The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-03 March 6 2014 PB Agenda PackageNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: March 6, 2014 REGULAR ITEM: DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Chris O'Keefe, Planning and Inspections Director CONTACT(S): Chris O'Keefe, Planning and Inspections Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (A-416, 1/14) – Request by Staff to add Section 13: Calculation of Time and to amend Section 44: Extension or Enlargement of Non-Conforming Situations, Section 50: Table of Permitted Uses, Section 53.2: I-1 Light Industrial, Section 53.3, I-2 Heavy Industrial, and Section 71: Special Use Permits Issued by the Board of County Commissioners to address regulations regarding industrial uses and Special Use Permit regulations. BRIEF SUMMARY: In order to clarify how sections of the zoning ordinance are applied to special use permit proposals for industrial uses, the amendment establishes a definitive process for the submittal and review of special use permit applications. The amendment further clarifies the date at which time the special use permit provisions of the ordinance apply to industrial uses. In the definition section, the industrial groupings were deleted and broken down into separate industrial categories and included in the table of permitted uses together with a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. This item was continued from the January 9, 2014 planning board meeting. The board directed staff to receive public comments on the draft language and to revisit certain sections of the draft where questions about the language were raised by board members and County legal staff. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Intelligent Growth and Economic Development • Attract and retain new and expanding businesses • Implement plans for land use, economic development, infrastructure and environmental programs RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Staff recommends approval as presented. ATTACHMENTS: A-416 SUP Text Amendment A-416 TOPU with 4 digit NAICS codes 3-6-14 A-416 Comments Summary 1-9 through 2-19 A-416 SUP comments 1-9 through 2-19 A-416 Shipley Cover Email A-416 Shipley Draft Industrial SUP 1 - 0 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Shipley Draft B SUP A-416 NCCF Comments on NHC SUP Revisions 02252014 A-416 SUP Email Comments since 2-19 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) 1 - 0 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 1 A-416 Text Amendment 1 Applicant: Staff 2 Request by Staff to add Section 13: Calculation of Time and to amend Section 44: Extension or 3 Enlargement of Non-Conforming Situations, Section 50: Table of Permitted Uses, Section 53.2: 4 I-1 Light Industrial, Section 53.3, I-2 Heavy Industrial, and Section 71: Special Use Permits 5 Issued by the Board of County Commissioners to address regulations regarding industrial uses 6 and Special Use Permit regulations. Additions are in red and deletions are in red with strike-7 throughs. 8 Article I: IN GENERAL 9 10 Section 13: Calculation of Time 11 In computing any period of time prescribed by this section, the day the act, event, or 12 submittal after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be 13 included. The last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless that date 14 should fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, in which case the due date shall 15 be the next business day following such Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. The term 16 “legal holiday” shall mean any federal, state or local government holiday for which 17 financial institutions or post offices are generally closed in the State of North Carolina. 18 The term “business day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or legal 19 holiday. 20 21 Section 23: Definitions 22 M 23 24 Manufacturing 25 26 Artisan Manufacturing- On-site production of goods by hand manufacturing 27 involving the use of hand tools and small-scale light mechanical equipment. 28 Typical uses include woodworking and cabinet shops, ceramic studios, jewelry 29 manufacturing and similar types of arts and crafts or very small-scale 30 manufacturing uses that have very limited, if any, negative external impacts on 31 surrounding properties, water resources, air quality and/or public health. 32 33 Limited Manufacturing- Manufacturing of finished parts or products, primarily 34 from previously prepared materials. Typical uses include: printing and related 35 support activities; machinery manufacturing; food manufacturing; computer 36 and electronic product manufacturing; electrical equipment, appliance, 37 component manufacturing/assembly; furniture and related product 38 manufacturing/assembly; and other manufacturing and production 39 1 - 1 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 2 establishments that typically have very limited, if any, negative external impacts 40 on surrounding properties, water resources, air quality and/or public health. 41 42 General Manufacturing-Manufacturing, bulk storage, and/or handling of 43 finished or unfinished products primarily from extracted, raw, recycled, or 44 secondary materials. Typical uses include textile mills; textile product mills; 45 apparel manufacturing; leather and allied product manufacturing; wood product 46 manufacturing; plastics and rubber products manufacturing; nonmetallic 47 mineral product manufacturing; transportation equipment manufacturing; 48 primary metal manufacturing; and fabricated metal product manufacturing. 49 50 Industrial service firms engaged in the repair or servicing of industrial or 51 commercial machinery, equipment, products, or by-products. Typical uses 52 include: welding shops; machine shops; industrial tool repair; fuel oil 53 distributors; solid fuel yards; and carpet cleaning plants. General manufacturing 54 facilities include those operations that do not have significant negative external 55 impacts on surrounding properties, water resources, air quality and/or public 56 health. 57 58 Intensive Manufacturing- Manufacturing and processing of products and 59 chemicals including but not limited to: acetylene, lime, gypsum or plaster-of-60 Paris, stone, clay, glass, cement, concrete, chlorine, corrosive acid or fertilizer, 61 insecticides, disinfectants, poisons, explosives, paint, lacquer, varnish, 62 petroleum products, coal, plastic and synthetic resins, and radioactive materials. 63 This group also includes smelting, animal slaughtering, paper manufacturing, oil 64 refining, fuel bulk storage facilities, and electricity generating facilities, as well 65 as any manufacturing or processing facility which has a high potential for 66 significant negative external impacts on surrounding properties, water 67 resources, air quality and/or public health. 68 69 Section 44: Extension or Enlargement of Non-Conforming Situations 70 71 44-1: Except as specifically provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to 72 engage in any activity that causes an increase in the extent of non-conformity of a non-73 conforming situation. 74 75 44-1.1: The standards outlined in Sections 53.2 and 53.3 of this ordinance and any requirement 76 for a special use permit shall apply to all new proposals in I-1 and I-2 districts as shown on the 77 Table of Permitted Uses. Any existing industrial uses which did not require a special use permit 78 as of October 2, 2011 the day prior to the date of adoption of this section would be considered a 79 conforming use and shall not require a special use permit in order to continue operations. The 80 termA“existingAindustrialAuses”AshallAmeanAan industry or other businessindustries in active 81 operation and open for business on a tax parcel zoned I-1 or I-2 and developed for that 82 particular use as of the day prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . 83 84 44-1.1.1: Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses: For a modifications 85 and/or expansions of an existing industrial uses which was in conformity with the requirements 86 1 - 1 - 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 3 of this ordinance as of October 2, 2011, and where the modification and/or expansion would 87 change the particular use as indicated on the Table of Permitted Uses, a special use permit will 88 beArequiredAforAtheAmodificationAand/orAexpansionAifAtheAnewAuseAisAindicatedAbyAanA“S”AonAtheA89 Table of Permitted Uses, provided, however, that if one or both of the two exceptions set out in 90 subsections A and B below apply, then a special use permit shall not be required with respect to 91 such modification and/or expansion: 92 93 A. Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions on the Same Parcel: Modifications 94 and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special use 95 permit if the use is fully contained on the tax parcel currently developed for and 96 operating as such use and provided one of the following criteria applies: 97 1. If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 98 use that was in active operation and open for business as of the day 99 prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011. 100 2. If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 101 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 102 industrial use than was in active operation and open for business as of 103 the day prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . 104 (Ex. An existing Intensive Manufacturing use could transition to a use in 105 the Artisan, Limited or General Manufacturing category). 106 3. If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 107 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 108 a different use within that same category. 109 B. Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions onto Adjacent or Contiguous 110 Parcels: Modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed 111 without a special use permit on tax parcels adjacent or contiguous (excluding rights of 112 way) to the current use, if properly zoned, and held in the same ownership as on the 113 date of adoption of this section (including successor ownership) as of October 2, 2011 114 and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies:and provided the following: 115 116 1. If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 117 use that was in active operation and open for business as of the day 118 prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . 119 2. If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 120 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 121 industrial use than was in active operation and open for business as of 122 the day prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . 123 (Ex. An existing Intensive Manufacturing use could transition to a use in 124 the Artisan, Limited or General Manufacturing category). 125 3. If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 126 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 127 a different use within that same category. 128 129 130 131 1 - 1 - 3 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 4 Section 53.2: I-1 Light Industrial 132 (10/3/2011) 133 134 53.2-1: The I-1 zoning district is established to preserve land within the County for light industrial 135 uses and associated operations, including assembly, fabrication, packaging and transport, where 136 operations are conducted primarily indoors and where suitable sites are served by rail, waterway, 137 highway transportation systems as well as readily available utilities. Heavy industrial uses in which 138 raw materials are converted into products for subsequent assembly or fabrication or where uses 139 create an excessive amount of noise, odor, smoke, dust, air borne debris or other objectionable 140 characteristics which might be detrimental to surrounding areas are not appropriate in this district. 141 Within the I-1 district, all operations conducted and all materials used or held in storage shall be 142 contained within enclosed buildings, solid wall, fence or planting of such nature and height as to 143 conceal such operation or materials from view from any roadway or adjacent properties. No I-1 144 district shall be less than five (5) acres in area. 145 146 53.2-2 Deleted (1/5/81) 147 148 53.2-3 Deleted (1/5/81) 149 150 53.2-4: Dimensional Requirements: 151 152 (1) Minimum Lot Area-None 153 (2) Minimum Front Yard- 50 feet 154 (3) Minimum side and rear yards for property abutting residential districts shall be 155 calculated in accordance with Section 60.3. 156 (4) Maximum building height: 157 Forty (40) feet except for buildings located within the Urban Transition Area and 158 fronting along a Collector, Minor Arterial, or Principal Arterial as indicated on the 159 WilmingtonAMetropolitanAPlanningAOrganization’sAmostAcurrentARoadwayAFunctionalA160 Classification Map, may exceed forty (40) feet provided their FAR does not exceed 1.0. 161 (2/7/83) 162 163 53.2-5: Parking: Parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Article 164 VIII. 165 166 53.2-6: Signs: Signs shall be in accordance with Article IX. 167 168 53.2-7: DELETED (3/9/88) 169 170 53.2-8: Existing Industrial Uses: 171 (10/3/11) 172 173 These standards and any requirement for a special use permit shall apply to all new proposals in I-1 174 districtsAasAshownAonAtheATableAofAPermittedAUses.ATheAtermA“existingAindustrialAuses”AshallAmeanA an 175 industriesy or other business in active operation and open for business on a tax parcel zoned I-1 and 176 developed for that particular use as of the day prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 177 2, 2011 . Any existing industrial uses which did not require a special use permit as of the day prior to 178 1 - 1 - 4 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 5 the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 would be considered a conforming use and shall 179 not require a special use permit in order to continue operations. 180 181 53.2-8.1: Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses: For a modifications 182 and/or expansions of an existing industrial uses which was ose site conditions were in 183 conformity with the requirements of this ordinance as of of the day prior to the date of 184 adoptionOctober 2, 2011, and where the modification and/or expansion would change the 185 particular use as indicated on the Table of Permitted Uses, a special use permit will be required 186 forAtheAmodificationAand/orAexpansionAifAtheAnewAuseAisAindicatedAbyAanA“S”AonAtheATableAofA187 Permitted Use, provided, however, that if one or both of the two exceptions set out in 188 subsections A and B below apply, then a special use permit shall not be required with respect to 189 such modification and/or expansion:the following conditions must be met. If these conditions 190 are not met, or if the existing industrial use is classified within the Intensive Manufacturing 191 category, and the modification and/or expansion changes the particular use within that 192 category, a special use permit will be required for the modification and/or expansion. 193 194 A. Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions on the Same Parcel: Modifications 195 and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special use 196 permit if fully contained on the tax parcel currently developed for and operating as 197 such use and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies:the following: 198 199 1. If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 200 use that was in active operation and open for business as of the day 201 prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . 202 2. If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 203 Limited or General Manufacturing category and and is for a less 204 intensive industrial use than was in active operation and open for 205 business as of the day prior to the date of adoption of this 206 sectionOctober 2, 2011 . (Ex. An existing Intensive Manufacturing use 207 could transition to a use in the Artisan, Limited or General 208 Manufacturing category). 209 3. If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 210 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 211 a different use within that same category. 212 B. Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions onto Adjacent or Contiguous 213 Parcels: Modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed 214 without a special use permit on tax parcels adjacent or contiguous (excluding rights of 215 way) to the current use, if properly zoned, and held in the same ownership (including 216 successor ownership) as on the day prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 217 2, 2011 (including successor ownership) and provided one (1) of the following criteria 218 applies:the following: 219 220 1. If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 221 use that was in active operation and open for business as of the day 222 prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . 223 2. If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 224 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 225 industrial use than was operating as of the day prior to the date of 226 1 - 1 - 5 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 6 adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . (Ex. An existing Intensive 227 Manufacturing use could transition to a use in the Artisan, Limited or 228 General Manufacturing category). 229 3. If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 230 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 231 a different use within that same category. 232 233 234 Section 53.3: I-2 Heavy Industrial 235 (10/3/11) 236 237 53.3-1: The I-2 zoning district is established to set aside areas of the County for a full range of 238 manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, warehousing, and distribution uses associated with heavy 239 industrial land uses where heavy industry can find suitable sites served by rail, waterway and 240 highway transportation. The district is also established to subsequently protect nonindustrial 241 districts situated outside the district and minimize environmental impacts caused by the uses within 242 the district. Outdoor operations and storage are appropriate for this district provided that the 243 district standards are met. Certain uses within the I-2 district shall require a special use permit as 244 specified in the Table of Permitted Uses. No I-2 District shall be less than five (5) acres in area. 245 246 53.3-2: DELETED (1/5/81) 247 248 53.3-3: DELETED (1/5/81) 249 250 53.3-4: Dimensional Requirements: 251 252 (1) Minimum lot area-None 253 254 (2) Minimum front yard building setback-50 feet 255 256 (3) Minimum side and rear yard building setbacks for property abutting residential shall be 257 calculated in accordance with Section 60.3. 258 259 (4) Buffers must be established between I-2 and adjacent, non-industrial uses, in 260 accordance with Section 62.1-4 of this ordinance. 261 262 53.3-.4.1: Review of external effects. All uses in the I-2 zoning district must operate in 263 compliance with current standards for sound, vibration, heat discharge, glare, odor, air 264 quality and water quality, as applicable under federal, state, and local regulations. For uses 265 that require a Special Use Permit, a non-binding narrative must accompany the application 266 that shall include a disclosure of the projected external impacts of the project, including 267 information about anticipated federal and/or state permits that will be required. Section 71 268 further describes the special use permit approval process. The County may require 269 1 - 1 - 6 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 7 additional information deemed reasonable to assess the impacts and effects of a project on 270 a community including plans, specifications, and other information deemed necessary to 271 determine compliance with the review criteria. Federal, State and /or local environmental 272 agencies may be consulted to advise the Planning and Inspections Department on 273 applications for Special Use Permits. 274 275 53.3-5: Parking – Parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Article 276 VIII. 277 278 53.3-6: Signs – Signs shall be in accordance with Article IX. 279 280 53.3-7: DELETED (3/9/88) 281 282 53.3-8: Existing Industrial Uses: 283 (10/3/11) 284 285 These standards and any requirement for a special use permit shall apply to all new proposals in I-2 286 districts as shownAonAtheATableAofAPermittedAUses.ATheAtermA“existingAindustrialAuses”AshallAmeanAan 287 industryies or other business in active operation and open for business on a tax parcel zoned I-2 and 288 developed for that particular use as of the day prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 289 2, 2011 . Any existing industrial uses which did not require a special use permit as of the day prior to 290 the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 would be considered a conforming use and shall 291 not require a special use permit in order to continue operations. 292 293 53.3-8.1: Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses: For 294 modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses whose site conditions 295 werewhich was in conformity with the requirements of this ordinance as of the day 296 prior to the date of adoptionOctober 2, 2011, and where the modification and/or 297 expansion would change the particular use as indicated on the Table of Permitted Uses, 298 a special use permit will be required for the modification and/or expansion if the new 299 useAisAindicatedAbyAanA“S”AonAtheATableAofAPermittedAUses,Aprovided, however, that if one 300 or both of the two exceptions set out in subsections A and B below apply, then a special 301 use permit shall not be required with respect to such modification and/or expansion:the 302 following conditions must be met. If these conditions are not met, or if the existing 303 industrial use is classified within the Intensive Manufacturing category, and the 304 modification and/or expansion changes the particular use within that category, a special 305 use permit will be required for the modification and/or expansion. 306 307 A. Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions on the Same Parcel: Modifications 308 and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special use 309 permit if fully contained on the tax parcel currently developed for and operating as such 310 use and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies:the following: 311 1 - 1 - 7 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 8 1. If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 312 use that was in active operation and open for business as of the day 313 prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . 314 2. If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 315 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 316 industrial use than was in active operation and open for business as of 317 the day prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . 318 (Ex. An existing Intensive Manufacturing use could transition to a use in 319 the Artisan, Limited or General Manufacturing category). 320 3. If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 321 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 322 a different use within that same category. 323 B. Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions onto Adjacent or Contiguous Parcels: 324 Modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special 325 use permit on tax parcels adjacent or contiguous (excluding rights of way) to the current use, if 326 properly zoned, and held in the same ownership as on the day prior to the date of adoption of 327 this sectionOctober 2, 2011 (including successor ownership) and provided one (1) of the 328 following criteria applies: the following: 329 330 1. If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 331 use that was in active operation and open for business as of the day 332 prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . 333 2. If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 334 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 335 industrial use than was in active operation and open for business as of 336 the day prior to the date of adoption of this sectionOctober 2, 2011 . 337 (Ex. An existing Intensive Manufacturing use could transition to a use in 338 the Artisan, Limited or General Manufacturing category). 339 If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or Artisan Manufacturing categories, 340 the use may expand and/or modify to a different use within that same category. 341 342 343 344 345 1 - 1 - 8 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 9 ARTICLE VII: PROVISIONS FOR USES ALLOWED AS SPECIAL USES 346 347 Section 70: Objectives and Purposes of Special Use Permits 348 349 70-1: Special Use Permits add flexibility to the Zoning Ordinance. Subject to high standards of 350 planning and design, certain property uses may be allowed in the several districts where 351 these uses would not otherwise be acceptable. By means of controls exercised through 352 the Special Use Permit procedures, property uses which would otherwise be undesirable 353 in certain districts can be developed to minimize any bad effects they might have on 354 surrounding properties. 355 356 Section 71: Special Use Permits Issued by the Board of County Commissioners 357 358 71-1: General Requirements 359 360 (1) Special Use Permits may be issued by the Board of County Commissioners for 361 the establishment of uses listed as special uses in Article V after a public hearing 362 and after Planning Board review and recommendation. The Planning Board may 363 recommend conditions which assure that the proposed use will be harmonious 364 with the area and will meet the intent of this ordinance. Single-family dwellings, 365 including mobile homes shall not require Planning Board review prior to County 366 Commissioner action. (1/2/90) 367 368 (2) In order to assist petitioners through the process for obtaining a Special Use 369 Permit, petitioners are encouraged to request a pre-application conference 370 prior to application submittal. A public meeting in accordance with Section 371 111-2.1 is strongly recommended to help inform community members of the 372 proposal and to find solutions to issues that may arise. 373 374 Applicants may include the owner or owners of the subject property, or their 375 duly authorized agent, or an applicant that has an option to purchase or lease 376 the property of the property included in the petition for a Special Use Permit 377 that is contingent on approval of the special use permit. Applicants shall submit 378 an application to the New Hanover County Planning and Inspections 379 Department at least fortyfifty-five (4555) days prior to the meeting of the 380 Planning Board at which the applicant seeks to have the application considered 381 (theA“RequestedAMeeting”).Atwenty (20) working days prior to the first regular 382 monthly meeting of the Planning Board. (12/07) Within five (5) days of the 383 application deadlineThe application should be submitted no later than 1:00 PM 384 on the deadline day, and county staff shall endeavor to provide to the applicant 385 either confirmation of completeness of the application, or information 386 regarding non-completeness of the application,application prior to the end of 387 that same business day. Any additional information requested by staff that is 388 necessary to complete the application, shall be due by the close of business 389 forty-five (45) days prior to the Requested Meeting. So long as an application 390 has been deemed complete by forty-five (45) days prior to the Requested 391 Meeting,Assuming the complete application has been received by 5:00 PM on 392 1 - 1 - 9 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 10 the deadline day, the Planning Board shall consider the application at the 393 Requested Meeting unless the applicant requests a continuance in accordance 394 with Section 111-3 of the Ordinance. 395 . 396 397 An application fee established by the County Commissioners shall be paid to the 398 County of New Hanover, North Carolina to cover necessary administrative costs 399 and advertising expenses. (8/22/82) Such application shall include all of the 400 requirements pertaining to it in this Article. (5/2/83) Notification of the request 401 shall be provided to citizens All adjoining property owners shall be notified of 402 the request as outlined in Section 11210-1(4) of this ordinance. (2/6/89) . If 403 Federal, State and/or local permits are submitted as part of the application, it is 404 assumed that these permits are valid for the subject matter for which they have 405 been granted to the petitioner and they shall be incorporated into the review by 406 county staff. 407 408 409 (3) 410 County staff planning board and/or board of county commissioners may request 411 additional information it believes could be relevant to a determination of 412 impacts, environmental and otherwise, to surrounding properties and/or the 413 area in which the subject property is located. Such additional information may 414 be in the form of tests, studies, reports, etc. evaluating factors such as sound, 415 vibration, heat discharge, glare, odor, traffic, air quality, water quality, or other 416 factors potentially relevant to the four requirements listed in Section 71-1(4). 417 Once the petitioner has obtained a permit from a Federal, state and/or local 418 authority, it is presumed for county purposes that the petitioner has the 419 requisite approval for the subject matter covered by the permit. In order to 420 challenge this approval, the challenging party will need to present clear and 421 convincing evidence to the contrary as determined by the planning board 422 and/or board of commissioners. In the event that this information is requested, 423 by staff, then it will be requested within fifteen (15) days of the date that the 424 application is deemed completedeadline. Irrespective of whether such 425 information is requested by county staff or whether the applicant decides to 426 provide some or all of the requested information, the Planning Board shall 427 consider the application at the requested meeting, unless the petitioner desires 428 a continuance, in which case a request for delay of consideration may be made 429 by the petitioner in accordance with Section 111-3 of the Ordinance. 430 431 432 (4)(3) Application Submittal: Applications may be found on the New Hanover County 433 Planning website or at the New Hanover County Planning office. In addition to 434 the application, the following information and materials are required for 435 submission: 436 (A) Narrative of the proposed use 437 (B) Traffic Impact Worksheet 438 (C) Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable) 439 1 - 1 - 10 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 11 (D) Authority for Appointment of Agent Form (if applicable) 440 (E) Letter of owner consent where applicant has option to purchase 441 property. 442 (E)(F) Written report of public meeting (if applicable) 443 (F)(G) Fee isAaccordanceAwithAtheACounty’sAadoptedAfeeAscheduleA 444 (G)(H) Site Plan: The applicant shall provide nine (9) 24x36 copies of the site 445 plan for the Planning Board meeting and one digital version. The 446 applicant will also be asked for an additional eight (8) copies of the site 447 plan if the proposal moves forward to the County Commissioners. Each 448 site plan shall contain at least the following information: 449 1. Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels 450 and roads 451 2. Proposed use of land, structures and other improvements. For 452 residential uses, this shall include number, height and type of 453 units and area to be occupied by each structure and/or 454 subdivided boundaries. For non-residential structures, this shall 455 include approximate square footage and height of each 456 structure, an outline of the area it will occupy and the specific 457 purpose for which it will be used. 458 3. Development schedule including proposed phasing. 459 4. Traffic and Parking Plan to include a statement of impact 460 concerning local traffic near the tract, proposed right-of-way 461 dedication, plans for access to and from the tract, location, 462 width and right-of-way for internal streets and location, 463 arrangement and access provision for parking areas. 464 5. All existing and proposed easements, reservations, required 465 setbacks, rights-of-way, buffering and signage 466 6. The one hundred (100) year floodplain line, if applicable 467 7. Location and sizing of trees required to be protected under 468 Section 62 of the Zoning Ordinance 469 8. Any additional conditions and requirements, which represent 470 greater restrictions on development and use of the tract than 471 the corresponding General Use District regulations or other 472 limitations on land which may be regulated by State law or Local 473 Ordinance. 474 9. Any other information that will facilitate review of the proposed 475 change (Ref. Article VII, as applicable) 476 10. 477 (5)(4) Upon receiving the recommendations of the Planning Board and holding a 478 public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may grant or deny the 479 Special Use Permit requested. The Special Use Permit, if granted shall include 480 such approved plans as may be required. In granting the Special Use Permit the 481 Commissioners shall find: (1/2/90) 482 483 (A) that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if 484 located where proposed and approved; 485 (B) that the use meets all required conditions and specifications; 486 1 - 1 - 11 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 12 (C) that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or 487 abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity; and 488 (D) that the location and character of the use if developed according to the 489 plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in 490 which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of 491 development for New Hanover County. (5/2/83) 492 (E) 493 (F) With any special use permit, the applicant has the burden of presenting 494 sufficient evidence that an application meets the standards of the Ordinance. 495 Once an applicant makes the requisite showing that the standards have been 496 met, the burden shifts to any opposition to the permit to present countervailing 497 substantial, competent, and material evidence that the standards have not been 498 met. Where there is substantial evidence on both sides, the Board of 499 Commissioners will weigh the evidence to make its determination. 500 501 502 503 (6)(5) In granting the permit the Board of County Commissioners may recommend and 504 designate such conditions in addition and in connection therewith, as will in its 505 opinion, assure that the use in its proposed location will be harmonious with the 506 area in which it is proposed to be located and with the spirit of this Ordinance. 507 All such additional conditions shall be entered in the minutes of the meeting at 508 which the permit is granted and also on the certificate of the Special Use Permit 509 or on the plans submitted therewith. All specific conditions shall run with the 510 land and shall be binding on the original applicants for the Special Use Permit, 511 their heirs, successors and assigns. A Special Use Permit, issued by the Board of 512 County Commissioners shall become null and void if construction or occupancy 513 of the proposed use as specified on the Special Use Permit is not commenced 514 within twenty-four (24) months of the date of issuance. If an extension is 515 desired, a request must be submitted in writing to the New Hanover County 516 Planning and Inspections Department prior to the expiration. Extensions may 517 be granted in accordance with section 112-6 of the Ordinance.(12/17/2012) 518 A Board of County Commissioners decision on an extension may be appealed in 519 conformity with the requirements of Section 71-1(6) of this Ordinance. (5/2/83), 520 (10/7/91) 521 522 (7)(6) If the Board of County Commissioners denies the Permit, the Board shall enter 523 the reasons for its action in the minutes of the meeting at which the action is 524 taken. (5/2/83) 525 526 (8)(7) Every decision by the Board of Commissioners issuing or denying a special use 527 permit shall be subject to review by the Superior Court by proceedings in the 528 nature of certiorari. Any petition for review by the Superior Court shall be filed 529 with the Clerk of Superior Court within thirty (30) days after the decision of the 530 Board is filed in the Office of the Clerk to the Board, or after a written copy 531 thereof is delivered to every aggrieved party who has filed a written request for 532 1 - 1 - 12 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 13 such copy with the Clerk or Chairman of the Board at the time of the hearing of 533 the case, whichever is later. (5/3/82) 534 535 (9)(8) In addition to the specific conditions imposed by the regulations of this 536 Ordinance and whatever additional conditions the Board deems reasonable and 537 appropriate, special uses shall comply with the height, yard, area and parking 538 regulations for the use district in which they are permitted unless otherwise 539 specified. If additional yard area is required for a special use, such additional 540 area may be used for off-street parking. A transportation information 541 sheetTraffic Information Worksheet is required to be completed. Ffor any 542 development that will generate more than 100 trips during the peak hour; a 543 traffic impact studyTraffic Impact Analysis may also be required. The study shall 544 be prepared in accordance with Standards standards and Guidelines guidelines 545 approved by the County and shall be submitted at least twenty-five (25) days 546 four weeks prior to the first scheduled meeting of the project's review. (5/02) 547 548 (10)(9) In the event of failure to comply with the plans approved by the Board of 549 County Commissioners or with any other conditions imposed upon the Special 550 Use Permit, the Permit shall thereupon immediately become void and of no 551 effect. No building permits for further construction or certificates of occupancy 552 under this Special Use Permit shall be issued, and all completed structures shall 553 be regarded as non-conforming uses subject to the provisions of Article IV of 554 this Ordinance provided, however, that the Board of County Commissioners 555 shall not be prevented from thereafter rezoning said property for its most 556 appropriate use. 557 558 (11)(10) The original applicant(s), their successors or their assignee may make 559 minor changes in the location and/or size of structures provided the necessity 560 for these changes is clearly demonstrated. Minor changes shall be reviewed by 561 the Planning and Inspections Department and upon favorable recommendation 562 by the Planning and Inspections Director may be approved by the Zoning 563 Administrator. Such approval shall not be granted should the proposed revisions 564 cause or contribute to: 565 566 (A) A change in the character of the development. 567 (B) A change of design for, or an increase in the hazards to pedestrian and 568 vehicle traffic circulation, or 569 (C) A modification in the originally approved setbacks from roads and/or 570 property lines exceeding ten percent. (5/4/81) (9/3/2013) 571 572 (12)(11) Resubmittals: An application for a special use which has been 573 previously denied may be resubmitted only if there has been a change 574 in circumstances as determined by the Planning and Inspections 575 Director or the director's designee. 576 577 Evidence presented in support of the new application shall initially be limited to 578 what is necessary to enable the Planning and Inspections Director to determine 579 1 - 1 - 13 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416 Page 14 whether there has been a substantial change in the facts, evidence, or 580 conditions of the case and shall include: 581 582 (A) Circumstances affecting the property that is the subject of the 583 application which have substantially changed since the denial; or 584 (B) New information available since the denial that could not with 585 reasonable diligence have been presented at a previous hearing. 586 587 If the Planning and Inspections Director deems the evidence substantially 588 changed, the proposal may be resubmitted as a new application. 589 590 ppealAofAtheAPlanningAandAInspectionsADirector’sAdecisionAmayAbeAmadeA591 to the Board of County Commissioners. (9/07) 592 593 1 - 1 - 14 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Permitted Uses PD R 20S R 20 R 15 R 10 R 7 B 1 B 2 I 1 I 2 O & I A R A I S C R A R F M U Supp Regs NAICS Manufacturing Artisan Manufacturing P P P P P P P Limited Manufacturing Animal Food Manufacturing P S P P P 3111 Grain and Oilseed Milling P S P P P 3112 Sugar and Confectionery Product Manufacturing P S P P P 3113 Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing P S P P P 3114 Dairy Product Manufacturing P S P P P 3115 Animal Slaughtering and Processing P S P P P 3116 Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging P S P P P 3117 Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing P S P P P 3118 Other Food Manufacturing P S P P P 3119 Beverage Manufacturing P S P P P 3121 Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills S P 3131 Fabric Mills S P 3132 Printing and Related Support Activities P S P P P 3231 Apparel Knitting Mills S P 3151 Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing S P 3152 Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing S P 3159 Textile Furnishings Mills S P 3141 Cutlery and Handtool Manufacturing P S P P P 3322 Architectural and Structural Metals Manufacturing S P 3323 Hardware Manufacturing P S P P P 3325 Spring and Wire Product Manufacturing P S P P P 3326 Machine Shops; Turned Product; and Screw, Nut, and Bolt Manufacturing S P 3327 Agriculture, Construction, and Mining Machinery Manufacturing P S P P P 3331 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing P S P P P 3332 Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing P S P P P 3333 Ventilation, Heating, Air-P S P P P 3334 1 - 2 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Permitted Uses PD R 20S R 20 R 15 R 10 R 7 B 1 B 2 I 1 I 2 O & I A R A I S C R A R F M U Supp Regs NAICS Conditioning, and Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing P S P P P 3335 Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing P S P P P 3336 Other General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing P S P P P 3339 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing P S P P P 3341 Communications Equipment Manufacturing P S P P P 3342 Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing P S P P P 3343 Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing P S P P P 3344 Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing P S P P P 3345 Manufacturing and Reproducing Magnetic and Optical Media P S P P P 3346 Electric Lighting Equipment Manufacturing P S P P P 3351 Household Appliance Manufacturing P S P P P 3352 Electrical Equipment Manufacturing P S P P P 3353 Other Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing P S P P P 3359 Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing P S P P P 3399 Household and Institutional Furniture and Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing P S P P P 3371 Office Furniture (including Fixtures) Manufacturing P S P P P 3372 Other Furniture Related Product Man. P S P P P 3379 General Manufacturing Textile and Fabric Finishing and Fabric Coating Mills S P 3133 Tobacco Manufacturing S P 3122 1 - 2 - 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Permitted Uses PD R 20S R 20 R 15 R 10 R 7 B 1 B 2 I 1 I 2 O & I A R A I S C R A R F M U Supp Regs NAICS Other Textile Product Mills S P 3149 Leather and Hide Tanning and Finishing S P 3161 Footwear Manufacturing S P 3162 Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing S P 3169 Sawmills and Wood Preservation S P 3211 Veneer, Plywood, and Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing S P 3212 Other Wood Product Manufacturing S P 3219 Converted Paper Product Manufacturing S P 3222 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing S P 3311 Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing S P 327331 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing S P 327332 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing S P 327390 Steel Product Manufacturing from Purchased Steel S P 3312 Alumina and Aluminum Production and Processing S P 3313 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production & Processing S P 3314 Forging and Stamping S P 3321 Boiler, Tank, and Shipping Container Manufacturing S P 3324 Coating, Engraving, Heat Treating, and Allied Activities S P 3328 Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing S P 3329 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing S P 3361 Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Manufacturing S P 3362 Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing S P 3363 Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing S P 3364 Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing S P 3365 Ship and Boat Building S P 3366 Other Transportation Equipment S P 3369 1 - 2 - 3 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Permitted Uses PD R 20S R 20 R 15 R 10 R 7 B 1 B 2 I 1 I 2 O & I A R A I S C R A R F M U Supp Regs NAICS Manufacturing Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing P 3391 Intensive Manufacturing Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills S 3221 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing S 3241 Basic Chemical Manufacturing S 3251 Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing S 3252 Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing S 3253 Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing S 3254 Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing S 3255 Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation Manufacturing S 3256 Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing S 3259 Plastics Product Manufacturing S 3261 Rubber Product Manufacturing S 3262 Clay Product and Refractory Manufacturing S 3271 Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing S 3272 Cement Manufacturing S 327310 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing S 327320 Lime and Gypsum Product Manufacturing S 3274 Other Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing S 3279 Foundries S 3315 Fuel Bulk Storage Facilities S Electricity Generating Facilities S 1 - 2 - 4 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 - 2 - 5 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 110 WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 TELEPHONE (910) 798-7165 FAX (910) 798-7053 Memorandum To: New Hanover County Planning Board From: Planning Staff Date: February 17, 2014 Re: Comments on Text Amendment A-416, (1/14) At the January 9, 2014 Planning Board meeting, this item was continued to allow for a public comment period that ran through January 24, 2014. 95 total comments were received from members of the public. Of these comments, 1 submitted comment indicated support of amendment as written, while 94 remaining comments indicated support of current ordinance language as written, or with some specific revision addressed. A vast majority of these respondents indicated support of removing draft lines Section 71(2) lines 397-415. 2 offered examples from other jurisdictions (Denver, Miami-Dade), while another suggested we look at another jurisdiction for guidance on a best practical option scenario. There were approximately 30 respondents who submitted “general” comments summarizing their opinions of the process in addition to the desire to either maintain the current language or removing Section 71(2), lines 397-415. All comments received are included in the following attachment for your review and consideration. Chris O’Keefe, AICP Planning & Inspections Director Dennis Bordeaux Inspections Manager Shawn Ralston Planning Manager 1 - 3 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: Doug Springer <doug@wilmingtonwt.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:09 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Cc: 'Kemp Burdette' Subject: Special Use Permit text change - comments Chris, Please accept my comments as input to your process to address the concern of the Planning Board as to the proposed changes to the Special Use Permit, and in particular the changes to the “review of external effects.” Please acknowledge the receipt so that I know you did get this. Did not get a response from email request sent on January, 12th. Thanks for all of your hard work Doug Comments: As you know, last week the New Hanover Planning Board held a public hearing in regards to modifying the Special Use Permit process that was unanimously adopted by our county commissionaires two years ago. I agree that most of the updates were needed to add clarity to some of the ordinance language. However, there was imbedded in the changes an attempt to weaken the ordinance and change the intent and scope of what was approved by the county on behalf of the citizens that elected them. The process as to how the “review of external effects” on air, water quality, odor and sound was completely rewritten. Indeed the change would take much of the decision making process out of the hands of the planning board, county commissionaires as to the impacts to our air, water quality, and other external effects. The proposed change reads that “Once the petitioner has obtained a permit from a Federal, state and/or local authority, it is presumed for county purposes that the petitioner has the requisite approval for the subject matter covered by the permit.” The county attorney explained that this change would indeed potentially limit the ability of the governing body, ie the Planning Board and County Commissionaires, and expose them to potential liabilities. It is the contention of some that the environmental impact analysis is should be left to state and federal level by regulators, and that our local planning board and county commissioners are not equipped to make scientific judgments on how a proposed manufacturer will impact our community. This line of thinking is exactly why strong language around the “review of external effects” must remain in the Special Use Permit ordinance and cannot be cleverly rewritten to tie the hands of our local government in the permitting process. 1 - 4 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting I defiantly agree that an environmental impact analysis should be provided by the state and federal level by regulators with specialized scientific expertise and permitting authority. Unfortunately, the problem is that some companies will spend millions of dollars to avoid any state or federal regulation that allows them to consider the total or cumulative impact to the environment or health of the citizens. They will instead seek individual permits. The State’s air permit is such an example, and there are many more. Industry knows that the state’s air permit process will not allow consideration for what is discharged into the air and how it may pollute our waters., there is no consideration for the cumulative impact to an area. They will seek permits that will only look at the discharge of a single smoke stack, but will not take into consideration that a county such as ours is bordering a “non attainment classification” by the EPA because of our exceeding high emissions of SO2. We have seen the perfect example of this in our dealing with Titan Cement. Their example is exactly why strong special use permits are needed at the local level. Titan has spent and continues to spend millions of dollars on lobbyist and contributions to avoid regulation by the state or federal government who could provide such valuable input into the local process if allowed. Titan Cement actually gave back over four million dollars in tax incentives to the state and county after they lost a law suit ruling against them and the state’s own Department of Natural Resources. The ruling would have made them submit to be regulated under our States Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The finding of this process could have indeed been used as input to the Special Use Permit process at the local level. If you ask yourself, why a company like Titan would walk away from over four million dollars you may also understand why they are so concerned about a process that would allow a local governing body and the citizens to have eyes to what they are asking to be permitted to do. It is fairly simple. The fear is that if the total and long term cumulative impact of the operation is given consideration they would not be seen as an industry that is either safe to the future heath of our children, air or water, and would not be given a permit to operate in New Hanover county. As long as company’s can and do elude regulation at the state and federal level to protect their own self interest, we will need to depend on our local planning board, environmental planners, county commissioners, and input from our citizens so that we can make informed judgments. I believe that we do have the required expertise at the local level. The key is that if processes such as SEPA are side stepped at the state level then it should be fair that more of the decisions as to total impacts of external effects and how they are relevant to the special use process will indeed be left to the judgment of a local governing body. If a company does engage at the state level and doesn’t intestinally avoid SEPA, then they should be given consideration for this and the data should be used in the review process of the Special Use Permit. In a nutshell, if a company makes a conscious effort to side step our State’s Environmental Policy Act then they will need to accept the decision of our elected officials and planning board base on the information that is provided. 1 - 4 - 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting In conclusion the original wording of the adopted ordinance should remain the same. Additional verbiage that would encourage industry to submit to the State Environmental Policy Act, and then use the findings of this process as input to their Special Use Permit may be of value. Capt Doug Springer Office (910) 338-3134 Cell (910) 602-3862 From: Doug Springer [mailto:doug@wilmingtonwt.com] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 2:23 PM To: 'cOkeefe@nhcgov.com' Subject: Input from Stakeholders special use permit Chris, From the comments and vote from the New Hanover County Planning Board to postpone the vote to accept the proposed changes to the Special Use Permit process it seemed as they wanted to provide a window for input from all stakeholders. What is the process and how is on involved in it? Thanks, Capt Doug Springer Office (910) 338-3134 Cell (910) 602-3862 ________________________________ 1 - 4 - 3 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: doug@wilmingtonwt.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1886135191&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1886135191&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1886135191&domain=nhcgov.com> wilmingtonwt.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Pender Watch <penderwatch@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 2:59 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Comments on Proposed SUP revisisions Attachments: PenderWatch comments on NH SUP proposed revisions.docx Dear Mr. O'Keefe: I am attaching my organization's comments on the proposed New Hanover County SUP revisions. Sincerely, Allie Sheffield President -- PenderWatch & Conservancy P.O. 662 Hampstead N.C. 28443 "Responsible Advocates for the Environment since 1986" ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: penderwatch@gmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1885885415&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1885885415&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass 1 - 4 - 4 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1885885415&domain=nhcgov.com> gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of james hammond <sonnywhammond@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:09 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP Jan 24, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project.I was born in Wilmington in 1943. In 2009 I moved back here for my retirement. If the SUP is weakened I will be leaving Wilmington, and not coming back. For I grew up in a city (Baltimore) that had very few enviromental protections. When our family moved there in 1955 Baltimore had a population of almost one million citizens. Today its a little over half a million. Of which there aren't too many tax paying citizens. That is what will become of Wilmington if the protection (limited though it is) of the SUP is either weakened or removed. Respectfully Submitted, James W. Hammond 2657 Carolina Beach Rd. Wilmington, NC 28412 910-207-7644 Sincerely, Mr. james hammond 2657 Carolina Beach Rd Wilmington, NC 28412-1807 (910) 207-7644 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 5 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 34 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Amy McLane <amclane@tbiilm.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 12:04 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permit comment Mr. O’Keefe, I am offering the following comments on the proposed changes to the Special Use Permit discussed at the January Planning Board meeting. I am not affiliated with any group; my comments are based on my 20 years of experience as a professional Civil Engineer in private practice. My comments relate to two of the proposed changes: 1) Lines 403 to 408: “Once the petitioner has obtained a permit from a Federal, state and/or local authority, it is presumed for county purposes that the petitioner has the requisite approval for the subject matter covered by the permit. In order to challenge this approval, the challenging party will need to present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary as determined by the planning board and/or board of commissioners.” I have experience working with a variety of local, state and federal code requirements in my profession, and this language is unlike any I have seen before. By essentially ‘delegating’ the Special Use permitting authority for impacts to water quality, air quality, wetlands (and so forth) to another permitting agency, the County loses control of the review process and the ability to require evaluation of subject matter not addressed by other permitting agencies. For example, depending on the nature and magnitude of the proposed activity, the County should 1 - 4 - 6 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting retain the ability to require the applicant to demonstrate that proposed emissions/impacts to water resources/traffic volumes, etc. will not have a cumulative negative effect (e.g., on attainment status) on the community as a whole and its resources. State and federal permit processes do not typically require applicants to disclose cumulative impacts (except for NEPA-level review). The County’s ability to ask for additional information beyond what is required for typical state/federal permits is what will allow the County to evaluate such cumulative or site-specific issues that local citizens deem important. Also, the burden put on the ‘challenging party’ (i.e, the public) is unreasonable. Members of the public should be allowed to make requests for additional information of the petitioner, and the burden should be on the petitioner to respond, with the County planning staff/board and Commission ultimately determining if the petitioner has responded adequately to public requests for information. These lines (403-408) of the proposed changes should be struck. 2) Lines 479 to 482 “ Once an applicant makes the requisite showing that the standards have been met, the burden shifts to any opposition to the permit to present countervailing substantial, competent, and material evidence that the standards have not been met.” Again, I have never seen a line of code like this. As indicated above, the burden put on the ‘opposition’ (i.e, the public) is unreasonable. Members of the public should be allowed to make requests for additional information of the petitioner, and the burden should be on the petitioner to respond, with the County planning staff/board and Commission ultimately determining if the petitioner has responded adequately to public requests for information. These lines of the proposed changes should be struck. If offer the following excerpt from the Denver, CO code for your consideration: Review Criteria No application for a zoning permit with special exception review shall be granted by the Board of Adjustment unless the Board finds that all of the following conditions are met or can be met through conditions placed on approval of the application: A. The special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; B. The proposed special exception shall be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zone District in which it is located; 1 - 4 - 7 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting C. If located within a GDP area, the special exception shall be consistent with the GDP; D. The special exception is in compliance with all applicable regulations in this Code, including but not limited to, any specific use limitations stated in Articles 3 through 9, and in Article 11, Use Limitations and Definitions; E. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community; F. The use and enjoyment of other existing uses on the surrounding property will not be substan-tially impaired by the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the special exception; G. The establishment of the special exception will not impede the normal and orderly develop-ment and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district; H. The aggregate impacts of similar special exceptions shall not result in harmful external effects or environmental impacts; and I. Any potential adverse impacts from the proposed special exception can and will be adequately mitigated. If this type of broad local latitude in review of SUP’s is appropriate for a successful, dynamic city like Denver, it should be appropriate for New Hanover County. I appreciate your consideration of my comments. Amy McLane, P.E. 2309 Princess Place Wilmington, NC 28405 910-251-1308 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 8 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: amclane@tbiilm.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1885160091&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 13 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1885160091&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1885160091&domain=nhcgov.com> tbiilm.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Rob Zapple <robzapple@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 12:00 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris; Coudriet, Chris; rcollier@mckimcreed.com; danhilla@aol.com Subject: Comments On SUP Proposed Revisions Attachments: SUP Comments.docx Please find attached to this email a copy of my comments on the proposed changes and revisions to the Special Use Permit process. Thank you, Rob Zapple (910) 619-2464 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: robzapple@yahoo.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1885132960&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 30 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1885132960&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1885132960&domain=nhcgov.com> yahoo.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Tom Looney <tom_looney@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:32 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Cc: Tom Looney Subject: Public comments submission, SUP Issue These comments are in response to the proposed changes to the Special Use Permit guidelines voted into place in 2011. I strongly urge the planning board and elected county leaders to reconsider the changes, particularly to the section titled, “Review of External Effects.” Many statements 1 - 4 - 9 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting have been made by anti-SUP enthusiasts, alleging that the SUP process was instigated to target the Titan Cement project. While the Titan fiasco rightly shows the desperate need for wholesale changes to our county’s economic development strategy, tactics, process and leadership, it seems SUP critics forget how the SUP process also helped the county survive the threat of parts of the county being named non-attainment area for violating air quality standards. Coupled to our disproportionately high number of Super Fund sites, and the poor ranking of the Cape Fear River as one of the most polluted in the nation, the SUP’s “review of external effects” seems to be an essential pro-business protection of the Quality of Place assets that have driven nearly all of the economic growth and expansion in the Wilmington region for the past 20+ years. As spokesmen for the industrial polluters themselves have noted, they haven’t landed a new “industry” in over 20 years. Of course, their definition of a new “industry” ignores the emergence of the thousands of jobs created by the CRO Industry Cluster during those years, or the success of the film industry cluster in the period. And finally, it ignores the rapid population growth in Wilmington due to the fact that technology conquered distance, and many professionals across a diverse set of industries and professions moved here because they could. Equally troubling to me is the sense that the proposed amendments to the SUP rules seem intent on shortening the review process, and/or providing mechanisms for agents of proposed new projects to disguise and circumvent the sort of transparent review that stewards of the county’s economic future ought to be insistent about keeping intact! It is the very essence of modern environmental economics, and in accordance with best practices in 21st century economic development, for regions to assess the full set of negative and positive externalities associated with each proposed new project. If you’re going to manage a regional development “strategy”, such factors and effects needs to be fully and transparently exposed up- front and then carefully and objectively weighed by our elected and appointed officials, before allowing any projects to move forward. Weakening the review of effects of projects coming into New Hanover County should set off serious warning signals. If it’s a good project for the regional economy, what’s there to hide?! In June 2011, the words of then county commissioner Rick Catlin rang true, as reported in the Wilmington Star-News: (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20110611/articles/110619948?tc=ar# gsc.tab=0). New Hanover County's proposed amendments to its industrial zoning districts may have helped dodge a pending air-quality issue, according to Commissioner Rick Catlin. County officials have been working to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from declaring parts of New Hanover a non-attainment area for violating its new sulfur dioxide air-quality standards. A non-attainment designation could stymie economic development in the county for up to two 1 - 4 - 10 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting decades because any new or expanding company would have to show that it wouldn't be adding to the county's air quality woes. But on June 3, the county may have scored a victory after the N.C. Division of Air Quality agreed to ask the Environmental Protection Agency to consider deferring an official non-attainment designation for any part of New Hanover. In a May 31 letter to the Coalition for Economic Development, Catlin writes that one of the lessons Catlin took away from working on the non-attainment issue was that some of the problems were caused by how the land was permitted to be used. "In our discussions with the EPA, I believe one of the successful points in our argument was the presentation of our preliminary intent to take local responsibility for future major impact projects," Catlin wrote. "I have no doubt that a special-use requirement for some new industries will be less attractive than our old ‘by right' industrial zoning, but it will be preferable to dealing with years of non-attainment and new source reviews that could affect every industry." The Wilmington area was fortunate to have a leader in place (Mr. Catlin) to help us navigate the county away from the sins of the past, and to prevent the continuation of those sins in the form of troubling new projects bearing new negative economic externalities to the region. If we don’t have a proper and thorough review of external effects BEFORE a major industrial polluter gets entrenched in the county, it will be a sorry legacy for the leadership that allowed it to happen. Over the past three decades many hundreds of current Wilmington area residents have enjoyed professional stints at world-class computer industry manufacturers, software publishers and tech services providers. Many hundreds more, natives and migrants alike, have participated in other high-growth Traded Sector businesses spanning a variety of high- value, low-impact industries. All of these traded sector professionals have in turn created THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF JOBS in the local (non- traded) economy. It is the TRADED SECTOR that is the CAUSE of economic growth and prosperity in Wilmington, or any other region in the nation. A diverse, robust economy across many local sectors is the EFFECT of continued traded sector growth…and diversity in jobs and industries within a regional economy have been proven to be best driven with a focus and commitment to the high-growth Innovation sectors. Working for 1970’s-era startups that became prolific job creators some of the fastest-growing, highest valued companies in U.S. history, my own 25 year career featured direct participation in remarkably successful economic development and job creation. Like countless area businesspeople, this taught me relevant lessons and insights for today’s regional development approaches in Wilmington. It’s well known that multiple companies in a variety of tech manufacturing and services sectors fueled untold direct economic growth, prosperity and job creation 1 - 4 - 11 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting throughout the U.S., including North Carolina. But only in recent years has the overall impact of the Innovation Economy been fully understood, in the form of a 5X jobs “multiplier effect” across a diverse array of non-innovation sectors. For each innovation job created, an additional FIVE non-innovation jobs are formed. Detailed data and analysis from the likes of economist Enrico Moretti (author, The New Geography of Jobs) shows that the indirect job creation impact of the Innovation Economy spans a diverse array of both traded and non-traded sectors, with a multiplier effect of 5X. For each innovation job created, an additional of five non-innovation jobs. Lessons learned? Plan strategically and execute with rigor; constantly measure results and adapt to optimize resource allocations; and compete to win in order to grow-grow-grow. Diversity of our economy does not require lowering standards, or allowing special interests to run roughshod over the economic identity of the industries, companies, and local business people, professionals and workers that have been powering our regional growth for many years…and will continue to do so, barring disruptions to our regional economic brand and identity due to the actions of industrial polluters who harm the Quality of Place attributes that drive this economy. Thank you, Tom Looney 1215 Pembroke Jones Drive Wilmington NC 28405 (910) 262-4679 County resident for 14 years Tom Looney (910) 262-4679 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: tom_looney@hotmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1885003341&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass 1 - 4 - 12 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1885003341&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1885003341&domain=nhcgov.com> hotmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Julienne Johnson <jbjohnson118@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:18 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 24, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. The restriction in Section 71(2) that limits local authority to require information on local impacts including air, water, heat, odor, glare, sound or other impacts that have state or federal permits should not be included in this ordinance and is worded too broadly. This revision could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of the proposed project. The proposed revisions create a presumption that the permit will be issued and appears to be designed to limit the County staff and publics's ability to require further analysis of heavy and light industries. State and federal permit agencies will evaluate environmental effects, but often with very narrow and limited focus. The County adopted the current SUP ordinance in 2011 because they realized the importance of having local review process. Any questions please call me at 910-508-1405. Sincerely Julienne B. Johnson 4135 Abbington Terrace Wilmington, NC 28403 Sincerely, Ms. Julienne Johnson 4135 Abbington Ter Wilmington, NC 28403-5577 (910) 508-1405 1 - 4 - 13 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: robert parr <rparr@ec.rr.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:04 AM To: Coudriet, Chris; rcollier@mckimcreed.com; danhilla@aol.com; aheath@mulkeyinc.com; lisa.mesler@wellsfargo.com; tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com; O'Keefe, Chris; dfweaver4@aol.com; ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com Subject: Special Use Permitt - Necessary Modifications to ensure Public Involvement and maintain County Authority and Input Please review my comments on SUP. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sorry for all the colors but I reworked this several times to be as accurate and clear as possible. Bob Parr Purpose of SUP: 1 - 4 - 14 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To mitigate or limit external impacts which cannot be controlled on site and which cause harm to surrounding private property or public resources. Commercial operations of any kind are not allowed by right if they impact surrounding private property or public resources without triggering SUP. These operations may be allowed by SUP but they will not by right be excluded from SUP. Any commercial operation which triggers any Federal or State permitting will automatically trigger SUP. These clarifications will allow any prospective operation to know when SUP will apply — they are intuitive/not confusing. Prospective companies already know if they will have negative external effects which they cannot control on site and if they will need Federal/State permitting. A list of possible activities that trigger SUP is fine but the trigger is whether negative effects cannot by controlled on site and if Federal or State permitting is mandated. Section 44: Any expansion of operations to adjacent off site areas which has significant external impacts or triggers Federal/State permitting will trigger SUP for those new properties. While the original operation (if active and permitted on October 2, 2011) will not trigger SUP, any expansions to off site areas after October 2, 2011 which have significant external impacts or need Federal/State permitting will trigger SUP. 1 - 4 - 15 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting In Miami Dade Florida rock miners and cement manufacturers have created the Rockmining Overlay Zoning Area (ROZA) which specifically does not allow public meetings or direct public input into mining matters within the zoning area. Without the opportunity for public input the adjacent towns of Miami Lakes and Doral have been forced to pass resolutions against harmful mining operations from these companies. In addition the rock miners and cement manufactures in Miami Dade have been active to prevent any residential development within ROZA which impedes large areas of Miami Dade from future residential development. In Virginia Titan America organized private and public opposition to a mixed use residential marina project that would be adjacent to their industrial property effectively limiting other uses for adjacent property. Section 44 should be written to require that any expansion after October 2, 2011 that has offsite impacts and triggers Federal/State permitting triggers SUP. NHC SUP should not be written in any manner which would create a zoning area similar to ROZA or which could be used to limit uses for adjacent property unless those uses cause negative off site effects. Section 71: The applicant should be required to hold a public meeting before the Planning Board Meeting to inform affected private property owners and the general public of their plans and operations similar to what is already required for large commercial projects in New Hanover County. The pre Planning Board public meeting would act to adequately inform adjacent neighbors of expected impacts, give the applicant 1 - 4 - 16 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting valuable input on surrounding private property and public concerns, and possibly lead to mitigation practices of those concerns. The present system does not provide for this important dialogue which results in prolonged and extended Planning Board and County Commission meetings discussing matters that should have been settled weeks previously between the affected parties. "Once the petitioner has obtained a permit from a Federal, state and/or local authority, it is presumed for county purposes that the petitioner has the requisite approval for the subject matter covered by the permit." As written this section precludes local oversight, local input or local authority in matters of local concern and should not be included in SUP. Once again SUP is triggered when a company cannot control its negative impacts on site. While Federal and State permitting addresses some of these impacts, the local government has the responsibility and authority to protect both private and public rights for all negative impacts whether or not they are Federal or State areas of concern. The Wilmington Coal Tipple Project and Wilmington Oil Refinery Project (projects which would have severely impacted present day Wilmington and New Hanover County) are examples of projects with off site negative impacts which were rejected because of local and not Federal or State opposition. "In order to challenge this approval, the challenging party will need to present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary as determined by the planning board and/or board of commissioners." 1 - 4 - 17 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Assuming that SUP will be a Quasi Judicial matter and that findings of fact presented at the County Commission meeting will be the deciding factor- challengers must have adequate time to see development plans, to obtain expert testimony, to arrange for expert testimony to be present at both the Planning Board and County Commission Meetings and have assurances that their expert testimony can be presented fully at these meetings. In the present writing the applicant unrestrictive time to develop their plans, unrestricted time to meet with County officials, unrestricted time to lobby the Planning Department for their recommendation and the freedom to further lobby for their project outside of the Planning Board and County Commission meetings for extended periods of time before any possibly affected neighbors or the general public are even aware that a SUP matter affecting their property or a public resource is in the works. The time frame for notifying the adjacent property owners/affected public must be generous enough to allow challengers see detailed development plans and to obtain expert testimony. The meetings have to be structured so that all affected persons (the applicant and all affected challengers) have time to present their expert testimony. The Public Neighborhood Meeting between the applicant and the neighbors before the Planning Board Meeting would be extremely valuable in this regard and would result in a better project for all parties. Suggested time line: Public Neighborhood Meeting (mandatory for application) two months to allow possible mitigation and obtaining expert testimony, Planning Board Meeting two months later to allow for further mitigation followed by County Commission Meeting. The intent is to allow affected parties to be adequately informed, to allow equal opportunities to obtain expert opinion, to allow equal opportunities to present of findings of fact, and to allow possible mitigation before Planning Board and before County Commission meetings. 1 - 4 - 18 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: rparr@ec.rr.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1884804449&domain=nhcgov.com> Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1884804449&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Wm. C Thompson <clancync@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 10:59 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: preserve original language in SUP "Dear Mr O'Keefe: As Citizens who value clean air and water and who cannot imaging our community assaulted by heavy dirty industry we rely on your leadership to preserve the quality of our regional ari and water. I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Thanks Wm C and Susan Thompson ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: clancync@gmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1884835685&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1884835685&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1884835685&domain=nhcgov.com> gmail.com 1 - 4 - 19 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: robert parr <rparr@ec.rr.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 10:50 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permitt - Necessary Modifications to ensure Public Involvement and maintain County Authority and Input Purpose of SUP: To mitigate or limit external impacts which cannot be controlled on site and which cause harm to surrounding private property or public resources. Commercial operations of any kind are not allowed by right if they impact surrounding private property or public resources without triggering SUP. These operations may be allowed by SUP but they will not by right be excluded from SUP. Any commercial operation which triggers any Federal or State permitting will automatically trigger SUP. These clarifications will allow any prospective operation to know when SUP will apply — they are intuitive/not confusing. Prospective companies already know if they will have negative external effects which they cannot control on site and if they will need Federal/State permitting. A list of possible activities that trigger SUP is fine but the trigger is whether negative effects cannot by controlled on site and if Federal or State permitting is mandated. Section 44: 1 - 4 - 20 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Any expansion of operations to adjacent off site areas which has significant external impacts or triggers Federal/State permitting will trigger SUP for those new properties. While the original operation (if active and permitted on October 2, 2011) will not trigger SUP, any expansions to off site areas after October 2, 2011 which have significant external impacts or need Federal/State permitting will trigger SUP. In Miami Dade Florida rock miners and cement manufacturers have created the Rockmining Overlay Zoning Area (ROZA) which specifically does not allow public meetings or direct public input into mining matters within the zoning area. Without the opportunity for public input the adjacent towns of Miami Lakes and Doral have been forced to pass resolutions against harmful mining operations from these companies. In addition the rock miners and cement manufactures in Miami Dade have been active to prevent any residential development within ROZA which impedes large areas of Miami Dade from future residential development. In Virginia Titan America organized private and public opposition to a mixed use residential marina project that would be adjacent to their industrial property effectively limiting other uses for adjacent property. Section 44 should be written to require that any expansion after October 2, 2011 that has offsite impacts and triggers Federal/State permitting triggers SUP. NHC SUP should not be written in any manner which would create a zoning area similar to ROZA or which could be used to limit uses for adjacent property unless those uses cause negative off site effects. Section 71: 1 - 4 - 21 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting The applicant should be required to hold a public meeting before the Planning Board Meeting to inform affected private property owners and the general public of their plans and operations similar to what is already required for large commercial projects in New Hanover County. The pre Planning Board public meeting would act to adequately inform adjacent neighbors of expected impacts, give the applicant valuable input on surrounding private property and public concerns, and possibly lead to mitigation practices of those concerns. The present system does not provide for this important dialogue which results in prolonged and extended Planning Board and County Commission meetings discussing matters that should have been settled weeks previously between the affected parties. "Once the petitioner has obtained a permit from a Federal, state and/or local authority, it is presumed for county purposes that the petitioner has the requisite approval for the subject matter covered by the permit." As written this section precludes local oversight, local input or local authority in matters of local concern and should not be included in SUP. Once again SUP is triggered when a company cannot control its negative impacts on site. While Federal and State permitting addresses some of these impacts, the local government has the responsibility and authority to protect both private and public rights for all negative impacts whether or not they are Federal or State areas of concern. The Wilmington Coal Tipple Project and Wilmington Oil Refinery Project (projects which would have severely impacted present day Wilmington and New Hanover County) are examples of projects with off site negative impacts which were rejected because of local and not Federal or State opposition. 1 - 4 - 22 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting "In order to challenge this approval, the challenging party will need to present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary as determined by the planning board and/or board of commissioners." Assuming that SUP will be a Quasi Judicial matter and that findings of fact presented at the County Commission meeting will be the deciding factor- challengers must have adequate time to see development plans, to obtain expert testimony, to arrange for expert testimony to be present at both the Planning Board and County Commission Meetings and have assurances that their expert testimony can be presented fully at these meetings. In the present writing the applicant unrestrictive time to develop their plans, unrestricted time to meet with County officials, unrestricted time to lobby the Planning Department for their recommendation and the freedom to further lobby for their project outside of the Planning Board and County Commission meetings for extended periods of time before any possibly affected neighbors or the general public are even aware that a SUP matter affecting their property or a public resource is in the works. The time frame for notifying the adjacent property owners/affected public must be generous enough to allow challengers see detailed development plans and to obtain expert testimony. The meetings have to be structured so that all affected persons (the applicant and all affected challengers) have time to present their expert testimony. The Public Neighborhood Meeting between the applicant and the neighbors before the Planning Board Meeting would be extremely valuable in this regard and would result in a better project for all parties. Suggested time line: Public Neighborhood Meeting (mandatory for application) two months to allow possible mitigation and obtaining expert testimony, Planning Board Meeting two months later to allow for further mitigation followed by County Commission Meeting. The intent is to allow affected parties to be adequately informed, to allow equal opportunities to obtain expert opinion, to allow equal opportunities to present of findings of fact, and to allow possible mitigation before Planning Board and before County Commission meetings. 1 - 4 - 23 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: rparr@ec.rr.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1884804449&domain=nhcgov.com> Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1884804449&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Sarah Gilliam <sarahg@nccoast.org> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 9:46 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Comments on proposed revisions to SUP Attachments: SUPCommentsSG.docx; 2014-01-22 Suggested Edits Section 71-2.docx Greetings Mr. O'Keefe, Please find my comments regarding the County's special use permit process attached to this email. I have also attached recommended revisions to Section 71 (2) of the ordinance. Thank you and I look forward to moving New Hanover County forward. -Sarah -- Sarah Gilliam North Carolina Coastal Federation 910-777-9834 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: sarahg@nccoast.org <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1884498743&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 24 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1884498743&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Sherry O'Daniell <sherryodaniell@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:36 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP comments Dear Chris O'Keefe, I attended the New Hanover County Planning Board Work Session on Nov. 1st, 2013. Many of the changes to the SUP that were discussed at the planning board work session were not what were presented at January’s planning board meeting. I assume the “special interest” groups that met with the planning board over the Christmas holidays had something to do with the discrepancy. My conventions were confirmed when I read the following paragraph in a local publication before January’s planning board meeting. The Chamber, Wilmington Business Development, and the Coalition for Economic Advancement joined forces to study issues SUP to recommend changes. “We are currently educating officials as to the importance of making the changes and may have a decision in early January.” I hope that you will also listen to the many citizens that want to preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Let’s keep informed and educated about industries that want to locate here. I shudder to think that an environmental tragedy such as the West Virginia chemical spill that contaminated Charleston’s water system could happen here because we weakened our SUP. The SUP needs to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. The revisions currently limits local authority from obtaining information on local impacts including air, water, heat, odor, glare, sound or other impacts that have state or federal permits. The purpose of the SUP is to give local government control if we are to bow down to state mandates then we place our community in the hands of those that do not have local interest. There is no evidence that any proposed industries have been dissuaded by the adoption of the SUP. Industries and some “special interest” groups are only interested in their stake holders profits we the citizens of New Hanover are interested in something more valuable than monetary gains: the health of our community, the strength of small business owners & environmental impacts are what we have in stake. Sincerely, Sherry O'Daniell Wilmington, NC 1 - 4 - 25 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: sherryodaniell@gmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1883574787&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1883574787&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1883574787&domain=nhcgov.com> gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Rosemary Toumey <retoumey@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:59 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris; rcollier@mckimcreed.com; danhilla@aol.com; aheath@mulkeyinc.com; lisa.mesier@wellsfargo.com; tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com; ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com; dfweaver4@aol.com; Coudriet, Chris Subject: SUP SUP, in the name of a Democratic society, must not be gutted. I am appalled that 8 out of 9 people would believe this new rendition to be honorable and would believe that Wilmington citizenry would ever approve of taking away the right of citizen review. My question is....Why would you ever believe it to be acceptable? Where did this mockery of an idea come from? How are you ever going to separate yourselves personally from such an undemocratic pursuit? Do not do any more damage and keep SUP in place. The most outrageous statements made regarded using the word "clarification." You sounded like desperate and slippery salesmen Rosemary Eagles Toumey 505 South Front Street Wilmington, NC 28401 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: retoumey@gmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1883558765&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass 1 - 4 - 26 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1883558765&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1883558765&domain=nhcgov.com> gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Ashley Daniels <ashleyndaniels@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:55 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris; Coudriet, Chris; rcollier@mckimcreed.com; danhilla@aol.com; aheath@mulkeyinc.com; lisa.mesler@wellsfargo.com; tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com; ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com I hope this reaches you in the very best of health and spirit. I am sending you this message for two reasons. 1) I support and advocate maintaining the original Special Use Permit as it was drafted in 2011. I believe it was put in place to ensure the community have a voice in decisions affecting them. That same assurance should remain intact with any potential changes. 2) During the last planning board meeting I saw something that disturbed me. I saw people speak up out of genuine concern for their community, pleading to be heard; and then I saw their appointed leaders politely ignore them and attempt to go about business as usual. It should go without saying that the only business of elected or appointed officials is to attend to the needs and concerns of their public. Outside of this there is no 'business as usual', thus the term Public Servant. I heard statements along the lines of "We are not required to wait" or "There is no law saying we have to issue more time". This was disheartening. It is with respect to honest discourse,to the democratic process and lastly with respect to the people we all call neighbor and even friend that I remind you of your duty, your sole responsibility to the people. Now and in the future when your public asks to be included please see that you make that happen without hesitation - with respect to your position, it is the very least you could do. Sincerely, Ashley Daniels ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 27 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: ashleyndaniels@gmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1883557266&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 13 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1883557266&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1883557266&domain=nhcgov.com> gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Sondra Vitols <vitols@mindspring.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:09 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Please preserve the original intent of the Special Use Permit Dear Mr O'Keefe: I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the Special Use Permit enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Thank you very much for your attention in this serious matter which appears to be designed to limit the County staff and the public's ability to require deeper analysis of heavy and light industries through a healthy local review process. Sincerely, Dr. Sondra Vitols 8208 Bald Eagle Lane Wilmington, NC 28411 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 28 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: vitols@mindspring.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1883525591&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1883525591&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1883525591&domain=nhcgov.com> mindspring.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of David Paynter <dpaynter@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:04 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Proposed changes to the special use permit Jan 23, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, The purpose of a special use permit is to provide local government a tool by which it can properly asses the effects of an industry on its neighbors and the community in which that industry resides. Given the fact that New Hanover County is both a densely populated area and an area with significant natural resources, we should be particularly careful in any potential modifications to existing regulations. The recent changes submitted to the Planning Commission weaken rather than strengthen our SUP regulations. Section 71-2 in particular needs to be significantly revised in order to allow greater local review of potential environmental impacts of a project. New Hanover County has a history of lax environmental regulation which has resulted in numerous super fund sites, poor air quality, and polluted water resources. With an increasing population, we need stronger not weaker protections. Please reconsider these proposed regulations and provide an alternative which benefits the community's as a whole and not special interests. by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. David Paynter 6242 Head Rd 1 - 4 - 29 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Wilmington, NC 28409-2216 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 30 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Elli Klein <elli_klein@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Protect the Power of NHCo. and Our SUP Dear Mr. O'Keefe and New Hanover County, NC Planning Board: As a strategic planner myself, I appreciate your efforts to simplify the SUP process.Thank you for the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. However, the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Don't you think it is important for the County have the ability to evaluate projects rather than rubber-stamping them based on what ever the state or feds decide works for them? You must protect the county and its people's water, air, safety, and infrastructure as the approved SUP is expected to do. As the draft from your previous public meeting is written, it does not do this. Please change the SUP wording to do what your citizens, scientists, doctors, parents, children, small businesses, etc. expect you to do. --Elli Klein Elli Klein 6809 Mayfaire Club Dr. Apt 203 Wilmington, NC 28405 1 - 4 - 30 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 910-256-8859 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: elli_klein@yahoo.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1882822447&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 30 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1882822447&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1882822447&domain=nhcgov.com> yahoo.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Mike Giles <mikeg@nccoast.org> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:16 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Cc: Coudriet, Chris; Burgess, Tim; dfweaver4@aol.com; ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com; lisa.mesler@wellsfargo.com; danhilla@aol.com; aheath@mulkeyinc.com; rcollier@mkimcreed.com; tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com Subject: NC Coastal Federation Comments Proposed SUP Revisions Attachments: NCCF Comments on NHC SUP Revisions 1 23 2014.pdf; 2014- 01-22 Suggested Edits Section 71-2.pdf Chris: Please accept the above attached comments from the NC Coastal Federation on the proposed revisions to the County’s SUP approved in 2011. We appreciate the opportunity to be involved in this important process. We hope the comments submitted will be considered to both improve the process and provide clarity while protecting the intent and usefulness of this critical tool. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any further clarification on our comments. I have signed the attached letter electronically and will provide you a hard copy before the noon deadline on Friday January 24, 2014. Best regards, Mike 1 - 4 - 31 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Mike Giles Coastal Advocate NC Coastal Federation The Landing Suite F-1 530 Causeway Drive Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 (910)509-2838 off. (910)231-6687 cell (910)509-2840 fax mikeg@nccoast.org Subscribe to Coastal Review Online <http://feeds.feedburner.com/NCCFNews> Become a Facebook Fan <http://www.facebook.com/pages/NC-Coastal- Federation/185345054061> Join the Coastal Federation today at www.nccoast.org <http://www.nccoast.org/> Please consider the environment before printing this email ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: mikeg@nccoast.org <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1872899835&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 32 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1872899835&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: kaydee@ec.rr.com Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:07 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: postponement of zoning change vote Chris In light of the heavy attendance and lengthy time anticipated in discussing the SUP that will likely occur at the Feb. 6th meeting, I have a request to make. The decision on the zoning change for the proposed sand mine near GE is also scheduled for that meeting. Considering the issues and concerns of residents with this proposal, the many questions they have, and the anger of many citizens on how the "community hearing" was conducted for this, I am hoping you would be willing to move the I-1 zoning change vote for the sand mine in Castle Hayne to next month's agenda, so that the proper time and attention can be given to this important decision. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Best Regards, Kayne Darrell 910-612-9031 kaydee@ec.rr.com ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: kaydee@ec.rr.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1878768960&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1878768960&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1878768960&domain=nhcgov.com> ec.rr.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: olsadeyes@aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:55 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permit / original intent 1 - 4 - 33 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Dear Mr O'Keefe: I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the Special Use Permit enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Thank you very much for your attention in this serious matter which appears to be designed to limit the County staff and the public's ability to require deeper analysis of heavy and light industries through a healthy local review process. Sincerely, Peter Jurasik 8112 Mason Ridge Lane Wilmington, NC 28409 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: olsadeyes@aol.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1881193432&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1881193432&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1881193432&domain=nhcgov.com> aol.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Theresa McAskill <theresa.mcaskill@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:19 AM 1 - 4 - 34 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: local review process, keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 23, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Please protect what we have. At two public meetings, the County has repeatedly stated its goal was not to change the policy or intent of the special use permit. Despite these assurances, the proposed text changes would dramatically change the intent of this Special Use Permit. The proposed revisions to Section 71 (2) create a presumption that the permit will be issued and appears to be designed to limit the County staff and public's ability to require further analysis of heavy and light industries. The restriction in Section 71 (2) that limits local authority to require information on local impacts including air, water, heat, odor, glare, sound or other impacts that have state or federal permits should not be included in this ordinance and is worded too broadly. This revision could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. State and federal permit agencies will evaluate environmental effects, but often with very narrow and limited focus (specific examples below). The County adopted the current SUP ordinance in 2011 because they realized the importance of having a local review process. The current proposed changes to Section 71 (2) are the result of pressure from heavy industry special interests, claiming that this requirement would adversely affect industry recruitment. Since the adoption of the ordinance in 2011, the SUP has not been used, and there is no evidence that any proposed industries have been dissuaded by the adoption of the SUP. Additionally, there is no evidence of any negative impacts on business recruitment in the other 47 counties in NC who currently have similar SUP requirements for heavy industry. Sincerely, Ms. Theresa McAskill 3112 Lassiter St Durham, NC 27707-3867 (919) 489-4607 1 - 4 - 35 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: DOROTHY J PAPADAKOS <dorothypapadakos@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:19 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Cc: Papadakos Dorothy Subject: Please preserve the original intent of the Special Use Permit Dear Mr O'Keefe: I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the Special Use Permit enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Thank you very much for your attention in this serious matter which appears to be designed to limit the County staff and the public's ability to require deeper analysis of heavy and light industries through a healthy local review process. Sincerely, Dorothy Papadakos 8212 Bald Eagle Lane Wilmington, NC 28411 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 36 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: dorothypapadakos@mac.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1879819042&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1879819042&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1879819042&domain=nhcgov.com> mac.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Fred Butler <fbutler1@ec.rr.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:15 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP Dear Mr. O'Keefe: I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Thanks, Fred Butler ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: fbutler1@ec.rr.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1879302199&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1879302199&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1879302199&domain=nhcgov.com> ec.rr.com 1 - 4 - 37 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Tracy Skrabal <tracys@nccoast.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:09 PM To: Coudriet, Chris; O'Keefe, Chris; Burgess, Tim Cc: Ed Beck; Mike Giles; Zachary Keith; Nancy Card Subject: Thank you for yesterday's meeting and a recommendation Chris, Chris, and Tim- Thanks so much for your time yesterday. We better understand your intentions, and hope that the perspectives and information we provided is useful to you. As promised, Mike Giles will be forwarding our written comments and proposed text to you later today or tomorrow. We welcome the opportunity to discuss any issue further, as needed by you and your staff. Although we understand the need to have predictability and consistency in any SUP process, we would also argue that an SUP process for intensive manufacturing users should be different than a SUP process for a day care center, or even for artisan or limited manufacturing. Given the known potential for long-lasting adverse affects to human health, water supplies, the economy and the environment by industries such as chemical manufacturers, cement manufacturers or power plants, it is reasonable that this process would be more complex, more comprehensive, and consequently, require a longer time frame for consideration. As an over-arching recommendation, then, we would recommend that you consider maintaining separate SUP requirements for industries within the intensive manufacturing category, providing the most rigorous application process and greater latitude for staff, the community and elected officials to evaluate these potentially heavy polluting industries. Since the public (and our) concerns focus primarily on the local SUP process for intensive manufacturing, this would allow you to adopt the most predictable, consistent SUP process of review, with more readily defined time constraints for all but a very small number of potential industries (intensive manufacturing and mining operations). This organizational change would accomplish several goals. It would allow the staff, elected officials and the public whatever time is needed to fully evaluate the local implications of these intensive industries, and it removes the concern that the current SUP process could hamper industry recruitment for the majority of industries not included in this category. In fact, economists at UNCW have pointed out that many potential businesses in the medical, entrepreneurial and technology-based fields might well be dissuaded from locating in communities that lack a rigorous local review process for heavy polluting industries. Further, heavy industries that refuse to participate in a comprehensive review of their potential affects should raise red flags within our community and our leadership. For these industries, the federal EIS process alone can take 2+ years, a process that could be done concurrently with the county SUP process. 1 - 4 - 38 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting I wanted to follow up our conversation with one of many news stories about the recent poisoning of the water supply in West Virginia, a case which is relevant to our current SUP discussion. http://news.yahoo.com/west-virginia-governor-declares-state-emergency- chemical-spill-005300714--finance.html Unfortunately, there are many many examples of permitted heavy industries that create irreparable harm to human health, the environment and the local quality of life. To mention one more potential scenario, the legacy of the Diamond Shamrock chromium plant (now Elementis) on the Cape Fear River includes an illegal chromium leak into the aquifer and ground underlying the plant. Chromium is a odorless, colorless pollutant with known adverse health effects, ranging from respiratory/nasal irritation to lung cancer. Elementis is currently required by EPA to stabilize the chromium plume from migrating beyond their property limits, but any potential large-scale extractions of groundwater in this area has the potential to result in the migration of this toxic plume. Although state and federal permits are required for water discharges, very little regulatory oversight exists to consider the potential implications of this scenario on our local public water wells, sited in relatively close proximity to this location. Again, many thanks for your time and consideration of our concerns. We look forward to working with you to reach a reasonable solution. Tracy -- Tracy E. Skrabal Coastal Scientist\ Southeast Regional Manager NC Coastal Federation 530 Causeway Drive Ste. F1 Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 Ph: (910)509-2838 <tel:%28910%29509-2838> (O) (910)231-6601 <tel:%28910%29231-6601> (cell) Fax: (910)509-2840 <tel:%28910%29509-2840> Visit www.nccoast.org to join or learn more. ü Please consider the environment before printing this email 1 - 4 - 39 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: tracys@nccoast.org <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1878783275&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1878783275&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1878783275&domain=nhcgov.com> nccoast.org This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: kaydee@ec.rr.com Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:06 PM To: majure@wilmingtonchamber.org; rhett@wilmingtonchamber.org; O'Keefe, Chris; Ralston, Shawn; Vafier, Ken Cc: Ashley.Withers@StarNewsOnline.com; caroline.c@portcitydaily.com; agiles@wect.com; sam@luminanews.com Subject: Economic Growth in NC counties To members of the Chamber of Commerce 1 - 4 - 40 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting As I long time resident of Castle Hayne, I have grave concerns about the potential changes to the Special Use Permit adopted in 2011. The adoption of this permit was long overdue and greatly needed, and those of us living, working and sending our children to schools that are in close proximity to Intensive Industry zoned areas have been watching the process closely. It now appears that special interest groups are pressuring the Planning Board to make changes that would deplete the protections the SUP afforded. Their reasoning is that it deters businesses from coming to our area. I would very much like to see the statistics that support that assertion, both here in New Hanover and in the other 47 counties that have SUP’s requiring Intensive Industry to comply with similar criteria. I am hoping that the Chamber has access to that information (showing economic growth levels in those 47 counties and which businesses have not come to Wilmington because of the SUP)and can provide me with that information – or at least give me an idea where to locate it. Thank you for your help in this matter. Best Regards, Kayne Darrell kaydee@ec.rr.com 910-612-9031 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: kaydee@ec.rr.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1878768960&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1878768960&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1878768960&domain=nhcgov.com> ec.rr.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Karen Dunn <khdnc1@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:54 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permit comments Section 71-1 Dear Chris, 1 - 4 - 41 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Please forward the following public comments RE: Section 71-1 (2) of the zoning ordinance to New Hanover County Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. Thank you. To: New Hanover County Planning Board and Board of Commissioners Date: January 22, 2014 RE: Request for public comment Section 71-1 (2) of the zoning ordinance I applaud New Hanover County’s efforts to develop the county’s first comprehensive plan, intended to help guide development decisions through 2040 and the 2013 Economic Development Planning Initiative, a partnership with City of Wilmington, UNCW, and Cape Fear Community College. These undertakings along with far-reaching community input will tackle the needs and challenges of an urban population; How to achieve the balance in encouraging business growth while sustaining and improving the health of our fragile environment and protecting natural resources? In 2011, New Hanover County adopted the special use permit process to bridge these concerns. The intent of the special use permit is to set forth additional requirements for certain land uses and activities which, due to their characteristics or the special characteristics of the area in which they are to be located, require special consideration so that they may be properly located and planned with respect to the objectives of county plans/ordinances and their effect on the surrounding properties and community character. As a certified planner with twenty five years’ experience administering special use permits in North Carolina, I am concerned that the proposed text amendments will severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for 1 - 4 - 42 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting county staff, planning board, and elected officials to protect the public health, safety, welfare and the natural environment. Specifically: • The proposed revisions to Section 71-1 (2) appear to be designed to limit the county staff and public’s ability to require further analysis of heavy and light industries • The restriction in Section 71-1 (2) that limits local authority to require information on local impacts including air, water, heat, odor, glare, sound or other impacts that have state or federal permits should not be included in this ordinance and is worded too broadly. Drastically reduced staffs of state and federal permit agencies will evaluate environmental effects, but often with very narrow and limited focus. The proposed text changes would dramatically inhibit local protections in the special use permit • State and federal permit agencies do not: o Require a comprehensive public health analysis before issuing air or water quality permits for heavy industries o Evaluate water withdrawals from aquifers and rivers, which are the same water bodies supplying water for public use and the effect of withdrawals on wells, wetlands and private property o Take into consideration neighboring uses like residential neighborhoods, public schools, bus stops, recreational areas, boat ramps, and agricultural or livestock farms • Pre-application conferences should be mandatory and fee-based for all SUP applicants. Many jurisdictions require this up-front consultation to facilitate the review process • The Planning Board should have the option to call for a special meeting or a continuance at their sole discretion as well as requests from applicants • Petitioners should have the burden to prove the findings of fact beyond a reasonable doubt for SUP approval. Section 71-1 (4) appears to shift the burden of proof 71-1 (4) (A-D) to other parties Since the implementation of the ordinance in 2011, the SUP has not been used, and there is no evidence that any proposed industries have been dissuaded by the adoption of the SUP. Let’s be proactive and avert potential catastrophes through local government management of our land uses. Today, industry expects to be viewed under a microscope thanks to economic and ecological disasters like the BP oil spill in the Gulf. The 1 - 4 - 43 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting proposed changes to the SUP process tie the hands of New Hanover County’s oversight of intensive development. Because the county is seeking input for its first comprehensive land use plan that will engage a broad cross section of the community, New Hanover County officials should consider tabling all material changes to existing plans and ordinances and evaluate them during the ongoing public process. Lead, not be led by special interests. Thank you for your time and consideration. -- Karen H. Dunn, AICP Resilient Land Planning and Design 622 #102 Waynick Blvd Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 704-560-1500 (cell) khdnc1@gmail.com dunn11@csld.edu ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: khdnc1@gmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1877772278&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1877772278&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1877772278&domain=nhcgov.com> gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: kelly stryker <strykerkelly@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:35 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Please do not change the SUP language Good Morning, 1 - 4 - 44 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting I would like to submit my comments regarding the recently proposed changes to the Special Use Permit language. I attended the recent Planning meeting and listened to both sides. I also participated in past meetings when the initial discussions were being worked out and voted on by the Planning and County Commissioner's. I appreciate the time and thoughtful discussions being presented by all, but would strongly ask that any SUP language intended to allow officials to access information about impacts from the proposed project, be left as it was originally approved in the 4-1 vote by our previous New Hanover Board. Recent efforts to weaken environmental regulations at the state level have made it all that more critical for local control. I hear industry proponents often say the SUP will hurt our area's ability to get jobs to come here. I would ask where the proof is for a statement like that? It's a tired argument and studies have shown that most jobs lost in the last few decades are not from tighter regulations but instead from automation within industries, esp. manufacturing sectors, that continue to hire less people as machines take over more of the work. And no matter where we all sit on the issue of jobs and environmental/health concerns, no one would want to see our drinking water or river or children at nearby schools, harmed from unintended releases from a project. If we do our best to properly assess all the potential concerns upfront, we can at least, as a community, know we did our best. That's why I'm opposed to any new language that might limit the Q & A part of the SUP process. We should be able to asses ANY industrial projects impacts, no matter if an air or water permit exists or if they already have an operation and are only seeking to expand. Any person or company that wants to limit these elements of the SUP is doing so to help their company, but that is not the role of the SUP and the important review of impacts. The recent chemical spill from a plant located near a river and a local drinking source in W. Virginia, is a good example of why it's important to have strong local ordinances. Initial reports from that accident said that nobody ever assessed the location of storage tanks so close to the drinking water and state and federal regulations did not require this to be assessed. In hindsight, this could have been mitigated if this information was known by local officials. But, W.V is a state that works hard to limit regulations. NC, sadly, is moving in that direction also. It's a good example of why prevention is a lot easier, esp when it comes to drinking water or anything that could harm our citizens. It's also a good example of why our local officials need to be able to make their own assessments and not be tied to state and federal laws. Please do not weaken the SUP language and make it harder for the questions to be asked from industrial projects who seek expansions or otherwise want to locate their project in our area. I understand the issues but hope the intent of the SUP language remains in place, esp. as our local and federal political climate fluctuates. 1 - 4 - 45 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Thank you for all your thoughtful review. Sincerely, Kelly Stryker 134 Point Drive Wilmington, NC ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: strykerkelly@yahoo.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1877670793&domain=nhcgov.com> Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1877670793&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Joel Bourne <jkbourne2@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:45 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Cc: rcollier@mckimcreed.com; danhilla@aol.com; aheath@mulkeyinc.com; lisa.mesler@wellsfargo.com; Tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com; Ted.shipley@Smithmoorelaw.com; dfweaver4@aol.com Subject: Special Use Permit comments Mr. O'Keefe and Honorable Members of the Planning Board: I just wanted to pass along my comments on the Special Use Permit. I was very pleased when the planning board and county commissioners passed the Special Use Permit after a lengthy public debate. I felt the process was fair and open and resulted in a permitting process that would not be too onerous on industries but that would allow public input into the process so that people would have a chance to know the potential impacts, as well as benefits of any industry that wanted to move to town. This is simply what many growing communities across the state and country have already put in place. But I was very disappointed to learn that the process had been reopened and new language suggested that would change the entire tenor of the permitting process. This seemed like a blatant, back-door lobbying effort by local industries and their supporters to tie the hands of the county and citizens and make the permit process virtually meaningless. The county planning department doesn't need a staff of water or air pollution experts to make a simple determination about the potential impacts of an industry on surrounding schools, neighborhoods, or roads, or the proper safe placement of such industries. I strongly urge you to keep the SUP as 1 - 4 - 46 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting is and reject the proposed language that would substantially change the intent of the process. Thanks for your time. Joel Bourne 134 Point Drive Wilmington, NC 28411 910-616-8264 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: jkbourne2@gmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1876816699&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1876816699&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1876816699&domain=nhcgov.com> gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Robin H. Spinks <greenfielddev@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:42 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Cc: rcollier@mckimcreed.com; lisa.mesler@wellsfargo.com; ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com; danhilla@aol.com; aheath@mulkeyinc.com; tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com; dfweaver4@aol.com; White, Woody; Dawson, Beth; Wolfe, Tom; Berger, Brian; Barfield, Jonathan Subject: Comments on SUP Attachments: Spinks comments on SUP 1-21-14.docx; NHC empl info 1-21- 14.pdf Comments on proposed changes to the SUP process: Thank you very much for being willing to consider changes to the SUP process that is currently in place. IF you are NOT opposed to heavy process industry in NHC, then these changes are necessary. If you ARE opposed to that type of industry then the existing process will do just what the environmental lobby wants – the current SUP creates ambiguity and allows delays that will keep a project from even considering a location in NHC. 1 - 4 - 47 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting If you have any questions about how the SUP impacts a project, please call me to discuss it. There may be questions that you want to ask, but not in public. I am happy to discuss any topics related to how a project may look at this issue. My consulting business is site selection for manufacturing and related companies. We have worked with heavy process industries like Alcoa, power producers like Cogentrix, and others that you would consider less intensive like Chris-Craft Boats and Mack Trucks and food distributor MBM Corp. I am afraid that the current discussions are focused on how the SUP will or will not impact Titan. The Titan focus is unfortunate because the process will also affect many other projects. I am afraid of the unintended consequences to the projects that you do want. This same process will impact a small pharmaceutical company that might be growing out of the UNCW Marine Biology efforts at Crest Research Park…..or the artisan soap manufacturer that needs to move from its downtown retail shop into their first real manufacturing space…….or the specialty chemical company that has just won a contract from IP in Reigelwood and wants to open a new facility nearby……or the advanced materials company that will use the refined biomass from Chemtex to make next gen components for the commercial aircraft industry. If we don’t change the wording in the current SUP process to show a clear path forward for approval, these companies, large and small, will locate in Brunswick, Pender and other nearby counties. Intensive industry and tourism have co-existed in NHC for hundreds of years. We have much-loved and visited, clean beaches; and we have had Sutton coal-fired power, Invista, DAK, Pfizer and other companies that have used the river for industrial purposes for many years with no permanent harm. Why the sudden change of philosophy? Yes DAK and Pfizer are in Brunswick County but the river has 2 sides. Just keeping the projects out of our side does nothing but negatively impact our tax rate. Five of the six largest tax payers, including the top four, in NHC are intensive industry. These companies support the revenue we can use for beach re-nourishment and other tourism related efforts. One point that is made by the environmental lobby is that no state and federal permits are ever denied. The reason is - those permits provide specific limits that must be met to be approved. They provide a clear path for approval. So the company does not submit an application until they know they can meet the requirements (and what it will cost to do so). Make the requirements strict if you are concerned about the impact. Just make them clear. That is what we need in the local SUP process – companies just need to know specific timelines and specific information 1 - 4 - 48 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting to show the clear path. So I beg for you to approve the wording clarifications that have been suggested by the business community. Intensive industry is important for NHC, not just because it pays a large portion of the taxes, but more importantly because it provides high wage job opportunities for our residents. The following information from the attached report on NHC from the NC Department of Commerce reflects the importance of the manufacturing sector wages. It is the highest wage sector in the County that employs more than 1,000 people. It pays 3 and 5 times more than the tourism sectors, and also more than professionals and healthcare. Please protect these opportunities. 2012 annual wages 2013 1Q employment Manufacturing $76,603 5,442 Professional / technical $64,317 6,607 Wholesale trade $50,759 3,206 Healthcare / social assistance $40,961 11,680 Construction $39,367 4,966 Administrative / waste services $29,596 5,793 Retail $24,905 13,862 Accommodation / food service $14,575 12,639 Opportunities in the manufacturing sector are coming back to the US. According to a recently released Grant Thornton survey, over 1/3 of US companies will bring business back to the US and 34% of that work will be in the materials sector. In our business, I have seen several materials projects, with over $150 million investment that have looked at sites in NC in the past 6 months, and whose search criteria could include NHC. But they have not looked here. We have the geography and assets that can 1 - 4 - 49 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting put us on the radar screen for these types of projects, if we can eliminate the barriers/risks that will keep us off of the shortlists. I am in the site selection business and I purposefully and carefully chose Wrightsville Beach for myself and my business. I love the beach; I love the size of this city; and I love the area’s diverse economy (heavy industry, tourism, arts, university, professional services) that can sustain us through downturns in any one sector. Please help protect and encourage that diversity. Respectfully submitted, Robin H. Spinks An economic and community development company 213 Seacrest Drive Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 greenfielddev@earthlink.net 910-509-1805 phone www.greenfield.bz From: dfweaver4@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:19 PM To: greenfielddev@earthlink.net; O'Keefe, Chris Cc: rcollier@mckimcreed.com; lisa.mesler@wellsfargo.com; ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com; danhilla@aol.com; aheath@mulkeyinc.com; tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com; White, Woody; Dawson, Beth; Wolfe, Tom; Berger, Brian; Barfield, Jonathan Subject: Re: Comments on SUP Attachments: ATT00001.htm Ms. Spinks, Thank you very much for your comments. Both your comments the other night and your written ones below point out the need for prospective industries to have a defined process with limits on time and information requirements. Your perspective as a professional industry site location consultant gives that much more validity to your comments. 1 - 4 - 50 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting I am sure that our Board will take them to heart. Again, thanks...Dave Weaver 4929 Pine St. Wilmington, NC 28403 910-620-7800 -----Original Message----- From: Robin H. Spinks <greenfielddev@earthlink.net> To: cokeefe <cokeefe@nhcgov.com> Cc: rcollier <rcollier@mckimcreed.com>; lisa.mesler <lisa.mesler@wellsfargo.com>; ted.shipley <ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com>; danhilla <danhilla@aol.com>; aheath <aheath@mulkeyinc.com>; tamara.c.murphy <tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com>; dfweaver4 <dfweaver4@aol.com>; wwhite <wwhite@nhcgov.com>; bdawson <bdawson@nhcgov.com>; twolfe <twolfe@nhcgov.com>; bberger <bberger@nhcgov.com>; jbarfield <jbarfield@nhcgov.com> Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 3:42 pm Subject: Comments on SUP Comments on proposed changes to the SUP process: Thank you very much for being willing to consider changes to the SUP process that is currently in place. IF you are NOT opposed to heavy process industry in NHC, then these changes are necessary. If you ARE opposed to that type of industry then the existing process will do just what the environmental lobby wants – the current SUP creates ambiguity and allows delays that will keep a project from even considering a location in NHC. If you have any questions about how the SUP impacts a project, please call me to discuss it. There may be questions that you want to ask, but not in public. I am happy to discuss any topics related to how a project may look at this issue. My consulting business is site selection for manufacturing and related companies. We have worked with heavy process industries like Alcoa, power producers like Cogentrix, and others that you would consider less intensive like Chris-Craft Boats and Mack Trucks and food distributor MBM Corp. I am afraid that the current discussions are focused on how the SUP will or will not impact Titan. The Titan focus is unfortunate because the process will also affect many other projects. I am afraid of the unintended consequences to the projects that you do want. This same process will impact a small pharmaceutical company that might be growing out of the UNCW Marine Biology efforts at Crest Research Park…..or the artisan soap manufacturer that needs to move from its downtown retail shop into their first real manufacturing space…….or the specialty chemical company that has just won a contract from IP in Reigelwood and wants to open a new facility nearby……or the advanced materials company 1 - 4 - 51 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting that will use the refined biomass from Chemtex to make next gen components for the commercial aircraft industry. If we don’t change the wording in the current SUP process to show a clear path forward for approval, these companies, large and small, will locate in Brunswick, Pender and other nearby counties. Intensive industry and tourism have co-existed in NHC for hundreds of years. We have much-loved and visited, clean beaches; and we have had Sutton coal-fired power, Invista, DAK, Pfizer and other companies that have used the river for industrial purposes for many years with no permanent harm. Why the sudden change of philosophy? Yes DAK and Pfizer are in Brunswick County but the river has 2 sides. Just keeping the projects out of our side does nothing but negatively impact our tax rate. Five of the six largest tax payers, including the top four, in NHC are intensive industry. These companies support the revenue we can use for beach re-nourishment and other tourism related efforts. One point that is made by the environmental lobby is that no state and federal permits are ever denied. The reason is - those permits provide specific limits that must be met to be approved. They provide a clear path for approval. So the company does not submit an application until they know they can meet the requirements (and what it will cost to do so). Make the requirements strict if you are concerned about the impact. Just make them clear. That is what we need in the local SUP process – companies just need to know specific timelines and specific information to show the clear path. So I beg for you to approve the wording clarifications that have been suggested by the business community. Intensive industry is important for NHC, not just because it pays a large portion of the taxes, but more importantly because it provides high wage job opportunities for our residents. The following information from the attached report on NHC from the NC Department of Commerce reflects the importance of the manufacturing sector wages. It is the highest wage sector in the County that employs more than 1,000 people. It pays 3 and 5 times more than the tourism sectors, and also more than professionals and healthcare. Please protect these opportunities. 2012 annual wages 2013 1Q employment Manufacturing $76,603 5,442 Professional / technical $64,317 6,607 Wholesale trade $50,759 3,206 Healthcare / social assistance $40,961 11,680 Construction $39,367 4,966 Administrative / waste services $29,596 5,793 Retail $24,905 13,862 1 - 4 - 52 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Accommodation / food service $14,575 12,639 Opportunities in the manufacturing sector are coming back to the US. According to a recently released Grant Thornton survey, over 1/3 of US companies will bring business back to the US and 34% of that work will be in the materials sector. In our business, I have seen several materials projects, with over $150 million investment that have looked at sites in NC in the past 6 months, and whose search criteria could include NHC. But they have not looked here. We have the geography and assets that can put us on the radar screen for these types of projects, if we can eliminate the barriers/risks that will keep us off of the shortlists. I am in the site selection business and I purposefully and carefully chose Wrightsville Beach for myself and my business. I love the beach; I love the size of this city; and I love the area’s diverse economy (heavy industry, tourism, arts, university, professional services) that can sustain us through downturns in any one sector. Please help protect and encourage that diversity. Respectfully submitted, Robin H. Spinks Greenfield Logo, Green small An economic and community development company 213 Seacrest Drive Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 greenfielddev@earthlink.net 910-509-1805 phone www.greenfield.bz ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: dfweaver4@aol.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1856826157&domain=nhcgov.com> Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1856826157&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Nancy Bair <nkbair@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:03 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Take the need for sups seriously Jan 20, 2014 1 - 4 - 53 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Take some time to interview the people moving to this area as ask what is important to them. Retirees and the film area will not keep coming back to an ever increasing polluted area. Sincerely, Ms. Nancy Bair 208 S 8th St Wilmington, NC 28401-4706 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Sue Hayes <suehayes2@ec.rr.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 1:27 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Strengthen SUP Jan 18, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC 1 - 4 - 54 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Dear O'Keefe, I am very concerned about the recent proposed changes to the New Hanover Special Use Permit process. They certainly weaken the original intent of the ordinance and would limit it's use by the Planning Board and County Commissioners to make appropriate decisions on industrial projects. I would ask that you seriously consider removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Mrs. Sue Hayes 213 Quilon Cir Wilmington, NC 28412-2046 (910) 799-5722 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Richard Waldkirch <r.waldkirch@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:52 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Cc: rcollier@mckimcreed.com Subject: Revisions to the Special Use Permit Mr. Okeefe, I am in favor of the revisions to the current Special Use Permit as proposed by the planning commission. I feel this is a critical step in the right direction to help attract business and industry in our area. 1 - 4 - 55 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting I have lived in Wilmington since 1972 and worked in the construction industry since I've been here. I have watched what was a very diverse economy go to an economy that is largely dependent on real estate development. A lot of the industry has left, closed down, or downsized. It is difficult for our kids to find decent paying jobs here, so a lot of them leave. I believe it is important that we do whatever we can to promote business and industry in our area. I appreciate all your efforts. Richard Waldkirch ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: r.waldkirch@aol.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1867746939&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1867746939&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1867746939&domain=nhcgov.com> aol.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Brace Boone III <bbooneiii@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:36 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Please preserve the original intent of the SUP Jan 18, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. 'Thank you very much, Brace Boone III 408 Elm Street 1 - 4 - 56 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Raleigh, NC 27604 Sincerely, Mr. Brace Boone III 408 Elm St Raleigh, NC 27604-1932 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 15 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Brace Boone III <bbooneiii@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:36 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Please preserve the original intent of the SUP Jan 18, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. 'Thank you very much, Brace Boone III 1 - 4 - 57 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 408 Elm Street Raleigh, NC 27604 Sincerely, Mr. Brace Boone III 408 Elm St Raleigh, NC 27604-1932 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 15 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Katherine Roberts <stellak22@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:45 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permit Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. At two public meetings, the County has repeatedly stated its goal was 1 - 4 - 58 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting not to change the policy or intent of the special use permit. Despite these assurances, the proposed text changes would dramatically change the intent of this Special Use Permit. The proposed revisions to Section 71 (2) create a presumption that the permit will be issued and appears to be designed to limit the County staff and public's ability to require further analysis of heavy and light industries. The restriction in Section 71 (2) that limits local authority to require information on local impacts including air, water, heat, odor, glare, sound or other impacts that have state or federal permits should not be included in this ordinance and is worded too broadly. This revision could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Ms. Katherine Roberts 2050 Seashore Hills Rd SW Supply, NC 28462-3985 (843) 855-9133 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Joshua Shiver <jrshiver@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 8:45 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe 1 - 4 - 59 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. Joshua Shiver 451 Baytree Rd Wilmington, NC 28409-5749 (910) 471-4349 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Anna Garcia <archmich@mail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 7:45 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: current SUP ordinance Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, 1 - 4 - 60 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mrs. Anna Garcia 207 Spruce Drive Wilmington, NC 29403 91-791-6228 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 13 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Erika Schmitt <design.alchemistry@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 5:14 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit 1 - 4 - 61 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Ms. Erika Schmitt 2940 Oleander Dr Wilmington, NC 28403-4000 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Who Dat? <emsai@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 3:54 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: COMMENTS FOR REVISING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT Importance: High Our environment is unique, with tropical storms, hurricanes, wetlands and low-country waterways. It deserves SPECIAL consideration which should be reflected in the rules for granting Special Use Permits. A frame of reference for these comments should be the Love Canal, Hudson River pollution, Hurricane Floyd and OxyChem's toxic releases to the NE Cape Fear river to prevent a pond of poison from bursting, and more recently, the Elk River disaster in Charleston, WV. Moreover, very serious consideration should be given to the fact that rivers, creeks and canals can flush in a matter of weeks or months; aquifers take hundreds, if not thousands of years. Nearly all of the following comments will not concern 99% of the businesses seeking to relocate or expand here, so there is no validity to 1 - 4 - 62 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting the argument that it will deter economic expansion, which is a truly specious argument. In fact, they will encourage development. COMMENTS FOR REVISING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. Excluding pile driving and building construction, any blasting, quarrying, strip mining, dredging, or dragline activity that penetrates the surface of the land to a depth of 10 feet or more shall not be permitted until applicant pays for test wells in the number and places determined by a certified, independent geologist/hydrologist (IG/H) selected by the county commissioners. Before the proposed activity begins, the wells will be in-place and operating. The IG/H will determine the baseline water table levels and will conduct baseline tests of the ground water, and the aquifer to a depth of at least 90 feet, for metallurgical, chemical and biological content. The applicant must agree to the data thus developed by the IG/H or dispute it, in either case in writing. If disputed, the burden of absolute proof falls on the applicant, before a permit is granted. Any toxicity extant in the water will be traced to its source before a permit is issued. A determination shall be made whether the applicant's operations will aggravate the source of the toxicity. A permit shall not be issued until all points are completely resolved. The IG/H report on the baseline water table levels and conditions shall be made visibly public. Where the water table is affected to the point that it affects citizens' or businesses or communities water access and usage, applicant will immediately cease operations until the problem is resolved. Before a permit is issued, a monthly testing plan shall be developed for the wells. When any toxicity or drop in the water table is found, applicant will immediately cease operations until the toxicity is thoroughly cleaned up and the wells test clean - at least as clear and clean as they were when they were initially established. 2. Any activity that involves blasting, quarrying, strip mining, dredging, or dragline activity shall not be permitted within 1 mile of any toxic waste containment pond or pool that relies on a clay or other non-permanent liner (as opposed to an above ground storage tank, for example.) 3. It shall be the county commissioners duty to evaluate the totality of the proposed activity on the surface, ground, and aquifer waters in determining the potential harm to those assets and the harm to individual citizens and the communities. Each commissioner will sign his/her name to the permit, granting or dissenting. The permit, with all signatures and their related approval or disapproval positions shall be made visibly public. 4. Eventually, the applicant will leave; will it leave behind a super fund site? Where a proposed project will disturb more than 5 acres, the commissioners will use an independent environmental evaluation firm to investigate the applicant's last area of operations to see what it left behind in terms of lasting damage to the environment, and particularly the water and wetlands, if wetlands are involved. For example, if their 1 - 4 - 63 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting past operations left a pond or lake, it shall be evaluated for toxicity (for example, mercury, benzene, arsenic, etc ) and lifelessness, and the cause of the lifelessness. If the project left behind a denuded landscape, what erosion controls and replanting was done? If the commissioners are not willing to accept these conditions for their community; they will not grant the permit. The investigative report shall be made visibly public. 5. Extractive industries shall provide a detailed plan of the condition in which they will leave the area after their operations are finished. The plan shall be furnished before operations start and shall bear the signature of the applicant's Registered Agent. The county commissioners will review the plan for acceptability prior to issuing any permit. This plan shall be made visibly public. 6. The applicant will provide a full and final, not-to-exceed description of the exact acreage they intend to strip mine or quarry or other wise remove sand and/or limestone, along with a timeline showing progression of operations from beginning to end. In conjunction with 5. supra, at the three quarter mark, the county commissioners will require the applicant to post a bond assuring compliance to the plan in 5. supra. The description shall be made visibly public 7. Proposed activities shall not be permitted when co-location adjacent to existing businesses causes undue risk to citizens and communities. For example, locating a fabrication shop with outdoor welding next to a fireworks or munitions manufacturer, or quarrying operations using blasting next to a toxic chemical factory built on unstable, fracturous limestone with calcareous veins and toxic liquid impoundments. 8. If blasting is used in its operations, applicant will timely fix, at its expense, all damage claimed by citizens and the community to any of their real or personal property, wells and/or infrastructure within one mile of the blasting. 9. The county commissioners will assure that adequate bonds will be obtained by the applicant to cover any damage to waterways and/or aquifers and any property of any kind, including infrastructure (roads, bridges, pipelines, etc.) Edward M Scott 910-300-7032 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: emsai@yahoo.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1866321906&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 64 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Message Score: 45 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1866321906&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1866321906&domain=nhcgov.com> yahoo.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Nancy Black <ablackjr@ec.rr.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 3:45 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP- originally enacted in 2011 must be preserved! Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. It is important to provide our community with clean air & water. Please preserve the original SUP enacted in 2011 to provide the needed information to make informed and safe decisions. Sincerely, Nancy Black 519 N. Green Meadows Dr. Wilmington, NC 28405 Sincerely, Mrs. Nancy Black 519 Green Meadows Dr Wilmington, NC 28405-3719 (910) 392-2985 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 65 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Epp O'Neill <epp.oneill@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 3:15 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep our community healthy by keeping the integrity of our SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I moved to Wilmington over 14 years ago after doing intensive research on the many communities along the coast of North Carolina. I choose Wilmington because of many factors one being the involvement of its community members to continue to improve the quality of life here. New Hanover County has contributed to the quality by creating strong local safeguards to help protect our environment. Since there have been interest of some to change the policy I strongly urge you to preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. I do not want our local officials that I have elected to have limitations placed on them in making decisions about the external effects of proposed projects The SUP must not be changed it must provide local evaluation which is critical for the health and well being of our community. Sincerely, Epp O'Neill 510 John S Mosby Dr. Wilmington, NC 28412 Sincerely, Ms. Epp O'Neill 510 John S Mosby Dr 1 - 4 - 66 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Wilmington, NC 28412-7121 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Marcia Tomassi <cabslilsis@aol.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 2:14 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Maintain the current SUP text Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Attending the planning meeting on 1/9, the speakers opposed to adopting the changes, gave evidence that supports clearly defined reasons for grave concern about heavy industry affects in our state, and in the Cape Fear Region in particular. The SUP must remain clear and effective, without change. Sincerely, Ms. Marcia Tomassi 9435 Night Harbor Dr SE 1 - 4 - 67 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Leland, NC 28451-9596 (910) 371-1492 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Peter Meyer <avian@aol.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:44 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Maintain the integrity of our SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff MUST preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. It is clearly short-sighed economically not to protect our environment. We depend on clean, beautiful surroundings for tourism and quality of life. In addition, protecting the health of our children and adults is so important. Creating jobs at the expense of the environment is unwise! We need to have control over what industry locates here. Sincerely, 1 - 4 - 68 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Dr. Peter Meyer 1616 Jettys Reach Wilmington, NC 28409-4514 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: J Shay <jshay68@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:43 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Proposed Revisions to Special Use Permit Process New Hanover Planning Board: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to Section 71 (2) which I wholeheartedly oppose. I believe these changes would limit the County staff and public’s ability to require further analysis of heavy and light industries and put the burden on the public. I also believe that information on local impacts including air, water, heat, odor, glare, sound or other impacts that have state or federal permits should not be included in this ordinance. This revision could severely limit the Special Use Process to be an effective tool for LOCAL officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. I urge you to take these considerations as well as others and do NOT implement the proposed revisions as drafted. Regards, Judy Shay 6807 Towles Road 1 - 4 - 69 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Wilmington, NC 28409 Jshay68@earthlink.net ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: jshay68@earthlink.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1865389791&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1865389791&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1865389791&domain=nhcgov.com> earthlink.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of steve robrrts <poetsroberts@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:45 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: keep the integrity of our SUP and don't alter section 71c (2) Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. We new local input. Keep the sup as orignally intended 1 - 4 - 70 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Sincerely, Mr. steve robrrts 202 S 3rd St Apt 10 Wilmington, NC 28401-4548 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Barbara Bush <bbushcpa@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:45 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Stop hurting our beautiful surroundings Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. I have lived in Wilmington all my life and have watched the politicians, developers, and folks who moved here from somewhere else try to ruin all the beauty around us. Stop, stop, stop! We all want to live here because it is beautiful and clean. We need all the safeguards we can get to stop people who just want to make money on our 1 - 4 - 71 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting beautiful and pristine surroundings. Sincerely, Mrs. Barbara Bush 2208 S Canterbury Rd Wilmington, NC 28403-6106 (910) 538-8606 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Karen Pappas <karenmpapas@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:44 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Please keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, Dear planning board and Chris Coudriet and Chris O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. This is so very important to ensuring citizens are included in 1 - 4 - 72 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting decisioning processes that affect our community, its health and economic welfare. I really hope the days of ramrodding are over. Sincerely, Karen Pappas 248 Ravenswood Road Hampstead, NC 28443 Sincerely, Ms. Karen Pappas 248 Ravenswood Rd Hampstead, NC 28443-2342 (910) 319-0436 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Nancy Buckingham <nancybuckingham16@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:14 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep Integrity of the SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by 1 - 4 - 73 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Thank you. Nancy Buckingham 126 Hickory Knoll Rd. Wilmington NC 28409 Sincerely, Ms. Nancy Buckingham 126 Hickory Knoll Rd Wilmington, NC 28409-4509 (910) 409-5160 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Janet Decou <mothfly77@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:14 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: stand up for the people Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on 1 - 4 - 74 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Ms. Janet Decou 1 6904 e yacht dr oak island, NC 28465 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Bobby Armstrong <bma3974@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 9:44 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed 1 - 4 - 75 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Please take note from the WV chemical spill. Sincerely, Mr. Bobby Armstrong 610 Orange St Wilmington, NC 28401-4982 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Jerry Tertzagian <gterzagi@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 9:14 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, Please preserve original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011. Please remove Section 71(2) lines 397-415. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Respectfully, Jerry Tertzagian 1 - 4 - 76 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Carol Tertzagian 329 Gaskins Lane Wilmington, NC 28411 Sincerely, Mr. Jerry Tertzagian 329 Gaskins Ln Wilmington, NC 28411-8924 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Carol Fordon <cafordon@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 9:14 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: My vote - don't change the SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. As a citizen of New Hanover County, I strongly object to this change. 1 - 4 - 77 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Businesses that are reputable and cognizant of environmental issues would not have a problem with a local review process. Only those trying to circumvent laws and sound environmental policies object. Sincerely, Carol Fordon 7313 Featherstone Court Wilm, NC 28411 Sincerely, Ms. Carol Fordon 7313 Featherstone Ct Wilmington, NC 28411-7113 (910) 686-4148 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Charles Cotter <ccotter@rock.k12.nc.us> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 8:44 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Comment on the SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on 1 - 4 - 78 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. Charles Cotter PO Box 66 1242 Knight Road Pine Hall, NC 27042 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Patricia DeYoung <patsporte@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 8:14 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Please hear our words Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed 1 - 4 - 79 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Please remember our children and grandchildren and future generation.Give them the life of clean air and beautiful water. We have been fighting this for way too long. Please ....No back door plans...it's too important to us all. Thank you for hearing our words, Pat DeYoung (and family of 6) 101 Chestnut St. Wilmington , NC 28401 Sincerely, Mrs. Patricia DeYoung 101 Chestnut St Wilmington, NC 28401-3940 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 30 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Heather Caveny <zimthandi@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 7:14 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on 1 - 4 - 80 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. State and federal permits fail to protect local communities because they do not: -Consider existing cumulative air pollution counts like non-attainment, which New Hanover County barely dodged in 2011 for sulfur dioxide. These federal designations severely limit a community's ability to recruit new businesses and jobs to town. -Consider what happens when heavy metals like mercury, arsenic and benzene fall into surrounding waterways. -Require a comprehensive public health analysis before issuing air or water quality permits for heavy industries. -Evaluate water withdrawals from aquifers or rivers, which are the same water bodies supplying water for public use and that effect on wells, wetlands and private property. -Take into consideration neighboring uses like residential neighborhoods, public schools, bus stops, parks, boat ramps, and agricultural or livestock farms. Sincerely, Ms. Heather Caveny 1923 Monroe St Wilmington, NC 28401-6727 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of William Gupton <wmgupton@aol.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 6:43 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris 1 - 4 - 81 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, At two public meetings, the County has repeatedly stated its goal was not to change the policy or intent of the special use permit. Despite these assurances, the proposed text changes would dramatically change the intent of this Special Use Permit. The proposed revisions to Section 71 (2) create a presumption that the permit will be issued and appears to be designed to limit the County staff and public's ability to require further analysis of heavy and light industries. The restriction in Section 71 (2) that limits local authority to require information on local impacts including air, water, heat, odor, glare, sound or other impacts that have state or federal permits should not be included in this ordinance and is worded too broadly. This revision could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. State and federal permit agencies will evaluate environmental effects, but often with very narrow and limited focus (specific examples below). The County adopted the current SUP ordinance in 2011 because they realized the importance of having a local review process. The current proposed changes to Section 71 (2) are the result of pressure from heavy industry special interests, claiming that this requirement would adversely affect industry recruitment. Since the adoption of the ordinance in 2011, the SUP has not been used, and there is no evidence that any proposed industries have been dissuaded by the adoption of the SUP. Additionally, there is no evidence of any negative impacts on business recruitment in the other 47 counties in NC who currently have similar SUP requirements for heavy industry. The SUP process provides local evaluation for the heaviest of polluting industries which is critical for the health of our community. I request that our County officials preserve the intent of the SUP instead of bowing to closed-door lobbying by heavy industries. Sincerely, Mr. William Gupton 6725 Morganford Rd Charlotte, NC 28211-5406 (704) 367-0068 1 - 4 - 82 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of William Gupton <wmgupton@aol.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 6:14 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 17, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. William Gupton 6725 Morganford Rd Charlotte, NC 28211-5406 (704) 367-0068 ________________________________ 1 - 4 - 83 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Joel Finsel <joelfinsel@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 12:35 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP! Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. Joel Finsel 2001 Perry Ave Wilmington, NC 28403-1031 (910) 797-3501 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 84 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Jordyn Zimmerman <jordyn213@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:04 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Please keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mrs. Jordyn Zimmerman 2105 Metts Ave Wilmington, NC 28403-2247 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass 1 - 4 - 85 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Amanda Morgan <amorgan@arcnc.org> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:06 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Please continue to keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Ms. Amanda Morgan 105 Mishoe Rd Castle Hayne, NC 28429-5565 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass 1 - 4 - 86 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Richard Miller <baylenrmiller@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:33 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. Richard Miller 4321 Watson Dr Wilmington, NC 28405-8882 (910) 791-3421 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net 1 - 4 - 87 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Trish Arnold <trish_arnold@bellsouth.net> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:05 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Protect our Air and Water Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Miss Trish Arnold 2014 Maccumber Ln Wilmington, NC 28403-3663 (910) 256-2777 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 13 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Alden Picard <picardalden04@gmail.com> 1 - 4 - 88 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:04 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Integral SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sec 71(2) of the text amendments creates a presumption that a permit will be issued to an industry as long as they have relevant federal, and state permits. These state and federal permits are not always sufficient, and the wording of the text amendments limits the counties ability to impose stricter regulations. We must assume responsibility for our county by removing these lines from the revisions. The text as written also limits local authority to require information on local impacts such as glare, odor, sound, air, water, and heat, or other impacts that have state or federal permits and is worded very broadly, thus it must not be included in this ordinance. Sincerely, Mr. Alden Picard 935 Bonham Ave Wilmington, NC 28403-4213 (919) 539-5732 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass 1 - 4 - 89 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Scharf, Frederick <scharff@uncw.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 8:45 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Cc: Ralston, Shawn Subject: proposed changes to the SUP Dear Mr. Okeefe, I'm writing with some concern about proposed revisions to the language in the county's Special Use Permit. While I understand the need to promote commerce in the county, the process was put in place to ensure some level of local control when proposed businesses or activities may have considerable impacts to the community. It gives the citizenry and the county officials a voice in decisions about any new projects. I have been a resident of Castle Hayne for more than ten years and I place a high value on the quality of the environment in our county. The opportunity to live and work in and around the Cape Fear River was one of the main reasons that I chose to begin a career at UNCW. I only ask that the county maintain a long-term view as they make decisions about the SUP language, and think about what is in the best interest of the future of New Hanover County and its residents. Thanks to you and your staff for overseeing this important process. Sincere regards, Fred Scharf Professor Department of Biology and Marine Biology UNCW ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: scharff@uncw.edu <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1863990122&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1863990122&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass 1 - 4 - 90 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1863990122&domain=nhcgov.com> uncw.edu This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Leslie Godbold <lesliedoubleg@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 8:35 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of the SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proHow do state and federal permits fail to protect local communities? They do not: Consider existing cumulative air pollution counts like non-attainment, which New Hanover County barely dodged in 2011 for sulfur dioxide. These federal designations severely limit a community's ability to recruit new businesses and jobs to town. Consider what happens when heavy metals like mercury, arsenic and benzene fall into surrounding waterways. Require a comprehensive public health analysis before issuing air or water quality permits for heavy industries. Evaluate water withdrawals from aquifers or rivers, which are the same water bodies supplying water for public use and that effect on wells, wetlands and private property. Take into consideration neighboring uses like residential neighborhoods, public schools, bus stops, parks, boat ramps, and agricultural or livestock farms.posed project. Sincerely, Ms. Leslie Godbold 5903 Park Ave Wilmington, NC 28403-4741 (910) 799-7250 ________________________________ 1 - 4 - 91 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Tiffany Salter <tifsalter@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 8:05 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: keep the integrity of our SUP! Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Ms. Tiffany Salter 2108 Klein Rd Wilmington, NC 28405-2720 (910) 200-4702 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 92 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Chelsey Brown <lfs3000@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:36 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep The Integrity of Our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mrs. Chelsey Brown 4529 Kimberly Way Wilmington, NC 28403-2968 (910) 538-3549 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass 1 - 4 - 93 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Kerri Ferrrari <kerriferrari@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:06 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: keep the integrity of our SUP please!!! Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Ms. Kerri Ferrrari 114 S 5th Ave Wilmington, NC 28401-4795 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 18 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass 1 - 4 - 94 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Paul Osmer <paosmer@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:04 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. For once, let's leave well enough alone and not consider any potential changes. Sincerely, Mr. Paul Osmer 3771 Anslow Dr Leland, NC 28451-9498 (910) 399-3684 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass 1 - 4 - 95 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Marion Kreh <katzenfrau2000@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:03 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permit Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Ms. Marion Kreh 127 McDougald Dr Castle Hayne, NC 28429-5209 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 - 4 - 96 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Michael Reed <mikereedauto@auto.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:04 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permit Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. Michael Reed 127 McDougald Dr Castle Hayne, NC 28429-5209 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Emma Bogdan <emmabogdan@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 6:36 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP 1 - 4 - 97 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. The recent changes made to the writing in section 71 are not clarifying procedures but are much closer to changing the fundamentals of the SUP, and it was very suspicious how quickly this was pushed through and how little notice we had. Please listen to your constituents. We want to protect our community. Sincerely, Ms. Emma Bogdan 4805 Atlantis Ct Apt 18 Wilmington, NC 28403-6406 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Nancy Sharp <nancysharp53@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 6:05 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris 1 - 4 - 98 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Subject: It's Time to Protect the People's Interests. Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, Please preserve the original intent of the Special Use Permit enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the Special Use Permit to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. It is no wonder that the current proposed changes to Section 71 (2) are the result of pressure from heavy industry special interests, claiming that this requirement would adversely affect industry recruitment. The proposed revisions to Section 71 (2) create a presumption that the permit will be issued and appears to be designed to limit the County staff and public's ability to require further analysis of heavy and light industries. The restriction in Section 71 (2) that limits local authority to require information on local impacts including air, water, heat, odor, glare, sound or other impacts that have state or federal permits should not be included in this ordinance and is worded too broadly. This revision could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Since the adoption of the ordinance in 2011, the SUP has not been used, and there is no evidence that any proposed industries have been dissuaded by the adoption of the SUP. Additionally, there is no evidence of any negative impacts on business recruitment in the other 47 counties in NC who currently have similar SUP requirements for heavy industry. The County adopted the current SUP ordinance in 2011 because they realized the importance of having a local review process. Please don't sell out the people to the special interests. Sincerely, Ms. Nancy Sharp 601 Holbrooke Ave. Wilmington, NC 28412 (910) 612-6653 ________________________________ 1 - 4 - 99 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Mary Rosenbluth <cruzweek@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:36 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: we can't afford to make a mistake Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. This is a tourist community. We only need look at West Virginia to consider how important a close scrutiny of this issue has to be. We can't afford to make a mistake. Sincerely, Ms. Mary Rosenbluth 502 Seafarer Dr Carolina Beach, NC 28428-4627 (910) 547-6926 ________________________________ 1 - 4 - 100 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Ken Wagoner <castlewag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:04 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, Hello, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Please help us help our local officials keep our air and water clean. Thank you, Ken Sincerely, Mr. Ken Wagoner 305 Mary Ave Castle Hayne, NC 28429-5734 1 - 4 - 101 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Alice Ann Williamson <aliceann@ec.rr.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:06 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Ms. Alice Ann Williamson 209 Robert E Lee Dr Wilmington, NC 28412-6727 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 102 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Priscilla Rebillard <rrreb@bellsouth.net> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:02 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. The local review process is an essential part of our community. Please DO NOT CHANGE THE NECESSARY PROVISIONS. Sincerely, Ms. Priscilla Rebillard 6513 Red Cedar Rd Wilmington, NC 28411-4731 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 103 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Raoul Rebillard <rrreb@bellsouth.net> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:02 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. The local review process is an essential part of our community. Please DO NOT CHANGE THE NECESSARY PROVISIONS. Sincerely, Ms. Raoul Rebillard 6513 Red Cedar Rd Wilmington, NC 28411-4731 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 104 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Gloria Lynch <glolynch10@bellsouth.net> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:36 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Retaining the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. However, the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project . Please keep in mind the health and safety of all families subject to your decision, as you consider this profound action. Sincerely, Mrs. Gloria Lynch 401 W Renovah Cir Wilmington, NC 28403-1249 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 105 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Ileana Clavijo <clavijo@uncw.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:36 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Concerns about proposed changes to the 2011 SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, This is my second email concerning changes to the SUP enacted in 2011. I would like to add more positive feedback. I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Future amendment should clearly delineate the following specific considerations: 1. existing cumulative air pollution counts like non-attainment, which New Hanover County barely dodged in 2011 for sulfur dioxide. These federal designations severely limit a community's ability to recruit new businesses and jobs to town. 2. what happens when heavy metals like mercury, arsenic and benzene fall into surrounding waterways. 3. requiring a comprehensive public health analysis before issuing air or water quality permits for heavy industries. 4. evaluating water withdrawals from aquifers or rivers, which are the same water bodies supplying water for public use and that effect on wells, wetlands and private property. 5. including neighboring uses like residential neighborhoods, public schools, bus stops, parks, boat ramps, and agricultural or livestock farms. 1 - 4 - 106 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Thank you for your attention to this submission. Sincerely, Dr. Ileana Clavijo 513 Green Meadows Dr Wilmington, NC 28405-3719 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Troy Simpson <tdsimpson@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:31 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: TroySimpson says: keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. Troy Simpson 1 - 4 - 107 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1728 Stage Rd Durham, NC 27703-5726 (919) 627-7755 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Peter Clarkson <peterjames.clarkson@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:06 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: keep the integrity Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. Peter Clarkson 1220 Pembroke Jones Dr Wilmington, NC 28405-5202 1 - 4 - 108 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 30 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Jessica Cannon <jdhcannon@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:03 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Self determination on government Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Please do not cave to the lobbyists of a multi-billion dollar international conglomerate for short term gain and long term loss!! Sincerely, Dr. Jessica Cannon 2220 S Live Oak Pkwy Wilmington, NC 28403-6113 ________________________________ 1 - 4 - 109 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Andrew Whittington <whittingtona@uncw.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:02 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. Andrew Whittington 4901 Franklin Ave Wilmington, NC 28403-0616 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 110 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of SJ Davis <cellobridge@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:02 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. State and federal permit agencies will evaluate environmental effects, but often with very narrow and limited focus. The County adopted the current SUP ordinance in 2011 because they realized the importance of having a local review process. Sincerely, Ms. SJ Davis 106 Sea Dunes Dr Emerald Isle, NC 28594-2329 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 111 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Carol Honeycutt <cjchoney@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:34 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Please keep the integrity of our special use permit Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. The restriction in Section 71 (2) that limits local authority to require information on local impacts including air, water, heat, odor, glare, sound or other impacts that have state or federal permits should not be included in this ordinance and is worded too broadly. This revision could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. The proposed revisions create a presumption that the permit will be issued and appears to be designed to limit the County staff and public's ability to require further analysis of heavy and light industries. How do state and federal permits fail to protect local communities? They do not: Consider existing cumulative air pollution counts like non-attainment, which New Hanover County barely dodged in 2011 for sulfur dioxide. These federal designations severely limit a community's ability to recruit new businesses and jobs to town. Consider what happens when heavy metals like mercury, arsenic and benzene fall into surrounding waterways. 1 - 4 - 112 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Require a comprehensive public health analysis before issuing air or water quality permits for heavy industries. Evaluate water withdrawals from aquifers or rivers, which are the same water bodies supplying water for public use and that effect on wells, wetlands and private property. Take into consideration neighboring uses like residential neighborhoods, public schools, bus stops, parks, boat ramps, and agricultural or livestock farms. Sincerely, Mrs. Carol Honeycutt 6801 Old Bridgesite Rd Castle Hayne, NC 28429-5046 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 13 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of suzanne dolwick <jsmccoll31@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:33 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by 1 - 4 - 113 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mrs. suzanne dolwick 3225 Camden Cir Wilmington, NC 28403-2611 (843) 607-3356 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Richard Pridemore <rpsts@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:33 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: It's Time NH County Commissioners stood with the citizens Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. 1 - 4 - 114 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Further, I personally find it outrageous that our communities in and around Wilmington have been forced into defending our vital natural resources and environment due to actions the New Hanover County Commissioners took some years ago in what was essentially a secret, undemocratic process without citizen input to make a back room deal with a heavily polluting company like Titan Cement . Basically, the citizens of this area found out about the Titan Cement project after it was too late to stop it without a massive mobilization of time, money, sweat and tears on the part of thousands of local citizens. For years now we have been fighting this unwanted industrial pollution generating corporation because our own NH County Commissioners screwed the public over. What should happen, immediately, is our current county commissioners should work as hard as the public has to undo this scouge on our area that their predecessors so needlessly visited upon us . Listen to your constituents Commissioners - make Titan go away , that's what the vast majority of citizens want and expect ! Sincerely outraged, Richard Pridemore 925 S. Kerr Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 Sincerely, Mr. Richard Pridemore 925 S Kerr Ave Wilmington, NC 28403-4335 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 - 4 - 115 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Julie Collins <juliezstuff@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:07 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permit: Please Preserve! Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, Dear Mr. O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. My husband and I attended the Planning Board meeting over a year ago when the Special Use Permit for heavy industry was in discussion. Please do not inhibit the progress from those sessions. The planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mrs. Julie Collins 370 Toulon Dr Wilmington, NC 28405-3952 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 - 4 - 116 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Leon Mckay <leon@mckayhealingarts.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:05 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP Revisions. Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. Leon Mckay 4916 Wrightsville Ave Wilmington, NC 28403-5287 (910) 232-5802 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 15 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of John Gary Maxwell <madmax0007@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:37 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris 1 - 4 - 117 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Subject: revision of special use permits needs to be done and recirculated to the public Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. The recent action in Raleigh to permit the use of chemical products in fracking without identification of those compounds, make it all the more important that local control of industry and business to assure the public good and environmental safeguards. Thank you. John Gary Maxwell, MD, FACS 2116 Echo Lane Wilmington, NC, 28403-6021 Sincerely, Dr. John Gary Maxwell 2116 Echo Ln Wilmington, NC 28403-6021 (910) 343-8099 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass 1 - 4 - 118 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Carol Hoke <carolhoke@citcom.net> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:36 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Keep the Integrity of Our SUP!!! It's VITAL! Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Ms. Carol Hoke 1541 Joshua Road Rosman, NC 28772 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 - 4 - 119 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Cindy Mason <cindybmason@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:35 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Integrity of our SUP Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Ms. Cindy Mason 245 Pages Creek Dr Wilmington, NC 28411-7849 (910) 508-9513 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Ethan Crouch <crouch_ethan@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:33 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris 1 - 4 - 120 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Subject: Proposed Changes are not needed; Listen to the people not polluting industry. Jan 16, 2014 Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Sincerely, Mr. Ethan Crouch 932 Searidge Ln Carolina Beach, NC 28428-4649 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: NC Sierra Club <zachary.keith@sierraclub.org> on behalf of Richard Haas <rhaas1006@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:33 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Preserve Original Intent of SUP Jan 16, 2014 1 - 4 - 121 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Chris O'Keefe NC Dear O'Keefe, I appreciate the work New Hanover County has done in the past on creating strong local safeguards. But the planning board and staff must preserve the original intent of the SUP enacted in 2011 by removing Section 71(2) lines 397-415. This section could severely limit the SUP to be an effective tool for local officials to make an informed decision on the external effects of a proposed project. Just a glance at our neighbors in West Virginia is reason enough to strengthen environmental safeguards. Sincerely, Mr. Richard Haas 1006 Timbergrass Ln Leland, NC 28451-7476 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: email_bounce_handler@bounce.convio.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1862678162&domain=nhcgov.com> bounce.convio.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Bill Anlyan <banlyan@anlyanandhively.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:19 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permit Dear Chris, 1 - 4 - 122 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting I’ve been following the issue of Special Use Permits. Needless to say, this is a highly politicized issue. May I make a suggestion? Rather than hammering this out in a political forum, why not look to see if there is “best practices” language that has been adopted by other municipalities. Why re-invent the wheel? Thanks for your service to New Hanover County. I wish you the best. Bill Anlyan William G. Anlyan, Jr. J.D. Managing Partner Anlyan&Hively Asset Management University Corporate Center II 131 Racine Dr., Suite 250 Wilmington, NC 28403 910-599-9409 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: banlyan@anlyanandhively.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1861994884&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 15 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1861994884&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass 1 - 4 - 123 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1861994884&domain=nhcgov.com> anlyanandhively.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Bette Bauereis <drbee@ec.rr.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:12 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Comments on Special use permit revisions Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these regulations. Comments on: ARTICLE VII. PROVISIONS FOR USES ALLOWED AS SPECIAL USES Section 71: Special Use Permits Issued by the Board of County Commissioners; 71.1 General Requirements (2) line 401 – insert after “…water quality, groundwater quality and quantity, chemicals used and other factors …” Lines 402 -405 Comment: All corporations are responsible for their actions (regardless of permits or lack of requirements). A case in point is Freedom Chemical in West Virginia who recognized a potential chemical spill problem and had $1million in escrow to upgrade the containment but postponed work since it had not been required because of lack of inspection. I would now venture that the cleanup costs and the settlements will greatly exceed the $1million and could lead to bankruptcy. Rolling back Non-attainment criteria to 1975 levels as proposed by the State of North Carolina virtually guarantees dirtier and dirtier air for New Hanover County. Nothing in Federal or State environmental regulations precludes the county from stricter requirements or standards to protect public health and welfare. To conclude that issuance of a state or other permit guarantees protection of New Hanover County public health and welfare is a stretch. The presumption of requisite approval (lines 404 and 405) together with overweening burden on any challenger clearly works against the best interest of the public to whom you are responsible. This burden shifting away from the applicant is apparently by design, as it is re-emphasized in lines 479 and 480. This language, making the process automatically and strongly in favor of the applicant, is abhorrent. Lines 405 -415 Person challenging a special use permit approval must make the request with 15 days of the application deadline. It is not clear if challenger has only 15 days in which to prove the challenge or must the request itself be provided within 15 days. This should be clearly spelled out. 1 - 4 - 124 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: drbee@ec.rr.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1861369061&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1861369061&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1861369061&domain=nhcgov.com> ec.rr.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: John Fellerath <john.fellerath@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 12:08 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Comment regarding "special use permit" I am responding to the Public Notice: Special Use Permit Public Comments Requested of 1/14/2014 I strongly object to the following section of the proposed Special Use Permit process. "Once the petitioner has obtained a permit from a Federal, state and/or local authority, it is presumed for county purposes that the petitioner has the requisite approval for the subject matter covered by the permit." This section completely undercuts the purpose and intent of the local special use permitting process. My wife and I live full time in our home in New Hanover county and we are very concerned about the quality of life here. We are concerned about the Titan proposal, but we are also concerned about other future proposals that will impact the quality of water and air in our community. The goal of a local permitting process is to prevent outside economic and political forces from exercising undue control over local affairs. Please delete the above provision from your proposed Special Use Permit process. The burden of presenting evidence for a special use permit must remain on the business seeking permission to impact a local environment rather than on the local citizens who are trying to maintain a safe and healthy environment in which to live. We must depend on our Planning Board and our Commissioners to act in our interests and not to be swayed by powerful outside economic and political forces. Please protect us. John Fellerath 6318 Mallard Dr. 1 - 4 - 125 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Wilmington, NC 28403 910-392-1747 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: john.fellerath@gmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1858809904&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1858809904&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1858809904&domain=nhcgov.com> gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Mike Giles <mikeg@nccoast.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:22 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: FW: Comments on SUP Revisions from the NC Coastal Federation Chris. If possible I would like to include the County Manager in this requested meeting. From: Mike Giles [mailto:mikeg@nccoast.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:03 AM To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com Subject: Comments on SUP Revisions from the NC Coastal Federation Chris. We will have our comments ready for the proposed revisions to the SUP by next Tuesday at 8 AM. Can we set up a meeting with you and any others you feel would benefit from discussing the proposed changes and our comments? Does that meeting need to happen next week before the deadline for submitting comments if you agree a meeting is warranted? Just let me know. Thanks. 1 - 4 - 126 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Mike Giles Coastal Advocate NC Coastal Federation The Landing Suite F-1 530 Causeway Drive Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 (910)509-2838 off. (910)231-6687 cell (910)509-2840 fax mikeg@nccoast.org Subscribe to Coastal Review Online <http://feeds.feedburner.com/NCCFNews> Become a Facebook Fan <http://www.facebook.com/pages/NC-Coastal- Federation/185345054061> Join the Coastal Federation today at www.nccoast.org <http://www.nccoast.org/> Please consider the environment before printing this email ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: mikeg@nccoast.org <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1852198982&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 127 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1852198982&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Mike Giles <mikeg@nccoast.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:03 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Comments on SUP Revisions from the NC Coastal Federation Chris. We will have our comments ready for the proposed revisions to the SUP by next Tuesday at 8 AM. Can we set up a meeting with you and any others you feel would benefit from discussing the proposed changes and our comments? Does that meeting need to happen next week before the deadline for submitting comments if you agree a meeting is warranted? Just let me know. Thanks. Mike Giles Coastal Advocate NC Coastal Federation The Landing Suite F-1 530 Causeway Drive Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 (910)509-2838 off. (910)231-6687 cell (910)509-2840 fax mikeg@nccoast.org Subscribe to Coastal Review Online <http://feeds.feedburner.com/NCCFNews> Become a Facebook Fan <http://www.facebook.com/pages/NC-Coastal- Federation/185345054061> 1 - 4 - 128 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Join the Coastal Federation today at www.nccoast.org <http://www.nccoast.org/> Please consider the environment before printing this email ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: mikeg@nccoast.org <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1852198982&domain=nhcgov.com> Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1852198982&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: rparr <rparr@ec.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:41 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Re: SUP Private Meeting Chris sounds great. Friday at 10:30. Bob Sent from my iPhone On Jan 14, 2014, at 6:04 PM, "O'Keefe, Chris" <COKeefe@nhcgov.com> wrote: Hey Bob – I am happy to meet with you. How about Friday morning at 10:30? Let me know. Chris 1 - 4 - 129 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Chris O'Keefe | Planning/Inspections Director Planning & Inspections | New Hanover County 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 (910) 798-7164 p | (910) 798-7053 f From: robert parr [mailto:rparr@ec.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 1:34 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP Private Meeting Chris, I would like to set up a scheduled private meeting with you and your staff for Thursday or Friday morning of next week (January 16 or 17). Would this be possible? Bob ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: rparr@ec.rr.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1841826943&domain=nhcgov.com> Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1841826943&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Mary Norton <Mnorton1@ec.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:20 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP Dear Mr. O’Keefe, 1 - 4 - 130 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting I have searched the reports and online records of the proposed changes in current SUP as it may relate to industries establishing themselves in our community. There is conflicting and inexact information, of course, but one statement, if true, prompted my response. “Local environmental groups, however, said the changes would make the special-use permit too weak and change the intent of the originally approved permit process. Those in opposition to the proposal focused primarily on one line that was to be changed with the text amendment. Under the changes presented in the draft to the planning board, the special-use permit would now allow federal and state permits to stand in place of an additional internal county review. "There is no state permit for groundwater. I feel that every applicant should be required to list every potential impact they may have," said Mike Giles of the N.C. Coastal Federation. "...This represents significant policy change." Star-News (Wilmington, NC), 2014-01-10 Perhaps this change minimizes the consequence of citizen and business concerns being shuffled between levels of government. Even if this is true, I believe that locality’s judgment should prevail and that should be made clear to everyone involved in such a process. In my opinion, the burden of proof as to the operational details of a business should remain, if it currently is, on the business. Any business that cannot adequately prove in advance that its operation is nonthreatening to natural resources need not to be in business. The burden of oversight and control is on us. Sincerely, Mary Norton 19 S. 8th St. Wilmington, NC Please share with other commissioners. ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 4 - 131 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: mnorton1@ec.rr.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1857122788&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1857122788&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1857122788&domain=nhcgov.com> ec.rr.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 - 4 - 132 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Suggested Specific Changes to Section 71-1: (In Red) 71-1 (2) County staff may request additional information it believes could be relevant to a determination of impacts to surrounding properties and/or the area in which the subject property is located. Such additional information may be in the form of tests, studies, reports, etc. evaluating factors such as sound, vibration, heat discharge, glare, odor, traffic, air quality, water quality, or other factors potentially relevant to the four requirements listed in Section 71-1(4). Federal, State, and/or local environmental agencies may be consulted to advise the Planning and Inspections Department on applications for Special Use Permits. Once the petitioner has obtained a permit from a Federal, state and/or local authority, it is presumed for county purposes that the petitioner has the requisite approval for the subject matter covered by the permit. In order to challenge this approval, the challenging party will need to present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary as determined by the planning board and/or board of commissioners. In the event that this information is requested, then it will be requested within fifteen thirty (30) days of the application deadline. Irrespective of whether such information is requested by county staff or whether the applicant decides to provide some or all of the requested information, the Planning Board shall consider the application at the requested meeting, unless the petitioner desires a continuance, in which case a request for delay of consideration may be made by the petitioner in accordance with Section 111-3 of the Ordinance. The Planning Board shall not consider the application unless and until all information requested by County staff is provided by the applicant. All information must be provided at least fifty-five (55) days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the application is to be considered. The County staff should provide public notice of the application and make all application materials available to the public within five (5) business days of the receipt of a complete Special Use Permit application (3) Application Submittal: Applications may be found on the New Hanover County Planning website or at the New Hanover County Planning office. In addition to the application, the following information and materials are required for submission: (A) Narrative of the Proposed Use: The applicant shall describe the proposed activity and potential external impacts including, but not limited to, sound, vibration, heat discharge, glare, odor, air quality, and water quality (H) Property Value Impact Analysis 1 - 4 - 133 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 530 Causeway Drive | Suite F-1 | Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 28480 Phone: 910-509-2838 | Fax: 910-509-2840 | Web: www.nccoast.org January 23, 2014 Mr. Chris O’Keefe, Director New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Department 230 Government Center Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 RE: NC Coastal Federation Comments on the Proposed Text Amendments to the New Hanover County Special Use Permit Ordinance (A-416, 1/14) Dear Mr. O’Keefe, On behalf of the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF), I am submitting the following comments in response to the County’s advertised request for public input on the proposed text amendments to the County’s Special Use Permit ordinance for the I-1 and I-2 industrial zones. This permit process was intended to provide staff, the County Planning Board, and Board of County Commissioners a tool for considering approval of industrial projects while providing sufficient protection for public health and safety, private property values, and neighboring communities. This process was developed in 2011 with substantial input from stakeholders, including industry and citizen groups, as well as the general public in order for the permit process to be inclusive of the community and to address growth issues and quality of life aspects of the region. The proposed changes to the ordinance language are significant and the revisions appear to be designed to significantly limit the county’s authority and to exclude the public from the process until it is too late for meaningful participation. The process proposed in the revisions appears to speed the review process without that important public participation and reduces the ability of planning staff and the planning board to require the applicant to submit information necessary to make informed decisions. The proposed changes eliminate meaningful public participation by creating a higher burden for members of the public concerned about the project, while limiting the scope and availability of information regarding the proposal The County has stated that the proposed revisions being considered are for “cleaning up” and “clarifying” the language and to make it simpler for applicants to use. It is critical that the County recognize that it must serve the public in addition to the applicant. The proposed language presented to the planning board on January 9th was very complicated, hard to read and 1 - 4 - 134 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 looked to only loosen requirements to an applicant while cutting the public out of the process. It does not clarify the process. Although we understand the need to have predictability and consistency in any SUP process, we would also argue that an SUP process for intensive manufacturing users should be different than a SUP process for a day care center, or even for artisan or limited manufacturing. Given the known potential for long-lasting adverse effects to human health, water supplies, the economy and the environment by industries such as chemical manufacturers, cement manufacturers or power plants, it is reasonable that this process would be more complex, more comprehensive, and consequently, require a longer time frame for consideration. As an over-arching recommendation, then, we would recommend that you consider maintaining separate SUP requirements for industries within the intensive manufacturing category, providing the most rigorous application process and greater latitude for staff, the community and elected officials to evaluate these potentially heavy polluting industries. Since the public (and our) concerns focus primarily on the local SUP process for intensive manufacturing, this would allow you to adopt the most predictable, consistent SUP process of review, with more readily defined time constraints for all but a very small number of potential industries (intensive manufacturing and mining operations). This organizational change would accomplish several goals. It would allow the staff, elected officials and the public whatever time is needed to fully evaluate the local implications of these intensive industries, and it removes the concern that the current SUP process could hamper industry recruitment for the majority of industries not included in this category. In fact, economists at UNCW have pointed out that many potential businesses in the medical, entrepreneurial and technology-based fields might well be dissuaded from locating in communities that lack a rigorous local review process for heavy polluting industries. Further, heavy industries that refuse to participate in a comprehensive review of their potential affects should raise red flags within our community and our leadership. For these industries, the federal EIS process alone can take 2+ years, a process that could be done concurrently with the county SUP process. The following specific comments and suggested changes are offered by the Coastal Federation: (Also see attached proposed section 71-2 language)  The proposed revisions to sections 44-1.1.1, 53.2-8.1 and 53.3-8.1 are problematic. The changes seem to allow an applicant to expand or modify their “existing” operations without any further review or consideration by the County. While we understand the reasoning of these proposed changes it opens the door for the opportunity for an operation to expand without any limits. The proposed language could pose serious risks to public health and safety, property values and impacts to the harmony of the surrounding area.  County staff should provide public notice of the application and make all application materials available to the public within five (5) business days of the receipt of a complete SUP application. Without prompt notification to the public and provision of the complete application, the public will not have sufficient time to review the facts, provide comments 1 - 4 - 135 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 3 and most importantly provide expert review on complicated subject matter in time for participation in the process.  Language in section 71-1 (2) represents a major change in the SUP process, significantly reducing the county’s ability to request and consider information related to the four findings of fact provided in 71-1(4). Whether or not a permit from a local, federal or state agency has been issued to the applicant should not restrict any request from County staff for further information on the proposed external effects of the project. As needed, federal, state and /or local environmental agencies should also be consulted to advise the Planning and Inspections Department on applications for Special Use Permits. The four findings of fact should be the guiding principle that the County utilizes to fully evaluate an application, not the fact that the applicant might have a specific permit which typically is restrictive in its required review and permit requirements.  Addition of proposed language in section 71-1(D) following four findings of fact is unnecessary; the process of evaluation by the county is standard for all special use permits, does not need written clarification.  In the event that further information is requested, then it should be requested within thirty (30) days of the application deadline.  The Planning Board should not consider an application complete until all information requested by County staff is provided by the applicant. All information should be provided at least fifty-five (55) days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the application will be considered. Allowing the Planning Board to hear an application without information requested by County staff, or without sufficient time for the public to access the requested information, ensures inadequate review and public participation.  The loss of the narrative on pages 6-7 (Section 53.3-4.1) is particularly inappropriate, but is particularly egregious given the 4 hour deadline for staff to determine whether an application is complete. Under the proposed revisions the applicant is not required to explain its external impacts and the staff does not have time to independently research them before making a determination of completeness. In addition, the revision focuses the requirement for a narrative on the use, not the external impacts that are the reason the industry requires a special use permit.  The applicant should be required to describe the proposed activity and potential external impacts included, but not limited to, sound vibration, heat discharge, glare, air quality, surface water quality and groundwater quality and supplies. This information could be contained in required permits and professional scientific studies and reports necessary for the operation of the proposed activity, but it must be described in the application and provided to County staff and the public.  A property value impact analysis should be included in section 3 as a subsection (H). How else can the staff fully evaluate the finding of fact applicable to impacts to property values without this study and information?  The applicant should be required to host a public informational meeting or meetings before the consideration by the Planning Board. This will allow the public the time to become informed and/or hire experts to review or challenge the information provided in the SUP application. 1 - 4 - 136 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 4  The proposed changes to the Table of Permitted Uses significantly exceed the County’s stated purpose of re-organization and clarification. Eight changes from Special Use (S) to Permitted Use (P) are proposed for manufacturing uses; two manufacturing uses are newly proposed for approval in areas zoned for business (B2); and medical equipment manufacturing and intensive manufacturing uses (pharmaceutical/medicine) are now proposed by Special Use Permit in areas zoned as for light industry. No justification or research has been presented to support these proposed changes, which have the potential to adversely affect public health, air, and water resources Thank you for the opportunity to be involved in this important aspect of the public’s ability to plan and evaluate how our community will grow and prosper. To meet these shared goals, the special use permit process must invite meaningful public participation by requiring those industries with the potential to have long-term, adverse impacts on our community to disclose those impacts and address public concerns. We look forward to further discuss our concerns and suggestions on the proposed changes to the SUP process. Sincerely, Mike Giles Mike Giles, NC Coastal Federation Cc. Chris Coudriet, County Manager Tim Burgess, Assistant County Manager Tracy Skrabal, SE Regional Manager, NC Coastal Federation Geoff Gisler, Southern Environmental Law Center, Staff Attorney New Hanover County Planning Board 1 - 4 - 137 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) Aug2013 Labor Force109,498 Aug2013 Employment100,902 Aug2013 Unemployment8,596 Aug2013 Unemployment Rate7.9% 2012 Annual Labor Force108,011 2012 Annual Employment98,125 2012 Annual Unemployment9,886 2012 Annual Unemployment Rate9.2% 2013Q1 Employment - Total All Industries96,832 2013Q1 Employment - Total Government17,916 2013Q1 Employment - Total Private Industry78,916 2013Q1 Employment - Agriculture Forestry Fishing & Hunting0 2013Q1 Employment - Mining0 2013Q1 Employment - Utilities248 2013Q1 Employment - Construction4,966 2013Q1 Employment - Manufacturing5,442 2013Q1 Employment - Wholesale Trade3,206 2013Q1 Employment - Retail Trade13,862 2013Q1 Employment - Transportation2,633 2013Q1 Employment - Information2,407 2013Q1 Employment - Finance and Insurance2,504 2013Q1 Employment - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing1,711 2013Q1 Employment - Professional and Technical Services6,607 2013Q1 Employment - Management of Companies and Enterprises798 2013Q1 Employment - Administrative and Waste Services5,793 2013Q1 Employment - Educational Services4,151 2013Q1 Employment - Health Care and Social Assistance11,680 2013Q1 Employment - Arts, Entertainment and Recreation1,451 2013Q1 Employment - Accommodation and Food Services12,639 2013Q1 Employment - Other Services Ex. Public Admin2,689 2013Q1 Employment - Public Administration4,892 2013Q1 Employment - Unclassified0 2012 Annual Employment - Total All Industries96,788 2012 Annual Employment - Total Government17,586 2012 Annual Employment - Total Private Industry79,203 2012 Annual Employment - Agriculture Forestry Fishing & Hunting0 1 - 4 - 138 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 2012 Annual Employment - Mining0 2012 Annual Employment - Utilities250 2012 Annual Employment - Construction5,120 2012 Annual Employment - Manufacturing5,480 2012 Annual Employment - Wholesale Trade3,285 2012 Annual Employment - Retail Trade13,807 2012 Annual Employment - Transportation and Warehousing2,297 2012 Annual Employment - Information2,422 2012 Annual Employment - Finance and Insurance2,491 2012 Annual Employment - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing1,751 2012 Annual Employment - Professional and Technical Services6,609 2012 Annual Employment - Management of Companies and Enterprises751 2012 Annual Employment - Administrative and Waste Services5,246 2012 Annual Employment - Educational Services4,131 2012 Annual Employment - Health Care and Social Assistance11,601 2012 Annual Employment - Arts, Entertainment and Recreation1,601 2012 Annual Employment - Accommodation and Food Services13,523 2012 Annual Employment - Other Services Ex. Public Admin2,656 2012 Annual Employment - Public Administration3,755 2012 Annual Employment - Unclassified0 2012 Annual Employment Percent Total Government18.2% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Total Private81.8% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Agriculture Forestry Fishing & Hunting0.0% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Mining0.0% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Utilities0.3% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Construction5.3% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Manufacturing5.7% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Wholesale Trade3.4% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Retail Trade14.3% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Transportation2.4% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Information2.5% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Finance and Insurance2.6% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Real Estate and Rental and Leasing1.8% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Professional and Technical Services6.8% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Management of Companies and Enterprises0.8% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Administrative and Waste Services5.4% 1 - 4 - 139 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 2012 Annual Employment Percent Educational Services4.3% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Health Care and Social Assistance12.0% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Arts, Entertainment and Recreation1.7% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Accommodation and Food Services14.0% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Other Services Ex. Public Admin2.7% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Public Administration3.9% 2012 Annual Employment Percent Unclassified0.0% 2013Q1 Establishments - Total All Industries7,279 2013Q1 Establishments - Total Government145 2013Q1 Establishments - Total Private Industry7,134 2013Q1 Establishments - Agriculture Forestry Fishing & Hunting17 2013Q1 Establishments - Mining2 2013Q1 Establishments - Utilities10 2013Q1 Establishments - Construction728 2013Q1 Establishments - Manufacturing200 2013Q1 Establishments - Wholesale Trade447 2013Q1 Establishments - Retail Trade983 2013Q1 Establishments - Transportation and Warehousing191 2013Q1 Establishments - Information119 2013Q1 Establishments - Finance and Insurance405 2013Q1 Establishments - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing388 2013Q1 Establishments - Professional and Technical Services983 2013Q1 Establishments - Management of Companies and Enterprises44 2013Q1 Establishments - Administrative and Waste Services481 2013Q1 Establishments - Educational Services129 2013Q1 Establishments - Health Care and Social Assistance764 2013Q1 Establishments - Arts, Entertainment and Recreation128 2013Q1 Establishments - Accommodation and Food Services663 2013Q1 Establishments - Other Services Ex. Public Admin544 2013Q1 Establishments - Public Administration53 2013Q1 Establishments - Unclassified0 2011 Military Registered Businesses459 2011 Military Contract Awards$15,050,345 2012 Establishments - Total All Industries7,413 2012 Establishments - Total Government150 2012 Establishments - Total Private Industry7,263 1 - 4 - 140 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 2012 Establishments - Agriculture Forestry Fishing & Hunting15 2012 Establishments - Mining2 2012 Establishments - Utilities9 2012 Establishments - Construction764 2012 Establishments - Manufacturing198 2012 Establishments - Wholesale Trade450 2012 Establishments - Retail Trade987 2012 Establishments - Transportation & Warehousing190 2012 Establishments - Information129 2012 Establishments - Finance and Insurance421 2012 Establishments - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing385 2012 Establishments - Professional and Technical Services980 2012 Establishments - Management of Companies and Enterprises40 2012 Establishments - Administrative and Waste Services493 2012 Establishments - Educational Services124 2012 Establishments - Health Care and Social Assistance771 2012 Establishments - Arts Entertainment and Recreation130 2012 Establishments - Accommodation and Food Services691 2012 Establishments - Other Services Ex. Public Admin573 2012 Establishments - Public Administration59 2012 Establishments - Unclassified establishments3 2012 Annual Wages - Total All Industries$39,134 2012 Annual Wages - Total Government$45,564 2012 Annual Wages - Total Private Industry$37,706 2012 Annual Wages - Agriculture Forestry Fishing & Hunting. 2012 Annual Wages - Mining. 2012 Annual Wages - Utilities$90,464 2012 Annual Wages - Construction$39,367 2012 Annual Wages - Manufacturing$76,603 2012 Annual Wages - Wholesale Trade$50,759 2012 Annual Wages - Retail Trade$24,905 2012 Annual Wages - Transportation and Warehousing$40,606 2012 Annual Wages - Information$47,307 2012 Annual Wages - Finance and Insurance$68,084 2012 Annual Wages - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing$35,640 2012 Annual Wages - Professional and Technical Services$64,317 1 - 4 - 141 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 2012 Annual Wages - Management of Companies and Enterprises$83,112 2012 Annual Wages - Administrative and Waste Services$29,596 2012 Annual Wages - Educational Services$41,638 2012 Annual Wages - Health Care and Social Assistance$40,961 2012 Annual Wages - Arts, Entertainment and Recreation$19,269 2012 Annual Wages - Accommodation and Food Services$14,575 2012 Annual Wages - Other Services Ex. Public Admin$23,657 2012 Annual Wages - Public Administration$44,460 2012 Annual Wages - Unclassified. 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Total All Industries$762 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Total Government$868 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Total Private Industry$738 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Agriculture Forestry Fishing & Hunting. 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Mining. 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Utilities$2,188 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Construction$757 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Manufacturing$1,575 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Wholesale Trade$985 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Retail Trade$483 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Transportation & Warehousing$754 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Information$1,150 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Finance and Insurance$1,488 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing$666 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Professional and Technical Services$1,267 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Management of Companies and Enterprises$1,255 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Administrative and Waste Services$560 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Educational Services$780 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Health Care and Social Assistance$726 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Arts Entertainment and Recreation$377 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Accommodation and Food Services$268 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Other Services Ex. Public Admin$447 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Public Administration$902 2013Q1 Avg Weekly Wage: Unclassified establishments$0 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Total All Industries$753 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Total Government$876 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Total Private Industry$725 1 - 4 - 142 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Agriculture Forestry Fishing & Hunting. 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Mining. 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Utilities$1,740 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Construction$757 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Manufacturing$1,473 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Wholesale Trade$976 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Retail Trade$479 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Transportation & Warehousing$781 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Information$910 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Finance and Insurance$1,309 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing$685 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Professional and Technical Services$1,237 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Management of Companies and Enterprises$1,598 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Administrative and Waste Services$569 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Educational Services$801 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Health Care and Social Assistance$788 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Arts Entertainment and Recreation$371 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Accommodation and Food Services$280 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Other Services Ex. Public Admin$455 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Public Administration$855 2012 Avg Weekly Wage: Unclassified establishments. 2013Q2 Announced Job Creation. 2013Q2 Total Announced Investments. 2012 Announced Job Creation1286 2012 Total Announced Investments$121,925,774 2011 Est Worker Transportation Mode, Base, 16+ years97,440 2011 Est Worker Transportation, Percent Drove Car/Truck/Van Alone8160% 2011 Est Worker Transportation, Percent Carpooled Car/Truck/Van960.0% 2011 Est Worker Transportation, Percent Public Transportation80.0% 2011 Est Worker Transportation, Percent Walked160.0% 2011 Est Worker Transportation, Percent Other Transportation180.0% 2011 Est Worker Transportation, Percent Worked at Home460.0% 2000 Census Worker Transportation Mode, Base80,088 2000 Census Workers Worked at Home2,290 2000 Census Workers Drove Car/Truck/Van Alone65,976 2000 Census Workers Carpooled Car/Truck/Van8,558 1 - 4 - 143 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 2000 Census Workers took Bus/Trolley Bus653 2000 Census Workers took Streetcar/Trolley Car15 2000 Census Workers took Subway/Elevated2 2000 Census Workers took Railroad25 2000 Census Workers took Ferryboat11 2000 Census Workers took Taxicab50 2000 Census Workers took Motorcycle64 2000 Census Workers took Bicycle352 2000 Census Workers Walked1,399 2000 Census Workers took Other Means693 1990 Census Workers Worked at Home1,220 1990 Census Workers Drove Car/Truck/Van Alone47,106 1990 Census Workers Carpooled Car/Truck/Van7,849 1990 Census Workers took Bus/Trolley Bus820 1990 Census Workers took Streetcar/Trolley Car0 1990 Census Workers took Subway/Elevated6 1990 Census Workers took Railroad0 1990 Census Workers took Ferryboat0 1990 Census Workers took Taxicab58 1990 Census Workers took Motorcycle226 1990 Census Workers took Bicycle283 1990 Census Workers Walked1,512 1990 Census Workers took Other Means493 2011 Est Workers Travel, Base, 16 + years97,440 2011 Est Workers Travel, Average Time to Work, Minutes. 2011 Est Workers Travel Time to Work, Percent < 10 minutes14.1 2011 Est Workers Travel Time to Work, Percent 10-14 minutes20.7 2011 Est Workers Travel Time to Work, Percent 15-19 minutes21.9 2011 Est Workers Travel Time to Work, Percent 20-24 minutes18.4 2011 Est Workers Travel Time to Work, Percent 25-29 minutes5.2 2011 Est Workers Travel Time to Work, Percent 30-34 minutes10.3 2011 Est Workers Travel Time to Work, Percent 35-44 minutes2.4 2011 Est Workers Travel Time to Work, Percent 45-59 minutes3.2 2011 Est Workers Travel Time to Work, Percent 60+ minutes3.7 2000 Census Average Travel Time to Work for Workers Not at Home21 2000 Census Workers Not Working at Home77,798 1 - 4 - 144 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: < 5 minutes2,500 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 5-9 minutes9,488 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 10-14 minutes15,877 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 15-19 minutes17,025 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 20-24 minutes13,613 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 25-29 minutes3,970 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 30-34 minutes8,017 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 35-39 minutes945 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 40-44 minutes919 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 45-59 minutes2,144 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 60-89 minutes1,651 2000 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 90+ minutes1,649 1990 Census Average Travel Time to Work for Workers Not at Home18 1990 Census Aggregate Travel Time to Work for Workers Not at Home1,058,861 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: < 5 minutes1,908 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 5-9 minutes7,512 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 10-14 minutes11,220 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 15-19 minutes13,914 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 20-24 minutes10,294 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 25-29 minutes2,999 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 30-34 minutes6,116 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 35-39 minutes671 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 40-44 minutes656 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 45-59 minutes1,712 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 60-89 minutes1,053 1990 Census Workers Travel Time to Work: 90+ minutes298 2011 Est Self-employed7,133 2000 Census Working Pop - Total Ownership Type, Age 16+81,238 2000 Census Working Pop - Private for Profit Company, Age 16+54,571 2000 Census Working Pop - Self-employed Own Incorp Business, Age 16+3,942 2000 Census Working Pop - Employee of Private Not for Profit, Age 16+4,423 2000 Census Working Pop - Local Government Worker, Age 16+4,699 2000 Census Working Pop - State Government Worker, Age 16+5,330 2000 Census Working Pop - Federal Government Worker, Age 16+1,482 2000 Census Working Pop - Self-empl in Own Not Incorp Business, Age 16+6,495 2000 Census Working Pop - Unpaid Family Worker, Age 16+296 1 - 4 - 145 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 2011 Est Working Pop - Place of Work, Base, 16 + years97,440 2011 Est Working Pop - Worked in State/County of Residence87,177 2011 Est Working Pop - Percent Worked in State/County of Residence89.5% 2011 Est Working Pop - Worked in State/Outside County of Residence8,567 2011 Est Working Pop - Percent Worked in State/Outside County of Residence8.8% 2011 Est Working Pop - Worked Outside State of Residence1,696 2011 Est Working Pop - Percent Worked Outside State of Residence1.7% 2000 Census Working Pop - Place of Work, Base80,088 2000 Census Working Pop - Worked in State/County of Residence72,330 2000 Census Working Pop - Worked in State/Outside County of Residence6,906 2000 Census Working Pop - Worked Outside State of Residence852 1990 Census Working Pop - Worked in State/County of Residence, Age 16+54,067 1990 Census Working Pop - Worked in State/Outside County of Residence, Age 16+4,911 1990 Census Working Pop - Worked Outside State of Residence, Age 16+595 2012 Working Pop - Civilian Pop, Age 16+/Labor Force, Proj106,917 2012 Working Pop - Employed Civilian Pop Age 16+, Proj95,938 2012 Working Pop - Unemployed Population Age 16+, Proj10,979 2012 Working Pop - Unemployment Rate, Proj10 2000 Census Worker Status Base in 1999 for Age 16+130,292 2000 Census Full-time Male Workers 16+ in 199931,289 2000 Census Part-time Male Workers 16+ in 199917,316 2000 Census NonWorking Males 16+ in 199913,619 2000 Census Full-time Female Workers 16+ in 199921,132 2000 Census Part-time Female Workers 16+ in 199923,695 2000 Census NonWorking Females 16+ in 199923,241 1990 Census Working Pop - Armed Forces, Age 16+266 1990 Census Working Pop - Civilian, Employed, Age 16+60,179 1990 Census Working Pop - Civilian, Unemployed, Age 16+3,247 2012 Working Pop - Industry Base (Civilian, 16+), Proj95,938 2012 Working Pop - Agric/Forestry/Fishing Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj149 2012 Working Pop - Mining Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj7 2012 Working Pop - Construction Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj6,514 2012 Working Pop - Manufacturing Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj6,276 2012 Working Pop - Wholesale Trade Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj2,862 2012 Working Pop - Retail Trade Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj11,517 2012 Working Pop - Transportation/Warehousing Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj2,456 1 - 4 - 146 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 2012 Working Pop - Utilities Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj1,106 2012 Working Pop - Information Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj2,438 2012 Working Pop - Finance/Insurance Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj3,165 2012 Working Pop - Real Estate/Rental/Leasing Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj2,918 2012 Working Pop - Prof/Scientific/Tech Services Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj7,434 2012 Working Pop - Mgmt of Companies/Enterprises Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj0 2012 Working Pop - Admin/Supp/Waste Mgmt Services Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj4,525 2012 Working Pop - Educational Services Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj8,097 2012 Working Pop - Health Care/Social Services Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj14,189 2012 Working Pop - Arts/Entertainment/Rec Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj3,106 2012 Working Pop - Accommodation/Food Services Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj11,449 2012 Working Pop - Other Services (excl Pub Adm) Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj5,126 2012 Working Pop - Public Administration Industry (Civilian, 16+), Proj2,604 2000 Census Working Pop - Industry Base (Civilian, 16+)81,238 2000 Census Working Pop - Agric/Forestry/Fishing Industry (Civilian, 16+)330 2000 Census Working Pop - Mining Industry (Civilian, 16+)39 2000 Census Working Pop - Construction Industry (Civilian, 16+)8,130 2000 Census Working Pop - Manufacturing Industry (Civilian, 16+)8,001 2000 Census Working Pop - Wholesale Trade Industry (Civilian, 16+)2,480 2000 Census Working Pop - Retail Trade Industry (Civilian, 16+)11,407 2000 Census Working Pop - Transportation/Warehousing Industry (Civilian, 16+)2,412 2000 Census Working Pop - Utilities Industry (Civilian, 16+)937 2000 Census Working Pop - Information Industry (Civilian, 16+)2,013 2000 Census Working Pop - Finance/Insurance Industry (Civilian, 16+)2,759 2000 Census Working Pop - Real Estate/Rental/Leasing Industry (Civilian, 16+)2,301 2000 Census Working Pop - Prof/Scientific/Tech Services Industry (Civilian, 16+)4,873 2000 Census Working Pop - Mgmt of Companies/Enterprises Industry (Civilian, 16+)8 2000 Census Working Pop - Admin/Supp/Waste Mgmt Services Industry (Civilian, 16+)2,812 2000 Census Working Pop - Educational Services Industry (Civilian, 16+)6,851 2000 Census Working Pop - Health Care/Social Services Industry (Civilian, 16+)9,351 2000 Census Working Pop - Arts/Entertainment/Rec Industry (Civilian, 16+)1,719 2000 Census Working Pop - Accommodation/Food Services Industry (Civilian, 16+)7,042 2000 Census Working Pop - Other Services (excl Pub Adm) Industry (Civilian, 16+)4,408 2000 Census Working Pop - Public Administration Industry (Civilian, 16+)3,365 1990 Census Working Pop - Agriculture/Forestry/Fisheries Industry, Civilian Age 16+931 1990 Census Working Pop - Mining Industry, Civilian Age 16+53 1 - 4 - 147 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 1990 Census Working Pop - Construction Industry, Civilian Age 16+5,243 1990 Census Working Pop - Manufacturing/Nondurable Goods Industry, Civilian Age 16+5,396 1990 Census Working Pop - Manufacturing/Durable Goods Industry, Civilian Age 16+4,093 1990 Census Working Pop - Transportation Industry, Civilian Age 16+2,325 1990 Census Working Pop - Communications/Utilities Industry, Civilian Age 16+1,901 1990 Census Working Pop - Wholesale Trade Industry, Civilian Age 16+2,567 1990 Census Working Pop - Retail Trade Industry, Civilian Age 16+13,161 1990 Census Working Pop - Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Industry, Civilian Age 16+3,371 1990 Census Working Pop - Business and Repair Services Industry, Civilian Age 16+2,636 1990 Census Working Pop - Personal Services Industry, Civilian Age 16+2,228 1990 Census Working Pop - Entertainment/Recreation Srv Industry, Civilian Age 16+969 1990 Census Working Pop - Health Services Industry, Civilian Age 16+5,091 1990 Census Working Pop - Educational Services Industry, Civilian Age 16+4,718 1990 Census Working Pop - Other Professional/Related Srv Industry, Civilian Age 16+3,322 1990 Census Working Pop - Public Administration Industry, Civilian Age 16+2,174 2012 Working Pop - Occupations Base (Civilian, 16+), Proj95,938 2012 Working Pop - Management Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj9,901 2012 Working Pop - Business/Financial Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj3,204 2012 Working Pop - Computer and Mathematical Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj1,138 2012 Working Pop - Architect/Survyr/Cartogr/Engineer Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj1,425 2012 Working Pop - Life/Physical/Social Science Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj1,192 2012 Working Pop - Community/Social Services Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj1,585 2012 Working Pop - Legal Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj1,288 2012 Working Pop - Education/Training/Library Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj6,110 2012 Working Pop - Arts/Design/Entert/Sports/Media Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj2,279 2012 Working Pop - Health Diag/Treating Practitioner Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj7,071 2012 Working Pop - Healthcare Support Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj2,487 2012 Working Pop - Protective Service Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj1,882 2012 Working Pop - Food Preparation/Serving Related Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj8,773 2012 Working Pop - Building/Grounds Cleaning/Maint Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj3,798 2012 Working Pop - Personal Care/Service Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj3,770 2012 Working Pop - Sales/Related Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj12,976 2012 Working Pop - Office/Administrative Support Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj11,823 2012 Working Pop - Farming/Fishing/Forestry Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj70 2012 Working Pop - Construction/Extract Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj4,785 2012 Working Pop - Maintenance/Repair Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj2,620 1 - 4 - 148 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 2012 Working Pop - Production Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj3,514 2012 Working Pop - Transp/Material Moving Occupations (Civilian, 16+), Proj4,247 2000 Census Working Pop - Management/excl Farmers/Farm Mgrs Occupations (Civilian, 16+)7,140 2000 Census Working Pop - Farmer/Farm Manager Occupations (Civilian, 16+)102 2000 Census Working Pop - Business Operations Specialist Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,580 2000 Census Working Pop - Financial Specialist Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,718 2000 Census Working Pop - Computer and Mathematical Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,127 2000 Census Working Pop - Architect/Survyr/Cartogr/Engineer Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,672 2000 Census Working Pop - Drafter/Engineering/Mapping Tech Occupations (Civilian, 16+)566 2000 Census Working Pop - Life/Physical/Social Science Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,051 2000 Census Working Pop - Community/Social Services Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,444 2000 Census Working Pop - Legal Occupations (Civilian, 16+)596 2000 Census Working Pop - Education/Training/Library Occupations (Civilian, 16+)4,723 2000 Census Working Pop - Arts/Design/Entert/Sports/Media Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,912 2000 Census Working Pop - Health Diag/Treating Practitioner Occupations (Civilian, 16+)3,299 2000 Census Working Pop - Health Technologist/Technician Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,069 2000 Census Working Pop - Healthcare Support Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,743 2000 Census Working Pop - Fire Fighting/Law Enforcement Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,099 2000 Census Working Pop - Other Protective Service Occupations (Civilian, 16+)479 2000 Census Working Pop - Food Preparation/Serving Related Occupations (Civilian, 16+)5,108 2000 Census Working Pop - Building/Grounds Cleaning/Maint Occupations (Civilian, 16+)2,675 2000 Census Working Pop - Personal Care/Service Occupations (Civilian, 16+)2,312 2000 Census Working Pop - Sales/Related Occupations (Civilian, 16+)11,425 2000 Census Working Pop - Office/Administrative Support Occupations (Civilian, 16+)10,540 2000 Census Working Pop - Farming/Fishing/Forestry Occupations (Civilian, 16+)193 2000 Census Working Pop - Supervisor Construction/Extract Occupations (Civilian, 16+)972 2000 Census Working Pop - Construction Trades Worker Occupations (Civilian, 16+)4,837 2000 Census Working Pop - Extraction Worker Occupations (Civilian, 16+)28 2000 Census Working Pop - Installation/Maintenance/Repair Occupations (Civilian, 16+)2,845 2000 Census Working Pop - Production Occupations (Civilian, 16+)4,986 2000 Census Working Pop - Supervisor Transp/Material Moving Occupations (Civilian, 16+)116 2000 Census Working Pop - Aircraft/Traffic Control Occupations (Civilian, 16+)116 2000 Census Working Pop - Motor Vehicle Operator Occupations (Civilian, 16+)2,164 2000 Census Working Pop - Rail/Water/Other Transportation Occupations (Civilian, 16+)312 2000 Census Working Pop - Material Moving Occupations (Civilian, 16+)1,289 1990 Census Working Pop - Executive/Managerial Occupations, Civilian Age 16+7,170 1 - 4 - 149 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting County Custom Report Statistic New Hanover County (NC) 1990 Census Working Pop - Professional Specialty Occupations, Civilian Age 16+8,551 1990 Census Working Pop - Technicians/Related Support Occupations, Civilian Age 16+2,294 1990 Census Working Pop - Sales Occupations, Civilian Age 16+9,082 1990 Census Working Pop - Administrative Support Occupations, Civilian Age 16+8,024 1990 Census Working Pop - Private Household Service Occupations, Civilian Age 16+397 1990 Census Working Pop - Protective Service Occupations, Civilian Age 16+978 1990 Census Working Pop - Service Except Protective/HH Occupations, Civilian Age 16+7,061 1990 Census Working Pop - Farming/Forestry/Fishing Occupations, Civilian Age 16+782 1990 Census Working Pop - Precision Prod/Craft/Repair Occupations, Civilian Age 16+7,416 1990 Census Working Pop - Operator/Assembler/Inspector Occupations, Civilian Age 16+3,982 1990 Census Working Pop - Transportation/Moving Occupations, Civilian Age 16+2,208 1990 Census Working Pop - Handlers/Helpers/Laborers Occupations, Civilian Age 16+2,234 1 - 4 - 150 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 Chris O’Keefe, Director New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Department 230 Government Center Dr. Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 January 23, 2014 SUBJECT: Comment on Section 71-1(2) of the New Hanover County zoning ordinance Dear Mr. O’Keefe: PenderWatch & Conservancy is an environmental advocacy organization with over 400 members, many of whom reside and/or work in New Hanover County. We were actively involved in the process that led to the adoption of the Special Use Permit in 2011. The Special Use Permit is necessary to adequately protect the citizens of this region and the natural resources on which we all depend. We have reviewed the proposed changes to the New Hanover County Special Use Permit (SUP) process, and write to offer the following comments on Section 71-1(2) of the zoning ordinance.  Public notice of SUP applications: The proposed language of Section 71(2) of the zoning ordinance omits any public notice requirements for SUP applications. As written, the provision would require only “adjoining property owners” to be notified of the SUP application pursuant to Section 110-1(4) of the zoning ordinance. As the impacts of activities covered by SUPs reach far beyond adjacent properties, public notice of such applications should be received concurrently with the notice to adjacent property owners under Section 110-1(4) of the zoning ordinance We propose that such notice be published in the local newspapers, on the New Hanover County website, and in a press release to local television media within five (5) business days of receipt of the SUP application.  Review of external effects: The proposed revisions to Section 71-1(2) make optional the review of external effects of the subject property, including sound, vibration, heat, discharge, glare, odor, traffic, air quality, water, quality, and other relevant factors. This provision replaces the mandatory disclosure of these external effects and other required permits (federal and state) previously outlined in Section 53.3-4 (I-2 Heavy Industrial) of the zoning ordinance. The revision substantially undermines the integrity of the local review process by narrowing the scope of important environmental and public health considerations, and creates the danger of arbitrary application by the County staff. Further, because no state statute currently requires full analysis and disclosure of these impacts for private projects, eliminating the mandate for this information at the local level would leave no safeguards in place to protect against these impacts. PO Box 662 I Hampstead, NC 28443 I www.penderwatch.org I penderwatch@gmail.com 1 - 4 - 151 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 To facilitate a fully-informed analysis of environmental impacts of a SUP, disclosure of projected external impacts and anticipated state and federal permits should remain mandatory for facilities located in I-2 Heavy Industrial zones, as outlined in Section 53.3-4, as well as for facilities in other zones which require SUPs. County staff should reserve the right to mandate additional information beyond these disclosures, as necessary to protect the public health and welfare of the county’s residents.  Presumption of requisite approval: The proposed revisions to Section 71-1(2) create a presumption of approval for the “subject matter covered by the ]special use[ permit” when the applicant receives a permit from “a Federal, state and/or local authority…” This language not only undercuts local authority, but also assumes that local impacts are adequately addressed by federal, state, and other permits. Applicants for SUPs are by definition seeking to operate outside the normal parameters for the zones in which their facilities are located. These parameters are set by local government, and as such, any exceptions should be reviewed in light of localized impacts and concerns, which are separate from those of state and federal authorities. We propose striking this provision from the revised zoning ordinance, and adding language reserving the rights of County staff to consult with federal, state, and/or local agencies on any issues related to the SUP application. Barring the preparation of a full environmental impact statement for the subject facility in accordance with federal law, each subject facility should require comprehensive local review by the Planning Board.  Optional compliance with information requests: The proposed revisions to Section 71-1(2) allow the County staff to request information on various impacts of the SUP; however, the end of this section provides that the Planning Board will consider submitted applications at the requested meeting, “irrespective of whether.the applicant decides to provide some or all of the requested information…” This language makes submission of the County’s requested information optional, effectively transferring authority over the scope of the SUP application review from the County to the applicants. New Hanover County is responsible for ensuring that development within its jurisdiction is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of its constituents and its environment. It can fulfill those responsibilities only if it has authority to conduct a comprehensive review of all local impacts of new and changing development. Exercising such authority is not a burden to industry; it is an obligation to the public that elects and pays public servants to represent their interests and act to protect them. We propose striking this provision from the revised zoning ordinance, and adding language indicating that SUP application review shall not commence until all information requested by the County is received, and County staff has had adequate time to review the materials. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Allie Sheffield President 1 - 4 - 152 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Comments on proposed changes to the SUP process: Thank you very much for being willing to consider changes to the SUP process that is currently in place. IF you are NOT opposed to heavy process industry in NHC, then these changes are necessary. If you ARE opposed to that type of industry then the existing process will do just what the environmental lobby wants – the current SUP creates ambiguity and allows delays that will keep a project from even considering a location in NHC. If you have any questions about how the SUP impacts a project, please call me to discuss it. There may be questions that you want to ask, but not in public. I am happy to discuss any topics related to how a project may look at this issue. My consulting business is site selection for manufacturing and related companies. We have worked with heavy process industries like Alcoa, power producers like Cogentrix, and others that you would consider less intensive like Chris-Craft Boats and Mack Trucks and food distributor MBM Corp. I am afraid that the current discussions are focused on how the SUP will or will not impact Titan. The Titan focus is unfortunate because the process will also affect many other projects. I am afraid of the unintended consequences to the projects that you do want. This same process will impact a small pharmaceutical company that might be growing out of the UNCW Marine Biology efforts at Crest Research Park.……or the artisan soap manufacturer that needs to move from its downtown retail shop into their first real manufacturing space..…or the specialty chemical company that has just won a contract from IP in Reigelwood and wants to open a new facility nearby..or the advanced materials company that will use the refined biomass from Chemtex to make next gen components for the commercial aircraft industry. If we don’t change the wording in the current SUP process to show a clear path forward for approval, these companies, large and small, will locate in Brunswick, Pender and other nearby counties. Intensive industry and tourism have co-existed in NHC for hundreds of years. We have much-loved and visited, clean beaches; and we have had Sutton coal-fired power, Invista, DAK, Pfizer and other companies that have used the river for industrial purposes for many years with no permanent harm. Why the sudden change of philosophy? Yes DAK and Pfizer are in Brunswick County but the river has 2 sides. Just keeping the projects out of our side does nothing but negatively impact our tax rate. Five of the six largest tax payers, including the top four, in NHC are intensive industry. These companies support the revenue we can use for beach re-nourishment and other tourism related efforts. One point that is made by the environmental lobby is that no state and federal permits are ever denied. The reason is - those permits provide specific limits that must be met to be approved. They provide a clear path for approval. So the company does not submit an application until they know they can meet the requirements (and what it will cost to do so). Make the requirements strict if you are concerned about the impact. Just make them clear. That is what we need in the local SUP process – companies just need to know specific timelines and specific information to show the clear path. So I beg for you to approve the wording clarifications that have been suggested by the business community. 1 - 4 - 153 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Intensive industry is important for NHC, not just because it pays a large portion of the taxes, but more importantly because it provides high wage job opportunities for our residents. The following information from the attached report on NHC from the NC Department of Commerce reflects the importance of the manufacturing sector wages. It is the highest wage sector in the County that employs more than 1,000 people. It pays 3 and 5 times more than the tourism sectors, and also more than professionals and healthcare. Please protect these opportunities. 2012 annual wages 2013 1Q employment Manufacturing $76,603 5,442 Professional / technical $64,317 6,607 Wholesale trade $50,759 3,206 Healthcare / social assistance $40,961 11,680 Construction $39,367 4,966 Administrative / waste services $29,596 5,793 Retail $24,905 13,862 Accommodation / food service $14,575 12,639 Opportunities in the manufacturing sector are coming back to the US. According to a recently released Grant Thornton survey, over 1/3 of US companies will bring business back to the US and 34% of that work will be in the materials sector. In our business, I have seen several materials projects, with over $150 million investment that have looked at sites in NC in the past 6 months, and whose search criteria could include NHC. But they have not looked here. We have the geography and assets that can put us on the radar screen for these types of projects, if we can eliminate the barriers/risks that will keep us off of the shortlists. I am in the site selection business and I purposefully and carefully chose Wrightsville Beach for myself and my business. I love the beach; I love the size of this city; and I love the area’s diverse economy (heavy industry, tourism, arts, university, professional services) that can sustain us through downturns in any one sector. Please help protect and encourage that diversity. Respectfully submitted, Robin H. Spinks An economic and community development company 213 Seacrest Drive Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 greenfielddev@earthlink.net 910-509-1805 phone www.greenfield.bz 1 - 4 - 154 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 - 4 - 15503/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 - 4 - 15603/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 - 4 - 15703/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 - 4 - 15803/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 - 4 - 15903/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 - 4 - 16003/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting January 23, 2014 Mr. Chris O’Keefe, Director New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Department 230 Government Center Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 RE: NC Coastal Federation Comments on the Proposed Text Amendments to the New Hanover County Special Use Permit Ordinance (A-416, 1/14) Dear Mr. O’Keefe, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed text amendments to the County’s special use permit (SUP) ordinance. After attending the Planning Board Work Session on November 1, 2013, I understood that the County had opened up this ordinance to bring the Table of Permitted Uses (TOPU) within the national standards and to clarify the expected schedule and permit requirements for applicants submitting an SUP for the I1 and I2 districts. It was stated publicly several times by County staff that no substantive changes would be considered to the SUP language until after the Comprehensive Plan as well as the County’s Industrial Targeting Initiative, neither of which have be finalized and discussed publicly. Once I reviewed the proposed revisions made public on NHCGOV.com on January 6, 2014, several red flags went up. Here are my concerns and recommended actions for preserving the intent of the SUP:  The proposed revisions to sections 44-1.1.1, 53.2-8.1 and 53.3-8.1 are problematic. The changes seem to allow an applicant to expand or modify their “existing” operations without any further review or consideration by the County. The recently proposed sand mine in Castle Hayne is an example of a project that could take advantage of this re- write. I attended the poorly handled community meeting for this project on December 20, 2013 and learned of this projects’ proximity to the GE Hitachi facility as well as the Northeast Cape Fear River. Although the mine they are currently proposing is on a small parcel of land, the applicant owns several neighboring parcels, located closer and closer to GE Hitachi. It is instances like this where local oversight is critical and the four findings of fact in the SUP should be used to evaluate the potential impacts of existing industry that wants to expand operations. The proposed revisions could pose serious risks 1 - 4 - 161 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting to public health and safety, property values and impacts to the harmony of the surrounding area.  County staff should provide public notice of the application and make all application materials available to the public within five (5) business days of the receipt of a complete SUP application. Without prompt notification to the public and provision of the complete application, the public will not have sufficient time to review the facts, provide comments and most importantly provide expert review on complicated subject matter in time for participation in the process.  Language in section 71-1 (2) represents a major policy shift in the SUP process, significantly reducing the county’s ability to request and consider information related to the four findings of fact provided in 71-1(4). Whether or not a permit from a local, federal or state agency has been issued to the applicant should not restrict any request from County staff for further information on the proposed external effects of the project. As needed, federal, state and /or local environmental agencies should also be consulted to advise the Planning and Inspections Department on applications for SUPs. The four findings of fact should be the guiding principle that the County utilizes to fully evaluate an application, not the fact that the applicant might have a specific permit which typically is restrictive in its required review and permit requirements.  Addition of proposed language in section 71-1(D) following four findings of fact is unnecessary; the process of evaluation by the county is standard for all special use permits, does not need written clarification.  In the event that further information is requested, then it should be requested within thirty (30) days of the application deadline.  The Planning Board should not consider an application complete until all information requested by County staff is provided by the applicant. All information should be provided at least fifty-five (55) days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the application will be considered. Allowing the Planning Board to hear an application without information requested by County staff, or without sufficient time for the public to access the requested information, ensures inadequate review and public participation.  The loss of the narrative on pages 6-7 (Section 53.3-4.1) is particularly inappropriate, but is particularly egregious given the 4 hour deadline for staff to determine whether an application is complete. Under the proposed revisions the applicant is not required to explain its external impacts and the staff does not have time to independently research them before making a determination of completeness. In addition, the revision focuses the requirement for a narrative on the use, not the external impacts that are the reason the industry requires a special use permit.  The applicant should be required to describe the proposed activity and potential external impacts included, but not limited to, sound vibration, heat discharge, glare, air quality, surface water quality and groundwater quality and supplies. This information could be contained in required permits and professional scientific studies and reports necessary for the operation of the proposed activity, but it must be described in the application and provided to County staff and the public.  A property value impact analysis should be included in section 3 as a subsection (H). How else can the staff fully evaluate the finding of fact applicable to impacts to property values without this study and information?  The applicant should be required to host a public informational meeting or meetings 1 - 4 - 162 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting before the consideration by the Planning Board, like the one I attended for the proposed sand mind in Castle Hayne. This will allow the public the time to become informed and/or hire experts to review or challenge the information provided in the SUP application.  The proposed changes to the Table of Permitted Uses significantly exceed the County’s stated purpose of re-organization and clarification. Eight changes from Special Use (S) to Permitted Use (P) are proposed for manufacturing uses; two manufacturing uses are newly proposed for approval in areas zoned for business (B2); and medical equipment manufacturing and intensive manufacturing uses (pharmaceutical/medicine) are now proposed by Special Use Permit in areas zoned as for light industry. No justification or research has been presented to support these proposed changes, which have the potential to adversely affect public health, air, and water resources. I applaud the County for giving the public more time to address the proposed revisions to the SUP. Since 2011, the SUP for heavy industries remains untested by an applicant so I seriously question the motive behind these drastic changes. Overall, I ask that you give the County planners and elected officials the authority to evaluate potential threats to our community, and uphold the transparent and democratic principles that brought about this ordinance in the first place. Thank you for your commitment to a clean, healthy New Hanover County. Sincerely, Sarah Gilliam NC Coastal Federation 1 - 4 - 163 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 Comments on Special Use Permit Changes Proposed by the New Hanover County Planning Board DRAFT January 21, 2014 The following are comments concerning the proposed text amendments to the SUP as presented by the New Hanover County Department of Planning and Zoning at the NHC Planning Board meeting held on January 9, 2014. 1. The Definitions of Limited Manufacturing, General Manufacturing and Intensive Manufacturing, contained in Section 23, are proposed to be removed from the ordinance. However, the Limited, General and Intensive Manufacturing categories are referenced throughout the rest of the document. The definition of Intensive Manufacturing, which is proposed to be removed, includes: “Manufacturing and processing of products and chemicals including but not limited to: acetylene, lime, gypsum, or plaster of Paris, stone, clay, glass, cement, concrete, chlorine, corrosive acidAorAfertilizer.”… Why are these definitions being removed if the categories that they define are still in use? 2. Section 53.3-4.1 Review of External Effects. Why has this section been removed? It provides protection for the community that is near I-2 Zoned Districts by requiring any business to, “.operate in compliance with current standards for sound, vibration, heat discharge, glare, odor, air quality and water quality, as applicable under federal, state, and local regulations…” For those uses that need an SUP, it requires the creation, by the applicant, of a non-binding narrative that includes a disclosure of the projected external impacts of the project. This narrative can be used by the County to request, “.additionalAinformationAdeemed reasonable to assess the impacts and effects of a project on a community including plans, specifications, and other information deemed necessary to determine compliance with the reviewAcriteria…” Deletion of this section is a significant change in the SUP process and, if removed, may foster the creation of negative impacts to the community that if identified in the application process could be mitigated, or, eliminated entirely. Please consider keeping Section 53.3-4.1 Review of External Effects, as it is currently written. 1 - 4 - 164 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 3. Section 53.3-8.1 Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses. The proposed deletion of the last portion of this section should be reconsidered and allowed to remain as written. The deleted wording provides protection to the community by requiring Intensive Manufacturing uses to apply for an SUP if a, “.modificationAand/orAexpansionAchangesA theAparticularAuseAwithinAthatAcategory…” This regulation safeguards against a potential abuse of the SUP by guaranteeing that severe manufacturing uses must be transparent in their expansion planning and identify to the surrounding community any increase in negative impacts – before any expansion of buildings, lessening of distance between manufacturing activities and homes, additional equipment usage or increase in traffic occurs. 4. Section 71-1 General Requirements. The county staff, “.shallAendeavorAtoA provideAtoAtheAapplicant.”, within 4 hours of accepting the application for an SUP as to whether it is complete or non-complete. In the event of several SUP’s being filed at the same time or if there are other issues concerning other types of applications, or, if an SUP application is complicated with multiple technical attachments – it seems unreasonable that the staff would be able to fully assess an application for an SUP in a 4 hour time frame. A thirty day review period for the county staff would be appropriate to determine if the application is complete, or non-complete. “County staff may request additional information that it believes is relevant to a determination of impacts to surrounding properties and/or the area in which the subject property is located.” – but in accordance with the proposed new wording, “OnceAtheApetitionerAhasAobtainedAa permit from a Federal, state and/or local authority, it is presumed for county purposes that the petitioner has the requisite approval for the subject matterAcoveredAinAtheApermit…”A This proposed language should be eliminated because it severely limits or prevents local authorities from obtaining important information concerning potential negative impacts to the surrounding community. Additional information may be necessary in cases where the relevant findings of a federal or state permit do not consider, or, are not aware of, the cumulative impacts caused by surrounding industries and businesses. It is the responsibility of the county staff to consider the totality of local impacts to the community. By disallowing the county staff the ability to request and receive in a timely fashion, additional critical information, the public is being denied the protection, charged to the county staff, of their safety and well being. In the proposed new wording there is a 45 day time frame given from the acceptance of a complete application by the county staff to the date of the “Requested Meeting”. During that time any challenge to the application must, “.presentAclearAandAconvincing evidence to the contrary as determined 1 - 4 - 165 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 3 byAtheAplanningAboardAand/orAcountyAcommissioners…”A Any successful challenge for additional information that is approved by the planning board or the county commissioners must be requested of the petitioners, “.withinA 15AdaysAofAtheAapplicationAdeadline…” This means that in 30 days a complete application for an SUP must be read and analyzed, and any requests for additional information have to be written and submitted. The requests for additional information must then be determined to have not been covered in the matters of any prior approval of federal, state or local permits. - Who decides if the requested information is covered by the other permits? - Is there an appeal process for this important and, in most cases, subjective decision? If it is decided that the request is not covered in prior permits, then the county staff person or member of the public making the request for additional information must provide, “clear and convincing evidence” to the planning board and the county commissioners that additional information is warranted and receive their approval, before making the request to the applicant. - Are requests for additional information for SUP applications to be debated and voted on at scheduled public meetings, where a majority of the members of the planning board and the county commissioners are present? - What is the process or policy to determine what constitutes “clear and convincing evidence”? The logistics of meeting and presenting a case in front of these two groups is challenging and it is unreasonable to assume that given the burdensome requirements and unrealistic time constraints that any request from county staff or the public could be successfully navigated and processed within a 30 day time period. Despite any delays caused by legitimate requests for additional information, or, any deficiencies in the SUP application, it will be brought before the Planning Board within 45 days, “.irrespectiveAofAwhetherAsuchA information is requested by county staff or whether the applicant decides to provide some or all of the requested information, the Planning Board shall consider the application at the requested meeting, unlessAtheApetitionerAdesiresAaAcontinuance.”… These proposed guidelines for making legitimate requests for additional information to an SUP application are not realistic in scheduling and timing, do not serve the transparent and protective intent of the Special Use Permitting process and do not protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. The process by which additional information is requested of an SUP applicant should be direct, easily understandable for both the public and the 1 - 4 - 166 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 4 applicant and be allowed adequate time for a response by the applicant and review of that response by the county staff or member of the public making the request, before the application is allowed to proceed. 5. The revisions of the SUP process that are being proposed are significant and when incorporated into the existing SUP text create a new Special Use Permit process that is unlike the existing SUP process. The addition of new deadlines, new or altered definitions of classifications, the elimination of a review of external effects, a shift of authority that allows prior approval of negative impacts through the federal and state permitting process – all are changes that when combined into a document constitute a new SUP ordinance that will be regulated, in part, by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR). In accordance with the North Carolina Legislature, House Bill 74 – Temporary Limitation on Enactment of Environmental Ordinances By Cities and Counties; Study - Section 10.2 (a), “ ACityAorAcountyAmayAenactAanA ordinance that regulates a field that is also regulated by a State or federal statute enforced by an environmental agency or that regulates a field that is also regulated by a rule adopted by an environmental agency if the ordinance is approved by a unanimous vote of the membersApresentAandAvoting…” This means that the proposed changes to the existing SUP process will need to be approved by a unanimous vote of the New Hanover County, Board of Commissioners, before taking effect. This action, if approved by an unanimous vote, will be in force only until October 1, 2014, ( HB 74 Temporary Limitation On Enactment of Environmental Ordinances By Cities and Counties: Study – Section 10.2.(d)) when the state legislature has determined that this ordinance will expire and the State Environmental Review Commission shall report its findings and make recommendations on, “.the circumstances under which cities and counties should be authorizedAtoAenactAordinances…“. 6. A reasonable option to provide clarity to the SUP process is to adopt the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for a clear definition of business types and the permitting process required for each. Also, a more specific time frame that will allow adequate time for, public notification of an SUP application – five working days, review for completeness by the county staff – thirty days, and if requested by the county staff or the public, within thirty days of submission of a completed application, time for legitimate requests and response for additional information before continuing with the SUP process. When the additional information is received and reviewed by county staff, the complete SUP application can be sent to the planning board, thirty days prior to the Requested Meeting. 1 - 4 - 167 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 5 The existing language of the SUP, without the proposed text amendments and revisions, is acceptable. The SUP process in its current form provides adequate protection to the community and allows for the free flow of information. There is a process for obtaining additional information, when needed, to fully explain the negative and positive impacts on the community caused by new industry uses of property in New Hanover County. Respectfully submitted by, Rob Zapple 321 R.L. Honeycutt Drive Wilmington North Carolina 28412 1 - 4 - 168 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: Ted Shipley <Ted.Shipley@smithmoorelaw.com> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:57 PM To: 'Kitchin, Henry L. Jr.'; O'Keefe, Chris; 'millerg@uncw.edu'; Ted Spring; 'dmclean@mcquirewoods.com'; 'hkitchin@mcguirewoods.com'; 'clark@hipparchitecture.com'; 'lsmith@cortechsolutions.com'; 'kemp@cfrw.us'; 'scs@cameronco.com'; 'mikeg@nccoast.org'; 'don.hughes@bemc.org'; 'robertsjr@uncw.edu'; 'Sterling.Cheatham@wilmingtonnc.gov'; 'Khufham@wilmingtonandbeaches.com'; 'jay@garnereconomics.com' (jay@garnereconomics.com); 'Richard Collier'; danhilla@aol.com; Tamara C. Murphy (tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com); 'Lisa.Mesler@wellsfargo.com'; Weaver, David (dfweaver4@aol.com); aheath@mulkeyinc.com Cc: Williams-Rowland, Jackie; Burgess, Tim; Schrader, Beth Subject: Special Use Permit Text Amendment Attachments: WILMINGTON-#63993-v2-New_Hanover_County_Planning_Board_- _Industrial_SUP_....pdf; WILMINGTON-#63993-vdocx- New_Hanover_County_Planning_Board_-_Industrial_S....pdf All: I would like to propose the following language for consideration at the March Planning Board meeting next week. The attached comparison is between the January Staff Draft and my revisions. This adds clarity to the Staff’s draft of February 19th regarding these important aspects: -The time in which staff must designate an application “complete” or “incomplete.” -The time in which an applicant may be heard by the Planning Board. -Transparency by way of the “Sunshine” email list and via the website. -The removal of language implying that if a permit is issued on a subject matter, then it cannot be addressed by the Planning Board. -The addition of language stating that a government permit is competent, substantial, and material evidence of an issue and that opponents can bring evidence of the same weight. -Smaller revisions as noted therein. My hope is that both sides of the issue will be pleased with these changes. More importantly, I hope that Staff will also endorse this version as an acceptable alternative at the March Planning Board Meeting. Thank you and have a great weekend! Ted Edward T. Shipley, III Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP 300 North 3rd Street Suite 301 1 - 5 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Wilmington, NC 28401 910.815.7123 (voice) 910.815.7212 (direct fax) www.smithmoorelaw.com This message is directed to and is for the use of the above-noted addressee only, and its contents may be legally privileged or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution, dissemination, or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender. This message is not intended to be an electronic signature nor to constitute an agreement of any kind under applicable law unless otherwise expressly indicated hereon. IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with the requirements of IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication or attachment hereto is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or for promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication or attachment. Total Control Panel Login To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com From: ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. 1 - 5 - 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 1 A-416Text Amendment1 Applicant: Staff2 Request by Staff to add Section 13: Calculation of Time and to amend Section 44: Extension or 3 Enlargement of Non-Conforming Situations, Section 50: Table of Permitted Uses, Section 53.2: 4 I-1 Light Industrial, Section 53.3, I-2 Heavy Industrial, and Section 71: Special Use Permits 5 Issued by the Board of County Commissioners to address regulations regarding industrial uses 6 and Special Use Permit regulations.Additions are in red and deletions are in red with strike-7 throughs. 8 Article I: IN GENERAL9 10 Section 13: Calculation of Time11 In computing any period of time prescribed by this section, the day the act, event, or 12 submittal after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be 13 included. The last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless that date 14 should fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, in which case the due date shall 15 be the next business day following such Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. The term 16 “legal holiday” shall mean any federal, state or local government holiday for which 17 financial institutions or post offices are generally closed in the State of North Carolina. 18 The term “business day”means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or legal 19 holiday.20 21 Section 23: Definitions22 M23 24 Manufacturing25 26 Artisan Manufacturing-On-site production of goods by hand manufacturing 27 involving the use of hand tools and small-scale light mechanical equipment. 28 Typical uses include woodworking and cabinet shops, ceramic studios, jewelry 29 manufacturing and similar types of arts and crafts or very small-scale 30 manufacturing uses that have very limited, if any, negative external impacts on 31 surrounding properties, water resources, air quality and/or public health.32 33 Section 44: Extension or Enlargement of Non-Conforming Situations34 35 44-1:Except as specifically provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to 36 engage in any activity that causes an increasein the extent of non-conformity of a non-37 conforming situation.38 39 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 2 44-1.1: The standards outlined in Sections 53.2 and 53.3 of this ordinance and any requirement 40 for a special use permit shall apply to all new proposals in I-1 and I-2 districts as shown on the 41 Table of Permitted Uses. Any existing industrial uses which did not require a special use permit 42 as of October 2, 2011 would be considered a conforming use and shall not require a special use 43 permit in order to continueoperations. The term “existing industrial use” shall mean an 44 industry or other businessin active operation and open for business on a tax parcel zoned I-1 or 45 I-2 and developed for that particular use as of October 2, 2011 .46 47 44-1.1.1: Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses:For a modification 48 and/or expansion of an existing industrial use which was in conformity with the requirements of 49 this ordinance as of October 2, 2011, and where the modification and/or expansion would 50 change theparticular use as indicated on the Table of Permitted Uses, a special use permit will 51 be required for the modification and/or expansion if the new use is indicated by an “S” on the 52 Table of Permitted Uses, provided, however, that if one or both of the two exceptions set out in 53 subsections A and B below apply, then a special use permit shall not be required with respect to 54 such modification and/or expansion:55 56 A. Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions on the Same Parcel: Modifications 57 and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowedwithout a special use 58 permitif the use is fully contained on the tax parcel currently developed for and 59 operating as such use and provided one of the followingcriteria applies:60 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 61 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 62 2011.63 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 64 Limited or General Manufacturingcategory and is for a less intensive 65 industrial use than was in active operation and open for business as of 66 October 2, 2011 . (Ex. An existing Intensive Manufacturing use could 67 transition to a use in the Artisan, Limited or General Manufacturing 68 category). 69 3.If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 70 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 71 a different use within that same category. 72 B. Exception for Modifications and/orExpansions onto Adjacent or Contiguous 73 Parcels: Modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed 74 without a special use permit on tax parcels adjacent or contiguous (excluding rights of 75 way) to the current use, if properly zoned, and held in the same ownership as on the 76 date of adoption of this section (including successor ownership) as of October 2, 2011 77 and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies:78 79 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 80 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 81 2011 .82 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 83 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 84 industrial use than was in active operation andopen for business as of 85 October 2, 2011 . 86 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 3 3.If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 87 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 88 a different use within that same category.89 90 91 92 Section 53.2: I-1 Light Industrial 93 (10/3/2011)94 95 53.2-1: The I-1 zoning district is established to preserve land within the County for light industrial 96 uses and associated operations, including assembly, fabrication, packaging and transport, where 97 operations are conducted primarily indoors and where suitable sites are served by rail, waterway, 98 highway transportation systems as well as readily available utilities. Heavy industrial uses in which 99 raw materials are converted into products for subsequent assembly or fabrication or where uses 100 create an excessive amount of noise, odor, smoke, dust, air borne debris or other objectionable 101 characteristics which might be detrimental to surrounding areas are not appropriate in this district. 102 Within the I-1 district, all operations conducted and all materials used or held in storage shall be 103 contained within enclosed buildings, solid wall, fence or planting of such nature and height as to 104 conceal such operation or materials from view from any roadway or adjacent properties. No I-1 105 district shall be less than five (5) acres in area.106 107 53.2-2 Deleted (1/5/81)108 109 53.2-3 Deleted (1/5/81)110 111 53.2-4: Dimensional Requirements:112 113 (1)Minimum Lot Area-None114 (2)Minimum Front Yard-50 feet115 (3)Minimum side and rear yards for property abutting residential districts shall be 116 calculated in accordance with Section 60.3.117 (4)Maximum building height:118 Forty (40) feet except for buildings located within the Urban Transition Area and 119 fronting along a Collector, Minor Arterial, or Principal Arterial as indicated on the 120 Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization’s most current Roadway Functional 121 Classification Map, may exceed forty (40) feet provided their FAR does not exceed 1.0. 122 (2/7/83)123 124 53.2-5: Parking: Parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 VIII.126 127 53.2-6: Signs: Signs shall be in accordance with Article IX.128 129 53.2-7:DELETED (3/9/88)130 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 3 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 4 131 53.2-8:Existing Industrial Uses:132 (10/3/11)133 134 These standards and any requirement for a special use permit shall apply to all new proposals in I-1 135 districts as shown on the Table of Permitted Uses. The term “existing industrial use” shall mean an 136 industry or other businessin active operation and open for business on a tax parcel zoned I-1 and 137 developed for that particular use as of October 2, 2011 . Any existing industrial uses which did not 138 require a special use permit as of October 2, 2011 would be considered a conforming use and shall 139 not requirea special use permit in order to continue operations. 140 141 53.2-8.1: Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses:For a modification 142 and/or expansion of an existing industrial use which was in conformity with the requirements of 143 this ordinance as of October 2, 2011, and where the modification and/or expansion would 144 change the particular use as indicated on the Table of Permitted Uses, a special use permit will 145 be required for the modification and/or expansion if the new use is indicated by an“S” on the 146 Table of Permitted Use, provided, however, that if one or both of the two exceptions set out in 147 subsections A and B below apply, then a special use permit shall not be required with respect to 148 such modification and/or expansion:149 150 A.Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions on the Same Parcel: Modifications 151 and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special use 152 permit if fully contained on the tax parcel currently developed for and operating as 153 such use and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies::154 155 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 156 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 157 2011 .158 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 159 Limited or General Manufacturing category and and is for a less 160 intensive industrial use than was in active operation and open for 161 business as of October 2, 2011 . 162 3.If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or163 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 164 a different use within that same category. 165 B. Exception for Modifications and/orExpansions onto Adjacent or Contiguous 166 Parcels: Modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed 167 without a special use permit on tax parcels adjacent or contiguous (excluding rights of 168 way) to the current use, if properly zoned, and held in the same ownership(including 169 successor ownership) as on October 2, 2011 and provided one (1) of the following 170 criteria applies:171 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existingindustrial 172 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 173 2011 .174 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within theArtisan, 175 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 176 industrial use than was operating as of October 2, 2011 . 177 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 4 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 5 3.If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 178 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 179 a different use within that same category. 180 181 182 Section 53.3:I-2 Heavy Industrial183 (10/3/11)184 185 53.3-1:The I-2 zoning district is established to set aside areas of the County for a full range of 186 manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, warehousing, and distribution uses associated with heavy 187 industrial land uses where heavy industry can find suitable sites served by rail, waterway and 188 highway transportation. The district is also established to subsequently protect nonindustrial 189 districts situated outside the district and minimize environmental impacts caused by the uses within 190 the district. Outdoor operations andstorage are appropriate for this district provided that the 191 district standards are met. Certain uses within the I-2 district shall require a special use permit as 192 specified in the Table of Permitted Uses. No I-2 District shall be less than five (5) acres in area. 193 194 53.3-2: DELETED (1/5/81)195 196 53.3-3: DELETED (1/5/81)197 198 53.3-4: Dimensional Requirements:199 200 (1)Minimum lot area-None201 202 (2)Minimum front yard building setback-50 feet203 204 (3)Minimum side and rear yard building setbacks for property abutting residential shall be 205 calculated in accordance with Section 60.3.206 207 (4)Buffers must be established between I-2 and adjacent, non-industrial uses, in 208 accordance with Section 62.1-4 of this ordinance.209 210 211 53.3-5: Parking–Parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Article 212 VIII.213 214 53.3-6: Signs–Signs shall be in accordance with Article IX.215 216 53.3-7: DELETED (3/9/88)217 218 53.3-8:Existing Industrial Uses: 219 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 5 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 6 (10/3/11)220 221 These standards and any requirement for a special use permit shall apply to all new proposals in I-2 222 districts as shown on the Table of Permitted Uses. The term “existing industrial use” shall mean an 223 industry or other businessin active operation and open for business on a tax parcel zoned I-2 and 224 developed for that particular use as of October 2, 2011 . Any existing industrial uses which did not 225 require a special use permit as of October 2, 2011 would be considered a conforming use and shall 226 not require a special use permit in order to continue operations. 227 228 53.3-8.1: Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses:For 229 modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses which wasin conformity with 230 the requirements of this ordinance as of October 2, 2011, and where the modification 231 and/or expansion would change the particular use as indicated on the Table of 232 Permitted Uses, a special use permit will be required for the modification and/or 233 expansion if the new use is indicated by an “S” on the Table of Permitted Uses, provided, 234 however, that if one or both of the two exceptions set out in subsections A and B below 235 apply, then a special use permit shall not be required with respect to such modification 236 and/or expansion:237 A. Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions on the Same Parcel: Modifications 238 and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special use 239 permit if fully contained on the tax parcel currently developed for and operating as such 240 use and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies:241 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 242 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 243 2011 .244 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 245 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 246 industrial use than was in active operation and open for business as of 247 October 2, 2011 . 248 3.If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 249 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 250 a different use within that same category. 251 B.Exception for Modifications and/orExpansions onto Adjacent or Contiguous Parcels: 252 Modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special 253 use permit on tax parcels adjacent or contiguous (excluding rights of way) to the current use, if 254 properly zoned, and held in the same ownership as on October 2, 2011 (including successor 255 ownership) and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies: 256 257 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 258 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 259 2011 .260 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 6 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 7 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 261 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 262 industrial use than was in active operation and open for business as of 263 October 2, 2011 . (Ex. An existing Intensive Manufacturing use could 264 transition to a use in the Artisan, Limited or General Manufacturing 265 category). 266 If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or Artisan Manufacturing categories, 267 the use may expand and/or modify to a different use within that same category. 268 269 270 271 272 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 7 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 8 ARTICLE VII: PROVISIONS FOR USES ALLOWED AS SPECIAL USES273 274 Section 70: Objectives and Purposes of Special Use Permits275 276 70-1:Special Use Permits add flexibility to the Zoning Ordinance. Subject to high standards of 277 planning and design, certain property uses may be allowed in the several districts where 278 these uses would not otherwise be acceptable. By means of controls exercised through 279 the Special Use Permit procedures, property uses which would otherwise be undesirable 280 in certain districts can be developed to minimize any bad effects they might have on 281 surrounding properties.282 283 Section 71: Special Use Permits Issued by the Board of County Commissioners284 285 71-1:General Requirements286 287 (1)Special Use Permits may be issued by the Board of County Commissioners for 288 the establishment of uses listed as special uses in Article V after a public hearing 289 and after Planning Board review and recommendation. The Planning Board may 290 recommend conditions which assure that the proposed use will be harmonious 291 with the area and will meet the intent of this ordinance. Single-family dwellings, 292 including mobile homes shall not require Planning Board review prior to County 293 Commissioner action. (1/2/90)294 295 (2)In order to assist petitioners through the process for obtaining a SpecialUse 296 Permit, petitioners are encouraged to request a pre-application conference 297 prior to application submittal. Additionally, petitioners are encouraged to hold 298 a public meeting in accordance with Section 111-2.1.299 300 Applicants may include the owner or owners of the subject property, their duly 301 authorized agent, or an applicant that has a contract or an option to purchase or 302 lease the property included in the petition for a Special Use Permit that is 303 contingent on approval of the special use permit. Applicants shall submit an 304 application to the New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Department at 305 least fifty-five (55) days prior to the meeting of the Planning Board at which the 306 applicant seeks to have the application considered (the “Requested Meeting”). 307 No later than five (5) days after an application has been submitted, county staff 308 shall provide to the applicant either confirmation of completeness of the 309 applicationor information regarding non-completeness ofthe application. To 310 the extent county staff provides to an applicant information regarding non-311 completeness and the applicant submits additional information in response, 312 county staff shall provide either confirmation of completeness or additional 313 information regarding non-completeness within two (2) days of the applicant’s 314 submission of such additional information. So long as an application which is 315 complete pursuant to subsection (3) below has been received by county staff at 316 least forty-five (45) days prior to the Requested Meeting, the Planning Board 317 shall consider the application at the Requested Meeting unless the applicant 318 requests a continuancepursuant to Section 111-3 of the Ordinance.319 320 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 8 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 9 An application fee established by the County Commissioners shall be paid to the 321 County of New Hanover, North Carolina to cover necessary administrative costs 322 and advertising expenses. (8/22/82) Such application shall include all of the 323 requirements pertaining to it in this Article. (5/2/83) Notification of the request 324 shall be providedas outlined in Section 112.1 of this ordinance. (2/6/89) 325 Additionally, as soon as practicable after receiving an application which is 326 complete pursuant to subsection (3) below, county staff shall make the contents 327 of the application available on the county’s website and shall provide 328 notification of the availability of the application on the website to the county’s 329 “sunshine” e-mail list.330 331 County staff may request additional information it believes could be relevant to 332 a determinationof impacts to surrounding properties and/or the area in which 333 the subject property is located. Such additional information may be in the form 334 of tests, studies, reports, etc. evaluating factors such as sound, vibration, heat 335 discharge, glare, odor, traffic, air quality, water quality, or other factors 336 potentially relevant to the four requirements listed in Section 71-1(4). In the 337 event that this information is requested, then it will be requested within fifteen338 (15)days of the date on which the county staff received a complete application 339 pursuant to subsection (3) below. Irrespective of whether such information is 340 requested by county staff or whether the applicant decides to provide some or 341 all of the requested information, the Planning Board shall consider the 342 application at the requested meeting, unless the applicantdesires a 343 continuance, in which case a request for delay of consideration may be made by 344 the applicantin accordance with Section 111-3 of the Ordinance.345 346 Once an applicant has obtained apermit from a Federal, state and/or local 347 authority, the issuance of such permit shall be considered competent, 348 substantial, and material evidence with respect to the specific subject matter 349 covered by the permit. However, the planning board and board of350 commissioners may also consider any other competent, substantial, and 351 material evidence properly presented to them, whether by the applicant, the 352 planning staff, or any other party, including any party who is opposed to the 353 issuance of the permit.354 355 (3)Application Submittal: Applications may be found on the New Hanover County 356 Planning website or at the New Hanover County Planning office. In addition to 357 the application, the following information and materials are required for 358 submission:359 (A)Narrative of the proposed use360 (B)Traffic Impact Worksheet361 (C)Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable)362 (D)Authority for Appointment of Agent Form (if applicable)363 (E)Letter of owner consent where applicant has a contract or an option to 364 purchase or lease property365 (F)Written report of public meeting (if applicable)366 (G)Fee is accordance with the County’s adopted fee schedule 367 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 9 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 10 (H)Site Plan: The applicant shall provide nine (9) 24x36 copies of the site 368 plan for the Planning Board meeting and one digital version. The 369 applicant will also be asked for an additional eight (8) copies of the site 370 plan if the proposal moves forward to the County Commissioners. Each 371 site plan shall contain at least the following information:372 1.Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels 373 and roads374 2.Proposeduse of land, structures and other improvements. For 375 residential uses, this shall include number, height and type of 376 units and area to be occupied by each structure and/or 377 subdivided boundaries. For non-residential structures, this shall 378 include approximate square footage and height of each 379 structure, an outline of the area it will occupy and the specific 380 purpose for which it will be used.381 3.Development schedule including proposed phasing.382 4.Traffic and Parking Plan to include a statement of impact 383 concerning local traffic near the tract, proposed right-of-way 384 dedication, plans for access to and from the tract, location, 385 width and right-of-way for internal streets and location, 386 arrangement and access provision for parking areas.387 5.All existing and proposed easements, reservations, required 388 setbacks, rights-of-way, buffering and signage389 6.The one hundred (100) year floodplain line, if applicable390 7.Location and sizing of trees required to be protected under 391 Section 62 of the Zoning Ordinance392 8.Any additional conditions and requirements, which represent 393 greater restrictions on development and use of the tract than 394 the corresponding General Use District regulations or other 395 limitations on land which may be regulated by State law or Local 396 Ordinance.397 9.Any other information that will facilitate review of the proposed 398 change (Ref. Article VII, as applicable) 399 400 (4)Upon receiving the recommendations of the Planning Board and holding a 401 public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may grant or deny the 402 Special Use Permit requested. The Special Use Permit, if granted shall include 403 such approved plans as may be required. In granting the Special Use Permit the 404 Commissioners shall find: (1/2/90)405 406 (A)that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if 407 located where proposed and approved;408 (B)that the use meets all required conditions and specifications;409 (C)that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or 410 abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity; and411 (D)that the location and character of the use if developed according to the 412 plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in 413 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 10 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 11 which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of 414 development for New Hanover County. (5/2/83)415 416 With any special use permit, the applicanthas the burden of presenting 417 sufficient evidence that an application meets the standards of the Ordinance. 418 Once an applicant makes the requisite showing that the standards have been 419 met, the burden shifts to any opposition to the permit to present countervailing 420 substantial, competent, and material evidence that the standards have not been 421 met. Where there is substantial evidence on both sides, the Board of 422 Commissioners will weigh the evidence to make its determination. 423 424 425 426 (5)In granting the permit the Board of County Commissioners may recommend and 427 designate such conditions in addition and in connection therewith, as will in its 428 opinion, assure that the use in its proposed location will be harmonious with the 429 area in which it is proposed to be located and with the spirit of this Ordinance. 430 All such additional conditions shall be entered in the minutes of the meeting at 431 which the permit is granted and also on the certificate of the Special Use Permit 432 or on the plans submitted therewith. All specific conditions shall run with the 433 land and shall be binding on the original applicants for the Special Use Permit, 434 their heirs, successors and assigns. A Special Use Permit, issued by the Board of 435 County Commissioners shall become null and void if construction or occupancy 436 of the proposed use as specified on the Special Use Permit is not commenced 437 within twenty-four (24) months of the date of issuance. If an extension is 438 desired, a request must be submitted in writing to the New Hanover County 439 Planning and Inspections Department prior to the expiration. Extensions may 440 be granted in accordance with section 112-6 of the Ordinance.(12/17/2012) 441 A Board of County Commissioners decision on an extension may be appealed in 442 conformity with the requirements of Section 71-1(6) of this Ordinance. (5/2/83), 443 (10/7/91) 444 445 (6)If the Board of County Commissioners denies the Permit, the Board shall enter 446 the reasons for its action in the minutes of the meeting at which the action is 447 taken. (5/2/83)448 449 (7)Every decision by the Board of Commissioners issuing or denying a special use 450 permit shall be subject to review by the Superior Court by proceedings in the 451 nature of certiorari. Any petition for review by the Superior Court shall be filed 452 with the Clerk of Superior Court within thirty (30)days after the decision of the 453 Board is filed in the Office of the Clerk to the Board, or after a written copy 454 thereof is delivered to every aggrieved party who has filed a written request for 455 such copy with the Clerk or Chairman of the Board at the time of the hearing of 456 the case, whichever is later. (5/3/82)457 458 (8)In addition to the specific conditions imposed by the regulations of this 459 Ordinance and whatever additional conditions the Board deems reasonable and 460 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 11 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 12 appropriate, special uses shall comply with the height, yard, area and parking 461 regulations for the use district in which they are permitted unless otherwise 462 specified. If additional yard area is required for a special use, such additional 463 area may be used for off-street parking. A Traffic Information Worksheetis 464 required to be completed. For any development that will generate more than 465 100 trips during the peak hour; a Traffic Impact Analysisshall be prepared in 466 accordance with standards and guidelines approved by the County and shall be 467 submitted at leasttwenty-five (25) daysprior to the first scheduled meeting of 468 the project's review. (5/02)469 470 (9)In the event of failure to comply with the plans approved by the Board of 471 County Commissioners or with any other conditions imposed upon the Special 472 Use Permit, the Permit shall thereupon immediately become void and of no 473 effect. No building permits for further construction or certificates of occupancy 474 under this Special Use Permit shall be issued, and all completed structures shall 475 be regarded as non-conforming uses subject to the provisions of Article IV of 476 this Ordinance provided, however, that the Board of County Commissioners 477 shall not be prevented from thereafter rezoning said property for its most 478 appropriate use.479 480 (10)The original applicant(s), their successors or their assignee may make minor 481 changes in the location and/or size of structures provided the necessity for 482 these changes is clearly demonstrated. Minor changes shall be reviewed by the 483 Planning and Inspections Department and upon favorable recommendation by 484 the Planning and Inspections Director may be approved by the Zoning 485 Administrator. Such approval shall not be granted should the proposed revisions 486 cause or contribute to:487 488 (A)A change in the character of the development.489 (B)A change of design for, or an increase in the hazards to pedestrian and 490 vehicle traffic circulation, or491 (C)A modification in the originally approved setbacks from roads and/or 492 property lines exceeding ten percent. (5/4/81) (9/3/2013)493 494 (11)Resubmittals:An application for a special use which has been previously 495 denied may be resubmitted only if there has been a change in 496 circumstances as determined by the Planning and Inspections Director 497 or the director's designee.498 499 Evidence presented in support of the new applicationshall initially be limited to 500 what is necessary to enable the Planning and Inspections Director to determine 501 whether there has been a substantial change in the facts, evidence, or 502 conditions of the case and shall include: 503 504 (A)Circumstances affecting the property that is the subject of the 505 application which have substantially changed since the denial; or506 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 12 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 13 (B)New information available since the denial that could not with 507 reasonable diligence have been presented at a previous hearing.508 509 If the Planning and Inspections Director deems the evidence substantially 510 changed, the proposal may be resubmitted as a new application.511 512 Appeal of the Planning and Inspections Director’s decision may be made 513 to the Board of County Commissioners. (9/07)514 515 516 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 6 - 13 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 1 A-416Text Amendment1 Applicant: Staff2 Request by Staff to add Section 13: Calculation of Time and to amend Section 44: Extension or 3 Enlargement of Non-Conforming Situations, Section 50: Table of Permitted Uses, Section 53.2: 4 I-1 Light Industrial, Section 53.3, I-2 Heavy Industrial, and Section71: Special Use Permits 5 Issued by the Board of County Commissioners to address regulations regarding industrial uses 6 and Special Use Permit regulations. Additions are in red and deletions are in red with 7 strike-throughs. 8 Article I: IN GENERAL9 10 Section 13: Calculation of Time11 In computing any period of time prescribed by this section, the day the act, event, or 12 submittal after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be 13 included. The last day of the period so computed is to be included,unless that date 14 should fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, in which case the due date shall 15 be the next business day following such Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. The term 16 “legal holiday” shall mean any federal, state or local governmentholiday for which 17 financial institutions or post offices are generally closed in the State of North Carolina. 18 The term “business day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or legal 19 holiday.20 21 Section 23: Definitions22 M23 24 Manufacturing25 26 Artisan Manufacturing-On-site production of goods by hand manufacturing 27 involving the use of hand tools and small-scale light mechanical equipment. 28 Typical uses include woodworking and cabinet shops, ceramic studios, jewelry 29 manufacturing and similar types of arts and crafts or very small-scale 30 manufacturing uses that have very limited, if any, negative external impacts on 31 surrounding properties, water resources, air quality and/or public health.32 33 Section 44: Extension or Enlargement of Non-Conforming Situations34 35 44-1:Except as specifically provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to 36 engage in any activity that causes an increase in the extent of non-conformity of a 37 non-conforming situation.38 39 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 2 44-1.1: The standards outlined in Sections 53.2 and 53.3 of this ordinance and any requirement 40 for a special use permit shall apply to all new proposals in I-1 and I-2 districts as shown on the 41 Table of Permitted Uses. Any existing industrial uses which did not require a special use permit 42 as of October 2, 2011 would be considered a conforming use and shall not require a special use 43 permit in order to continue operations. The term “existing industrial use” shall mean an 44 industry or other business in active operation and open for business on a taxparcel zoned I-1 or 45 I-2 and developed for that particular use as of October 2, 2011 .46 47 44-1.1.1: Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses:For a modification 48 and/or expansion of an existing industrial use which was in conformity with the requirements of 49 this ordinance as ofOctober 2, 2011, and where the modification and/or expansion would 50 change the particular use as indicated on the Table of Permitted Uses, a special use permit will 51 be required for the modification and/or expansion if the new use is indicated by an “S” on the 52 Table of Permitted Uses, provided, however, that if one or both of the two exceptions set out in 53 subsections A and B below apply, then a special use permit shall not be required with respect to 54 such modification and/or expansion: 55 56 A. Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions on the Same Parcel: Modifications 57 and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special use 58 permit if the use is fully contained on the tax parcel currently developed for and 59 operating as such use and provided one of the following criteria applies:60 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 61 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 62 2011.63 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 64 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 65 industrial use than was in active operation and open for business as of 66 October 2, 2011 . (Ex. An existing Intensive Manufacturinguse could 67 transition to a use in the Artisan, Limited or General Manufacturing 68 category). 69 3.If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 70 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 71 a different use within that same category. 72 B. Exception for Modifications and/orExpansions onto Adjacent or Contiguous 73 Parcels: Modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed 74 without a special use permit on tax parcels adjacent or contiguous (excluding rights of 75 way) to the current use, if properly zoned, and held in the same ownership as on the 76 date of adoption of this section (including successor ownership) as of October 2, 2011 77 and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies:78 79 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 80 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 81 2011 .82 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 83 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 84 industrial use than was in active operation and open for business as of 85 October 2, 2011 . 86 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 3 3.If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 87 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 88 a different use within that same category.89 90 91 92 Section 53.2: I-1 Light Industrial 93 (10/3/2011)94 95 53.2-1: The I-1 zoning district is established to preserve land within the County for light industrial 96 uses and associated operations, includingassembly, fabrication, packaging and transport, where 97 operations are conducted primarily indoors and where suitable sites are served by rail, waterway, 98 highway transportation systems as well as readily available utilities. Heavy industrial uses in which 99 raw materials are converted into products for subsequent assembly or fabrication or where uses 100 create an excessive amount of noise, odor, smoke, dust, air borne debris or other objectionable 101 characteristics which might be detrimental to surrounding areas are not appropriate in this district. 102 Within the I-1 district, all operations conducted and all materials used or held in storage shall be 103 contained within enclosed buildings, solid wall, fence or planting of such nature and height as to 104 conceal such operation or materials from view from any roadway or adjacent properties. No I-1 105 district shall be less than five (5) acres in area.106 107 53.2-2 Deleted (1/5/81)108 109 53.2-3 Deleted (1/5/81)110 111 53.2-4: Dimensional Requirements:112 113 (1)Minimum Lot Area-None114 (2)Minimum Front Yard-50 feet115 (3)Minimum side and rear yards for property abutting residential districts shall be 116 calculated in accordance with Section 60.3.117 (4)Maximum building height:118 Forty (40) feet except for buildings located within the Urban Transition Area and 119 fronting along a Collector, Minor Arterial, or Principal Arterial as indicated on the 120 Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization’s most current Roadway Functional 121 Classification Map, may exceed forty (40) feet provided their FAR does not exceed 1.0. 122 (2/7/83)123 124 53.2-5: Parking: Parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 VIII.126 127 53.2-6: Signs: Signs shall be in accordance with Article IX.128 129 53.2-7:DELETED (3/9/88)130 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 3 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 4 131 53.2-8:Existing Industrial Uses:132 (10/3/11)133 134 These standards and any requirement for a special use permit shall apply to all new proposals in I-1 135 districts as shown on the Table of Permitted Uses. The term “existing industrial use” shall mean an 136 industry or other business in active operation and open for business on a tax parcel zoned I-1 and 137 developed for that particular use as of October 2, 2011 . Any existing industrial uses which did not 138 require a special use permit as of October 2, 2011 would be considered a conforming use and shall 139 not require a special use permit in order to continue operations. 140 141 53.2-8.1: Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses:For a modification 142 and/or expansion of an existing industrial use which was in conformity with the requirements of 143 this ordinance as of October 2, 2011, and where the modification and/or expansion would 144 change the particular use as indicated on the Table of Permitted Uses, a special use permit will 145 be required for the modification and/or expansion if the new use is indicated by an “S” on the 146 Table of Permitted Use, provided, however, that if one or both of the two exceptions set out in 147 subsections A and B below apply, then a special use permit shall not be required with respect to 148 such modification and/or expansion:149 150 A.Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions on the Same Parcel: Modifications 151 and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special use 152 permit if fully contained on the tax parcel currently developed for and operating as 153 such use and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies::154 155 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 156 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 157 2011 .158 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 159 Limited or General Manufacturing category and and is for a less 160 intensive industrial use than was in active operation and open for 161 business as of October 2, 2011 . 162 3.If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 163 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 164 a different use within that same category. 165 B. Exception for Modifications and/orExpansions onto Adjacent orContiguous 166 Parcels: Modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed 167 without a special use permit on tax parcels adjacent or contiguous (excluding rights of 168 way) to the current use, if properly zoned, and held in the same ownership (including 169 successor ownership) as on October 2, 2011 and provided one (1) of the following 170 criteria applies:171 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existingindustrial 172 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 173 2011 .174 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 175 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 176 industrial use than was operating as of October 2, 2011 . 177 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 4 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 5 3.If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 178 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 179 a different use within that same category. 180 181 182 Section 53.3:I-2 Heavy Industrial183 (10/3/11)184 185 53.3-1:The I-2 zoning district is established to set aside areas of the County for a full range of 186 manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, warehousing, and distribution uses associated with heavy 187 industrial land uses where heavy industry can find suitable sites served by rail, waterway and 188 highway transportation. The district is also established to subsequently protect nonindustrial 189 districts situated outside the district and minimize environmental impacts caused by the uses within 190 the district. Outdoor operations and storage are appropriate for this district provided that the 191 district standards are met. Certain uses within the I-2 district shall require a special use permit as 192 specified in the Table of Permitted Uses. No I-2 District shall be less than five (5) acres in area. 193 194 53.3-2: DELETED (1/5/81)195 196 53.3-3:DELETED (1/5/81)197 198 53.3-4: Dimensional Requirements:199 200 (1)Minimum lot area-None201 202 (2)Minimum front yard building setback-50 feet203 204 (3)Minimum side and rear yard building setbacks for property abutting residential shall be 205 calculated in accordance with Section 60.3.206 207 (4)Buffers must be established between I-2 and adjacent, non-industrial uses, in 208 accordance with Section 62.1-4 of this ordinance.209 210 211 53.3-5: Parking–Parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Article 212 VIII.213 214 53.3-6: Signs–Signs shall be in accordance with Article IX.215 216 53.3-7: DELETED (3/9/88)217 218 53.3-8:Existing Industrial Uses: 219 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 5 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 6 (10/3/11)220 221 These standards and any requirement for a special use permit shall apply to all new proposals in I-2 222 districts as shown on the Table of Permitted Uses. The term “existing industrial use” shall mean an 223 industry or other business in active operation and open for business on a tax parcel zoned I-2 and 224 developed for that particular use as of October 2, 2011 . Any existing industrial uses whichdid not 225 require a special use permit as of October 2, 2011 would be considered a conforming use and shall 226 not require a special use permit in order to continue operations. 227 228 53.3-8.1: Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses:For 229 modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses which was in conformity with 230 the requirements of this ordinance as of October 2, 2011, and where the modification 231 and/or expansion would change the particular use as indicated on the Table of 232 Permitted Uses, a special use permit will be required for the modification and/or 233 expansion if the new use is indicated by an “S” on the Table of Permitted Uses, provided, 234 however, that if one or both of the two exceptions set out in subsections A and B below 235 apply, then a special use permit shall not be required with respect to such modification 236 and/or expansion:237 A. Exception for Modifications and/or Expansions on the Same Parcel: Modifications 238 and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special use 239 permit if fully contained on the tax parcel currently developed for and operating as such 240 use and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies:241 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 242 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 243 2011 .244 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 245 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 246 industrial use than was in active operationand open for business as of 247 October 2, 2011 . 248 3.If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or 249 Artisan Manufacturing categories, the use may expand and/or modify to 250 a different use within that same category. 251 B.Exception for Modifications and/orExpansions onto Adjacent or Contiguous Parcels: 252 Modifications and/or expansions of existing industrial uses shall be allowed without a special 253 use permit on tax parcels adjacent or contiguous (excluding rights of way) to the current use, if 254 properly zoned, and held in the same ownership as on October 2, 2011 (including successor 255 ownership) and provided one (1) of the following criteria applies: 256 257 1.If the expansion and/or modification is for the same existing industrial 258 use that was in active operation and open for business as of October 2, 259 2011 .260 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 6 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 7 2.If the expansion and/or modification is classified within the Artisan, 261 Limited or General Manufacturing category and is for a less intensive 262 industrial use than was in active operation and open for business as of 263 October 2, 2011 . (Ex. An existing Intensive Manufacturing use could 264 transition to a use in the Artisan, Limited or General Manufacturing 265 category). 266 If the existing industrial use is classified within the General, Limited or Artisan Manufacturing categories, 267 the use may expand and/or modify to a different use within that same category. 268 269 270 271 272 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 7 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 8 ARTICLE VII: PROVISIONS FOR USES ALLOWED AS SPECIAL USES273 274 Section 70: Objectives and Purposes of Special Use Permits275 276 70-1:Special Use Permits add flexibility to the Zoning Ordinance. Subject to high standards of 277 planning and design, certain property uses may be allowed in the several districts where 278 these uses would not otherwise be acceptable. By means of controls exercised through 279 the Special Use Permit procedures, property uses which would otherwise be undesirable 280 in certain districts can be developed to minimize any bad effects they might have on 281 surrounding properties.282 283 Section 71: Special Use Permits Issued by the Board of County Commissioners284 285 71-1:General Requirements286 287 (1)Special Use Permits may be issued by the Board of County Commissioners for 288 the establishment of uses listed as special uses in Article V after a public hearing 289 and after Planning Board review and recommendation. The Planning Board may 290 recommend conditions which assure that the proposed use will be harmonious 291 with the area and will meet the intent of this ordinance. Single-family dwellings, 292 including mobile homes shall not require Planning Board review prior to County 293 Commissioner action. (1/2/90)294 295 (2)In order to assist petitioners through the process for obtaining a Special Use 296 Permit, petitioners are encouraged to request a pre-application conference 297 prior to application submittal. Additionally, petitioners are encouraged to hold 298 a public meeting in accordance with Section 111-2.1.299 300 Applicants may include the owner or owners of the subject property, their duly 301 authorized agent, or an applicant that has a contract or an option to purchase or 302 lease the property included in the petition for a Special Use Permit that is 303 contingent on approval of the special use permit. Applicants shall submit an 304 application to the New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Department at 305 least fortyfifty-five (4555) days prior to the meeting of the Planning Board at 306 which the applicant seeks to have the application considered (the “Requested 307 Meeting”). The application should be submitted no later than 1:00 PM on the 308 deadline day, and county staff shall endeavor toNo later than five (5) days after 309 an application has been submitted, county staff shall provide to the applicant 310 either confirmation of completeness of the application or information regarding 311 non-completeness of the application. To the extent county staff provides to an 312 applicant information regarding non-completeness and the applicant submits 313 additional information in response, county staff shallprovide to the applicant 314 either confirmation of completeness of the application, or additional 315 information regarding non-completeness of the application, prior to the end of 316 that same business day. Assuming the complete applicationwithin two (2) days 317 of the applicant’s submission of such additional information. So long as an 318 application which is complete pursuant to subsection (3) belowhas been 319 received by 5:00 PM on the deadline daycounty staff at least forty-five (45) days 320 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 8 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 9 prior to the Requested Meeting, the Planning Board shall consider the 321 application at the Requested Meeting unless the applicant requests a322 continuancepursuant to Section 111-3 of the Ordinance.323 324 An application fee established by the County Commissioners shall be paid to the 325 County of New Hanover, North Carolina to cover necessary administrative costs 326 and advertising expenses. (8/22/82) Suchapplication shall include all of the 327 requirements pertaining to it in this Article. (5/2/83) All adjoining property 328 owners shall be notifiedNotificationof the requestshall be providedas outlined 329 in Section 110-1(4)112.1of this ordinance. (2/6/89) Additionally, as soon as 330 practicable after receiving an application which is complete pursuant to 331 subsection (3) below, county staff shall make the contents of the application 332 available on the county’s website and shall provide notification of the 333 availability of the application on the website to the county’s “sunshine” e-mail 334 list.335 336 County staff may request additional information it believes could be relevant to 337 a determination of impacts to surrounding properties and/or the area in which 338 the subject propertyis located. Such additional information may be in the form 339 of tests, studies, reports, etc. evaluating factors such as sound, vibration, heat 340 discharge, glare, odor, traffic, air quality, water quality, or other factors 341 potentially relevant to the four requirements listed in Section 71-1(4). Once 342 the petitionerhas obtained a permit from a Federal, state and/or local 343 authority, it is presumed for county purposes that the petitioner has the 344 requisite approval for thesubject matter covered by the permit. In order to 345 challenge this approval, the challenging party will need to present clear and 346 convincing evidence to the contrary as determined by the planning board 347 and/or board of commissioners. In the event that this information is 348 requested, then it will be requested within fifteen (15) days of the date on 349 which the county staff received a complete application deadlinepursuant to 350 subsection (3) below. Irrespective of whether such information is requested by 351 county staff or whether the applicant decides to provide some or all of the 352 requested information, the Planning Board shall consider the application at the 353 requested meeting, unless the petitionerapplicantdesires a continuance, in 354 which case a request for delay of consideration may be made by the 355 petitionerapplicantin accordance with Section 111-3 of the Ordinance.356 357 Once an applicanthas obtained a permit from a Federal, state and/or local 358 authority, the issuance of such permit shall be considered competent, 359 substantial, and material evidence withrespect to the specificsubject matter 360 covered by the permit. However, the planning board and board of 361 commissioners may also consider any other competent, substantial, and 362 material evidence properly presented to them, whether by the applicant, the 363 planning staff, or any other party, including any party who is opposed to the 364 issuance of the permit.365 366 (3)Application Submittal: Applications may be found on the New Hanover County 367 Planning website or at the New Hanover County Planning office. In addition to 368 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 9 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 10 theapplication, the following information and materials are required for 369 submission:370 (A)Narrative of the proposed use371 (B)Traffic Impact Worksheet372 (C)Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable)373 (D)Authority for Appointment of Agent Form (if applicable)374 (E)Letter of owner consent where applicant has a contract or an option to 375 purchase or lease property.376 (F)Written report of public meeting (if applicable)377 (G)(F) Fee is accordance with the County’s adopted fee schedule 378 (H)(G) Site Plan: The applicant shall provide nine (9) 24x36 copies ofthe 379 site plan for the Planning Board meeting and one digital version. The 380 applicant will also be asked for an additional eight (8) copies of the site 381 plan if the proposal moves forward to the County Commissioners. Each 382 site plan shall contain at least the following information:383 1.Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels 384 and roads385 2.Proposed use of land, structures and other improvements. For 386 residential uses, this shall include number, height and type of 387 units and area to be occupied byeach structure and/or 388 subdivided boundaries. For non-residential structures, this shall 389 include approximate square footage and height of each 390 structure, an outline of the area it will occupy and the specific 391 purpose for which it will be used.392 3.Developmentschedule including proposed phasing.393 4.Traffic and Parking Plan to include a statement of impact 394 concerning local traffic near the tract, proposed right-of-way 395 dedication, plans for access to and from the tract, location, 396 width and right-of-way for internalstreets and location, 397 arrangement and access provision for parking areas.398 5.All existing and proposed easements, reservations, required 399 setbacks, rights-of-way, buffering and signage400 6.The one hundred (100) year floodplain line, if applicable401 7.Location and sizing of trees required to be protected under 402 Section 62 of the Zoning Ordinance403 8.Any additional conditions and requirements, which represent 404 greater restrictions on development and use of the tract than 405 the corresponding General Use District regulations or other 406 limitations on land which may be regulated by State law or Local 407 Ordinance.408 9.Any other information that will facilitate review of the proposed 409 change (Ref. Article VII, as applicable) 410 411 (4)Upon receiving the recommendations of the Planning Board and holding a 412 public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may grant or deny the 413 Special Use Permit requested. The Special Use Permit, if granted shall include 414 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 10 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 11 such approved plans as may be required. In granting the Special Use Permit the 415 Commissioners shall find: (1/2/90)416 417 (A)that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if 418 located where proposed and approved;419 (B)that the use meets all required conditions and specifications;420 (C)that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or 421 abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity; and422 (D)that the location and character of the use if developed according to the 423 plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in 424 which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of 425 development for New Hanover County. (5/2/83)426 427 With any special use permit, the applicant has the burden of presenting 428 sufficient evidence that an application meets the standards of the Ordinance. 429 Once an applicant makes the requisite showing that the standards have been 430 met, the burden shifts to any opposition to the permit to present countervailing 431 substantial, competent, and material evidence that the standards have not been 432 met. Where there is substantial evidence on both sides, theBoard of 433 Commissioners will weigh the evidence to make its determination. 434 435 436 437 (5)In granting the permit the Board of County Commissioners may recommend and 438 designate such conditions in addition and in connection therewith, as will in its 439 opinion, assure that the use in its proposed location will be harmonious with the 440 area in which it is proposed to be located and with the spirit of this Ordinance. 441 All such additional conditions shall be entered in the minutes of the meeting at 442 which the permit is granted and also on the certificate of the Special Use Permit 443 or on the plans submitted therewith. All specific conditions shall run with the 444 land and shall be binding on the original applicants for the Special Use Permit, 445 their heirs, successors and assigns. A Special Use Permit, issued by the Board of 446 County Commissioners shall become null and void if construction or occupancy 447 of the proposed use as specified on the Special Use Permit is not commenced 448 within twenty-four (24) months of the date of issuance. If an extension is 449 desired, a request must be submitted in writing to the New Hanover County 450 Planning and Inspections Department prior to the expiration. Extensions may 451 be granted in accordance with section 112-6 of the Ordinance.(12/17/2012) 452 A Board of County Commissioners decision on an extension may be appealed in 453 conformity with the requirements of Section 71-1(6) of this Ordinance. (5/2/83), 454 (10/7/91) 455 456 (6)If the Board of County Commissioners denies the Permit, the Board shall enter 457 the reasons for its action in the minutes of the meeting at which the action is 458 taken. (5/2/83)459 460 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 11 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 12 (7)Every decision by the Board of Commissioners issuing or denying a special use 461 permit shall be subject to review by the Superior Court by proceedings in the 462 nature of certiorari. Any petition for review by the Superior Court shall be filed 463 with the Clerk of Superior Court within thirty (30) days after the decision of the 464 Board is filed in the Office of the Clerk to the Board, or after a written copy 465 thereof is delivered to every aggrieved party who has filed a written request for 466 such copy with the Clerk or Chairman of the Board at the time of the hearing of 467 the case, whichever is later. (5/3/82)468 469 (8)In addition to the specific conditions imposed by the regulations of this 470 Ordinance and whatever additional conditions the Board deems reasonable and 471 appropriate, special uses shall comply with the height, yard, area and parking 472 regulations for the use district in which they are permitted unless otherwise 473 specified. If additional yard area is required for a special use, such additional 474 area may be used for off-street parking. A Traffic Information Worksheet is 475 required to be completed. For any development that will generate more than 476 100 trips during the peak hour; a Traffic Impact Analysis shall be prepared in 477 accordance with standards and guidelines approved by the County and shall be 478 submitted at least twenty-five (25) daysprior to the first scheduled meeting of 479 the project's review. (5/02)480 481 (9)In the event of failure to comply with the plans approved by the Board of 482 County Commissioners or with any other conditions imposed upon the Special 483 Use Permit, the Permit shall thereupon immediately become void and of no 484 effect. No building permits for further construction or certificates of occupancy 485 under this Special Use Permit shall be issued, and all completed structures shall 486 be regarded as non-conforming uses subject to the provisions of Article IV of 487 this Ordinance provided, however, that the Board of County Commissioners 488 shall not be prevented from thereafter rezoning said property for its most 489 appropriate use.490 491 (10)The original applicant(s), their successors or their assignee may make minor 492 changes in the location and/or size of structures provided the necessity for 493 these changes is clearly demonstrated. Minor changes shall be reviewed by the 494 Planning and Inspections Department and upon favorable recommendation by 495 the Planning and Inspections Director may be approved by the Zoning 496 Administrator. Such approval shall not be granted should the proposed revisions 497 cause or contribute to:498 499 (A)A change in the character of the development.500 (B)A change of design for, or an increase in the hazards to pedestrian and 501 vehicle traffic circulation, or502 (C)A modification in the originally approved setbacks from roads and/or 503 property lines exceeding ten percent. (5/4/81) (9/3/2013)504 505 (11)Resubmittals:An application for a special use which has been previously 506 denied may be resubmitted only if there has been a change in 507 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 12 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-416Page 13 circumstances as determined by the Planning and Inspections Director 508 or the director's designee. 509 510 Evidence presented in support of the new application shall initially be limited to 511 what is necessary to enable the Planning and Inspections Director to determine 512 whether there has been a substantial change in the facts, evidence, or 513 conditions of the case and shall include: 514 515 (A)Circumstances affecting the property that is the subject of the 516 application which have substantially changed since the denial; or517 (B)New information available since the denial that could not with 518 reasonable diligence have been presented at a previous hearing.519 520 If the Planning and Inspections Director deems the evidence substantially 521 changed, the proposal may be resubmitted as a new application.522 523 Appeal of the Planning and Inspections Director’s decision may be made 524 to the Board of County Commissioners. (9/07)525 526 527 528 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 13 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:13:10 PM Input: Document 1 IDPowerDocs://WILMINGTON/63993/1 Description WILMINGTON-#63993-v1-New_Hanover_County_Plannin g_Board_-_Industrial_SUP_Amendment Document 2 IDPowerDocs://WILMINGTON/63993/2 Description WILMINGTON-#63993-v2-New_Hanover_County_Plannin g_Board_-_Industrial_SUP_Amendment Rendering setStandard Legend: Insertion Deletion Moved from Moved to Style change Format change Moved deletion Inserted cell Deleted cell Moved cell Split/Merged cell Padding cell Statistics: Count Insertions27 Deletions16 Moved from4 Moved to4 Style change0 Format changed0 Total changes51 SHI PLEY DRA FT 1 - 7 - 14 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 1 530 Causeway Drive | Suite F-1 | Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 28480 Phone: 910-509-2838 | Fax: 910-509-2840 | Web: www.nccoast.org February 25, 2014 Mr. Chris O’Keefe, Director New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Department 230 Government Center Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 RE: NC Coastal Federation Comments on the Proposed Text Amendments to the New Hanover County Special Use Permit (SUP) Ordinance (A-416) Dear Mr. O’Keefe, On behalf of the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF), please accept the following comments in response to the county’s February 19, 2014 draft proposed revisions to the Special Use Permit (SUP) ordinance. Although we understand the need to have predictability and consistency in any SUP process, we would also argue that an SUP process for intensive manufacturing users should be different than a SUP process for a day care center, or even for artisan or limited manufacturing. Given the known potential for long-lasting adverse effects to human health, water supplies, the economy and the environment by industries such as chemical or cement manufacturers, or power plants, it is reasonable that this process would be more complex, more comprehensive, and consequently, require a longer time frame for consideration. We wish to recognize the positive changes found in the February 19, 2014 draft revisions. Most notably, the removal of the 5 hour period for staff review to determine the completeness of an SUP application, removal of the new proposed designations (S/P) to the table of uses, and removal of the language regarding the use of information provided in state and federal permits address some of our significant concerns, as well as those of the general public. The current draft does little to address several serious issues and omissions, all of which were previously brought forward. We offer the following specific comments and suggested changes to the proposed revisions to the County’s Special Use Permit ordinance:  Timing of Proposed SUP Ordinance Changes: New Hanover County is now engaged in two major planning initiatives to guide the growth and future of the county. Therefore, any substantive changes to the SUP should be reviewed and considered as part of the county’s Comprehensive Plan and the Economic Targeting strategy efforts. These two 1 - 8 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 efforts will provide valuable information, such as industrial recruitment priorities and goals.  More effort should be made to incentivize and/or streamline the SUP process for industries identified as most desirable, such as artisan, innovative and medical technologies. The proposed timelines and review process in the February 19th draft can be used to recruit these industries. Unfortunately, the same shortened timelines and review process would apply to any industry, including intensive manufacturing, which is entirely inadequate to consider the full range of potential adverse effects of these industries. Heavy polluting industries needing special use permits should be required to undergo the most rigorous and thorough review by the County to evaluate the potential adverse effects on human health, water and air quality, water supplies and quality of life. In addition, the application process for intensive manufacturing proposals should also include the greatest opportunity for public education and involvement. Unfortunately, this remains virtually non-existent in the February 19th draft.  Section 23: Definitions: (lines 34-68): The definitions of Limited, General and Intensive Manufacturing have been deleted from the ordinance, leaving only a definition for artisan manufacturing. These Definitions are integral to the document, and should be returned.  Sections 44.1 (A) & (B) (lines 94-128): Extension or Enlargement of Non- Conforming Situations and Section 53.3 I-2 (A) & (B) Heavy Industry (lines 292- 339): Proposed changes to these sections open the door for changes in use and/or expansions without any staff or Board review. This is highly problematic for two reasons: (1) As written, intensive manufacturing industries could request a SUP for projects minimal in size, scope and impacts, ensuring a likelihood of approval. Once approved, the potential for future increases in size, use of public resources and effects is unlimited, with no local oversight or public involvement. (2) Changes of use and expansions within the various industries potentially pose different and substantially increased negative effects on human health, property values, public safety, the environment, and the surrounding community. The proposed changes would allow conversion and/or expansions to “less intensive uses” with no explanation as to how the comparison and ranking of intensity of potential impacts would be conducted, and the role of the public in this process. It is critical that any substantive changes in scope or uses within heavy manufacturing industrial category require a new SUP. Changes or expansions within other manufacturing categories should be evaluated by the staff on a case by case basis, to determine the potential for significant effects on public resources and the community. 1 - 8 - 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 3  Section 53.2-8.1 (A) (B) (lines 185-229) Light Industry: Modifications and/or Expansions of Existing Industrial Uses on the Same Parcel or Adjacent or Contiguous Parcels. As with Section 44, the proposed exceptions allowed in Section 53 would allow for unlimited expansions within light industrial operations with no additional local review or public input. It is recommended that, as part of the comprehensive plan process, the planning staff conduct an analysis of potential adverse effects of differing operations within the light industrial zoning category. Until the comprehensive plan is complete, these proposed exceptions should be deleted from the revised text until a thorough review of the table of permitted uses is conducted by staff.  Section 71: Special Use Permits General Requirements- Section 71-1(2) (lines 371- 373): For intensive manufacturing applications, the public meeting should be required, and not strongly recommended, as proposed  Section 71-3 (A) (line 437): The revised requirement for a narrative does not include details of what should be included in this narrative but just that a narrative is required by the ordinance. The revision focuses the requirement for a narrative on the use, not the external impacts that are the reason the industry requires a SUP. Specific requirements for the narrative will provide consistency and clarity, minimize subsequent requests for additional information, and most importantly, will ensure that applicants provide the information necessary to evaluate the project’s impacts on the region. This required narrative should reflect the requirements previously set forth in 53.3-4.1.  Section 71-1(2) (lines 401-403): The current policy does not allow for adequate public notice of a potential SUP request, nor does it provide a well-defined process for the public to become engaged and informed on the proposed industry. Section 112.1 (1) only requires notification of owners of the subject property and owners of adjacent property within 500 feet. Requirements in 112.2 (3) and (4) are not adequate public notice of proposed projects. It is recommended that a public notice be required to be advertised in local media as soon as County staff deems an application complete and that the notice and application be posted on the county website and shared via email sunshine lists and social media as soon as the application is complete.  Section 71-1 (2) (lines 423-425): The proposed requirement for additional information lacks clarity. “In the event that this information is requested, by staff, then it will be requested within fifteen (15) days of the date that the application is deemed complete.” As written, applicants are not required to provide the information requested by the county staff prior to proceeding to the Planning Board and County Commission meetings for a 1 - 8 - 3 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 4 decision. This process is inconsistent with local, state and federal regulatory requirements, and makes it impossible for the county staff to evaluate a complete project, and make recommendations to the Planning Board and County Commissioners. In accordance with local, state and federal permit processes, failure to provide requested information should result in removal of the application from consideration for a decision until the information is provided.  Section 71-1(4) (lines 494-500): States “Once an applicant makes the requisite showing that the standards have been met, the burden shifts to any opposition to the permit to present countervailing substantial, competent, and material evidence that the standards have not been met.” With no requirement for the applicant to provide important information requested by county staff, an impossible burden of proof is placed on the community. Thank you for the opportunity to be involved in this important issue, and we thank the county staff for their work on these ordinance amendments. We are available to further discuss our concerns and suggestions on the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance for industrial operations. Sincerely, Mike Giles Mike Giles, NC Coastal Federation Cc. Chris Coudriet, County Manager Tim Burgess, Assistant County Manager Tracy Skrabal, SE Regional Manager, NC Coastal Federation Geoff Gisler, Southern Environmental Law Center, Staff Attorney New Hanover County Planning Board New Hanover County Board of Commissioners 1 - 8 - 4 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting From: Ted Shipley <Ted.Shipley@smithmoorelaw.com> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:57 PM To: 'Kitchin, Henry L. Jr.'; O'Keefe, Chris; 'millerg@uncw.edu'; Ted Spring; 'dmclean@mcquirewoods.com'; 'hkitchin@mcguirewoods.com'; 'clark@hipparchitecture.com'; 'lsmith@cortechsolutions.com'; 'kemp@cfrw.us'; 'scs@cameronco.com'; 'mikeg@nccoast.org'; 'don.hughes@bemc.org'; 'robertsjr@uncw.edu'; 'Sterling.Cheatham@wilmingtonnc.gov'; 'Khufham@wilmingtonandbeaches.com'; 'jay@garnereconomics.com' (jay@garnereconomics.com); 'Richard Collier'; danhilla@aol.com; Tamara C. Murphy (tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com); 'Lisa.Mesler@wellsfargo.com'; Weaver, David (dfweaver4@aol.com); aheath@mulkeyinc.com Cc: Williams-Rowland, Jackie; Burgess, Tim; Schrader, Beth Subject: Special Use Permit Text Amendment Attachments: WILMINGTON-#63993-v2-New_Hanover_County_Planning_Board_- _Industrial_SUP_....pdf; WILMINGTON-#63993-vdocx- New_Hanover_County_Planning_Board_-_Industrial_S....pdf All: I would like to propose the following language for consideration at the March Planning Board meeting next week. The attached comparison is between the January Staff Draft and my revisions. This adds clarity to the Staff’s draft of February 19th regarding these important aspects: -The time in which staff must designate an application “complete” or “incomplete.” -The time in which an applicant may be heard by the Planning Board. -Transparency by way of the “Sunshine” email list and via the website. -The removal of language implying that if a permit is issued on a subject matter, then it cannot be addressed by the Planning Board. -The addition of language stating that a government permit is competent, substantial, and material evidence of an issue and that opponents can bring evidence of the same weight. -Smaller revisions as noted therein. My hope is that both sides of the issue will be pleased with these changes. More importantly, I hope that Staff will also endorse this version as an acceptable alternative at the March Planning Board Meeting. Thank you and have a great weekend! 1 - 9 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Ted Edward T. Shipley, III Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP 300 North 3rd Street Suite 301 Wilmington, NC 28401 910.815.7123 (voice) 910.815.7212 (direct fax) www.smithmoorelaw.com This message is directed to and is for the use of the above-noted addressee only, and its contents may be legally privileged or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution, dissemination, or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender. This message is not intended to be an electronic signature nor to constitute an agreement of any kind under applicable law unless otherwise expressly indicated hereon. ________________________________ IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with the requirements of IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication or attachment hereto is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or for promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication or attachment. ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1957081046&domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 9 - 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1957081046&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Tara Ferguson <tarafer1@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:29 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: comments Hi, I am writing to comment about the proposed revisions to the NHC Special Use Permit Zoning Ordinance. As a person who chooses to live in NHC for its outdoor attractions and clean water, it is important to me that our environment is kept as clean as possible through protecting our lands from toxic waste by heavy industry. Therefore, I do not think the proposed revisions are strict enough. Here are some things that I think need to be added to the NHC Special Use Permit Zoning Ordinance: • Heavy polluting industries needing SUPs should be required to undergo the most rigorous and thorough review by the County to evaluate the potential adverse effects on human health, water and air quality, water supplies and quality of life. In addition, the application process for intensive manufacturing projects should also include the greatest opportunity for public education and involvement. • At a minimum, any substantive changes in scope or uses within heavy manufacturing industrial category should require a new SUP. Changes or expansions within other manufacturing categories should be evaluated by the staff on a case by case basis, to determine the potential for significant effects on public resources and the community. • The County should ensure the public that a complete application will be posted to the County web site, emailed to the County’s sunshine list and shared on social media as soon as the County deems the SUP application complete. • An applicant should be required to submit a detailed narrative that includes a description of the potential external effects, as defined by the four findings of fact that are used to evaluate a SUP application. • Failure to provide requested information should result in removal of the application from consideration for a decision until the information is provided. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Please join me in preserving the beauty and cleanliness of our local natural resources by supporting the above recommendations regarding the SUP process. Sincerely, 1 - 9 - 3 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Tara Ferguson, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist Integrated Therapy Associates www.itahealing.com (910) 799-6162 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: tarafer1@yahoo.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1993259676&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 45 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1993259676&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1993259676&domain=nhcgov.com> yahoo.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Mike Giles <mikeg@nccoast.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:13 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Cc: Coudriet, Chris; Burgess, Tim; rcollier@mckimcreed.com; dfweaver4@aol.com; lisa.mesler@wellsfargo.com; danhilla@aol.com; ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com; tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com; aheath@mulkeyinc.com; White, Woody; Dawson, Beth; Barfield, Jonathan; Wolfe, Tom; Berger, Brian Subject: NC Coastal Federation Comments on Draft Revisions to NHC Special Use Permit SUP Attachments: NCCF Comments on NHC SUP Revisions 02252014.docx Chris: Attached are our comments on the latest revisions to the NHC SUP process. We feel that our comments and suggestions offer a path to an effective and workable SUP that would enhance our community’s ability to attract the industry it desires, while providing that informed local review on the more intensive industries that potentially could pose negative impacts upon our community. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and be a part of this important process. If you have any questions please give me a call. Best regards, 1 - 9 - 4 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Mike Mike Giles Coastal Advocate NC Coastal Federation The Landing Suite F-1 530 Causeway Drive Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 (910)509-2838 off. (910)231-6687 cell (910)509-2840 fax mikeg@nccoast.org Subscribe to Coastal Review Online <http://feeds.feedburner.com/NCCFNews> Become a Facebook Fan <http://www.facebook.com/pages/NC-Coastal- Federation/185345054061> Join the Coastal Federation today at www.nccoast.org <http://www.nccoast.org/> Please consider the environment before printing this email ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 9 - 5 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: mikeg@nccoast.org <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1984815861&domain=nhcgov.com> Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1984815861&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Sarah Gilliam <sarahg@nccoast.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:40 AM To: White, Woody; Dawson, Beth; Barfield, Jonathan; Berger, Brian; Wolfe, Tom Cc: rcollier@mckimcreed.com; danhilla@aol.com; lisa.mesler@wellsfargo.com; tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com; ted.shipley@smithmoorelaw.com; aheath@mulkeyinc.com; dfweaver4@aol.com; O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Economic Impacts of Dan River coal ash spill Attachments: NCCoalAshMap.pdf Good Morning Planning Board Members and County Commissioners: It seems everyday there is a news article on the Dan River ash spill, as well as the month-long saga in Charleston, WVA where families and businesses are still not sure if their drinking water is safe. The economic impacts from these two spills could have been avoided if these industries were not allowed to store these hazardous materials, with little to no oversight from regulators or local governments, next to major water resources that communities depend upon for commercial, agricultural, recreational and residential use. Here is the link to the story on the economic impacts of the Eden coal ash spill: http://www.news-record.com/news/article_01ea162e-9c3f-11e3- 925f-001a4bcf6878.html#.UwtO0yqoClc.twitter This spill has impacted 70 miles of the Dan River. If this tragedy occurred in our community, which currently has unlined coal ash dumps on the Cape Fear River, the economic effects would float their way to the Atlantic Ocean, crippling our downtown and beach communities in New Hanover and Brunswick County. Also attached is a NC map of each coal ash dump, showing the "government approved chemical discharges" and the dollar value of the contamination. Sutton's economic degradation is estimated at $217 million for just fish and wildlife and does not include any other economic impacts by this contamination. This map also lacks the important drinking water intakes for City of Wilmington, New Hanover and Brunswick County. This critically important information (that is not taken into account at state/federal level) is where a strong SUP for heavy industries can provide local review and oversight, which is fundamental in good governance. The Sutton plant data also illustrates the need for an SUP to include expansions/modifications of existing intensive manufacturing operations, which is exempted in the latest proposed revisions. As we grow as a community, more and more schools, parks and neighborhoods will be built closer to the I1 and I2 zones of the County. Having a 1 - 9 - 6 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting clear, concise SUP process is so important for the future health and prosperity of New Hanover County. As always thank you for all you do for our community, Sarah -- Sarah Gilliam North Carolina Coastal Federation 910-777-9834 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: sarahg@nccoast.org <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1983655302&domain=nhcgov.com> Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1983655302&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Steve Boekell <sboekell@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:01 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP Revisions Mr. Okeefe, It greatly concerns me that the special use permit process is being “watered down” so that our unique environment risks being damaged by polluting industries. We should be strengthening the process not weakening it. It seems obvious to me that our government is placing industry over environment. When our beautiful coastal ecosystem is damaged or destroyed, it is gone forever. There is no mitigation for it. Sincerely, Steve Boekell Wilmington, NC 1 - 9 - 7 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ________________________________ <http://www.avast.com/> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active. ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: sboekell@gmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1981473422&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1981473422&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1981473422&domain=nhcgov.com> gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Scott Whitham <scottw@cfrw.us> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 12:27 PM To: White, Woody; Dawson, Beth; Barfield, Jonathan; Berger, Brian; Wolfe, Tom; O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permit revisions As the second smallest and second most densely > populated county in NC, it is critical that County leaders > and the public evaluate expansions that could increase > negative impacts to traffic, health, water supplies and > property values. (Sect. 53.3-8) > Heavy industries should be required, not > "strongly recommended" to inform community members > of their proposal. The County should ensure the public > that a complete application will be posted to the County web > site and shared via email and social media as soon as the > County deems the SUP application complete. (Sect. 71-1 2) > The revisions in Section 71, lines 423-425 > imply that an SUP applicant could ignore the Planning > Staff's request for more information and move forward to > the Planning Board meeting for a decision. We ask that our > qualified planners are given the time and authority to 1 - 9 - 8 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting > review a permit and additional studies or reports before > making their recommendations to the Planning Board and > County Commissioners. > > As proposed the SUP no longer requires a detailed narrative > of the proposed project. An applicant should be required to > submit a detailed narrative that includes a description of > the potential external effects upon the community that apply > to the four findings of fact that are used to evaluate a SUP > application. Now all the ordinance requires is a narrative > of the project with no guidance on what information the > County staff needs. Please do the right thing and adjust the revisions in order to protect the health of the majority of your constituents rather than the pockets of a few influential people. Thank you for your consideration, Scott Whitham Wilmington property owner and voter 919-323-0715 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: scottw@cfrw.us <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1979121306&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 2 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1979121306&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1979121306&domain=nhcgov.com> cfrw.us This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Tyler Newman <tyler@ncbase.org> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:18 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Cc: Coudriet, Chris; 'Cameron Moore' Subject: RE: new special use permit language? Due to the number of iterations of the language, what is posted online is quite confusing--especially on pages 9-10 of the draft (http://www.nhcgov.com/PlanInspect/Documents/Industrial%20SUP%20amendment s%201-6-14%20to%203-6-14%20pb%20draft.pdf). 1 - 9 - 9 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting After looking at the current Section 71 of the Zoning Ordinance and comparing it to the latest proposal (link above), I think the entirety of "new" sections (2) and (3) should be red and underlined. All that language is new and does not exist in the current zoning ordinance. Tyler Newman Senior Governmental Affairs Director Business Alliance for a Sound Economy 404-484-9045 (c) ________________________________ From: O'Keefe, Chris [mailto:COKeefe@nhcgov.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:29 PM To: 'Tyler Newman' Subject: RE: new special use permit language? Tyler – The amendment and supporting info is on the following page. Let me know if you need more info. http://www.nhcgov.com/PlanInspect/Pages/Amendments.aspx Chris O'Keefe | Planning/Inspections Director Planning & Inspections | New Hanover County 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 (910) 798-7164 p | (910) 798-7053 f From: Tyler Newman [mailto:tyler@ncbase.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:16 PM 1 - 9 - 10 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: new special use permit language? Can you send me the new language? Tyler Newman Senior Governmental Affairs Director Business Alliance for a Sound Economy 404-484-9045 (c) ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: tyler@ncbase.org <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1965216861&domain=nhcgov.com> Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1965216861&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Nancy Fahey <turtlehaul@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:13 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP revisions Dear Sirs, I believe it is quite clear that the residents of New Hanover County are already suffering from the effects of ineffective leadership, poor planning, lax regulatory oversight of development, inadequate infrastructure, etc. It is more important than ever to maintain high standards into the future in order to preserve a decent quality of life for the residents of our area, and to protect our health and environment. With that being said, the integrity of the SUP should be strengthened and upheld in order to give local government and residents oversight of the impacts industrial development will have on our community. I request the following considerations with regard to any approved revisions to the SUP: *Any industry wishing to expand or modify their facility should be required to undergo a review by the county and receive input from the community. 1 - 9 - 11 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting *SUP applicants should be required to clearly inform the community of their proposals in a public forum. *Planners should be given ample time and authority to review permits in addition to being given access to any supplemental reports or studies which may be required in order to make an informed recommendation to the Planning Board and County Commissioners. *All applicants should be required to submit a detailed narrative that includes a description of the potential external effects on the community that apply to the four findings of fact which are used to evaluate a SUP application. Thank you for your careful consideration of my concerns and comments. Sincerely, Nancy Fahey 707 Darwin Dr. Wilmington, NC 28405 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: turtlehaul@hotmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1974007186&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1974007186&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1974007186&domain=nhcgov.com> hotmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: mnorton1@att.net Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 5:26 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: SUP revisions for heavy industrial Dear Sirs, Shame on you for your job revising our county special use permit application requirements for heavy industrial use. It appears the process is now less complete and protective regarding environmental impact disclosures. 1 - 9 - 12 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting I am ashamed and fearful that our tiny county has such a high air particulate matter count and a seemingly increasingly blasé planning commission regulatory policy. If a business cannot easily measure and reveal its plans in a detailed fashion, good or bad, when it comes to public safety, they should do business elsewhere. If a planning commission cannot require complete information, good or bad, when it comes to public safety (effects on our environment), it should do business elsewhere. Mary Norton New Hanover County resident ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: mnorton1@att.net <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1973561519&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1973561519&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1973561519&domain=nhcgov.com> att.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Clavijo, Ileana <clavijo@uncw.edu> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:31 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Revisions to the SUP I have read the recent revisions to the Special Use Permit for New Hanover County and I was disappointed with the lack of clarity in this 1 - 9 - 13 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting document. It leaves too many loopholes and does not allow for sufficient public input. For example, most heavy polluting industries wishing to modify or expand their facility would not require any review by the County or allow community input. With all due respect, you are supposed to protect our community from industrial pollution and the SUP should be a strong instrument to do so. Please make it work! Sincerely, Ileana E. Clavijo 513 N Green Meadows Dr Wilmington, NC 28405-3297 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: clavijo@uncw.edu <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1973364386&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1973364386&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1973364386&domain=nhcgov.com> uncw.edu This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Cheryl McGraw <chrrlgrrl@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 10:35 AM To: O'Keefe, Chris Subject: Special Use Permit Revisions still too weak Dear Sir or Madam, As a citizen of New Hanover County, I am still deeply concerned about the lack of power and control for New Hanover County in the proposed SUP requirements for new industry in the Cape Fear Region. Please change these areas immediately and correct these inadequacies using recommendations proposed by the Coastal Federation and STAN: Lack of clarity in Section 71. Requirement of a detailed narrative of the proposed project. 1 - 9 - 14 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Strengthen public notification requirements. Require review by the county and allow public input for industries wishing to modify or expand their existing facilities. Thank you for your work on behalf of our New Hanover County Citizens and for your considerations of these essential elements to the SUP. Cheryl McGraw 1543 Cameron Court Apt.A Wilmington, NC 28401-7954 910.791.1537 ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: chrrlgrrl@gmail.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1971552289&domain=nhcgov.com> Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1971552289&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender Custom (50): Pass Block <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&bl-sender- domain=1&rID=206021712&aID=1971552289&domain=nhcgov.com> gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From: Kitchin, Henry L. Jr. <HKitchin@mcguirewoods.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:39 PM To: O'Keefe, Chris; 'millerg@uncw.edu'; Ted Spring; 'dmclean@mcquirewoods.com'; 'hkitchin@mcguirewoods.com'; 'clark@hipparchitecture.com'; 'lsmith@cortechsolutions.com'; 'kemp@cfrw.us'; 'scs@cameronco.com'; 'mikeg@nccoast.org'; 'don.hughes@bemc.org'; 'robertsjr@uncw.edu'; 'Sterling.Cheatham@wilmingtonnc.gov'; 'Khufham@wilmingtonandbeaches.com'; 'jay@garnereconomics.com' (jay@garnereconomics.com); 'Richard Collier'; Ted Shipley (Ted.Shipley@smithmoorelaw.com); danhilla@aol.com; Tamara C. Murphy (tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com); 'Lisa.Mesler@wellsfargo.com'; Weaver, David (dfweaver4@aol.com); aheath@mulkeyinc.com Cc: Williams-Rowland, Jackie; Burgess, Tim; Schrader, Beth Subject: RE: Special Use Permit Text Amendment Chris: 1 - 9 - 15 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Thank you for your work on this. First, I see that the sentence beginning on line 425 (“Irrespective of whether . . .”) has been deleted, and additional language has been added (lines 411 through 413) emphasizing the ability of the staff, the planning board, or the commissioners to request “additional information” of the applicant. As you know, our groups have always recognized that the staff has the right to ask for any additional information it wants to ask for, but our concern has been that if compliance with the staff’s “requests” is made mandatory, then that would constitute an improper (and, frankly, unlawful) delegation of the commissioners’ SUP decisionmaking authority to the non-elected staff. On the other hand, I see that the language above that - indicating that once a completed application is received, the application shall be considered at the “requested meeting” (lines 393 to 395) - has been retained. So, my question is this: Under these proposed changes, if, after a “complete” application is received, the staff requested additional information per lines 411-417 and 423-425, but the applicant either (i) did not provide the requested information, or (ii) provided some but not all of the requested information, would the staff and/or the planning board have the power to simply refuse to consider the applicant’s request at the “requested meeting”? I understand that the staff will always have the power to tell the planning board that the applicant did not comply with the staff reasonable requests, and I would expect the planning board to take a dim view of that. My question is whether the staff can pull the application off the planning board’s agenda, or if the planning board can refuse to consider the applicant’s request until the applicant has complied with all of the staff’s requests. If the answer to this question is “no”, then I’m not sure why it is necessary to delete the text in lines 425 to 430, which simply clarifies that if an applicant wants to ignore the staff’s requests and assume the risk of a denial by the planning board, the applicant may insist on its application being heard at the scheduled planning board meeting. On the other hand, if the answer to this question is “yes” – that is, if the staff is empowered to ask for additional information it wants, and to hold up an application’s consideration by the planning board until it has 1 - 9 - 16 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting gotten everything it has asked for – then I think that this change is very bad, and would negate all the progress you all have made towards revising the ordinance to make clear that there is a defined timeline during which an applicant can get a decision – whether a “granted” or a “denied” – from the planning board and the county commissioners. I am still trying to analyze the proposed revisions, and so there might be other issues that I can identify later that I believe to be problematic. At this point, for example, I can see that we seem to be going backwards on the TOPU, something for which I don’t think the planning board expressed any desire. Additionally, from a drafting standpoint, I’d respectfully suggest the following: · In line 383-384, the text “Within five (5) days of the application deadline” would be better phrased “No later than five (5) days after the date the application was submitted”. · In lines 391 and 425, the words “confirmed as” be substituted for the word “deemed.” · There are some grammatical and typographical issues that need to be cleaned up a bit for the sake of clarity. Again, Chris, I am still looking over these changes and will probably find additional items that concern me, but I do appreciate the opportunity to provide some input here, and I appreciate your work and that of your staff on this important issue. Hal From: O'Keefe, Chris [mailto:COKeefe@nhcgov.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:15 AM To: 'millerg@uncw.edu'; Ted Spring; 'dmclean@mcquirewoods.com'; 'hkitchin@mcguirewoods.com'; 'clark@hipparchitecture.com'; 'lsmith@cortechsolutions.com'; 'kemp@cfrw.us'; 'scs@cameronco.com'; 'mikeg@nccoast.org'; 'don.hughes@bemc.org'; 'robertsjr@uncw.edu'; 'Sterling.Cheatham@wilmingtonnc.gov'; 'Khufham@wilmingtonandbeaches.com'; 'jay@garnereconomics.com' (jay@garnereconomics.com); 'Richard Collier'; 1 - 9 - 17 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting Ted Shipley (Ted.Shipley@smithmoorelaw.com); danhilla@aol.com; Tamara C. Murphy (tamara.c.murphy@gmail.com); 'Lisa.Mesler@wellsfargo.com'; Weaver, David (dfweaver4@aol.com); aheath@mulkeyinc.com Cc: Williams-Rowland, Jackie; Burgess, Tim; Schrader, Beth Subject: Special Use Permit Text Amendment Dear Planning Board Members and Industrial Target Analysis Steering Committee: Attached please find draft language for the Special Use Permit text amendment proposed for consideration by the Planning Board at their March 6th meeting. Changes included since the January 9th meeting occur in lines 369-430 and on line 443. All other indicated changes were included in the January 9th document. At their January 9th meeting the planning board heard a staff presentation on the item and then took public comment from citizens speaking in favor of the amendments, in opposition and with suggestions about how to change the language. After deliberation the planning board voted to continue the item and to offer the public an opportunity to provide written comment for consideration. The board also directed staff to look at specific sections of the ordinance relating to the application period and to the consideration of state and federal permits which may be submitted as part of a special use permit application. The attached draft considers all comments received and also the direction of the planning board. Further, the draft clarifies ambiguous language and attempts to set out a definitive time frame and process that applicants, staff and the public at large can count on. The table of permitted uses illustrates only how the large groupings of manufacturing industries are broken into separate categories and then aligned with specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. As the County is currently working with Jay Garner to identify specific industries to attract through economic development efforts and also embarking on a comprehensive planning process, great care was taken not to change the overall policy of the permit and how the industries were considered within each zoning district. The Garner Study and the Comprehensive Plan will provide the information necessary to address policy issues. I plan to send this information to the our Sunshine list and to those who provided comments on the draft language later today. 1 - 9 - 18 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting ABOUT THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS: “Industrial SUP amendments 1-6-14 to 3-6-14 pb draft.pdf” contains the language considered by the planning board at their January 6th meeting. All changes that were made since the January 6th meeting are between lines 369-430 and also line 443. “TOPU w 4 digit NAICS codes 3-6-14.pdf” contains the table of permitted uses with the translation from the larger industrial groupings to the NAICS 4 digit code grouping. Suggested changes to the “s’s” and “p’s” have been removed for consideration after the Garner Study and/or Comprehensive Plan. “Comments Summary.docx” contains a summary of written comments received. Please let me know if you need additional information about the draft language. Chris O’Keefe Chris O'Keefe | Planning/Inspections Director Planning & Inspections | New Hanover County 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 (910) 798-7164 p | (910) 798-7053 f ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=nhcgov.com> 1 - 9 - 19 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting To: cokeefe@nhcgov.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=206021712&domain=nhcgov.com> From: hkitchin@mcguirewoods.com <https://asp.reflexion.net/address- properties?aID=1962500848&domain=nhcgov.com> Remove <https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender- address=1&rID=206021712&aID=1962500848&domain=nhcgov.com> this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. 1 - 9 - 20 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: March 6, 2014 REGULAR ITEM: DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Ken Vafier, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor CONTACT(S): Ken Vafier; and Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing Text Amendment (A-415, 12/13 (Continued from December 5, 2013) - Request by Staff to amend Section 33-1 of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding language required on final plats as it relates to Conservation Overlay Districts. BRIEF SUMMARY: The amendment is designed to recognize as valid conservation resource delineations which have been confirmed by staff and are included on approved site plans. The proposed language also establishes a 5 year validity period. The Planning and Inspections Director is assigned the responsibility of granting extensions to this validity period for qualifying situations. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Intelligent Growth and Economic Development • Implement plans for land use, economic development, infrastructure and environmental programs RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Staff recommends approval of amendment. ATTACHMENTS: A-415 COD Text Amendment COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) 2 - 0 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-415, 12/13 Page 1 A-415 AMENDMENT TO THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE APPLICANT: STAFF Staff proposes to amend Section 33-1, Contents of the Final Plat, and Section 32-2, Contents of the Preliminary Plan, of the Subdivision Ordinance to address Conservation Overlay District Requirements. Proposed changes are in red. Proposed deletions are in red strikethrough. New Hanover County Subdivision Ordinance Section 33-1 Contents of the Final Plat (13) If the Subdivision is within a Conservation Overlay District, locations and types of conservation resource areas shall be shown. Official conservation resource maps are available at the County Planning & Inspections Department. (14) If the Subdivision is within a Conservation Overlay District, and a verified conservation resource delineation did not occur at preliminary site plan approval, the following map note shall be shown on any approved final plat. “Subdivision contains an area included within a Conservation Overlay District (COD). Field verification of resource areas shall be performed by a member of the New Hanover County Planning and Inspections staff prior to map recordation to ensure accuracy.” Delineations shall be valid for a period of 5 years from the date of recordation of any final plat in the Register of Deeds or 5 years from the enactment of this provision, whichever is later. An administrative extension of this validity period may be granted by the Planning and Inspections Director in accordance with Section 112-6 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. (14)(15) Surveyed delineation of Corps of Engineers Federally regulated Wetlands. (10/99) Section 32-2 Contents of the Preliminary Plan (21) The approximate delineation of Corps of Engineers Section 404 and Section 10 Wetlands. (10/99) (22) Should locations of conservation resources be shown on a preliminary site plan, Special Use Permit site plan, Performance or Conventional Residential site plan, Conditional Zoning site plan, Conditional Use Zoning site plan, Exceptional Design Zoning District site plan, Riverfront Mixed Use District site plan, or Planned Development site plan, field verification of resource areas shall be performed by a member of the New Hanover County Planning and Inspections staff prior to map approval to ensure accuracy. 2 - 1 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting A-415, 12/13 Page 2 Delineations shall be valid for a period of 5 years from the date of approval or 5 years from the enactment of this provision, whichever is later. An administrative extension of this validity period may be granted by the Planning and Inspections Director in accordance with Section 112-6 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance (23) If conservation resources are present on site but not shown on the preliminary site plan; they shall be delineated on the final plat per Section 33-1(14) of this ordinance, and the following note shall be shown: “Subdivision contains an area included within a Conservation Overlay District (COD). Field verification of resource areas shall be performed by a member of the New Hanover County Planning and Inspections staff prior to map recordation to ensure accuracy.” (22) (24) A traffic impact study must be completed prior to the submittal of any preliminary plan that will generate more than 100 trips during the peak hour. The study shall be prepared in accordance with Standards and Guidelines approved by the County. (2/02) 2 - 1 - 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting February 2014 TRC Report Page 1 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT FEBRUARY, 2014 TheACounty’sATechnicalAReviewACommitteeA(TRC)AmetAtwiceAduringAtheAmonthAofAFebruaryAandA reviewed eight (8) preliminary site plans totaling 1,138 residential lots. Scotts Hill Village (Performance Plan) Scotts Hill Village is located in the northeastern portion of our jurisdiction near the 9100 block of Market Street and is classifiedAasAWatershedAResourceAProtectionAonAtheACounty’sA2006ALandAUseAPlan:ASiteAplanA attributes include:  R-15 Zoning District  226 lots  90.44 acres  Public water & sewer  Private roads for public use  Project access from Scotts Hill Loop Road with future access from Scotts Hill Medical Drive off Market Street (US Hwy 17) In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved Scotts Hill Village for 226 lots with the following conditions:  TIA recommendation(s) for road improvements to Scotts Hill Loop Road  No gates, obstructions or on-street parking along road network  FutureA20’ApedestrianAaccessAeasementAfromAScottsAHillABluffAsubdivision to County Park site  Final plat phasing of the project limited 113 lots until Scotts Hill Medical Drive is constructed to project dam’sALanding (Performance Plan) dams’ALandingAisAlocatedAinAtheAsouthAcentralAportionAofAourAjurisdictionAnearAtheA4800AblockACarolinaA Beach Road andAisAclassifiedAasAUrbanAonAtheACounty’sA2006ALandAUseAPlan:ASiteAplanAattributesAinclude.  R-7 Zoning District  42 lots  11.43 acres  Public water & sewer  Public streets  Project access from Carolina Beach Road In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved dam’sALandingAforA42AlotsAwithAtheAfollowingAconditions.  No gates, obstructions or on-street parking permitted  Signage to be erected at end of road stub alerting adjoining landowners of future street  Fire hydrant at lot 24 to be removed and replaced with additional hydrants at lots 23 & 32 2 - 1 - 1 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting February 2014 TRC Report Page 2 Emmart’sALandingA(PerformanceAPlan) Emmart’sALandingAisAlocatedAinAtheAsouthernAportionAofAourAjurisdictionAnear the 5200 block of Masonboro Loop Road and is classified as Watershed Resource Protection and Conservation on the County’sA2006ALandAUseAPlan:ASiteAplanAattributesAinclude.  R-15 Zoning District  159 lots  75.17 acres  Public water & sewer  Private streets  Project access from Masonboro Loop Road In a vote of 5-0,AtheATRCAapprovedAEmmart’sALandingAforA159AlotsAwith the following conditions:  TIA recommendations for road improvements to Masonboro Loop Road  An entrance gate be permitted with manned 24/7 security or written documentation from County Sheriff and NHC Regional Hospital securing unobstructed access to the project for emergency service delivery  No obstructions or on-street parking permitted  Certain streets to have sidewalks per NHC standards  Work with CFPUA on water and sewer plans Marsh Landing Place: 2 (Performance Plan Re-Approval) Marsh Landing Place is located in the northeastern portion of our jurisdiction anchored between Marsh Oaks and Bayshore subdivisions and near the 7800 block of Market Street and is classified as Watershed ResourceAProtectionAandAConservationAonAtheACounty’sA2006ALandAUseAPlan. Site plan attributes include:  R-15 Zoning District  29 lots  17.78 acres  Public water & sewer  Public streets  Project access from Marsh Oaks and Bayview subdivisions In a vote of 5-0, the TRC reapproved Marsh Landing Place: 2 for two years ending February, 2016 with the following conditions:  Road construction improvements be made connecting Vale Drive in the project to Bayfield Drive in Marsh Oaks  Creation of a temporary turn-around lots 48-50AwithAaA20’ApavedAdrivewayAandAnoAon-street parking 2 - 1 - 2 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting February 2014 TRC Report Page 3 Parson’sAMill (Performance Plan Extension) Parson’sAMillAisAlocatedAinAtheAnorthernAportionAofAourAjurisdictionAnearAtheA4500AblockAofANorthACollegeA RoadAandAisAclassifiedAasA quiferAResourceAProtectionAonAtheACounty’sA2006ALandAUseAPlan:ASiteAplanA attributes include:  R-10 Zoning District  354 lots (single & multi-family)  107.17 acres  Public water & sewer  Private streets  Project access from North College and Parmele Roads In a vote of 5-0,AtheATRCAextendedAtheAvalidityAperiodAofAParson’sAMillAforAoneAyear ending February, 2015 with the following conditions:  TIA recommendations for road improvements  Terms and conditions of original site plan approval  No gates, obstructions, or on-street parking permitted  Road construction improvements connecting Creekstone Lane, Plumtree Lane, and Saddlebrook Drive required along with road pavement to property boundary adjacent to the Pope property Riverside (Performance Plan Extension) Riverside is located in the north central portion of our jurisdiction near the T-intersection of Castle HayneARoadAandANorthAKerrA venueAandAisAclassifiedAasATransitionAonAtheACounty’sA2006ALandAUseAPlan:A Site plan attributes include:  R-15 Zoning District  238 lots (166 single family, 72 multi-family)  95.16 acres  Public water & sewer  Private streets  Project access from Castle Hayne Road In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved a one year extension to the plan ending February, 2015 with the following conditions:  No gates, obstructions or on-street parking permitted  TIA recommendations for road improvements to Castle Hayne Road  All conditions of original 2008 preliminary approval 2 - 1 - 3 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting February 2014 TRC Report Page 4 Sunset Reach (Performance Plan Revision) Sunset Reach is located in the northern portion of our jurisdiction at the western terminus of Rockhill Road and is classified as WatershedAResourceAProtectionAandAConservationAonAtheACounty’sA2006ALandA Use Plan. Site attributes include:  R-15 Zoning District  68 lots (53 single family, 15 townhomes)  17.78 acres  Public water & sewer (individual septic tanks short term)  Private streets  Project access from Rockhill Road In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the revision to Sunset Reach for 68 lots for two years ending February, 2016 with the following conditions:  No obstructions, traffic calming devices or on-street parking allowed  The road stub known as Salvador Way be paved to the project boundary  An entrance gate be allowed provided that it is manned 24/7 security or written documentation provided by County Sheriff and NH Regional Hospital securing unobstructed access to the project for emergency service delivery  Sidewalks along portions of the project to the amenity area Maynard Division (Performance Plan) The Maynard Division is located in the north central portion of our jurisdiction near the 6800 block of Murrayville Road and is classifiedAasAUrbanAandAConservationAonAtheACounty’sA2006ALandAUseAPlan:ASiteA attributes include:  R-15 Zoning District  22 lots  8.67 acres  Public water & sewer  Private streets  Project access from Murrayville Road In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the Maynard Division for 22 lots with the following conditions:  No gates, obstructions or on-street parking permitted  Placement of a fire hydrant nears lots 16 & 22  Sixteen (16) foot paved surface along access easement  Adhere to private road standards per Subdivision Ordinance 2 - 1 - 4 03/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 2 - 103/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 3 - 103/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 3 - 203/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 4 - 103/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 5 - 103/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 6 - 103/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 7 - 103/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 7 - 203/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 7 - 303/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 8 - 103/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 9 - 103/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting 2 - 9 - 203/06/2014 Planning Board Meeting