Wilmington City Council voted 4-2 in favor of most of the amendments, including a requirement for electric vehicle charging stations in new developments, and allowing more accessory dwelling units to be built in city limits.
But residents came to speak out against one amendment that puts certain legacy zones in line with newer zoning codes. City Planner Brian Chambers said his motivation in bringing this to council was simple: “When I'm looking at the code, and I see inconsistencies, my natural inclination is to fix that.”
But residents who spoke at Tuesday’s council meeting took the amendment as an attempt to build within wetlands — like Megan Dettman.
"Rezoning wetlands for commercial residential use will increase flooding for those of us in the surrounding area,” she said.
That concern about wetlands seems to be a misconception about the purpose of the amendment, which is to set development standards around the lot coverage rather than the term 'density.'
But a public meeting notice had gone out earlier in the month, which seems to have created some confusion. Numerous neighbors who came to speak against it referenced Autumn Hall, a development off Eastwood Road. The developer in that case had brought an item up to the board of adjustments, which apparently angered some neighbors.
According to city staff, Cape Fear Commercial decided to pull their item off that agenda to see whether the amendments before council passed, as it might impact their plans. That is what ultimately brought these residents to the council chambers to oppose the zoning amendment: citing local concerns for a wide-reaching shift in the LDC.
Margaret Hickman was one neighbor who voiced opposition: "The most disturbing aspect of this proposal is the use of density bonuses and the opportunity to use these bonuses to develop land in conservation areas. In one place in the text it is stated that these would be granted according to quote exceptional design criteria.”
The current lot coverage that’s permitted is 25% of the land being impervious (that is, surfaces like paved lots and roofs that can't absorb water and contribute to stormwater runoff). Chambers explained that the “exceptional design criteria” would include trading off additional impervious surface for low-impact design techniques, like “Pervious pavement, storm water features like rain gardens, infiltration, those types of things.”
Asked whether those techniques would mitigate any stormwater issues, Chambers said, "I don't know that you can completely mitigate any impact of any development, and there's always going to be an impact. The point is to try to be as responsible as possible."
Other neighbors opposed what they claimed were “rezonings of wetlands.” But Wilmington Zoning Administrator Kathryn Thurston says the amendment doesn’t allow development in areas that are classified as wetlands, and it wouldn't allow development in places it wasn't permitted before.
"There's already by right development allowed for that parcel [in question]," she said.
The change isn't to allow new land to be developed, but it removes a density limit in each of these legacy zones, leaving an impermeable surface limit in its place. That puts the legacy zones in line with the code in the rest of the city.
Chambers said adding additional density in terms of more apartments doesn't actually increase the risk of flooding. "If you have a rooftop with one unit underneath it, and a rooftop with four units underneath it, it doesn't matter. It only matters how big is that rooftop. That's the impact on the water quality, because that's what's creating the amount of water runoff that's flushing pollutants into the waterways.”
While any development will impact the surrounding area in some way, Chambers said his goal was really very simple.
“We want the code to be applied across the city fairly and consistently. And that's truly what this amendment was about," he said.
Amidst the confusion, city council members decided to pull that item off the agenda and bring it up for discussion at the next council meeting. Member Luke Waddell asked for clarity on the issue of watershed protection, and code consistency, and Mayor Pro-Tem Clifford Barnett asked to hear about impacts on Autumn Hall.
