach Road southwest near Oceana Beach. This land use plan amendment totals

[47:47] approximately 13.11 acres. And do we have a report from staff? Yes sir we do. Thank

[47:54] you Mr. Connor. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And once again you have the staff reports

[47:57] in front of you. So this will be a brief overview of the staff reports or

[48:02] anything within the staff report or presentation. We'll be happy to answer

[48:05] your questions. The applicant for C. Retson Partners LLC requests to

[48:10] to rezone the aforementioned tax parcel from CLD, commercial low density, and R7500, medium

[48:16] density residential to CLD, commercial low density.

[48:20] This rezoning request is conventional, therefore no conditions or site plans are proposed.

[48:24] All owners and adjacent owners have been notified via first class mail.

[48:28] According to county records, the parcel has been zoned CLD and R7500 since 2004.

[48:34] The zoning of the subject parcel has remained the same since then.

[48:37] A portion of the parcel was subdivided out in January 2026 to create a 4.25 acre parcel

[48:45] land tax parcel 212002103 that is located at the corner of Ocean Highway and Ocean Island

[48:54] Beach Road.

[48:56] The proposed zoning district commercial density, this district is intended primarily to be

[49:00] used in outlying areas adjacent to major thoroughfares with yards and other provisions

[49:05] for reducing conflicts with adjacent residential uses and with substantial setbacks to reduce

[49:12] marginal frictioning on adjacent major thoroughfares.

[49:16] Commercial uses in this district will serve the needs of residential neighborhoods for

[49:20] auto-dependent commercial facilities and serve the needs of highway-oriented tourist businesses.

[49:31] Existing blueprint runs at 2040, plan place type is low-density residential and Open

[49:38] open space conservation one, the low density residential. This area is characterized by

[49:44] low density residential development. Single family detached homes on half acre lots or

[49:50] larger are common. Smaller lots are accomplished by keeping the gross density of the development

[49:56] improved of the development. Improved open space including golf courses, neighborhood

[50:01] parks and recreational amenities and greenway trails. And then on the very top, there's

[50:06] just a small little portion, less than 1%, that is OSC1, but 99% of this property is

[50:14] within the, currently within the LDR place type.

[50:17] The LDR place type is not consistent with the blueprint Brunswick comp plan place type.

[50:23] If the place type is not consistent, a land use amendment is required to propose comp

[50:29] plan place type is medium density residential mix, MDRM.

[50:33] This area is characterized by moderate density residential development is comprised of predominantly

[50:40] single-family detached homes but may include attached single-family units such as townhomes

[50:45] and duplexes.

[50:46] The mix of housing types are intended to create intergenerational neighborhoods, improve open

[50:52] space in the form of pocket and neighborhood parks, are interspersed, and greenway trails

[50:57] within are located to connect such parks as well as provide links to greenway trails

[51:02] and walkways and neighboring development. Maximum previous coverage

[51:06] limitations help preserve green space. Staff supports this rezoning because it

[51:11] will expand commercial uses at a major intersection along Highway 17. This will

[51:15] bring economic development opportunities to the area. This rezoning is also

[51:19] consistent with the surrounding zoning and will correct their split

[51:23] zoning of the parcel.

[51:28] Staff recommends approval of rezoning case Z941

[51:31] one with the proposed place type designation as medium-density residential mix based upon

[51:37] the information provided, the surrounding area, current uses, the comp plan, and other

[51:42] adopted Brunsett County plans and policies.

[51:45] For North Carolina General Statute, zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with

[51:49] a comprehensive plan prior to adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment.

[51:53] A statement regarding plan consistency shall be adopted.

[51:55] it. This request is not consistent with the comp plan, place type, destination, and consistent

[52:03] with the goals, recommendations, and policies of plans adopted by Brunsett County. Staff

[52:08] also finds the request reasonable, appropriate, and in the public interest based upon the

[52:12] following findings. Number one, the comp plan goals and objectives support the rezoning

[52:17] is consistent with the goals and objectives ED-1, maintain and expand job opportunities

[52:22] communities in the county, LU-2 support development areas that are best suited for future development.

[52:28] Number two, the commercial and residential suitability maps indicate the parcel is suitable for commercial

[52:33] and residential development.

[52:34] Number three, this rezoning will correct the split zoning of the parcel.

[52:39] Number four, the rezoning is consistent with surrounding zoning.

[52:43] And number five, this rezoning will bring economic development opportunities to the

[52:47] area.

[52:51] On this slide, this is the flood hazard slide.

[52:53] slide. The parcel itself is not within a flood hazard, but it is in the vicinity of

[52:58] flood hazards down on Oceano Beach Road to the south of the property.

[53:05] And here are the

[53:06] school capacity slides. This parcel is within the Union Elementary School District. So

[53:14] Union is over capacity.

[53:17] Shalote Middle has capacity. And West Brunswick High School

[53:21] have capacity.

[53:25] And here are some photos of the site. So here is the view along

[53:29] Oceano Beach Road. On the left is the view across Oceano Beach Road. And on the

[53:33] right is the view of the property. And as you can see there is a currently

[53:37] there's a single family residence on that property.

[53:42] On the left is the view facing

[53:44] north on Oceano Beach Road. And on the right is the view facing south on

[53:49] Oceano Beach Road.

[53:53] And here along Highway 17 on the left is the view

[53:56] across Ocean Highway, U.S. 17, and on the right is the view of the property.

[54:04] On the left is

[54:05] the view facing east on Ocean Highway. On the right is the view facing west on Ocean

[54:10] Highway. And then here are just some more pictures of the property itself. These were

[54:16] taken from Ocean Island Beach Road.

[54:22] And that concludes staff report.

[54:26] Right. Thank you, Mr. Conner. Does anyone have any questions for staff?

[54:34] Okay. Hearing

[54:35] none. Do I hear a motion to open the public hearing?

[54:42] I'll make a motion to be able to open

[54:44] public hearing.

[54:47] Do I hear a second? I second. Motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

[54:53] Any opposed? All right. Do we have the applicant or a representative of the applicant here

[55:00] to address the board? Thank you.

[55:05] Good evening. Greg Stewart, 2075 Juniper Lake Road, West

[55:08] in North Carolina. Just like the other gentleman, I have a presentation if I could just pass

[55:13] that real quick. Tyler did hit most of the notes in his, but I would like to draw your

[55:18] attention to one or two items that Tyler did not put in the set.

[55:20] Yes, sir.

[55:35] Thank you.

[55:52] Thank you for your time. Just to give you a little bit of consideration to our thought

[55:57] process for this rezoning request, generally with commercial zoning, many of you maybe

[56:02] know that commercial zoning is more conducive to high-traffic volume areas. US-17 is

[56:06] an emerging corridor County commercial development is happening that up and

[56:11] down 17 as you can notice everything on that screen that's purple is zoned

[56:15] commercial that is demonstrated on the first slide one slide to if you'll go

[56:22] to my presentation which I apologize it's not up there but I'm happy to share

[56:27] that slides with anyone there are a mile in each direction commercial

[56:34] and based on your GIS on U.S. 17, again, that's due to the conduciveness for high traffic

[56:39] volume areas on 17. I'm sure those of you that drive it every day are aware that intersection

[56:45] right there where the U.S. is on U.S. 17 sees 35,500 cars a day in the ADT. The secondary

[56:55] road, which is your ocean beach drive sees about 1,000, I'm sorry, 10,000 cars a day.

[57:04] So again, one of the reasons that we selected this intersection for commercial development,

[57:08] not only is it already existing in commercial, but it also has high traffic volume.

[57:13] The other reasons conducive to commercial development are public infrastructure.

[57:17] There's water and sewer across U.S. 17 that would be able to be tapped into.

[57:23] Lastly, if you'll notice the, and I apologize, I'm going out of order here, on slide four

[57:30] of mine, market analysis is a visual aerial of all of the non-commercial uses on that

[57:37] corridor.

[57:38] Yes, sir.

[57:38] That one right there.

[57:39] And as you can see, there are, I won't list them out, but there are over 15 within

[57:44] a half mile in each direction of non-commercial uses.

[57:47] We believe that makes this parcel conducive for commercial growth.

[57:52] A couple other interesting things to note.

[57:54] The corner parcel that is 4.25 acres, we are also under contract to develop.

[58:00] The goal here is to be able to develop it all as one synergistic development.

[58:06] One of the things that have come up in previous, I believe, conversations about this parcel has been access.

[58:13] NCDOT, I'm sure residents will tell you those of you who have never been to Oceano Beach,

[58:17] which I have, that road can have a high increase of traffic, and that might be a traffic concern.

[58:22] There was a TIA performed at this intersection.

[58:24] We do not have access to that.

[58:26] We're working with NCDOT, we'll more than likely have to run our own TIA analysis

[58:30] to see what type of impacts our proposed development will have to that intersection.

[58:35] For those of you familiar with NCDOT, their manual is 650 pages long, whatever they

[58:40] say goes.

[58:41] We're not able to do whatever we want at that intersection. They will justify our insurance and ingress and egress points

[58:47] So just wanted to point that out

[58:50] Lastly if we're able to rezone that portion of the parcel

[58:53] It will make the access be a lot more flexible into fact of getting it away from the intersection

[58:58] Which I know has been a huge concern for NCDOT in the past

[59:01] The also that parcel if anybody's ever walked it of our seller as there's about six to seven acres of wetlands

[59:09] that are on that site. There's actually a creek if you can look at where the end is on

[59:14] U.S. 17 North that runs that runs and I'm not going around at a point but right where

[59:20] the end is with that course of the parcels. There's a creek size swamp that runs down

[59:25] the edge of that. That has a 50 foot buffer that we're going to have to navigate until

[59:29] we know exactly what survey and where that exactly line is. I'm not able to provide

[59:33] kind of where different buildings or where different development efforts will go. I

[59:38] that's one thing that's been brought up in previous attempts. Lastly, I'll tell you that

[59:42] other than the capacity of the elementary school with 13-acre parcel and 6 to 7 acres projected

[59:49] of wetlands, it's going to be very hard for someone to develop this into a residential

[59:53] fashion other than just a single-use, single-family residential. So we believe highest and best

[59:58] use of this parcel would be commercial.

[1:00:01] I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have about our particular efforts. Right

[1:00:05] now, we are very early in our stages. Should we be successful in rezoning, our next section

[1:00:11] would be wetlands delineation, survey, phase one and environmental assessment to know exactly

[1:00:16] what is going to be able, what our development efforts will look like. I can tell you that

[1:00:21] the corner, there is a interested potential user for the corner, but all the others

[1:00:26] will be proposed to retail. So lastly, I will say this, there are residential

[1:00:31] lots on the rear that anytime you develop next to residential lots, one of the biggest

[1:00:36] concerns is buffering. We're planning on leaving a 20 to 25 foot vegetative buffer

[1:00:42] and we're happy to increase that should that not feel adequate, but also the wetter

[1:00:47] areas to that parcel or to the rear. So it's not like we're going to, if our worst

[1:00:51] success, we're going to clear cut everything and develop it that way, there will be

[1:00:55] residential or a natural vegetation buffer on the left and the rear of that

[1:00:58] parcel.

[1:01:01] Okay. Just to remind the board you're to consider any and all uses not

[1:01:05] specific uses and anything in regards to the site plan you will not be able to

[1:01:09] hold him to. That'll come up at the site plan approval. So for instance like

[1:01:16] what he was just saying about increasing buffer. Right. Okay. And our

[1:01:22] language determinants around Smith has a small presentation as well as that

[1:01:25] support of the applicant. Thank you for your time and I'll be here if you have any questions.

[1:01:30] Thank you.

[1:01:41] Thank you. My name is Rihanna Smith. I'm the land use attorney for the applicant. My address

[1:01:46] is 127 West Hargett Street in Raleigh, North Carolina. And I just want to point out just

[1:01:53] a few things. Staff did a great job, so I don't want to belabor it. Really it's

[1:01:57] just saying that this really makes the most sense. It's consistent with the future

[1:02:00] land use plan and the UDO. And even though we can't be held to anything as far as

[1:02:06] orientation buffers and so forth. It's what makes practical sense. Taking into consideration

[1:02:13] the traffic, the intersection, what's available and whether or not you could even really develop

[1:02:18] it for residential use and also just being good neighbors. So happy to answer any questions

[1:02:25] but just allows for the complete development of that parcel.

[1:02:29] Okay. Any questions? All right. Thank you.

[1:02:45] All right, Ms. County. Do we have anyone sign

[1:02:47] up to speak to the board? Yes, sir. Shirley Sullivan.

[1:03:00] Hello. Hello. Shirley Sullivan 5002,

[1:03:04] Seaward Court, Southport. I oppose this rezoning quest as it is presented. It is encroaching

[1:03:10] onto residential zoning. See all the red and the purple straight line? It's like

[1:03:16] that's all residential right now. If you change that to CLD, your maximum

[1:03:23] residential units goes up to 13.6 density.

[1:03:30] R7500 maximum density is at

[1:03:32] 5.8. Now again this is a rezoning, but keep in mind if you, you know, once

[1:03:38] Once you change the zoning in this direction, you can't go back because that would be considered

[1:03:43] down zoning.

[1:03:45] So this would allow for a lot of residential to come in, even though the developer might

[1:03:51] be putting in some type of retail store.

[1:03:55] You don't know.

[1:03:56] The improvement follows the land.

[1:03:59] So once you go to CLD, that's it.

[1:04:02] CLD allows 50 more different uses, use types, than R7500.

[1:04:11] So if this, whatever the developer has planned in the development application going forward,

[1:04:17] if that doesn't work out, somebody else can come in and put in any one of those 50 different

[1:04:21] mixed uses, and you don't want me to list those.

[1:04:28] It's an assigned authorization, allowing the applicant name to be different from the applicant

[1:04:32] signature on the rezoning application.

[1:04:35] I didn't see that there was an assignment of that.

[1:04:39] The attachment one to the rezoning staff case indicates rezoning Z937 in the upper

[1:04:45] left-hand corner while the map itself is listed as Z941 correctly.

[1:04:50] This is just a clerical technical mistake.

[1:04:52] The size at the bottom left says 3.29 acres.

[1:04:56] The parcel is in fact 13.1 acres.

[1:05:00] There are environmental impacts.

[1:05:02] A core of 6 to 7 out of 10 indicates more biodiversity

[1:05:05] and wildlife on the site.

[1:05:09] The UDL review and approval procedures

[1:05:11] for rezoning action by planning a board.

[1:05:14] I recommend E, reject the petition

[1:05:16] for the zoning amendment as per the detriments

[1:05:19] to the neighbors and the surrounding community,

[1:05:21] the relationship between the current actual permissible development on the track and adjoining

[1:05:26] areas and why the action taken is not in the public interest. What changed conditions warrant

[1:05:34] the land use amendment? Again, if you look at the zoning now, all of that R7500 allows

[1:05:44] 5.8 residential units per acre.

[1:05:52] So, and I also oppose for the commercial low density because of the Brunswick Blueprint 2040 comprehensive plan.

[1:05:59] DQ2, maintain the character of the county.

[1:06:02] G1, make consulting blueprint funds to get advance of the decision.

[1:06:06] G2, maintain the relevance of blueprint Brunswick.

[1:06:09] LU5, direct growth away from areas not well suited for development.

[1:06:14] Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Ola.

[1:06:25] James Weems.

[1:06:41] Good afternoon.

[1:06:42] You will state your name for the record. My name is James Weems and I'm a JSA

[1:06:46] property owner at 109 Ocean Abbey Trove. I request the board to deny both of these.

[1:06:56] I want to be clear I'm not against development. I'm not opposed to it at

[1:07:01] all. I live here. I've lived here for 45 years. My parents have been here

[1:07:05] since the 1970s. My children are the eighth generation on the property that's adjacent

[1:07:10] to what they're talking about tonight. We've been here since the late 1790s. We know the

[1:07:15] place is growing. The staff describes this request as part of correcting split zoning.

[1:07:21] My question would be, I understand the argument, but why does making it uniformly zoned

[1:07:28] commercial, correct the issue.

[1:07:34] The residentially zoned land provides a

[1:07:36] transition between the commercial development, pointed out in purple,

[1:07:40] versus the residential property that's in red. The transition matters under the

[1:07:45] county's own UDO. The stated purpose of the UDO includes protecting the

[1:07:50] character of established residential neighborhoods, preserving quality of

[1:07:53] life, maintaining orderly and compatible land use patterns, and ensuring

[1:07:58] advocate privacy and access to property. More importantly this is a

[1:08:03] conventional rezoning that there is no site plan there are no conditions

[1:08:05] identifying what will be developed on any and all of the additional commercial

[1:08:10] property. The county UDO specifically states that we're viewing a

[1:08:14] conventional rezoning the entire range of use is allowed in the requested

[1:08:18] zoning district must be considered regardless of the proposed site plan

[1:08:21] or representations that a particular use may be limited. So this board is not

[1:08:26] being asked to approve one particular business, you're being asked to decide whether the full

[1:08:30] range of businesses that are permitted under the CLD should permanently be allowed directly

[1:08:35] beside my house. The UDL also directs this board to consider whether the range of use

[1:08:41] is appropriate for this area, the benefits, and then I'll point out the detriments

[1:08:44] to the adjoining neighboring properties. What they talked about for the entrance,

[1:08:51] entrance exit off of highway 17 would put the majority of their traffic right beside

[1:08:57] my driveway, right beside my house.

[1:09:00] So while it would make it easy for them to get in and out, it would be terrible for me

[1:09:04] and my family to be right beside them.

[1:09:07] So in closing, I understand that development standards and buffering requirements may

[1:09:11] apply later.

[1:09:12] It was stated by the applicant.

[1:09:13] But why go through and approve such a zoning when we could just wait for the

[1:09:18] site plan and get all of those buffers and things in place so that we can see

[1:09:23] what's coming on and we can know what's happening with the land beside our

[1:09:26] property. So I'm not asking the board to prevent this property from ever being

[1:09:30] developed. I'm just asking you to preserve an appropriate transition

[1:09:34] between commercial development and the established residents that is already

[1:09:38] there.

[1:09:41] If this development is ultimately appropriate, Brunswick County has

[1:09:44] already had some great conditional rezoning process that would allow a

[1:09:47] site specific condition proposed used in site plan to be considered and I believe

[1:09:51] that would be a more appropriate way to evaluate this actual commercial proposed

[1:09:57] beside my established residence. So I ask that you deny Z941 and

[1:10:23] the attached

[1:10:23] your name.

[1:10:31] Judy Andrewsack, 5886 Curtis Court, Southwest Ocean Isle Beach.

[1:10:37] Regarding the site usage, CLD uses that aren't allowed in R7500, agricultural industry, landscaping

[1:10:47] and horticulture, nurseries, mobile home class B, mobile home parks, boarding houses,

[1:10:52] Campgrounds, government-operated outdoor lighting, nude campgrounds, memorial gardens,

[1:10:58] all medical facilities, vocational and business schools, auditoriums, civic centers, exposition

[1:11:03] centers, major utilities, TV, HDTV, AM and FM broadcasting, commercial parking facilities,

[1:11:12] funeral homes, crematoriums, nightclubs, taverns, bars, indoor shooting ranges, skating rinks,

[1:11:21] outdoor advertising structures, commercial recreation, golf driving ranges, hotels, motels,

[1:11:28] restaurants, micro breweries, wineries, convenience stores, drive-through facilities,

[1:11:33] spleen markets, candles, marital arts, outdoor sales and display areas, performing arts,

[1:11:38] personal service establishments, retail sales less than or equal to 10,000 square feet,

[1:11:44] retail sales more than 10,000 square feet, veterinary establishments, animal hospitals,

[1:11:50] mini-storage, car wash, garage services, automobile repair, repair renovation, and remodeling of

[1:11:56] farm equipment, mobile and modular home sales services, vehicle and heavy equipment sales and

[1:12:02] rentals, commercial boating facilities, commercial marinas and docks, seafood processing and canning

[1:12:08] and storage of boats dry or wet. Let's tell you what you can't put in. By the way, as you exit

[1:12:16] 17 at that light. It's a dog leg if you want to go south. An ocean oil beach road

[1:12:22] floods up to four feet deep at the swamp park. Good luck.

[1:12:31] Thank you.

[1:12:37] That was the last

[1:12:37] one. Okay.

[1:12:42] All right. Does anyone from the board have any questions for anyone

[1:12:47] that spoke? I got a question I think it may be for our staff. Just looking at

[1:12:55] zoning map the one that's projected right now. I see 11 parcels that touch

[1:13:01] the commercial low density on highway 17 and this parcel as if I'm

[1:13:08] understanding correctly they want to rezone because they have a narrow piece

[1:13:12] that touches. I also appreciate the frontage on Ocean Isle Beach Road would

[1:13:17] be real good commercial. I appreciate that. I think my question is if you've

[1:13:22] got 11 more parcels that extend way back from highway 17 when they come in in six

[1:13:29] months or a year what are we looking at with them on rezoning and it would this

[1:13:34] be a backdoor effort to turn the whole place into apartments or something you

[1:13:40] know every lot there I'm just curious it's not just the one parcel that I'm

[1:13:47] looking at. It's like what's the long term possibility happening here? Is anybody

[1:13:54] got it? Are you talking about the parcels south of that? Well all the parcels

[1:13:59] that touch highway 17. When you look at the lot lines on these things a whole

[1:14:05] bunch of them they have that commercial frontage on 17 but the parcel

[1:14:09] content continues way south of 17 and so these folks I think justifiably want to

[1:14:18] go for rezoning for the commercial density because they've got a narrow

[1:14:24] piece that attaches and they don't really have room for anything and I

[1:14:29] understand that the Ocean Isle Beach frontage would be good for commercial

[1:14:32] but what happens when the other 11 show up with the same case? That's the

[1:14:39] question I've got. I mean it's... Did you want staff to address it? From a staff

[1:14:46] perspective we have parcels that have split zoned quite often and it becomes

[1:14:50] very problematic for the owner or the applicant that's trying to develop it

[1:14:55] and so usually if something split zone we do recommend to go through a

[1:15:00] Resoning to get it zoned, then one zoning. So the likelihood if somebody came in, we would

[1:15:06] probably recommend going through a rezoning because again, it makes designing a project

[1:15:11] really difficult when it's two different zonings. And so that would be the likelihood of it.

[1:15:15] The CLD district has a multifamily for several decades. So I don't really foresee that that

[1:15:22] would be a use that would come out of the wordwork being more popular than others. And

[1:15:27] And this area has been zoned CLD for a very, very long time, probably since the inception

[1:15:32] of the zoning.

[1:15:34] I'm sort of asking about all the R-7500 that could serve as a change.

[1:15:40] And those have been zoned R-7500 as well for a long time, that's correct.

[1:15:46] And I think he's drawing attention to the fact that there are 11 other parcels that

[1:15:51] are split.

[1:15:51] Right, that's what I'm saying.

[1:15:51] If they come in, staff would very, very likely recommend that they go through a rezoning

[1:15:56] to have it all one zoning because it's very problematic to develop a property

[1:16:00] that's multiple zoning districts. Not to say that they will, but that is a

[1:16:06] likelihood. But again, the multifamily is allowed and it has been allowed for a

[1:16:11] very long time so that would be a use that is allowed in the CLD if it's

[1:16:15] owned CLD. So I guess my question is when if one of these other ones comes

[1:16:22] then or they don't point at this one and say you did it for them you got to do it

[1:16:27] for us I'm just I don't I don't know but I mean that there would it would be a

[1:16:35] there would be example of how that it was expanded on split zone property in

[1:16:40] this area so yes okay I've got a question for stuff if the applicant was

[1:16:49] to come in with the full site plan, what would be allowed with a, I guess, the conditional

[1:16:59] aspect of things if they wanted to put more of a commercial, if it was still zoned R7500

[1:17:04] with a conditional zoning?

[1:17:07] It would have to be rezoned for conditional zoning.

[1:17:10] Well, with the conditional zoning, you could be rezoned to CZCLD.

[1:17:14] So yes, they could do that to a commercial district that allows that as well.

[1:17:21] But they would have to have pretty much a site plan and everything done.

[1:17:23] Right, they would have to have a site plan, the TIA, they would have to have the home line yards.

[1:17:27] Additionally, you can't require somebody to do a conditional zoning.

[1:17:31] They have to agree to it.

[1:17:32] Every condition has to be agreed by the property owner and the county.

[1:17:36] They have to agree to move forward.

[1:17:37] So it's not something that you could just say, yeah, we want you to do a CZ.

[1:17:40] And legal might have additional comments about that.

[1:17:47] Thank you.

[1:17:57] Any further questions?

[1:18:05] Mr. Chairman, I move that we close public comment period.

[1:18:10] All right.

[1:18:11] Motion to close the public hearing.

[1:18:14] Do I hear a second?

[1:18:20] I need you to speak.

[1:18:22] I'll close public comment.

[1:18:24] You want to say?

[1:18:25] Motion.

[1:18:26] Were you nodding at me for the second?

[1:18:28] Yes.

[1:18:28] Okay.

[1:18:29] I need for you to say that you seconded it.

[1:18:35] We can close the public hearing.

[1:18:37] Say you second it.

[1:18:38] Say you second it.

[1:18:39] Say you second it.

[1:18:40] Second.

[1:18:40] I thought one of them seconded it.

[1:18:42] Thank you.

[1:18:44] So we have a motion and a second.

[1:18:46] All in favor say aye.

[1:18:47] Aye.

[1:18:48] Any opposed?

[1:18:49] All right.

[1:18:50] So the public hearing is closed.

[1:18:52] What is the board's pleasure on this rezoning case

[1:18:58] and land use map amendment. 941.

[1:19:20] Mr. Chairman, I make a recommendation that

[1:19:22] we deny it on concerns based on public and information that we have.

[1:19:35] Does he

[1:19:35] need anything else with his motion for denial? What's your actual motion? Why

[1:19:40] are you denying it? I just concerned. Concerns over to, you know, can't require

[1:19:47] anything, but I think we're all in agreement, you know, everybody's curious what's going to go

[1:19:51] there and we don't know. We're setting the President's, if we zone this, we zone it the way we do it.

[1:19:59] If we have to be rezoned.

[1:20:03] From what I hear, you're opposed to CLD because of the possible number of uses.

[1:20:09] Yes.

[1:20:11] Thank you.

[1:20:12] That's sufficient. All right.

[1:20:15] Motion for denial due to the increased potential number of additional uses in the CLD district.

[1:20:25] Do I hear a second?

[1:20:27] I second.

[1:20:28] Motion and a second.

[1:20:29] All in favor say aye.

[1:20:30] Aye.

[1:20:31] Any opposed?

[1:20:32] All right.

[1:20:34] It has been denied as presented with the rezoning.

[1:20:45] Can you read the appeal form and then take a brief recess?

[1:20:51] Yes.

[1:20:53] All right.

[1:20:54] Any person with standing may appeal the decision of the planning board to the Brunsett County

[1:20:59] Board of Commissioners.

[1:21:00] Notice of the appeal must be provided and writing within 15 days.

[1:21:05] If no appeal is received, then the decision of the planning board shall be final.

[1:21:09] If an appeal is received in the allotted time, the case will move forward to the Bunza County

[1:21:13] Board of Commissioners for a public hearing and their consideration.

[1:21:17] Thank you.

[1:21:19] And with that, we have some technical issues.

[1:21:22] We're going to take a brief recess.

[1:21:27] Five minutes.

[1:21:29] All right, well let's, we'll reconvene at 5.20, it's 5.11, presently.

[1:21:39] Okay.

[1:21:39] Test

[1:23:53] one,

[1:23:56] test two.

[1:30:36] All right, Ms. County, are you working?

[1:30:37] motion. Yes, sir. Everything's good. All right.

[1:30:44] We'll go ahead and call this meeting back

[1:30:46] to order. Just missed 5.20. 5.21. All right. Before we start the next item, I would like

[1:30:56] to make a motion to the board to recuse Howard Stocks from agenda item 8, number 4, PD 180

[1:31:02] 80 Amber Glen plan development.

[1:31:07] Have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

[1:31:11] Aye.

[1:31:12] All right. Any opposed? All right. Mr. Stocks, if you will, step down from the board.

[1:31:22] Don't

[1:31:23] go anywhere. We're going to call you back up after this one. All

[1:31:34] right. In public hearings,

[1:31:37] item number four, Amber Glen plan development, PD 180, consideration of the proposed Amber

[1:31:43] Amber Glen plan development consisting of 417 single family homes on approximately 122 acres

[1:31:50] creating an overall density of 3.42 dwelling units per acre.

[1:31:55] This is located on Old Ocean Highway US-17 business near Bolivia.

[1:32:01] And do we have a report from staff?

[1:32:03] Yes.

[1:32:03] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:32:05] This is application repeat 180, Amber Glen plan development.

[1:32:09] The applicant is Cape Fear Engineering, located on Old Ocean Highway and Benton Road.

[1:32:15] Zoning districts, as you can see from the zoning map, the overwhelming majority of the site

[1:32:19] is CLD, or Commercial Low Density, which allows a maximum residential density of 13.6 dwelling

[1:32:27] units per acre.

[1:32:28] There's a very small portion.

[1:32:30] That one small lot fronting on Benton Road is our 7,500, which allows a maximum density

[1:32:37] of 5.8 dwelling units per acre. Both of these densities are based upon the project having

[1:32:43] water and sewer availability. The surrounding zoning is very similar. The overwhelming majority

[1:32:50] is CLD around. There's R7500 to the south. As mentioned, Amber Glen is a proposed plan

[1:32:59] development consisting of 417 single family units on approximately 122 acres

[1:33:06] creating an overall density of 3.42 dwelling units per acre. Approval

[1:33:11] criteria, the majority of the surrounding uses consists of single family

[1:33:14] residential, institutional, commercial, agricultural, and vacant land. Just want

[1:33:19] to point out some of the major land uses in the area directly across Old

[1:33:27] Ocean Highway. You've got Brunswick County School, which is the coast school. You've

[1:33:33] also got Brunswick Community College in the top right. You've got Hospice, which is just

[1:33:40] to the northeast. And then you've got, of course, a hospital and supply elementary

[1:33:47] within about a quarter to a half mile away. The blueprint Brunswick Future Land

[1:33:54] use map the notice area as commercial as commercial low density residential and

[1:34:05] open space conservation one parking will be off-street with the minimum of two

[1:34:10] driveway parking spaces per lot proposed infrastructure will have water and sewer

[1:34:17] will be provided by Brunswick County and the roads will be private the

[1:34:21] proposed development will have a 30 foot or in some small areas, a 20 foot peripheral

[1:34:28] buffer. Those 20 foot areas will have a 6 foot fence. All must meet the minimum opacity

[1:34:34] of 0.6. Supplemental landscaping will be installed where the natural vegetation is subpar.

[1:34:43] The required open space of the development is approximately 30.5 acres. The developers

[1:34:48] is proposing 32.47 acres of dedicated open space. The developer is also proposing 5.46

[1:34:54] acres of recreation space of which 4.6 are required. The proposed project will generate

[1:35:01] approximately 3,712 vehicle trips per 24-hour weekday volume.

[1:35:09] A traffic impact analysis

[1:35:10] or TIA has been completed and approved by NCDOT. A driveway permit from NCDOT will

[1:35:17] be required prior to the recording of the individual lots.

[1:35:20] The proposed road improvements, as mandated in the DOT, are at Site Access A, which is

[1:35:28] at Old Ocean Highway or U.S. 17 Business, and the access into the site.

[1:35:33] There will be a westbound and eastbound turn lanes, the westbound turn lane being

[1:35:39] 50 feet, the eastbound turn lane being 75 feet.

[1:35:42] At Side Access B, there is no turn lanes required as dictated by DOT.

[1:35:53] The exceptional design elements to be included in the project are as follows.

[1:35:56] The developer is proposing 32.47 acres of open space, whereas 30.5 acres are required.

[1:36:02] As mentioned before, the developer is also proposing 5.46 acres of recreation space,

[1:36:06] whereas 4.6 are required.

[1:36:09] The developer has agreed to a 10-foot additional buffer adjacent to all wetlands.

[1:36:15] There's not a whole lot of wetlands.

[1:36:16] It's really just along the northern or the northeastern boundary, that kind of uneven

[1:36:22] line that there are some wetlands there where there's a small branch.

[1:36:28] And of course, there will still be a 50-foot riparian buffer from that branch.

[1:36:36] sidewalks are to be provided on one side of the road throughout the

[1:36:39] development. The main road through the development which is not going to be

[1:36:43] known as Amber Glen Boulevard shall be opened to the public and provide

[1:36:46] greater connectivity to the area. So this will connect Benton Road with Old

[1:36:51] Ocean Highway. Again this is not proposed to be a gated community so it

[1:36:56] will be open. The design flexibility elements requested for the project are

[1:37:00] as follows. Number one reduction in lot dimensions and number two reduction

[1:37:04] and setbacks. No portions of the site are located in a flood hazard zone as you can see

[1:37:12] from the flood map and the site is not within a half mile of a voluntary agricultural district

[1:37:20] for schools. This site would be located in the following school districts supply elementary

[1:37:27] which is currently at 89% capacity and projected to go over 100% capacity in the

[1:37:32] 2020-29, 20-30 school year. Cedar Grove Middle is currently at 82% capacity and not expect to

[1:37:39] go for capacity until 2030. South Brunswick High is currently at 84% capacity and expect to go

[1:37:45] over capacity in the 20-29 school year. Per Brunswick County schools, the expected school impact

[1:37:53] is considered to be moderate.

[1:37:58] Jason property owners were notified via US mail and notification

[1:38:01] application sign was posted on the subject property. TRC was held on May 19th of

[1:38:05] 2026 and a neighborhood meeting was held on July 29th of 2026. If approved, this

[1:38:12] development shall have a vested right for a period of three years. A two-year

[1:38:15] extension may be requested by the applicant to the Brunswick County

[1:38:18] Planning Department. Planning staff has determined that the proposed plan

[1:38:22] development meets or exceed the applicable standards of the UDO and

[1:38:25] therefore recommends approval based upon the following conditions. Number

[1:38:28] Number one, that development shall proceed in conformity with all plans and design features

[1:38:32] submitted as part of the plan development application and kept on file by the Brunswick

[1:38:36] County Planning Department.

[1:38:38] Number two, that development of the partial shall comply with all regulations as specified

[1:38:42] in the Brunswick County UDO.

[1:38:44] Number three, plan development approval does not constitute an authorization to

[1:38:48] construct.

[1:38:49] All applicable federal, state and county approvals and permits will be necessary

[1:38:53] to obtain final approvals and building permits.

[1:38:57] this includes stormwater utilities and fire marshal requirements. And number four plan

[1:39:02] development approval does not constitute or guarantee the allocation of water or sewer

[1:39:06] capacity. The applicant proceeds at their own risk with respect to future water and

[1:39:11] sewer system connections. The ability to modify existing permits connect

[1:39:15] unpermitted structures and construct new water and sewer infrastructure

[1:39:20] connected or tributary to the county's water and or sewer system

[1:39:25] permit is dependent upon receipt of a valid water and wastewater line extension permits

[1:39:30] from the state of North Carolina. The application for which requires plan approval and sign documentation

[1:39:37] authorizing connection to the county water and or wastewater system. Water and wastewater

[1:39:43] available capacity will change over time. A few pictures of the site. This is looking

[1:39:50] across Old Ocean Highway. I believe that's the Baptist Assembly building. The

[1:39:56] Brunswick County School is just off-screen to the right. View of the

[1:40:00] property. This is looking from Old Ocean Highway. I should also note the

[1:40:05] property was previously owned by a timber company which is and I believe

[1:40:09] has been recently timbered. So it was previously a tree farm. Views facing

[1:40:15] facing West on Old Ocean Highway and East. And then Benton Road. The right hand picture

[1:40:23] is the property that is under contract by the applicant to purchase that property and

[1:40:29] this will be where the entrance, the southern entrance to the development would be. And

[1:40:34] then view facing East and West on Benton Road. And that concludes staff report.

[1:40:41] All right. Thank you, sir.

[1:40:49] One question for you.

[1:40:53] The plan showed the 20-foot periphery

[1:40:56] buffer with a 6-foot vinyl fence. Is that, it was noted in here that it was a 0.6 opacity.

[1:41:02] Is that vinyl fence a privacy fence or is that just a picket?

[1:41:08] So in the UDO, the 0.6 opacity has several options. One of them is 30 feet with just

[1:41:14] vegetation. The other one, if you do a 20 feet, 20 foot, 0.6 opacity, the requirement

[1:41:21] is an opaque 6-foot-high fence. So the only areas that are going to have that per the

[1:41:27] site plan are along the two entrance points. Sorry, did I manage the question?

[1:41:34] Is it going to be the full fence, not the slat?

[1:41:40] It has to be okay.

[1:41:42] Okay, gotcha.

[1:41:43] Thank you.

[1:41:47] All right, does anyone else have any questions for staff?

[1:41:53] All right.

[1:41:54] Hearing none, do I hear a motion to open the public hearing?

[1:41:58] So move.

[1:41:59] Second.

[1:42:00] Motion and a second.

[1:42:01] All in favor say aye.

[1:42:02] Aye.

[1:42:03] Any opposed?

[1:42:05] All right, do we have the applicant

[1:42:06] or representative of the applicant? Yes, sir.

[1:42:20] Good evening, Chairman Cheek,

[1:42:22] members of the board. My name is Clint Cogburn. I'm a land use attorney with the

[1:42:26] law firm Ward and Smith with offices at 82 Patton Avenue in Asheville, North

[1:42:29] Carolina. I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicant, Kate Fear,

[1:42:33] engineering and real-star acquisitions LLC, which is seeking approval of the

[1:42:39] Amber Glen plan development under the preliminary master plan review

[1:42:43] process. Additionally here with me as well as our full development team that is

[1:42:50] available to answer questions and you'll hear from some of them as part of our

[1:42:53] presentation. We want to be respectful of your time but also want to make sure

[1:42:56] that we're providing you with the necessary information and meeting our

[1:42:59] obligations under the ordinance. The individuals attending as part of our

[1:43:04] team this evening are Graham Black from RealStar Development Group, Matt

[1:43:08] Haley who's vice president with Cape Fear Engineering, Jackson Starling who's

[1:43:13] a professional civil engineer with Cape Fear Engineering,

[1:43:16] Kim Williams, wetland section manager

[1:43:18] with Davy Resource Group, Cameron Owens,

[1:43:21] who handles wetland delineation for Davy Resource Group,

[1:43:25] and Raimi Kemp, who is a principal

[1:43:28] and professional traffic engineer with RFK engineers.

[1:43:33] We appreciate the work of our entire team

[1:43:35] as well as with staff.

[1:43:36] Staff has been great to work with.

[1:43:39] My involvement is more recent,

[1:43:41] but in talking to our entire team they've worked with staff closely in terms of

[1:43:46] refining this plan over the course of months to get to the plan that is

[1:43:51] before this board today which we believe not only satisfies the

[1:43:55] requirements of the ordinance but exceeds it in many aspects.

[1:44:04] So looking at

[1:44:05] the subject site as staff mentioned it's a combination of five separate

[1:44:09] adjoining parcels along Old Ocean Highway and Benton Road. It totals

[1:44:14] approximately 122 acres of that. The breakdown is approximately 117 of those being uplands

[1:44:22] with the remaining five being wetlands acreage. The current zoning as staff went through is

[1:44:28] almost entirely commercial low density. The only portion of the subject site that is not

[1:44:34] commercial low density is that access tract that connects to Benton Road and that is zoned

[1:44:41] media and density residential. But again, other than the access, the rest of the track

[1:44:49] is zone, that commercial low density designation. What we are proposing as part of this request

[1:44:55] are to build 417 single family detached homes.

[1:45:00] And that will be over the course of two phases. Those phases are almost equally split. Phase

[1:45:05] one is slightly larger and it's shown on the site plan and the plan that has been submitted

[1:45:12] as part of this with 214 units. Phase two slightly less than that with 203. That comes out again

[1:45:20] to 3.42 dwelling units per acre. This is less than half of what would otherwise be possible

[1:45:29] under the current zoning, the maximum dwelling units per acreage, if we wanted to get there

[1:45:34] would be 7.26, we are significantly below that maximum dwelling unit capacity and that's

[1:45:42] intentional. It is to allow for additional buffering as well as more open space and

[1:45:48] more recreational spaces.

[1:45:56] As staff mentioned, the purpose of the plan development request

[1:46:01] is to provide certain flexibilities and accommodations in exchange for the applicant

[1:46:06] increasing its burden in other areas. The two minor flexibilities that we are

[1:46:12] asking for here are the first being lot sizes, the CLD standard minimum lot size

[1:46:19] is 6,000 square feet. We are proposing a range in between 5,040 square feet

[1:46:26] feet and 6,240 square feet, there will be a smaller lot design and a larger lot design

[1:46:32] and there could be an intermediate lot design as part of this.

[1:46:35] And that's one of the flexibilities that we are asking for.

[1:46:39] In addition to it allowing for greater open space and greater preservation, it also provides

[1:46:45] a more cost effective option with that smaller lot design compared to just having a standard

[1:46:51] lot design across the entire development.

[1:46:54] requirement. The second is a very minor flexibility that we're asking for. As part of this, we

[1:47:00] meet all of the setbacks corner, street, side, and rear. The only flexibility we're asking

[1:47:07] for is a small reduction to the front yard setback requirement from 25 to 20 feet. That

[1:47:13] allows again for greater clustering, greater large open space areas, greater conservation

[1:47:18] and the ability to have the requisite and adequate buffering and separation with adjacent

[1:47:26] lots.

[1:47:30] I won't go through the entirety of UDO 3.3.3A, but we do believe that we meet each of these

[1:47:36] requirements and specifically want to highlight that as part of this we are proposing clustering

[1:47:42] to reduce any impacts to infrastructure.

[1:47:46] That clustering and the design of this project will also reduce erosion and sedimentation

[1:47:51] by minimizing land disturbance, and additionally, this is a very efficient design, again, that

[1:47:58] promotes the best use of the property, it clusters units into the uplands, it allows

[1:48:04] for greater open space and conservation, and builds out a very good development for

[1:48:11] this area.

[1:48:16] As part of the proposal, again, we talked about the plan development where we're

[1:48:19] We're asking for certain flexibilities in exchange for that as part of this proposal.

[1:48:24] We are proposing increases to the open space and recreation requirements.

[1:48:30] As staff mentioned, the minimum requirement for a PD is 25% open space.

[1:48:39] That comes out to approximately 30.5 acres.

[1:48:43] What is being proposed here is 32.47 acres.

[1:48:47] So almost an additional two acres of open space or 106% of the requirement under the ordinance.

[1:48:53] Additionally, as part of the open space, 15% of that in the ordinance has to be usable recreational area.

[1:49:03] When you do the math, the requirement for this site would be 4.6 acres.

[1:49:08] What we're proposing is almost an additional full acre at 5.46 acres or 118% of the requirement.

[1:49:17] The open space plan, as you can see on what has been submitted with the application, includes

[1:49:22] amenity ponds, natural areas and passive recreation space integrated throughout the development.

[1:49:28] This is intentional to avoid kind of piecemeal open space areas that aren't cohesive, that

[1:49:33] don't allow for those to be maximized.

[1:49:36] This design does that, and it's very intentional in ensuring the best use of those open

[1:49:41] spaces and making them actual usable open spaces that benefit the community in the surrounding

[1:49:46] area. The lot size reduction also supports better integration and use of the open space

[1:49:52] overall as part of the development. I'm going to turn it over here to Rami Kemp to talk

[1:49:57] about traffic. I do want to note again as staff mentioned that a traffic impact analysis

[1:50:01] was submitted for this site to the NCDOT. The TIA was reviewed and approved by Division

[1:50:10] Division III of NCDOT on July 23rd, 2026, and that is a requirement for the plan development

[1:50:16] approval and we have satisfied that requirement. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Kemp so he

[1:50:20] can provide a little bit more information on traffic.

[1:50:23] Thank you.

[1:50:28] Well, the summary has been well presented. I am Ramey Kemp with...

[1:50:33] Mr. Kemp, if you...

[1:50:33] Yeah, I was going to say state your name for the record. Thank you.

[1:50:35] Yes, I'm Ramey Kemp with RFK Engineers, with an office at 5808 Farringdon Place

[1:50:42] in Raleigh, North Carolina. In accordance with NCDOT and the county guidelines, we prepared

[1:50:51] the TIA for the site. We looked at three intersections that were requested in addition to the two

[1:50:59] access points. And from that study, we recommended that there be two lanes, two turn lanes,

[1:51:08] on the old ocean highway, one left turn into the site and one right turn into the site.

[1:51:16] And it was concluded that nothing was needed at the Benton Road access. Low volumes were

[1:51:24] the primary reason.

[1:51:28] I'd be glad to answer any questions. We were approved by the

[1:51:38] County on July 23rd.

[1:51:42] All right.

[1:51:43] Thank you.

[1:51:43] Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Kent?

[1:51:46] All right.

[1:51:47] Thank you, sir.

[1:51:58] One of the things I also want to mention

[1:51:59] is part of the traffic piece of this proposal.

[1:52:03] And staff mentioned this as well.

[1:52:05] The proposed design promotes connectivity

[1:52:07] while these roads will be private.

[1:52:10] They will have to meet the NCDOT minimum standards

[1:52:13] for subdivision roads.

[1:52:14] But in addition to that, it will connect Old Ocean

[1:52:17] highway to Benton as staff mentioned. So there's not going to be a gate that prevents access

[1:52:22] and so it will allow for greater connectivity in the surrounding area. I'd now want to turn it

[1:52:28] over to Jackson Starling at Cape Fear Engineers to talk about some of the stormwater, sewer,

[1:52:34] and site engineering aspects of this project. Thank you.

[1:52:41] Good evening members of the board

[1:52:43] and Mr. Chair. My name is Jackson Starling with Cape Fear Engineering 151 Pull Road in

[1:52:48] So I just want to lightly touch on the water and sewer for this project.

[1:52:57] I can push this forward a little bit.

[1:52:59] So we've been coordinating with staff in Brunsett County Engineering on existing infrastructure in the area.

[1:53:05] There is an existing 30-inch water main on Old Ocean Highway and an existing 10-inch force main on Old Ocean Highway.

[1:53:14] Our intent to serve this project is to provide a centralized pump station with gravity sewer

[1:53:20] lines, which is the preference of county engineering.

[1:53:23] At that point where we collect all the gravity sewer, we will provide a force main that will

[1:53:29] connect back up to Old Ocean Highway and connect into the county's transmission line.

[1:53:35] For water, we will be connecting on to the 30-inch water main, but we will likely

[1:53:39] also loop through to the Benton Road. Actually, there is no water on Benton Road. We will

[1:53:48] be looping through our subdivision and back into the 30-inch line, which will certainly

[1:53:52] provide adequate pressure for the subdivision. Just to quickly touch on stormwater, one

[1:54:00] of the additional permits that we'll have to go through, both with the county and

[1:54:03] with the Department of Environmental Quality. We have a number of amenity ponds and

[1:54:08] stormwater ponds on the site to help attenuate the runoff of stormwater from

[1:54:16] the site and slowly release it. The county holds us to a higher standard than

[1:54:21] they did previously. They now hold us to the 25-year storm for the pre-post

[1:54:26] condition, meaning that in the pre-development condition you have a

[1:54:31] certain amount of runoff in a 25-year storm and the post-development runoff

[1:54:34] condition after all the driveways. Reef tops and everything are down. We will have to be

[1:54:39] within 5% of that pre-development condition. So I believe we've designed this site very

[1:54:47] well and we'll over attenuate the storm water runoff from this site. So that's just kind

[1:54:56] of lightly touching on the infrastructure. I'd be happy to answer any other questions

[1:54:59] of board may have?

[1:55:03] All right. Any questions from the board? All right. Thank you. Thank

[1:55:10] you.

[1:55:15] And I'll just briefly conclude. We do submit and it's shown on your screen here

[1:55:21] as part of our presentation that we meet all of the required site plan approval criteria

[1:55:26] set forth in the ordinance specifically section 3.2.5. That includes things like

[1:55:34] like UDO compliance, future land use compliance, staff went into that.

[1:55:39] Natural site features, parking, as staff mentioned, there will be at least two parking spaces

[1:55:44] per unit designated in addition to those NCDOT approved access designs and improvements

[1:55:51] that the applicant is certainly willing to make as part of this project.

[1:56:00] And one of the things we want to touch on here at the end is we did get through

[1:56:04] the TRC process in May of 2026, there were comments from TRC, and we appreciate TRC's

[1:56:12] diligence in providing those comments. They're very comprehensive. We went back and made adjustments

[1:56:17] to those, including related to sight lines at access points, delineating certain wetland

[1:56:26] areas again along that northeastern boundary line and made some other tweaks to the plan.

[1:56:34] Additionally, as part of this, as staff mentioned, there was a community meeting that was held

[1:56:39] towards the end of July, and there's been ongoing dialogue both with staff and with

[1:56:44] the community throughout this development process.

[1:56:47] One of the outcomes of that was a comment related to access early on and which led

[1:56:53] to the access point off of Benton Road that creates that greater connectivity. Another

[1:56:58] one was at that front access to Old Ocean Highway. There was a comment from an adjacent

[1:57:05] property owner related to the location of the units along that access point and wanting

[1:57:10] them to be flipped to the other side so that there was greater buffer and distance.

[1:57:14] That has been done as part of that along Amber Glen there at the access point along

[1:57:20] old ocean highway. The applicant is has been in communication with the community

[1:57:26] wants to make sure that this is a beneficial development for all and again

[1:57:31] we believe that we meet the requirements of the ordinance very clearly that this

[1:57:37] is an appropriate use for this site and that the combination of reduced

[1:57:41] density and increased open space and active recreation space makes this a

[1:57:46] appropriate project and we ask that you approve it.

[1:57:51] Thank you. We're happy to

[1:57:54] answer any questions. We've got a full team here, so if you have any questions,

[1:57:56] happy to direct it to whoever may be best in the appropriate party. Yes, sir.

[1:58:01] All right. Thank you. Any questions at this time from the board? Nope. Okay.

[1:58:08] All right. Thank you, sir. Stay close. We may have some questions in a few

[1:58:12] minutes.

[1:58:14] It's kind of we have anyone sign up to speak to us on this plan

[1:58:19] development? Yes ma'am. George Harris.

[1:58:44] Hello, I'm George Harris. I live at 327 Benton

[1:58:47] Road and I am aware of some of you here. That's nothing between that. I'm

[1:58:56] curious where any runoff in this property is going to go. Is it going to end up in

[1:59:01] the ditch by the supply school, which currently floods quite a bit at the

[1:59:08] school entrance and I live on the opposite side of Benton Rd from this and I'm aware

[1:59:14] of where this is. They, my concern is with the water coming off that property because

[1:59:21] when we had that unmeaned storm in that 21 inches of rain, I had water within four to

[1:59:27] five foot of my front step. Benton Rd was completely underwater and impassable and

[1:59:33] it ran off. My road was compromised up near Gilbert due to the contractors sending water

[1:59:41] out instead of where it should have gone from that project under development. And I couldn't

[1:59:47] get out by the school. There was sort of water across the road down by the school. My concern

[1:59:53] is just where is this water going to go for this development? There's several properties

[1:59:59] Thank you very much.

[2:00:00] Pretty deep, like where there's a cattle farm across from me, and that's pretty deep.

[2:00:06] And when that happened, the cows were just out in the field sloshing around.

[2:00:11] It's just a concern to me about the flooding. I did not own that property.

[2:00:16] I bought it after Hurricane Florence, but it's never flooded until we had that 21 inches of rain.

[2:00:23] But currently, both sides of Benton Road have a swell or a ditch that runs down it.

[2:00:29] It gets to just about to the end of my property and it stops and comes under the road to my

[2:00:36] side of the road and then goes across my property back into what they call the village there,

[2:00:44] where behind me it goes back in there and goes back towards the Lockwood Valley.

[2:00:49] So those people too are catching odor down there and there's no, we don't have any

[2:00:57] septic systems we're all on force mean because the ground doesn't perk so you

[2:01:02] know we're all in the same boat out there I don't know about this project

[2:01:05] today you know if they need to be on a force man or not but they yeah there are

[2:01:10] two of them on that side of Benton Road that run currently run down and there's

[2:01:14] a reclaimed water on my side that goes back to the spray fields so head back

[2:01:19] towards St. James golf courses that's my concern just where's the water

[2:01:24] going. I really don't care about the houses or anything. I'm just

[2:01:30] worrying about the water. I understand. I can call their engineer back up here. I

[2:01:35] will say on their plans and they'll have to get state stormwater approvals.

[2:01:42] But the stormwater management system will be designed to attenuate the one

[2:01:45] year tenure and 25 year 24-hour storm events on the project-wide basis.

[2:01:54] In

[2:01:54] for the 100-year 24-hour storm event, which what you're talking about is the

[2:01:59] PTC-8 that was probably a thousand-year event, but so the the ponds and I could

[2:02:07] get the engineer back up here to probably better explain, but though the

[2:02:11] banks will be higher to hold more water. I'm concerned on the Benton route

[2:02:15] side they they're lower on that side mm-hmm that would be my interest right

[2:02:21] there traffic's gonna be horrendous already I think approximately 400 under

[2:02:29] construction on a corner of Benton and what's that Gilbert Gilbert yeah and then

[2:02:37] add another 400 is just a lot of traffic I don't know if you've been on Gilbert

[2:02:48] It's a mess.

[2:02:50] Not uncommon to wait 20 minutes to get out on Midway Road to go anywhere.

[2:02:56] It just, you know, you've got all these developments in that central kind of pretty

[2:03:00] clues and just an ongoing issue.

[2:03:03] It is, yes.

[2:03:04] A lot of very unhappy people out that way.

[2:03:07] Yeah, I think that was one of the recommendations of staff was to be

[2:03:10] able to get the connectivity through.

[2:03:11] able to get the connectivity through.

[2:03:12] through to help alleviate some of the traffic concerns

[2:03:15] to allow for residents in the area to access

[2:03:19] and get to the school a little bit quicker

[2:03:22] versus having to go up and around.

[2:03:24] But Benton Road's a fairly desolate road,

[2:03:26] you know, when it's not going to work or coming home,

[2:03:29] but it's high-speed traffic at that time.

[2:03:32] And I mean high-speed traffic, it's a lot.

[2:03:37] Well, thank you.

[2:03:38] Okay, thank you.

[2:03:39] Mr.

[2:03:44] Sterling, do you mind coming back up and addressing the stormwater flooding issue?

[2:03:53] Sure. I appreciate the comment. The post-tropical cycling number eight storm I just want to note

[2:04:00] was a thousand year plus storm. It's beyond anything I've seen in my lifetime and hopefully

[2:04:07] we don't have another one in my lifetime but it's beyond anything that can truly

[2:04:11] be designed for. I mean, it was mentioned that this road flooded, but a lot of different

[2:04:16] areas flooded. So I guess the original question was where does the water, the runoff, ultimately

[2:04:22] go from this subdivision? So if you see in the bottom southwest corner, we have our

[2:04:28] stormwater pond number one labeled. So basically the way this system is going to collect

[2:04:33] water is through, lots are going to be graded to the road. Once they get to the road,

[2:04:39] You've got curbing gutter that deliver it to a series of stormwater pipes.

[2:04:44] Those pipes connect into these amenity ponds which provide a little bit of attenuation in

[2:04:48] between and then ultimately to the stormwater pond, which as the chair said earlier, we

[2:04:58] impound more water and provide an outlet structure to basically between storms draw

[2:05:04] the water down so that when the storm does come we're able to store a certain amount

[2:05:09] of water per the county stormwater design manual up to the 25-year storm and then slowly

[2:05:16] release that amount over a period of time.

[2:05:21] That water is going to be released towards Ford's branch that runs kind of the western

[2:05:26] northwestern portion of the property.

[2:05:29] That branch then runs under Benton Road and on to, I

[2:05:36] believe it's the, what's

[2:05:37] the main run of the river there into a flood zone. We did receive some minor feedback from

[2:05:45] some adjacent property owners about Benton Road. We are going to reach out to DOT to

[2:05:51] see if there has been historical flooding there. But as we do with any subdivision

[2:05:56] that we put forth for the planning board, we look at, you know, a pre-post snapshot

[2:06:02] shot of the site. And as we stated before, the post-development runoff will be at or at

[2:06:11] a maximum 5% over the pre-development. So this subdivision is not going to create any

[2:06:18] problem. It's if anything going to help the current issue there at Bend Road.

[2:06:26] Okay. Thank you, sir. And I guess just kind of breaking that down to what you were saying,

[2:06:33] it'll release out to some of the ditches along Benton Road, but you're going to release it

[2:06:38] slow enough that it's not going to, you know, continue to flood anywhere else. Correct.

[2:06:43] That's correct. Slow and controlled release. Okay. All right. Thank you.

[2:06:52] Shirley Sullivan.

[2:07:03] Welcome back.

[2:07:05] Shirley Sullivan 5002 Seward Court, Southport.

[2:07:10] Has there been any further update to the documentation

[2:07:12] that was provided in the packet made available to the public last week?

[2:07:16] Is there an updated staff report in TRC? Or no.

[2:07:20] That was in the packet. There's nothing been updated? Not since the packet was...

[2:07:25] Okay. In review of the plan development application for PD-180,

[2:07:29] I noted the following inconsistencies on the staff report under proposed road improvements.

[2:07:36] It says provide a stop control at SR 1504 Old Linnon Road.

[2:07:40] This road is not part of PD 180.

[2:07:42] It belongs over on PD 183 Berkeley Bay.

[2:07:47] On the report formerly known as the TRC, the BC schools indicate South Brunswick High

[2:07:52] School will not go over 100% capacity until 2034.

[2:07:56] This should read 2029 as accurately shown in the staff report.

[2:08:02] All of these schools are currently over 82%.

[2:08:05] How do schools calculate the growth?

[2:08:07] Is there a specific calculation that can be published?

[2:08:11] Can't we just apply the growth rate of 4%?

[2:08:14] I respectfully oppose the approval of this plan document

[2:08:17] per the following concerns.

[2:08:18] The school capacity is listed as moderate,

[2:08:21] three years out until over 100 capacity

[2:08:25] per the estimate. Water and wastewater capacity have not been identified. Both are to be provided

[2:08:32] by Brunswick County. As indicated, there are concerns on specific lots in this development

[2:08:37] with surface elevation of flooding potential. The flood hazards map also indicates there

[2:08:42] is no way out of this area if there is future flooding. Are any of these roads evacuation

[2:08:47] roads. Gilbert road floods constantly.

[2:08:54] The track impact analysis indicates 3,712 additional

[2:08:58] vehicles per 24-hour period. The TAIA was submitted by RFK engineers PLC in June of

[2:09:04] 26. The study was performed in April of 26 while schools were in session. The NCDOT

[2:09:11] was approved in July 23, 2026. The original NCDOT approved scope was not included in

[2:09:18] this packet. Per the UDL, section 6.16, impact analysis, traffic volumes, data should be

[2:09:26] adjusted for daily and seasonal variations. There is no indication of what the summer

[2:09:32] traffic is. The state growth rate of 2% was used. Brunswick County growth rate is 4-5%.

[2:09:39] Only one approved development was used per the coordination of NCDOT and the county in

[2:09:44] the original scope. That's Middle Creek PD 61. That was approved in 21 for 743 units of

[2:09:52] which 35% are built out. PD 87, PD 96, PD 144 and PD 139 which are closer to this development

[2:10:01] are not included. They total approximately 7,000 additional trips per day for whatever

[2:10:08] reason they were not included in the TIA. Is there something else missing from the

[2:10:12] calculation. The proposed development packet is incomplete.

[2:10:19] Amberglen is up for its third time. It was submitted originally as PD173. Nowhere

[2:10:24] is an indicator on there. It's been pulled from the agenda twice.

[2:10:28] That's your time. Thank you. If

[2:10:36] I can comment on the 173. There was an

[2:10:39] application submitted for this project under a previous project number PD173.

[2:10:45] It went through TRC. They did not have a southern entrance. Staff informed the

[2:10:52] applicant that they would not get a favorable staff recommendation. We needed

[2:10:57] another connection. They requested and writing to withdraw the project and then

[2:11:04] a few months later I guess through some negotiation with that property owner

[2:11:07] they were able to secure that other connection, that road connection. And so

[2:11:13] because it was officially withdrawn, it was a brand new application and assigned

[2:11:17] a new plan development number. Okay. Thank you.

[2:11:25] Rose McKeaton? Rose

[2:11:40] McKeaton, 620 Bentham Road.

[2:11:42] If you will pull the mic down just a little bit. Rose McKeaton, 620 Bentham Road. My property

[2:11:50] realized right in front of that big pond and it scares me that it's going to flood. We're

[2:11:59] having more storms over and over. It's not when it might happen, if it's going to happen.

[2:12:05] And it will. Everybody sees the storms getting worse and worse all the time. Traffic on

[2:12:10] that road is bad now. We've already got one subdivision at the head of the road

[2:12:16] that they haven't completely started building on yet and yet they want to

[2:12:21] start another one because they say there's a market for all these items.

[2:12:27] The

[2:12:27] reality, I mean on paper it looks great, but the reality of what's going to

[2:12:32] happen if this gets built along with all the other ones that are going to be

[2:12:37] built in our area, the reality is not going to be good. You need to think

[2:12:42] about what the impact is on the people, not just because it looks so good on paper. Thank

[2:12:48] you.

[2:12:49] Thank you.

[2:13:03] Alton Smith.

[2:13:12] Good evening. My name is Alton Swan. I'm a neighbor and property owner at 532 Benton

[2:13:18] Road and I wanted to say that I feel like that this is a responsible, well-planned

[2:13:28] development that's

[2:13:31] more than met the required open space. And I support this development.

[2:13:38] I support the project. I like the fact that the density is well below what the zoning requires.

[2:13:46] And I think it shows a real commitment to building a quality community by not maximizing

[2:13:52] the number of homes and the development and adding more open space that's required.

[2:13:58] I appreciate the board and staff reviewing this project and I respectfully ask that you

[2:14:03] support this development. Thank you.

[2:14:05] Thank you.

[2:14:12] That was the last one.

[2:14:13] That was the last one?

[2:14:14] Yes, sir.

[2:14:17] Mark, the density and commercial is shown on their map here is 7.26, but I was thinking

[2:14:26] in CLD, it was like 13.

[2:14:28] It is.

[2:14:29] It's 13 that's that's for our 6,000. So it's it's 13.6 dwelling units breaker and commercial. Okay, I

[2:14:38] Didn't know if maybe they combined with

[2:14:41] No, or yeah, 7,500 at the below. It's a misprint. Okay

[2:14:46] All right. Thank you

[2:14:48] All right. Does anyone on the board have any other questions from any of the speakers tonight?

[2:14:58] Hearing none. Do I hear a motion?

[2:15:00] Motion to close the public hearing.

[2:15:03] A motion to close.

[2:15:06] A second.

[2:15:06] All right. Motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

[2:15:09] Aye.

[2:15:10] Any opposed? All right. Thank you.

[2:15:15] What is the pleasure of the board here in regards to PD 180?

[2:15:44] Make a motion to approve as submitted.

[2:15:48] And

[2:15:54] we need with that the how

[2:16:02] many conditions was it that you'd provided with staff was it five

[2:16:06] there were four conditions and they're the usual standard conditions motion with the

[2:16:14] with the four conditions that staff provided. All right so we have a motion for approval of

[2:16:21] PD-180 adopting the four conditions as provided by staff.

[2:16:27] Do I hear a second?

[2:16:31] Second.

[2:16:32] Motion is second.

[2:16:34] All in favor say aye.

[2:16:35] Aye.

[2:16:36] Any opposed?

[2:16:37] All right.

[2:16:38] Motion carries, PD-180 is approved as presented

[2:16:42] with the four conditions as provided by staff.

[2:16:45] Thank you.

[2:16:56] All right.

[2:16:59] Any person with standing may appeal the decision

[2:17:01] of the planning board to the superior court. Thank you.

[2:17:08] All right. I would like to make

[2:17:10] a motion to, Brian, what is it I need to bring Howard back up? Make a motion. Make a motion

[2:17:19] to bring.

[2:17:22] He was only recused for the one, specifically. Do I even need to make a motion?

[2:17:27] needs to get back up here.

[2:17:31] Mr. Stox, come on back up.

[2:17:50] All right, Ms. Conning, let the

[2:17:52] record show that Mr. Stox has rejoined the board. All

[2:17:59] right, next item on the agenda.

[2:18:04] Berkeley Bay Plan Development Modification, PD 183. Consideration of the proposed Berkeley

[2:18:11] or Beckley, I apologize, Beckley Bay Plan Development Modification consisting of

[2:18:17] of 289 single-family homes on approximately 107.93 acres,

[2:18:23] creating an overall density of 2.68 dwelling units per acre.

[2:18:28] This is located on Old Lennon Road, Southeast near Bolivia.

[2:18:33] And do we, it actually is Berkeley, right?

[2:18:37] Yes, it is.

[2:18:37] Okay, sorry, it was printed as Beckley

[2:18:40] of the second reading.

[2:18:41] All right, do we have a report from staff?

[2:18:43] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:18:45] Again, this is application number PD 183, applicant is inter-coastal engineering.

[2:18:51] This is Berkeley Bay plan development modification.

[2:18:55] Looking on old linen road, zoning district is RR, rural residential, which allows a maximum

[2:19:01] density of 2.9 dwelling units per acre.

[2:19:04] The surrounding zoning, looking at the zoning map, is largely R7500, there's RR,

[2:19:12] and then a little bit further away there's some CLD and some R6000.

[2:19:18] Berkeley Bay is a plan development approved by the Planning Board on November 13th of 2023

[2:19:25] consisting of 178 single-family units, 108 town-home units, and eight single-family attached

[2:19:34] units on approximately 107.93 acres, creating an overall density of 2.72 dwelling units per acre.

[2:19:41] The applicant is now seeking for a revision of the approved development plans.

[2:19:46] The proposed revision consists of 289 single-family units on 107, the same acreage, 107.93 acres,

[2:19:55] creating an overall density of 2.68 dwelling units per acre.

[2:19:59] So it's a very minor modification.

[2:20:02] They're actually decreasing lots.

[2:20:04] They are changing their land use intensity, actually lowering it by making it all single

[2:20:09] family whereas previously you had 108 town homes and 8 semi-attached homes.

[2:20:16] Normally if you're doing that, that is a staff level approval because you're decreasing density

[2:20:22] and decreasing land use intensity.

[2:20:24] The only reason this is coming back here is because the applicant, because they are making

[2:20:29] slightly larger lots, even though they're decreasing by 5 units, they're decreasing

[2:20:34] their open space by 3.26 acres.

[2:20:38] That is the reason we are back here. So originally they had 49.66 acres of open space. They wanted

[2:20:46] to reduce that to 46.4 to accommodate those single family, the transition from town home

[2:20:51] to single family. That's why we're here. I'll go through the approval criteria. The majority

[2:20:58] of the surrounding uses consists of single family residential, agricultural, and vacant

[2:21:02] and property. Blooper and Brunswick map denotes this area as rural agricultural and open space

[2:21:10] and open space conservation one. Parking will be off street and minimum of two driveway parking

[2:21:16] spaces per lot. Proposed infrastructure, water and sewer to be provided by Brunswick

[2:21:20] County and the roads will be private. Proposed development will have a 30-foot, 0.6, opacity,

[2:21:28] city peripheral buffer utilizing existing vegetation to satisfy the requirement. A 50

[2:21:35] foot buffer shall be installed adjacent to tax parcel 169001302 for a VAD or voluntary

[2:21:42] agricultural district buffer. This is the property at the extreme south of that property.

[2:21:48] That is a VAD property.

[2:21:52] The developer is also proposing a 30 foot street buffer on

[2:21:57] old Lennon Road. The UDO minimum is a 20 foot buffer. Required open space for the development

[2:22:03] is approximately 16.19 acres. The development is proposing 46.4 acres of dedicated open space.

[2:22:10] The developer is also proposing 2.75 acres of recreation space of which 2.43 are required.

[2:22:17] The proposed project will generate approximately 2,566 vehicle trips per 24-hour weekday

[2:22:22] volume. A TIA has been completed and approved by NCDOT. A driveway permit

[2:22:28] from NCDOT will be required prior to the recording of individual lots. The

[2:22:32] proposed road improvements in that TIA include at NC211 and Zion Hill Road

[2:22:40] provide four section protected permitted signal heads for eastbound and

[2:22:45] westbound left turns, provide split side street phasing for northbound and

[2:22:50] southbound approaches. Modify the signal plan to accommodate the above improvements and optimize

[2:22:56] signal timings. Let's see if I've got the TIA slide here. Here it is. For old Lennon Road and

[2:23:06] side access one, construct side access, one ingress and one egress lane. Internal stem

[2:23:13] length of 50 feet provides stop control for the eastbound approach. Side access two. Again,

[2:23:20] same thing, side access, one ingress, one egress, provide an internal protected stem of 75 feet

[2:23:29] and provide stop control for an eastbound approach.

[2:23:33] The exception on design elements to be included in the project are as follows. The developers proposing

[2:23:40] 46.4 acres of open space, whereas 16.9 acres are required. All lot shall be located outside of the AE flood zone.

[2:23:47] there is significant flood zone to the rear of the property but all lots will be

[2:23:52] outside of this flood zone. A street buffer of 30 feet shall be installed along

[2:23:56] old Lennon Road.

[2:24:01] Sidewalks are to be provided on one side of the road

[2:24:04] throughout the development. The design flexibility elements requested for the

[2:24:07] project are as follows. Number one reduction in lot dimensions and number

[2:24:11] two reductions in setbacks. A significant portion of the project site

[2:24:15] Again, I just mentioned this. It's in a flood hazard zone, but all lots shall be located outside of that. So

[2:24:22] the site itself lies within a half mile of a VAD

[2:24:28] Also tax parcels 169001 2 and 169001

[2:24:35] 202

[2:24:36] currently lie within the VAD zone and must be removed prior to construction. So a portion of the project site is in the VAD

[2:24:43] district. They must be removed from that voluntary district prior to

[2:24:48] construction.

[2:24:50] I wanted to point out the differences in the two site plans. So the

[2:24:55] new site plan is on your left showing all single family residential. This is the

[2:25:00] old site plan that was approved back in November of 2023 showing that layout. As

[2:25:04] you can see the acreage is identical. They're simply modifying that left-hand

[2:25:12] side, which is the southern side of the property to convert that to single family.

[2:25:19] School capacity. This project will be located in the following school districts, Virginia

[2:25:24] Williamson, which is currently over capacity. Cedar Grove Middle is currently at 82% capacity

[2:25:31] and is not expected to go over capacity until 2030. The South Brunswick High School

[2:25:36] is currently at 84% capacity and is expected to go over capacity in the 2029 school

[2:25:43] year. Per the schools, the expected school impact is significant.

[2:25:49] Adjacent property owners were notified via U.S. mail and a notification sign was posted

[2:25:53] on the subject property. TRC was held on June 17th of 2026. The neighborhood meeting was

[2:25:59] held on July 22nd of 2026. If approved, this development shall be vested

[2:26:04] right for a period of three years. A two-year extension may be requested by the applicants

[2:26:08] of the Brunsack County Planning Department.

[2:26:12] Planning staff is determined that the

[2:26:14] proposed development meets or exceed the applicable standards of the UDO and

[2:26:18] therefore recommends approval based on the following conditions.

[2:26:22] Number one, the development shall proceed in conformity with all plans and

[2:26:25] design features submitted as part of the plan development application and

[2:26:28] kept on file by the Brunswick County Planning Department.

[2:26:31] Number two, the development of the partial shall comply with all

[2:26:33] regulations as specified in the Brunswick County UDO.

[2:26:36] Number three, plan development approval does not constitute an

[2:26:39] authorization to construct all applicable federal, state and

[2:26:42] county approval to permits will be necessary to obtain final plat approvals and building

[2:26:46] permits. This includes stormwater utilities and fire marshal requirements.

[2:26:50] And number four, plan development approval does not constitute or guarantee the allocation

[2:26:54] of water or sewer capacity. The applicant proceeds at their own risk with respect to

[2:26:59] future water and sewer system connections. The ability to modify existing permits

[2:27:04] connect unpermitted structures and construct new water and sewer infrastructure connected

[2:27:09] or a tributary to the county's water and or sewer system permit is dependent upon

[2:27:14] receipt of valid water and wastewater line permits from the state of North

[2:27:18] Carolina. The application for which requires final plan approval and sign

[2:27:22] documentation authorizing connection to the county water and or wastewater

[2:27:26] system. Water and wastewater available capacity will change over time. A few

[2:27:32] pictures from the site. This is directly across the street from Old

[2:27:39] property. There's currently already an access road where you can see that the SUV is parked.

[2:27:46] That is connected to the project that is directly adjacent to this. I believe it's called Rolling

[2:27:52] Hills, I believe. And it is currently open and accepting traffic for that development.

[2:28:01] View facing south on Old Lennon and view facing north on Old Lennon. Again, here's

[2:28:07] the site plan just to reiterate if if the board chooses to deny this project the

[2:28:13] previous plan is still valid so they could proceed in accordance with that

[2:28:18] previous plan. That concludes staff report. All right thank you sir.

[2:28:30] Your the

[2:28:31] SUV was parked was it at the entrance where that 30-permeter buffer is closest

[2:28:39] two or is it at the one just down from that? Let's see if I can get this to work.

[2:28:48] You're talking about the street buffer or oh this this is the 50-foot buffer is

[2:28:53] that what you're asking?

[2:28:56] Oh the SUV is parked was parked right here so this is

[2:29:00] a road that's currently open and going to the adjacent development that is

[2:29:05] currently being developed. Yeah that was that was going to be my next

[2:29:09] question I couldn't tell if that was actually a road there because on the

[2:29:12] previous plan it was where kind of split right and I believe that was

[2:29:17] constructed since this plan was originally approved exactly there is an

[2:29:28] easement okay thank you any other questions for staff all right hearing

[2:29:37] none. Do I hear a motion to open the public hearing?

[2:29:42] Second. Motion and a

[2:29:44] second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Do we have the developer

[2:29:49] applicant available? Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of

[2:29:56] the board. My name is Craig Johnson. I'm at 60

[2:30:00] 620 Gordon Road in Wilmington, North Carolina. Again, thanks for having us. What we have done

[2:30:06] here is we're removing the town homes that are on the south side of the project to make

[2:30:11] those single-family homes. A total of five homes are being reduced in total of the whole community.

[2:30:20] As Mr. Patches pointed out, we're reducing the open space by about three acres. However,

[2:30:28] However, we still have, we have three times the amount of the required open space and

[2:30:34] we're not reducing where the community center is going to be, that has stayed exactly the

[2:30:39] same.

[2:30:40] As far as flooding and stormwater, we've designed this project to the 100-year flood storm,

[2:30:46] so we're over-designed on that, and we have done that from day one.

[2:30:52] We took to Liberty three years ago when we got approval to build this community to go

[2:30:58] ahead and do the TIA, which is done, and we did it back then, just to confirm that we've

[2:31:03] done all the proper things, and that netted improvements to the intersection at Old Lennon

[2:31:08] and South Supply Road 211.

[2:31:11] So we've done that.

[2:31:13] that. And the wetlands we are not touching any wetlands at all on the project and that's

[2:31:22] remaining the same. And we are not touching any flood zone. So I just wanted to point

[2:31:30] those things out. And the main reason we're coming back is for a slight reduction in

[2:31:36] the open space and to get rid of townhouses and make those single family. And I'd be

[2:31:42] happy to answer any additional questions anybody has.

[2:31:47] Thank you, sir.

[2:31:48] Any questions for Mr. Johnson?

[2:31:51] All right.

[2:31:52] Thank you, sir.

[2:31:52] Stay close.

[2:31:53] We may need to ask you some questions in a minute.

[2:31:59] It's coming.

[2:31:59] Do we have anyone sign up on this one?

[2:32:01] Yes, sir.

[2:32:03] Carla White?

[2:32:17] Carla White, 1775 Clemens Road, Bolivia.

[2:32:22] I'm not opposing this development,

[2:32:24] but I do want to point out some issues

[2:32:26] because there are several developments

[2:32:28] going in that are just going to compound an issue that we have dealt with a few

[2:32:34] times even with off-seat like non-storm rains like just regular rains we've had

[2:32:40] flooding. I live on Clemens Road which is the only connector road for miles.

[2:32:47] From Benton to Midway that's all you have and then when there's an accident

[2:32:53] down to 11, it becomes gridlocked on Gilbert, Old Lennon and Clemens. And this will add

[2:33:01] more traffic and more people who need access to get to places. I know I'm jumping around

[2:33:08] a little bit because I just didn't, I wasn't planning on speaking on this at all. There

[2:33:11] are 4,000, probably around 5,000 hunts going in behind me on Clemens. Midway track is

[2:33:17] probably around 40% wetlands and that water is coming my way. It's gonna come

[2:33:24] to Clemens Road, it's gonna go in between Avalon and Palomeda Creek and then

[2:33:29] it's gonna go to Old Linen Road and it's gonna come in more, there's gonna be

[2:33:33] more of it because they are just, they're clearing everything behind me

[2:33:38] and all that water is trying to make its way to, what is the name of that

[2:33:43] River. The Lightwood Folly River. So there's some issues with that and when

[2:33:49] that road becomes gridlock, you're not getting anywhere. Ambulances are not getting

[2:33:52] anywhere. If you need help or have a heart attack or you've got a baby on the

[2:33:55] way, you're getting a helicopter to come in to get you. I can vouch for that. If

[2:34:00] your house catches on fire, there is a fire department right next to my house.

[2:34:03] It's called Zion Hill and if it floods or there's a wreck, it's going to take

[2:34:07] them some time to get there. So that's just all I wanted to point out

[2:34:10] that and that's where I came in with the Swiss cheese idea. These are just a bunch of little,

[2:34:15] these are a lot of developments that are going to compound to a bigger issue. Thank you.

[2:34:20] Thank you, Ms. White.

[2:34:29] Shirley Sullivan. Not good. Okay, that was it. Okay.

[2:34:45] All right. Does anyone

[2:34:46] have any further questions from? For having

[2:34:54] me back Mr. Chairman, the only thing I wanted to

[2:34:56] point out is we are fully permitted on this community. We can start actually tomorrow

[2:35:01] morning and it's existing status. So I just wanted to point that out. Okay. Thank you. All right.

[2:35:08] Thank you.

[2:35:12] All right. Any other questions for anyone that spoke? If not, do I hear a motion to

[2:35:18] close the public hearing?

[2:35:22] Second.

[2:35:25] Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[2:35:28] All right.

[2:35:32] What is the pleasure of the board for this development? PD 183

[2:35:39] modification, Berkeley Bay modification?

[2:35:51] Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we

[2:35:52] approve it. It's not often we get one to come back and they're asked to

[2:35:57] reduce the density, so it is kind of like it has a win almost in our

[2:36:03] situation as far as that goes. So I'll make a recommendation that we approve

[2:36:07] of the modification to PD-193 as presented with the window conditions where?

[2:36:14] Four.

[2:36:16] Yeah.

[2:36:17] With the four conditions outlined by the staff.

[2:36:22] Okay.

[2:36:22] All right.

[2:36:24] Motion for approval of PD-183.

[2:36:27] Do I hear a second?

[2:36:28] I second.

[2:36:29] All right.

[2:36:30] All in favor say aye.

[2:36:32] Aye.

[2:36:32] Any opposed?

[2:36:33] All right, PD 183 Berkeley Bay Plan Development Modification is approved.

[2:36:39] Thank you.

[2:36:52] Any person with standing may appeal the decision of the Planning Board to the Superior Court.

[2:37:02] Thank you.

[2:37:06] Just a quick Planning Board case updates.

[2:37:08] PD 179, which was South Port Meadows.

[2:37:13] Z937, which was a rezoning located off Old Ferry Connection, were both not appealed.

[2:37:20] Z938, which was the former Sunset Beach E.T.J. parcel, was appealed to the Board of Commissioners.

[2:37:27] Z939 and Z939CZ, which was the former City of Southport parcels, were not appealed.

[2:37:35] Z939 and Z936 will be held on August 17th at the Commissioners meeting for both those appeal cases,

[2:37:44] because if you remember 936 was appealed, too.

[2:37:47] So both of those cases will go on August 9th.

[2:37:49] We really pushed the former Sunset Beach one

[2:37:52] because we only have 60 days,

[2:37:54] so that got really pushed forward.

[2:37:59] You said on August the 6th?

[2:38:01] 17th.

[2:38:02] 17th, okay.

[2:38:03] I was going to say we'll be on that.

[2:38:06] August 17th, all right.

[2:38:08] Thank you.

[2:38:11] Sorry.

[2:38:13] Appreciate those update items.

[2:38:16] Planning Board case item updates.

[2:38:17] and we've got a fiscal year 26 administrative adjustment. Correct and

[2:38:23] just really quick it won't take you a lot of time but I am presenting the

[2:38:27] fiscal year 26 administrative adjustment annual report this is required by

[2:38:32] ordinance to be provided to the county manager I also present it to you and we

[2:38:37] provide a copy to the commissioners in fiscal year 26 there were 15 total

[2:38:42] administrative adjustment requested out of all of them 14 were approved to

[2:38:47] were for fence height and 13 were for setbacks. Most of them fall within a foot or less. And

[2:38:54] this helps avoid the board of adjustment. So if you have any questions, I'll be happy

[2:38:59] to answer your questions.

[2:39:04] Any questions for Kirstie?

[2:39:08] Thank you, Ms. Dixon. All right. Did you make a motion

[2:39:13] to adjourn. All right. Motion to adjourn. Do I hear a second? All right. All in

[2:39:19] favor say aye. Aye. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

Planning Board

Transcript