The New Hanover County Planning Board on Jan. 8 recommended approval of the Destination 2050 comprehensive-plan update and a companion set of Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendments and forwarded both to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration on Feb. 2.

Planning Director Rebecca summarized a 1.5-year process to update the county plan and said staff had focused on four broad goal themes (quality of place, infrastructure and support services, environmental stewardship and resilience, and coordination and engagement). Project manager Katia Boykin reviewed public engagement: an open house in August 2024, 18 focus-group interviews, pop-up events at libraries and parks, and a four-week public comment period in November–December 2025 that produced 32 comments. Common themes included tree and canopy preservation, housing affordability versus higher-density concerns, stormwater and flooding, and requests for clarity on place-type definitions.

Isabelle Shepherd of the Alliance for Cape Fear Trees spoke in support and asked the board to endorse the plan, praising language that treats trees as critical infrastructure and urging UDO updates that incentivize canopy preservation. "The vision outlined in this document is forward looking and grounded in deep community engagement," Shepherd said.

Staff said the draft refines place types used in 2016 so future land-use guidance is more targeted, calls for focusing higher intensity development where infrastructure can support it, and proposes tools to incentivize master-plan developments and revise traffic-study requirements for large, phased projects. Staff recommended approval.

Board members largely supported recommending approval but raised substantive concerns about the proposed 'infill residential' place type, which in the draft mirrors existing zoning (R-15/R-20) and in some members' view could limit alternatives that address affordability. Some members asked staff to clarify guidance on appropriate density ranges for infill residential and to identify where the plan allows flexibility for mixed-use or master-plan development. Several members asked that their comments be included in materials sent to the commissioners.

By voice vote the planning board moved and seconded a motion to recommend the plan and the companion UDO text amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff said the plan and text amendments are intended to be adopted together so there are no unintended regulatory consequences. The board's recommendation does not itself change zoning; the Board of County Commissioners will hold the final public hearing and make the decisions required to adopt the plan and any implementing code changes.