NEW HANOVER COUNTY — A 78 multi-unit complex was set for review by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Monday, but the rezoning request has been withdrawn.
New Hanover County Planning and Land Use received its withdrawal request from Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancich.
READ MORE: Another addition to Tarin Woods subdivision? 300 units proposed next to Tregembo Zoo
ALSO: 100 more homes proposed for CB Road, neighbors heated over traffic and density
CATCH UP: Florida developer proposes 300-unit complex, gas station off Carolina Beach Road
The property owners wanted to rezone 4.65 acres of land from low to moderate density and proposed at least 10% as workforce housing. The lot is located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road, next to the Lords Creek neighborhood off Glen Arthur Drive. Property records show Ippolita, a New York resident, purchased the land in 2021 for $450,000.
The one- and two-bedroom units were to be housed in a four-story building, including a parking garage on the ground floor. Amenities were to include a pool and pickleball courts, with 30% of the site to have preserved open space, exceeding the ordinance’s 20% minimum. The complex would include implementing a turning lane onto Carolina Beach Road.
The problem with the proposal came in its height, pitched 50 feet. According to the application, it would be “mitigated by expanded setbacks in excess of 100 feet” from adjacent neighborhoods.
“The combination of screening fence, preservation of existing vegetation and supplemental landscaping will provide buffering between the more dense residential community and the adjacent single-family homes in Lords Creek,” according to the application.
At last month’s planning board meeting, staff recommended the board deny the complex due to its height and density.
“[T]he proposed height of 4 stories and density of 17 dwelling units per acre exceeds the recommended maximum development patterns for the Community Mixed Use place type,” staff notes indicated.
The planning board unanimously voted to deny the project, which acts as a recommendation to the commissioners. A hearing was planned during the Jan. 9 meeting, as part of the developmental process to hear feedback from the community.
According to commissioner Rob Zapple, the board has received “in excess of 100 public comments,” some expressing concerns.
Many spoke out against the complex at the planning board meeting in December, decrying a thin vegetation line acting as a buffer, no connection to bike paths or trails, added traffic to an already busy road, and the building plan, particularly its four stories, not aligning in aesthetic appeal to its surroundings.
“It’s out of place with what’s currently in the neighborhood,” Nancy Steel told the planning board, referencing one-story homes in the vicinity. “The area is designed for families, maybe patio homes or townhomes, but an apartment building with four stories? That’s not compatible with what I want to look at when I walk out my front door.”
People had planned to attend Monday’s commissioner meeting, according to discussions at the commission’s Thursday’s agenda review meeting. Officials were concerned about the best way to get word out that the project had been withdrawn, as to not have people attend to speak.
Sending emails to those who already reached out was one suggestion.
“It’s a whole neighborhood, so maybe they can tell each other,” chair Bill Rivenbark suggested.
Instead, the county decided to move the item to the top of the meeting to properly inform attendees early on of the development withdrawal.
Had the project made it to the commissioners and was denied, the development team would have to endure a waiting period before resubmitting a proposal, according to county senior current planner Robert Farrell.
“[N]o application proposing the same or similar development on all or part of the same land could be submitted within one year after the date of the denial unless a determination is made that the new application is substantially or materially different than the prior application,” he wrote to PCD.
The county’s unified development ordinance (UDO) outlines all criteria taken into consideration to make such a determination.
Commissioners will accept the land owners’ withdrawal at Monday’s 4 p.m. meeting. The developers can resubmit the plan for the parcel anytime without time constrictions.
“It would be treated as a new request and follow all the same public notice requirements,” Farrell said.
Have comments or tips? Email info@portcitydaily.com
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
