Design Adjustment Committee Meeting - January 28, 2026
Design Adjustment Committee Meeting - January 28, 2026
The Design Adjustment Committee of the City of Wilmington held a special meeting on January 28, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers to consider design adjustment requests for a proposed 320-unit multi-dwelling development at 4851 University Drive. The meeting was quasi-judicial, with sworn testimony from staff, the applicant, and members of the public.
Consent Calendar
- Approved the minutes of the December 17, 2025 meeting as revised (changing "Board of Adjustment" to "DAC") by a 5-0 vote.
Public Comments & Testimony
- James and Bernice Williamson (401 Creek Drive) expressed concerns about neighborhood privacy, noting past issues with trespassing, fence cutting, and trash from previous apartment developments. They requested a wall or fence along Creek Drive to separate the new development from their homes.
- Charles Davis Jr. (416 Creek Drive) opposed additional traffic on Creek Drive, stating the neighborhood already faces difficult access from Patrick Avenue to Kerr Avenue and that increased traffic would create confusion and safety hazards.
- Aaron Nolan (422 Creek Drive) echoed concerns about traffic, noting the quiet cul-de-sac character of the street and the difficulty of making left turns onto Patrick Avenue. He asked why two additional driveways onto Creek were needed and questioned the lack of connection to Kimberley Drive.
- Lula Davis (416 Creek Drive) emphasized that Creek Drive has only one way in and one way out (Patrick Avenue), and that additional traffic would be dangerous, especially without a traffic light at Patrick and Kerr.
Discussion Items
- Waiver 1: Exceed maximum private driveway length. The site has an existing private driveway measuring 1,100 feet from College Road and 2,445 feet from South Kerr Avenue, exceeding the 500-foot maximum. The applicant argued that on-site circulation, fire truck access (demonstrated with auto-turn exhibits), and existing infrastructure justify the length. The committee discussed eliminating one of the two proposed driveway connections onto Creek Drive to reduce neighborhood impact. The applicant agreed that the westernmost entrance on Creek could be removed. Fire department representatives stated no objection to the driveway length as long as maneuverability and hydrant locations are addressed.
- Waiver 2: Reduce width and eliminate portions of non-municipal utility easements. The applicant requested: (a) eliminate the easement along the north side of University Drive (adjacent to an adjacent property owned by a convenience store); (b) reduce the easement width to 7.5 feet along a portion of University Drive; (c) reduce the easement to 8.5 feet (with a further 4.5-foot reduction at driveway entrances) along Creek Drive. The applicant cited tree preservation, existing utilities already serving the site from other directions, and the need to fit the road within the 60-foot right-of-way. Committee members expressed support for preserving trees and not requiring easements on property not owned by the applicant, but questioned the need to reduce the easement on University Drive (where future utilities might be needed) and the 4.5-foot pinch points at driveways. Discussion resulted in a partial approval: approve 8.5-foot easement on Creek (no further reduction), approve 10-foot easement on University except for the zero-foot portion on the north side of University where the applicant does not own the land (as shown on Exhibit 8). The reduction to 7.5 feet on University was denied.
- Preliminary Plan Approval: The committee approved the preliminary site plan as shown, conditional on the adjustments made in the variances. A motion was made to approve with the added condition that the Technical Review Committee (TRC) review the driveway connections along Creek Drive, and that one of the two driveways (the westernmost) be eliminated.
Key Outcomes
- Motion 1 (Waiver 1 – driveway length): Approved by voice vote (all in favor). The applicant agreed to eliminate the westernmost driveway entrance on Creek Drive as a condition.
- Motion 2 (Waiver 2 – non-municipal easements): Approved in part. Committee voted to grant: (a) zero-foot easement on the north side of University Drive (as shown in red on Exhibit 8, because the applicant does not own that land); (b) 8.5-foot easement along Creek Drive (denying further reduction to 4.5 feet). Denied the reduction to 7.5 feet along University Drive (10-foot easement required). Approved by voice vote (all in favor).
- Motion 3 (Preliminary Plan approval): Approved with conditions (including elimination of one Creek Drive entrance and TRC review) by voice vote (all in favor).
- Next steps: Staff offered to answer questions for the public after the meeting regarding next steps and process.
Meeting Transcript
Go ahead and call the meeting of the design adjustment committee to order. Um before we get started, I have to read an introduction. The design adjustment committee's purpose is to establish clear and measurable review criteria for the consideration of major deviations from the city's technical standards and specifications manual, building design, material standards, and subdivision standards. The committee does not consider housing type, cost of the proposed unit, occupants, building material, unit size, number of bedrooms, or the architectural design of the structures. These hearings are quasi-judicial, evidentiary hearings. That means they are like a court hearing, and the committee's decisions are constrained by the standards in the ordinance and based upon the facts presented. All variance requests require a four-fifths vote of the committee to grant the variance. Appeals of the design adjustment committee are to superior court. The parties in these cases are entitled to an impartial board if a board member has a fixed opinion on the matter, a financial interest in the outcome, a close relationship with the affected person, or has had any ex parte communication about the matter. Please disclose this information to determine if a recusal is necessary. City staff will introduce the proposed project to the design adjustment committee and committee members may ask questions. The applicant may present additional information about the project and members may ask questions. If anyone wishes to provide evidence at today's hearing, witnesses must sign in and on the clipboard at the back of the room and be sworn in. Because witnesses are to provide sworn testimony. Please focus on the facts and standards, not personal preference or opinion. When a witness comes forward to give testimony, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and speak clearly. At this time, staff will administer the oath for all individuals who intend to provide witness testimony. If I could have all staff applicants and member of the public who wish to speak today, to please stand up and raise your right hand. You must be sworn in if you intend to speak this afternoon. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay, the first item on the agenda is approval from of the minutes from the last meeting. Has any everyone had a chance to review the minutes? And if so, any discussion? Or is there a motion? I reviewed the minutes. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. And I notified that the looks like the phrase board of adjustment was used in it a couple of times, and I've notified for those corrections to be made. But other than that, I would make a motion to approve them as revised. The revision being to correct board of adjustment to DAC. Correct. Okay. I will uh second that motion. Any other discussion? All in favor of approval of the minutes with the corrections noted, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Minutes are approved. The first and only item on uh today's agenda is uh 4851 uh University Drive. Uh good afternoon. Uh Chair and members of the committee. Uh this is an evidentiary hearing located at 4851 uh University Drive. There we go. The site is located along University Drive and is approximately 16.75 acres in size. The site is on MD17, high density multiple dwelling residential district. The proposed new construction consists of a 320 unit multi-dwelling development. The applicant is requesting to exceed the maximum length for a private driveway.
openpublica.com