Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-01 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 761 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, May 1, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present: Chairman Woody White; Vice-Chairman Skip Watkins; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.; Commissioner Patricia Kusek; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Pastor Joseph Peterson, Fifth Avenue United Methodist Church, provided the invocation and Commissioner Barfield led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chairman White requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. MOTION : Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes – Governing Body The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Special Meeting of March 30, 2017 and the Regular Meeting of April 17, 2017. Adoption of National Correctional Officers and Employees Week Proclamation – Sheriff’s Office The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing the week of May 7 – 13, 2017 as National Correctional Officers and Employees Week in New Hanover County. The proclamation recognizes all who have served and currently serve in the corrections profession. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 31.1. Adoption of Building Safety Month Proclamation – Building Safety The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing May 2017 as Building Safety Month in New Hanover County. This year’s theme is “Code Officials – Partners in Community Safety and Economic Growth” encourages all Americans to raise awareness of the importance of building safety and resilient construction; fire prevention; disaster mitigation; and new technologies in the construction industry. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 31.2. Adoption of Older Americans Month Proclamation – Senior Resource Center The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing May 2017 as “Older Americans Month” in New Hanover County and urge every resident to take time during this month to acknowledge older adults and the people who serve them as influential and vital parts of our community. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 31.3. Adoption of a Resolution Selecting the Construction Management at Risk Method of Project Delivery for the Health and Human Services Facility Construction Project – Property Management The Commissioners adopted a resolution to select the Construction Management at Risk construction delivery method for the New Hanover County Health and Human Services Facility construction project in accordance with G.S. 143-128.1. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 31.4. Approval to Receive Donation of Evzio (Injectable Naloxone) from Kaleo Pharmaceuticals – Health Department The Commissioners approved the Health Department’s request to accept 200 two-dose Evzio kits from the Kaleo Pharmaceuticals donation program. Evzio is naloxone that is in an auto injector. It is used to revive citizens who have overdosed on opioids, resulting in respiratory failure. Each year Kaleo Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of Evzio, has a donation program that provides up to 200 kits at no charge. This medication will be housed in the clinic pharmacy and will be dispensed to first responders as well as the public upon request. This donation will be equivalent to $98,000 retail value. The donation was approved by the Board of Health on February 1, 2017. Approval of Two Donations for Accession into the Museum’s Permanent Collection – Cape Fear Museum The Commissioners approved two donations for accession into the Cape Fear Museum’s Permanent Collection. The objects presented (Child’s clothing, child-rearing magazine, and photographs, 1930s-1940s and NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 762 Household objects, 1940s-1970s) were approved at the Museum Advisory Board meeting of March 13, 2017. Each item offered has a special story to preserve and they help document 300 years of the region’s history. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY AS NATIONAL PRESERVATION MONTH Chairman White reported that the Historic Wilmington Foundation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation are cosponsoring National Preservation Month with this year's theme of "This Place Matters." Commissioner Zapple read the proclamation into the record and moved for adoption. Motion : Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to adopt the proclamation designating the month of May 2017 as National Preservation Month in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. On behalf of Executive Director George Edwards and President Walker Abney, Vice President Thomas Porter accepted the proclamation and thanked the County Commissioners and management for supporting the Historic Wilmington Foundation for over 50 years. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 31.5. ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MAY 14 THROUGH JUNE 18, 2017 AS ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS MONTH Chairman White reported that the Cape Fear Elder Abuse Prevention Network has requested the Commissioners recognize the period between Mother's Day, May 14 and Father's Day, June 18, 2017 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month in New Hanover County. Vice-Chairman Watkins read the proclamation into the record. Motion : Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Watkins, to adopt the proclamation recognizing the period between Mother's Day, May 14 and Father's Day, June 18, 2017 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Marianna Stacy, on behalf of the Cape Fear Elder Abuse Prevention Network, accepted the proclamation and spoke about the importance of bringing awareness of elder abuse and the network’s goal of educating the public on the indicators of elder abuse in order to stop it. The network was formed in 2006 and under the direction of Jane Jones, Director of the Area Agency on Aging, the volunteers have been able to do great work for many years. Ms. st Stacy invited the Commissioners and public to attend the May 31 Elder Abuse Awareness Walk from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. at the New Hanover County Senior Center. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 31.6. ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE MONTH OF MAY AS FOSTER CARE AWARENESS MONTH Chairman White reported that Social Services Director Michelle Winstead and Social Services Assistant Director Wanda Marino have requested the Board adopt a proclamation recognizing the month of May 2017 as Foster Care Awareness Month in New Hanover County. Commissioner Barfield stated that in serving as the DSS Board Chair the last three or four years, DSS has seen an uptick in new cases that are investigated. With all that is happening throughout this country, especially the opioid epidemic, it is important to have qualified, quality individuals that will serve as foster parents in our community. He expressed appreciation to the men and women who bring children into their homes, providing a safe haven to give them the chance to regain their footing, and letting them know someone loves and cares in spite of what they have gone through. He read the proclamation into the record and moved for adoption. Motion : Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to adopt the proclamation recognizing May 2017 as Foster Care Awareness Month in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Social Services Assistant Director Wanda Marino was present to accept the proclamation and thanked the Board for its support. She stated that it takes a village of primarily foster parents to raise a child and enough cannot be done. Foster parents don't do it for a check. They do it because of the love in their hearts. The number of kids coming into custody is currently 445. She then asked Social Work Supervisor Alice Moore to make brief remarks and introduce two foster parents who are willing to share what it is like being a foster parent. Ms. Moore thanked the Board for its support of the Foster Care Proclamation and stated that this year’s national theme is “Empowering Caregivers, Strengthening Families”. She then introduced foster parents Angie Burman and Kaitlyn Boscaljon. Ms. Burman and her husband, Wes, have fostered over 20 children and Ms. Boscaljon and her husband, Mike, have been fostering for two years and fostered four children and invited the ladies to make remarks. Ms. Burman thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. She and her husband have been foster parents for about seven years and have fostered over 20 children. They have adopted one child and are in the process of adopting brothers. Since becoming foster parents, they have seen an increase in the number of foster parents and in the number of children coming into care. They have fostered babies who were addicted to drugs and children that had NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 763 been abused. After a few days of being in a home that has structure, love and security, children’s demeanor changes, they open up and let their guard down. There is a definite need for more foster parents and Ms. Burman hopes more people will be willing to serve in this capacity. Ms. Boscaljon thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. She and her husband have been foster parents a little over two years now and during that time have adopted two beautiful kids. They are proud to be foster parents. They are currently fostering a 2-month-old baby girl who is the full biological sibling of their adopted son. All three kids they have fostered long term have been born addicted to opiates and will have long-reaching health issues related to their birth stories. She commended DSS for the work they do for kids, fighting for them and the success of their futures. The drug epidemic is Wilmington is hitting DSS and individual families hard. She is proud of the foster parents who make up a small aspect but whose role is incredibly significant and often goes without a lot of recognition. Her personal vision for New Hanover County is that every single kid would not just have a roof over their head and a bed to sleep in but a family who's waiting for them, hoping to be a part of their future, and ready to face brokenness with love, compassion and grace. If everyone works together, as New Hanover County, we can be leaders in the State of North Carolina in revolutionizing the way that foster care is and the way we meet the needs of foster care in this County. Commissioner Zapple commended Ms. Burman and Ms. Boscaljon for their dedication and noted what they are doing every day is super human. He hopes more people will become foster parents and thanked the ladies for what they are doing to help this community. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 31.7. PRESENTATION OF FY 2017-18 RECOMMENDED BUDGET AND FY 2018-22 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN County Manager Coudriet presented the FY 2017-18 Recommended Budget and FY 2018-22 Capital Improvement Plan for New Hanover County (NHC) highlighting the following:  Budget Themes:  Advances superior public education  Advances superior public safety  Meets ongoing, prior obligations and policy commitments  Plans for the long term operating and financial sustainability of New Hanover County  Recommended Budget:  All funds: $367.2 million; 1.7% increase from FY16-17 revised budget  General Budget:  $327.1 million  1.6% increase from FY16-17 revised budget  Fire Services:  $15.2 million  12.8% increase from the FY16-17 revised budget  Environmental Management:  $16.8 million  4.5% decrease from the FY16-17 revised budget  Revenue Neutral Tax Rate: Current Rate Revenue Neutral Rate Recommended Rate Debt Service Fund 6.90 cents 6.47 cents 6.47 cents General Fund 55.40 cents 51.91 cents 50.53 cents Total 62.30 cents 58.38 cents 57.00 cents Fire Service District Fund 7.00 cents 6.48 cents 8.50 cents  Environmental Management tip fee reduced from $50 to $48 per ton  Fund Balance Policy:  Current Policy:  Goal of 21% General Fund unassigned fund balance  Replenish within 2 fiscal years, if below goal  Recommended Policy:  18%-21% General Fund unassigned fund balance corridor  Replenish within 2 fiscal years, if below 18%  >21% to go to future capital needs  Amount Recommended for FY17-18: $5.2 million  Estimated unassigned Fund Balance, assuming that level of appropriation, is projected to be slightly above 21%  Based on Recommended Budget and proposed policy changes, staff projects funds will be available for capital needs in FY19 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 764  FY16-17 Tax Rate – Urban Counties:  County FY16-17 Latest Next Scheduled Tax Rate Revaluation Revaluation  Alamance 0.5800 2009 2017  Buncombe 0.6040 2013 2017  Cabarrus 0.7000 2016 2020  Catawba 0.5750 2015 2019  Cumberland 0.7400 2009 2017  Davidson 0.5400 2015 2023  Durham 0.7404 2016 2019  Forsyth 0.7310 2013 2017  Gaston 0.8700 2015 2019  Guilford 0.7550 2012 2017  Mecklenburg 0.8157 2011 2019  New Hanover 0.5700 * 2012 2017  Orange 0.8780 2009 2017  Rowan 0.6625 2015 2019  Wake 0.6005 2016 2020 * NHC reflects the proposed FY17-18 tax rate; Source: North Carolina Department of revenue. For the current year, the tax rate is 62.3 cents.  General Fund Revenue Picture:  Assessed Tax Base of $33.369 billion  Assumes 99% collection rate  Sales tax is estimated to increase 8.2% over FY16-17 budget; 5% over expected collections  Budgets $5.2 million in Appropriated Fund Balance  New Hanover County Sales Tax Revenue Growth:  FY17 Projected Sales Tax is where it is expected to end the current FY (FY17) on June 30th. This is approximately $840,000 above the adopted budget. FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Actual Actual Actual Projected Recommended General Fund 42,774,785 46,811,422 49,631,319 52,120,964 55,362,894 NHC Schools 10,185,698 11,181,297 11,877,279 12,435,450 13,171,184 General Fund 52,960,484 57,992,719 61,508,598 64,556,414 68,534,078 Fire Service District 2,430,417 2,680,145 2,819,783 2,514,515 2,488,841 Total 55,390,901 60,672,864 64,328,381 67,070,929 71,022,919  Budget Growth and Drivers:  Key drivers of budget growth to the General Fund include:  Investments in public safety  Investments in public education  Investments in economic development  Addressing deferred capital replacement  Superior Public Safety:  Continues to fund prevention and intervention programs for at-risk youth:  Maintain expanded prevention programs at Youth Empowerment Services (Double the Impact)  $128,000 for direct services programs to at-risk youth (Teen Court, Communities in Schools, Dreams, First Tee, Kids Making It, WRAAP, and One Love Tennis)  $25,000 for the Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Violence  Recommends $265,000 to Leading Into New Communities, Inc. (LINC) to expand the jail diversion program  Recommends new personnel in the Sheriff’s Office:  1 ELEMENTS -Youth Violence Intervention Specialist  1 Crime Specialist  4 School Resource Officers  Superior Public Education:  New Hanover County Schools:  Current expense - $74.6 million: $1.7 million increase:  $2,670 per pupil plus Pre-K expansion  Capital - $2.0 million  Debt - $23.1 million  Cape Fear Community College:  Operating – $10.8 million (same as FY17 allocation)  Debt - $17.1 million  Capital - $0  Economic Development:  $160,000 economic development investments (includes capacity for $60,000 Castle Hayne Preliminary Engineering Report)  $406,000 (Wilmington Business Development (WBD), Wilmington Downtown, Inc. (WDI), Southeastern Economic Development Commission (SEDC), Foreign Trade Promotion Council (FTPC), and Film Commission) NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 765  th $75,000 to continue Choose Cape Fear marketing and recruitment efforts through June 30  $745,000 Economic Incentive Payments for PPD, GE, Castle Branch, Fortron, Live Oak, & Alcami  $525,000 for first of three payments to pay for 421 water & sewer  $50,000 for Phase 2 Project Grace and environmental study  $40,000 for Blue Clay Road Market Study / Analysis  Fire Service District:  Revenues:  Ad valorem tax rate of 8.5 cents  As taxing district, expected to maintain 8% unrestricted fund balance  Capital:  $659,000 Engine replacement and $943,000 Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) replacements funded by loan proceeds  $21,000 continued fire hydrant installation  $199,000 radio replacements  Environmental Management:  Tip Fee:  Reduced to $48/ton from $50/ton (fourth consecutive year tip fee reduced)  $48 tip fee allows the County to:  Fund operating obligations and reserves  Maintain unrestricted fund balance of at least 8%  Fund $1.8 million for capital outlay for purchase of a wood grinder, recurring capital expenditures, and replacement of heavy equipment  $1.16 million toward closure/post closure reserve annually  $250,000 toward capital reserve annually  Fund projected capital projects through FY19-20:  $5.0 million in FY17-18  Effective County Management: The Model of Good Governance:  4 percent market / merit pool:  Greater of $1,200 or 2.5% increase to FT eligible employees for market  1.5% merit pool with a range of potential merit awards  10 new positions:  General Fund – 8  Environmental Management – 2  Capital Planning:  Five-year Capital Improvement Plan:  FY17-18 $29.1 million for CIP; $4.0 million funded by General Fund revenues  Capital Outlay:  FY17-18 $8.0 million for capital outlay  $4.5 million funded via fund General Fund revenues  Next Steps:  Identify possible work session(s):  Recommend Thursday, May 11  Consider other sessions linked to agenda review  Public hearings June 5:  Budget  Economic Development  Adoption June 19 Chairman White asked if the Board had any questions or comments. Vice-Chairman Watkins expressed appreciation to Tax Administrator Allison Snell and the former Tax Administrator Roger Kelley for the revaluation work that allowed the County to get to this point. He also thanked Chief Financial Officer Lisa Wurtzbacher, Chief Strategy and Budget Officer Beth Schrader and the Strategy and Budget team for their hard work. County Manager Coudriet stated that of the 104,000+ parcels there have been less than 3,000 property owners to seek an appeal, which equates exactly to 2.88%. He feels this is indicative of the quality of the revaluation that out of 104,000 parcels that less than 3,000 at this point are seeking appeals of their property values. Commissioner Barfield stated that the budget offers a lot of optimism. In regard to the Environmental Management tip fee decrease, he would like to know how the decrease trickles down to the customer and is there a way to tie that decrease to customers’ trash bills so the bills are reduced. In regard to the tax rate for urban counties, he would like to see the dollar amount for each one of the counties’ budgets as well as the tax rates. Showing a relation between what $0.60 means versus what other counties budgets are as well would provide the Board a comparison locally. Commissioner Zapple asked how many counties listed on the FY16-17 Tax Rate – Urban Counties slide have a AAA credit rating. County Manager Coudriet stated that Wake, Mecklenburg, Forsyth, and Durham counties definitely have AAA credit ratings. Guilford, Orange, Buncombe, and Cumberland may have AAA credit ratings but NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 766 he was not certain. There are only eight that he is aware of in North Carolina who have at a minimum double, AAA credit ratings. Commissioner Zapple asked if the City of Wilmington (City) provides the County with School Resource Officers (SROs). County Manager Coudriet responded that his understanding is that there are municipal officers but the Sheriff’s Office agreed a number of years ago to provide the base of the SROs. The City has for many years, and since Sandy Hook in 2012, continued to partner with the County but it is primarily the Sheriff’s responsibility. After Sandy Hook, Carolina Beach and Wrightsville Beach partnered with the Sheriff’s office but he does not know the form of the partnerships. Commissioner Zapple requested a breakdown be provided showing how many County deputies are involved with the SRO program. Regarding if an uptick in violence has been seen in elementary schools, County Manager Coudriet stated he does not know that we would use violence as the measure of why staff recommends and the Board has invested in SROs. He thinks the most marked success is the trust and relationship that SROs have built with students. The majority of our students will leave our elementary schools to move to the middle schools and then into high schools. The Sheriff’s model has been to not have a student introduced for the first time to an SRO or a deputy when the student gets to middle school. The idea being to start the relationship between students and SROs sooner than later. Vice-Chairman Watkins commented that he thinks we are seeing an increase in the introduction of gangs and gang violence in the elementary schools. He supports the continued funding of the SROs and thinks having one in each elementary school is a good transition for young people. Commissioner Kusek asked for clarification on why the non-county agencies line item on page 15 of the Recommended FY17-18 Budget book shows a recommendation of 2.5 million and on page 21 there is a recommendation of $1.5 million. Ms. Schrader stated she would provide a full accounting but outside agencies are placed in a number of different areas and not contained to one specific line item. A large portion of the funds also appear under economic development. Regarding the outside agency requests, Ms. Schrader confirmed that outside agencies are required to have signed contracts in place to receive County funds. When the two-year identification of funding for the outside agencies that are in the Fiscal Year 16-17 budget occurred, the agencies were required to sign a contract in order to get their first half of their payment for Fiscal Year 16-17. They are then required to turn in compilations of their financials that have been at a minimum reviewed by a professional in the industry, if not an actual audited set of financials. At that point, they will receive the second half of the first year's payment. If an appropriation is made in the Fiscal Year 17-18 budget, the agencies then have to turn in their outcome, measures, and metrics they were required to provide as part of their application and as part of the contract they signed, in order to receive the first half of the payment in the Fiscal Year 17-18 budget. Then they would again have to turn in their financials, their compilation or audited statements, in order to receive the second half of their payments. At the very end of the contract, at the end of the fiscal year, they are supposed to provide year two metrics. Commissioner Kusek expressed concerns about the non-county agency binder having a few empty tabs for agencies that have received County funds and would like for that to be addressed. She further commented that it appears that some items were added into the non-county agency list after the budget was determined, voted on, and adopted by the Board. She does not agree with operating in that manner. All items expending taxpayer dollars need to be brought forward to the full Board, vetted and done so in public. She requested that staff draft a policy to that end so it is in writing, which will drive our behavior and make us better stewards of taxpayer dollars. County Manager Coudriet noted that on page 25 of the Recommended FY17-18 Budget book there is a contribution to WAVE Transit which is considered an outside agency and there is a contribution to the City of Wilmington which he believes is the County’s share of the Red Light Camera Program. There are items that constitute outside agencies that are in the outside agency line item that may be in other parts of the book. Commissioner Zapple requested additional clarification on the new Fund Balance Policy. County Manager Coudriet explained the recommended floor is 18% with a top of 21%. If the level drops below the 18%, the County has within two fiscal years to replenish it back to the floor of 18%. We are statutorily required to have a balanced budget to meet that number. If the fund were to drop below the 18% it may require that sometime in the next fiscal year a drawdown from the Fund Balance to meet the obligation. There is nothing that prevents you going below it, particularly with events that are outside of control. There may also be other management decisions made along the way that effect it. While he acknowledges that unexpected events may occur, such as a major disaster, he and staff would never recommend a budget to the Board that it use Fund Balance that would draw it below the 18%. The policy requires it be managed in a way to restore it over two years. Commissioner Zapple expressed concerns about the wording of the new policy as it seems to read that there is a repositioning from 21% to 18% and if there is a dip below 18%, the County has two years to return to 18%. Based on the wording he feels it is a fairly dramatic shift and he would like the verbiage to be reworked. County Manager Coudriet stated that he thinks it is a legitimate concern if administratively, the Board was asked to be at about 18% every year. Staff has no expectation to want to recommend budgets that keep the Board’s budget closer to the floor. He recognizes that with an improved tax base and in demonstrated competency to manage that there can be a range or a percentage that is different. He does think if the recommendation were 18% and we stayed there, that would be an issue. In terms of this recommended budget of $5.2 million, it is his expectation that the County will still be at approximately 21% fund balance. Fund balance is not being used to pay for all of the capital and capital outlay. The Board has the capacity here, if the policy is modified, to use more fund balance. He and staff would recommend that the Board keep the use oriented toward one-time capital and capital outlay expenses. He reiterated that with the recommendation, the County remains with the fund balance available at effectively 21%. Chief Strategy and Budget Officer Schrader stated traditionally when a financial policy is formed, the rating agencies are looking to see it is a policy and not a suggestion. They are looking for you to agree, identify or demonstrate you will take corrective action at such time if you are outside of compliance of that policy. The expectation of the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 767 policy would be that whatever policy or corridor is established, there is verbiage in the policy that includes a corrective action if there was a reason to step below it. th A brief discussion was held about the Board holding a budget work session on May 11 as suggested in the presentation. By general consensus, the Board agreed to hold a Budget Work Session on May 11, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. in conjunction with Agenda Review. County Manager Coudriet stated that today’s presentation and the Recommended FY17-18 Budget book will be available tomorrow on the County’s website. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF $235 MILLION HOSPITAL REVENUE AND REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF HOSPITAL REVENUE AND REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, ADOPTING A SERIES RESOLUTION AND CERTAIN RELATED MATTERS Chairman White opened the Public Hearing regarding the proposed issuance of $235 million New Hanover Regional Medical Center Hospital Revenue and Revenue Refunding Bonds. He recognized Chief Financial Officer Lisa Wurtzbacher. Chief Financial Officer Wurtzbacher reported that on April 3, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (the Board) adopted a preliminary resolution to issue Hospital Revenue and Revenue Refunding Bonds in an amount not to exceed $220 million and set the public hearing for May 1, 2017. Since that time, the potential to achieve savings by refunding both the Series 2006A and Series 2006B bonds has increased and New Hanover Regional Medical Center (NHRMC) has requested to increase the not to exceed amount of the new bonds to $235 million. The anticipated savings is $5.4 million of present value savings or approximately 5.69% of the refunded bonds. To authorize the sale of the bonds, the Board must hold the public hearing and adopt the Series Resolution. The Series Resolution sets forth the structure of the bonds, accounts related to those bonds and various provisions related to the bonds. It does not encompass anymore construction projects. In regards to the additional information in the packet, it includes the ninth lease amendment of the County’s lease with NHRMC and the maturity of the bonds has to mirror the end of the lease. The Escrow Agreement would be between the County and the trustee for the refunding bond. The Bond Purchase Agreement, which is the agreement between the underwriters, Local Government Commission, NHRMC and the County is for the underwriters to purchase the bonds and the Preliminary Official Statement is the document that is distributed to investors when they are trying to determine whether or not they want to invest in this deal. Chairman White reported that no one from the public wished to speak in favor or in opposition and closed the Public Hearing. Chairman White requested a motion to adopt the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Hospital Revenue and Revenue Refunding Bonds, Adopting a Series Resolution and Certain Related Matters regarding the issuance. Motion: Commissioner Kusek MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Watkins, to adopt the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Hospital Revenue and Revenue Refunding Bonds, Adopting a Series Resolution and Certain Related Matters regarding the issuance. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman White stated that staff is directed to execute and finalize documents or take such action as set forth in the Series Resolution pertaining to the issuance of the New Hanover Regional Medical Center Hospital Revenue and Revenue Refunding Bonds. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 31.8. BREAK: Chairman White called for a break from 5:27 until 5:37. PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, YOSEF, INC., FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A CONVENIENCE FOOD STORE ON 1.78 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE 7900 BLOCK OF MARKET STREET (S17-02) Chairman White opened the public hearing and announced that the special use process requires a quasi- judicial hearing; therefore, the Clerk to the Board must swear in any person wishing to testify. He requested all persons who signed in to speak or who want to present testimony to step forward to be sworn in. The following persons were sworn in: Brad Schuler Ben Andrea Dave Weaver Chris O’Keefe Cindee Wolf Patti Jenkins J. Dean Prevette James Wicker Troy Beasley Andrew Fazzari Rachael Cassal NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 768 Jim Harren Chavalier Cromartie Harper Peterson Jim Iannucci Chairman White further stated that a presentation will be heard from staff and then the applicant group and the opponents group will each be allowed fifteen minutes for presentations and additional five minutes, if necessary, for rebuttal. He then asked Current Planner Brad Schuler to start the presentation. Current Planner Brad Schuler stated that this is an application for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a convenience food store. Again, SUP applications are quasi-judicial decisions. This means that the decision must be based on substantial, material, and competent evidence presented at the hearing. This type of evidence is essentially evidence provided by someone who is qualified to give that evidence when it relates to impact of a proposed development and then generally that substantial evidence consists of expert testimony. It is the burden of the applicant to provide this evidence showing that the standards of the zoning ordinance, specifically the four conclusions required for special uses are being met. The burden then falls on anyone with standing that opposes the application to provide evidence that one or more of the four conclusions are not being met. If the evidence shows it complies with the four conclusions, then the application must be approved. If the evidence shows otherwise, then the Board can deny the application or continue it to a future meeting in order to allow for additional evidence to be presented. Mr. Schuler then presented the request to develop a convenience food store on 1.78 acres of land located at the 7900 block of Market Street. The property currently zoned O and I, Office and Institutional. Just north of the property which is also zoned O and I, is a church and a bank. Across Market Street is land zoned B-2, Highway Business District and currently a grocery store is being constructed at the corner of Market Street and Marsh Oaks Drive as well as the Amberleigh Shores Apartments, which has been annexed into the City of Wilmington. To the south and west of the property is single-family residential housing. However, the residential lots directly next to the property are currently undeveloped. While the property has direct frontage on Market Street, it is currently accessed by Bump Along Road which is a private road. Raintree Road, which stubs into the property from the south, is a state maintained road with the state maintenance ending at the property line. The property is currently a mostly wooded tract. There is a dirt path that's been established on the property, which has allowed for some motorists to cut through it. There are some regulated wetlands on the property, about one half acre in size. The applicant does plan to obtain applicable permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to have those wetlands filled in to allow for the proposed development. Mr. Schuler then explained that the proposed site plan submitted with the application which proposes that the development will consist of a 4,500 square foot convenience store, 16 fueling pumps, and a car wash. The property is subject to State and County stormwater requirements. The County requires that the site control the runoff generated by the development up to a 25-year storm event and the post development runoff does not exceed the predevelopment runoff. He noted that County Engineer Jim Iannucci is in attendance and can be made available to answer any questions that the Board may have regarding the County stormwater requirements. The development will also provide a sidewalk from Raintree Road down to Market Street and there is a future project of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) that will install a sidewalk along Market Street. This will provide some great pedestrian access to the development. This proposal will generate 189 trips in the AM peak and 222 trips in the PM peak and therefore, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been completed for the proposed development. The TIA approval includes the following transportation improvements to be installed by the proposed development:  Market Street at Bump Along Road:  Construction of a dedicated southbound right-turn lane from Bump Along Road to Mendenhall Drive. This turn lane will tie into the U-turn bump out provided by U-4902D.  Market Street at U-turn 800 feet south from Alexander Road (to be constructed with U-4902D):  Installation of traffic signal for the U-turn movement.  Raintree Road at Site Access 3:  Installation of a two-way, two lane road connection to Raintree Road matching the pavement width and typical section at the property line. Along Market Street, the TIA at three intersections shows that with the required and planned improvements these intersections will operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) ranging from A to D:  Market Street at Marsh Oaks Drive LOS is D  Market Street at Bump Along Road LOS is B  Market Street at U-turn LOS is A to B The TIA also examined the three intersections within the development and found they will operate at an acceptable LOS, all of which will be operating at an "A" LOS:  Bump Along Road at Site Access 1 LOS is A  Bump Along Road at Site Access 2 LOS is A  Raintree Road at Site Access 3 LOS is A NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 769 Mr. Schuler then presented the DOT project planned for the adjacent portion of Market Street:  NC Transportation Improvement Program:  Project U-4902D:  Installation of a median and pedestrian improvements along the adjacent portion of Market Street.  The median will remove the full movement center turn lane and provide for directional movements at select locations.  Pedestrian improvements include a sidewalk along the northwestern side of Market Street and a multi-use path along the southeastern side of Market Street.  Construction expected to begin in late 2018. With the median going in, the trip movements in the area will be more controlled. Mr. Schuler then showed a map of the movements for accessing the properties on the north side of Market Street. With the median, it will prevent any left outs from Bump Along Road and Alexander Road. There will be some left ins to Alexander. However, Bump Along Road will be a right in and right out only access. Because of this the TIA expects 95% of the trips generated by the development will enter and exit the site from Bump Along Road and 5% will utilize Raintree Road. This equates to 9 trips in the AM peak and 11 trips in the PM peak and 122 trips over the course of a 24-hour period. There were some concerns from surrounding residents that a lot of commercial traffic would potentially utilize Raintree Road but as shown, that connection will probably be mostly used by the residents within the surrounding neighborhood which consists of 250 lots. There's no benefit for customers of the convenience store to utilize Raintree as again, there would be no left out of Market Street. Generally, people take the shortest route to get where they are going which is Bump Along Road directly onto Market Street. This connection to Raintree Road is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which contains several policies that encourage interconnectivity. There are two benefits to interconnectivity. One provides options for people how to get from point a to point b and when you provide more options you help reduce the amount of traffic we see on our arterial streets. Without interconnectivity, everybody would be forced to travel on a handful of roads which will create traffic and congestion. In this situation, the connection will allow for the residents in the area to get to and back from the store without ever having to get onto Market Street. Interconnectivity allows for emergency access and response time. For example, when emergency services need to get to the residential area in the rear and they are traveling from the north then they can take that connection to get to the location. Mr. Schuler then showed a picture of Bump Along Road noting that the dirt path is the path that connects to Raintree Road. He also showed a picture of the wetlands on the property that would be filled in. Mr. Schuler then stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies the property as Community Mixed Use. This place type focuses on small scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for County residents and visitors. In general, the proposed development is consistent with the goals of the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan as it will provide an appropriate commercial service to nearby residents and travelers along Market Street and provides also for interconnectivity and pedestrian access to the surrounding area. The Planning Board considered this application at their April 6, 2017 meeting and recommended approval by a 5 – 2 vote of the application with the following conditions:  The improvements required as part of the approved Traffic Impact Analysis must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.  A two-way vehicular connection must be made to Raintree Road and extend to Bump Along Road. This vehicular travel way must comply with the County’s construction standards for private roads and must be included within a 30-foot access easement that is dedicated for public use.  The portion of Bump Along Road adjoining the subject property must be able to be used for public use for the convenience food store.  A 20-foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the County along Market Street for the purpose of installing a future multi-use path or sidewalk in accordance with the Wilmington/NHC Comprehensive Greenway Plan.  The development must include bicycle parking facilities consisting of at a minimum four bicycle parking spaces.  Solid fencing and evergreen landscaping shall be installed within the buffer strips along residential areas. Staff has also conducted an analysis of the proposed use and information provided as part of the application package and has granted preliminary findings of fact for each of the conclusions required to be reached to approve an SUP:  Staff Suggested SUP Conditions:  The improvements required as part of the approved Traffic Impact Analysis must be completed in accordance with NCDOT’s standards prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.  The two-way vehicular connection to Raintree Road, extending to Bump Along Road, must be included within a 30-foot-wide access easement that is dedicated for public use.  The portion of Bump Along Road adjoining the subject property must be dedicated for public use, either by dedicating an easement or right-of-way.  A 20-foot-wide easement shall be dedicated to the County along Market Street for the purposes of installing a future multi-use path or sidewalk in accordance with the Wilmington/NHC NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 770 Comprehensive Greenway Plan.  The development must include bicycle parking facilities consisting of at minimum four bicycle parking spaces.  Solid fencing and evergreen landscaping shall be installed within the buffer strips along residential areas. Mr. Schuler concluded his presentation stating that if the Board approves the application, staff recommends these conditions be added to the development. These conditions are very similar to those recommended by the Planning Board. Staff has tweaked them a bit based off an updated site plan and information from DOT regarding when those improvements will need to be installed along Market Street. Chairman White asked if there were any questions from the Board. Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Schuler if minutes from the Planning Board meetings are available to the public. Mr. Schuler responded that they are but are not available at this time. The Planning Board will vote on them th at the following meeting so the minutes will not be approved until this Thursday, May 4. Commissioner Zapple then asked if it was correct that unless a member of the public comes to the Planning Board meeting itself they wouldn’t know what happened. Mr. Schuler responded that there is a video replay of it on our website as well. Commissioner Zapple then asked if the video replay has happened. Mr. Schuler responded that yes, it is currently on our website. Chairman White invited the petitioner to make comments. Patti Jenkins, attorney with Hogue Hill, representing the applicant, Yosef, Inc., stated that she requests the application and all associated documents be entered in as evidence in support of the application. The applicant accepts staff’s findings of facts and conclusions and accepts staff’s suggested conditions for the issuance of the SUP. Cindee Wolfe of Design Solutions will present the applicant’s proposed development and the evidence establishing that it meets the four criteria for issuance of an SUP. Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions and representing the petitioner, Yosef, Inc., stated that she is a registered landscape architect and professional land surveyor. This proposal is to develop a convenience store with fuel sales and an automatic car wash. Market Street is a busy thoroughfare. The tract is already zoned for business use but it is an Office and Institution district so, the proposed use as a c-store is permitted only by a SUP. As Mr. Schuler pointed out, service industries need to be located close to the users they provide for and the closest existing fuel services are the one to the north at Porters Neck Road, which is on the opposite side of the road, and the Speedway station to the south in Ogden proper. The imminent installation of the center median discussed along the length of Market Street will limit easy access from one direction or the other to many business uses along Market Street. It was felt this was a prime location and approximately halfway between the other services. The project fronts on Market Street, a major thoroughfare. Because of congestion, reduction and everything else, we were not able to get our own driveway onto Market Street but have access to Bump Along Road, like all of the other properties subdivided along Bump Along over the years. As Mr. Schuler said, the TIA has been completed and the recommended improvements of the SUP would be part of the approval. When traffic is the issue, there's always common questions that arise and yes, the study begins with existing conditions but then also considers normal annual growth in traffic volumes. Whether this project happens or not, approved but not yet completed projects, like the Aldi’s grocery store and the next phase of Amberleigh Shores, have plans for committed improvements by the DOT like medians and sidewalks, etc. So all of these are incorporated into an analysis. Another consideration in a particular project like this is drive-by traffic. On a busy corridor such as Highway 17, drivers who will patronize the store are already driving on that road. They are not necessarily adding to additional traffic volume to go to a convenience store, if you live in Carolina Beach. Ms. Wolfe stated she would like to point out again what Mr. Schuler mentioned is that and sort of some background on this. The originally proposed a plan that does not connect to Raintree. She is usually danged if she does and danged if she doesn’t, as far as dealing with neighbors and commercial projects on busy roads. However, she thinks the Board will hear that some have very strong feelings on that account, but the County's policies on interconnectivity and the relative isolation of those Alexander Road neighborhoods to alternative travel routes made the connection a positive feature both for the better safety and provision of emergency services. Ms. Wolfe stated that the TIA estimates like Mr. Schuler said, 5% of the overall traffic generated from this project to traverse Raintree Road and that equates to less than ten vehicle trips in either direction during the peak periods. Those substantially being from the neighborhood residents themselves. To highlight the improvements, again, the existing sub-standard driveway into Bump Along would be improved for two-way traffic. A right turn lane would be added on the southbound Market Street approach and a connection would be made to the Raintree Road to provide two-way circulation from an existing dead end in Brickstone over to the Market Street intersection. Because Bump Along Road is a private access easement, a road improvement and maintenance declaration has been prepared for signature by both the owner of the underlying land and this developer. Ms. Wolfe showed on a map during her presentation that it covers the responsibility of the developer to complete all of the improvements:  Install right-turn lane along Market Street.  Improve approximately 280 lineal feet of Bump Along Road for two-way circulation.  Future maintenance of the improvements will be the responsibility of the C-Store Owner.  Relocate existing “7953 Market St.” mailbox approximately 600’ to NW with existing mail delivery cluster of boxes. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 771  Install signage at end of improvements to notify public that Bump Along Road is “Private/NO OUTLET - for use by Residents & Guests Only.” There would also be a guarantee of continued maintenance by the developer of these improvements. A plat will be recorded prior to the permitting to dedicate that portion of the private access easement for public use. In summary, the approved TIA concluded there will be adequate capacity to accommodate future impacts of both the background traffic and of this proposed development upon completion of these improvements. As to other safety and health criteria, the project is in the Ogden Fire Services District. It will be serviced by public sewer and water by the public utility authority. Drainage questions is the other point that gets a lot of attention. The land characteristics overlay did not identify conservation resources such as wetlands, swamp forest or flooding in this vicinity. Ms. Wolfe showed on a map where the topography shows that there are obvious depressions around this particular area which have been isolated from their natural drainage possibly by poor ditch and/or other impediments to positive flow. Even though Raintree Road technically stops at the property line the extension of a dirt path blocks the flow in that area. There is the railroad culvert beneath the old railroad bed that drains into a low area between the bed and Market Street. That outfall is off site and goes to another culvert that runs under Market Street into the Pages Creek watershed. An environmental assessment was made of the tract and jurisdictional wetlands were in fact found to extend into the project area and the adjacent tract to the rear. The wetland pocket within the subject track is less than a half-acre and thereby eligible for a nationwide permit to fill for essential site improvements. The area to the rear is not being impacted and will be buffered. That will be a part of the protection of that rear area and minimization of impacts as part of the fill permit. Ms. Wolfe stated Troy Beasley, an environmental consultant with Withers and Ravenel, is here if the Board has specific questions to those minimization impacts and the permitting process. Based on the site plan, there is a proposal to install a retaining wall along the southern border to facility site fill. That is one of the minimizations to impact the wetland. All run off will be captured in the pipe system and directed to the stormwater pond facility to the rear of the rear property, which is also owned by Yosef, Inc. Both water quality treatment and quality attenuation will be provided by the stormwater pond. Overflow will go back to the natural drainage system and part of that system will be to provide a culvert, which is missing now under the extension of Raintree Road. As an overall area drainage, the design requirements for permitting this property will probably actually improve when the road connection is made and the properly designed culvert is installed. It is our responsibility to maintain the natural flow of any off-site surface water that currently goes past or through our site. The other concern that was brought up during the Planning Board meeting was the proximity of underground fuel tanks to wetlands areas. Specific setbacks for tanks are required in relation to wells, both public and private and certain other protected surface waters, none of which we have in this case. However, a system within 500 feet of any wetland area must be double-walled. The design for this project not only will be double-walled but is continuously monitored for leaks in the secondary containment of both fuel source, fuel storage tanks and the underground piping. Ms. Wolfe stated Dean Prevette, who is also an environmental consultant specializing in fuel stations regulations, is here for those questions. Mitigating efforts have been incorporated into the design to avoid adverse effects to residences in the area. Security is always paramount to her client’s business plan. Cameras and coordination with local law enforcement are common aspects of providing a safe c-store facility. The normal restrictions on directional control of lighting certainly apply, plantings for buffering and visual screening, softening the landscape and providing interior shading and accenting buildings will add to the visual appeal of the project. No evidence has been found that this use would adversely affect abutting property values. The adjacent properties are a church, another of Yosef, Inc.’s properties to the rear, and an abandoned well site on the surplus property roster for the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA). There are no properties around the development that would be affected in any way. The closest residents down Raintree Road is approximately 300 feet. Beyond there are two or three lots that are unbuildable because they are not viable for septic systems and are pretty much totally wetlands. There is the CFPUA surplus site and an open space site. Ms. Wolfe concluded her presentation stating that as staff presented, this project is in the Community Mixed Use land classification intended for more intensive urban development. Policy 4.1 suggests designating sufficient land area and suitable locations for various uses and 4.3 suggests maximizing the effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring the land is available within close proximity to the markets they serve. They believe this proposal relevant to those policies and the County’s strategies for growth and economic development which continue to encourage efforts to attract and retain businesses. It is reasonable in the public interest because it will provide a service that will minimize vehicle trips and miles traveled. In summary, the proposal, if developed according to the plan and the conditions of the approval, will not materially endanger the public safety. It does meet ordinance requirements. It will not substantially injure abutting property values and is in conformity with the plan of development. Chairman White asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. Commissioner Kusek asked Ms. Wolfe what the distance was between the gas station in Ogden and the one on Porters Neck Road. Ms. Wolfe stated she would venture two to three miles. Commissioner Kusek asked if that was between one and the other. Ms. Wolfe stated that is correct and this project would be pretty much in the middle. Commissioner Kusek then asked if this was in proximity to the big Wal-Mart up there. Ms. Wolfe stated that the Wal- Mart is further up the road and is about another half mile up the road above the Sweetwater. Commissioner Kusek asked if it was all the way up to Porters Neck Road. Ms. Wolfe stated that no it is not. Commissioner Kusek then asked if the Wal-Mart sells gasoline. Ms. Wolfe stated she did not think so. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 772 Vice-Chairman Watkins asked Ms. Wolfe if the applicant would be recycling the water from the car wash. Ms. Wolfe responded that she believes they will use a well, they would recycle and that’s a normal aspect of the car washes designed these days. Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that Ms. Wolfe shouldn’t answer this because she serves on the CFPUA but noted that she mentioned an abandoned well site nearby. He asked how far it was from the proposed site. Ms. Wolfe responded that the abandoned well site is right next door. Vice-Chairman Watkins stated he would ask either Commissioner Zapple, who previously served on CFPUA or Commissioner Kusek, if it could be reactivated as a well site at some point. Commissioner Zapple responded that he believed that is a question for the CFPUA engineering staff. Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that he reached out to CFPUA and has not gotten an answer back. He knows we have wells in the area and understands there is contamination monitors in the ground. He further stated he assumes because of the economics and square footage that above-ground tanks are not an option here. Ms. Wolfe responded that no, they would not be and they are generally not as favorable because of the visual impacts of them. She further stated that she has been in contact with the CFPUA Director and if they haven't done it already, the staff has introduced a list of surplus properties, this being on it, that are eligible for some type of dispensation. Vice-Chairman Watkins then commented that as far as the citizens in the area that might be on what he would call a community well or individual wells. Ms. Wolfe commented that there is public water service in the community. Vice-Chairman Watkin asked if there were users of the wells in the area. Ms. Wolfe stated that there were no users in this proximity. Vice-Chairman Watkins then asked roughly what is the proximity that Ms. Wolfe was aware of. Ms. Wolfe stated that certainly no one within 500 feet. Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that he is totally in favor of property owner rights, but his concern, having owned a gas station that was cleaned when the tanks were removed, he knows there have been contaminations that even in monitored situations that have escaped proper monitoring. He stated that these were all of his concerns for now. His major concern is potential for groundwater contamination. He is a fan of above-ground but the applicant is not seeking that. Commissioner Zapple stated to just add on, Vice-Chairman Watkins, the irrigation wells would not be included. Those can be and he was sure are included in the residences that are around that area there. Those are not currently regulated. Chairman White asked Ms. Wolfe if anyone else with her wished to speak. Ms. Wolfe asked that Dean Prevette address the concerns expressed about how the groundwater contamination is handled. Dean Prevette stated that he is a resident of Charlotte and a registered professional engineer and specializes in convenience store and fuel systems design. He explained that he started his career in remediation because he also was concerned with the fact that it is easy to get contamination from a convenience store or any other underground fuel system that is not properly operated. It can be very well documented and maintained. The State of North Carolina has within the past few years passed regulations that eliminated one of the primary reasons for operational errors, which was the field container buckets for the underground tanks. They were previously single walled buckets and the operators would overfill and the spills would wind up going in to the groundwater. He remediated systems for that type of thing and then decided about 15 years ago to work to figure out how to prevent them rather than spending his time trying to clean them up. Now the State does require that anything within 500 feet of a water supply well, by regulation, has to be double-walled. In this case, the fuel tanks would be double-walled whether the development was in 500 feet or not, simply because it is good safety practice and good practices. Right now the current spill bucket regular regulation is one of the old reasons for getting groundwater contamination. The current regulations require the spill buckets be double-walled and have their own interstitial monitor and a secondary containment section so you can't actually drain any surplus back into the tank if you get any extra overflow of the spill buckets. He feels this eliminates a lot of the operational errors but would not state that it will be foolproof. He went on to explain that somebody can dump gasoline on the ground and there's no way to stop that. That type of spill obviously is not going to be from a fuel system deliver or supplier. However, if you go to most of the service stations you will see they have signs up that say avoid topping off because when you top off your gas tank and overfill it you will dump some fuel on the ground. It doesn't take much fuel to initiate a state-level contamination and there is a need to be careful. One of the things they make sure they do is put concrete barriers and concrete containment that is going to be in the area around the fueling positions so that if there are any spills they can be readily cleaned up and make sure it will not migrate towards the water areas. The flow for this proposal is going towards the back of the lot. The fuel tanks and fuel positions will probably be up near Market Street just based on the delivery of WB-50 tractor-trailer trucks. Chairman White asked Ms. Wolfe if this was within the CFPUA service area and if so, is sewer and water service present on both sides of the road. Ms. Wolfe responded that it was within the CFPUA service area. There is a force main that runs through there and a public water line that runs through there. They will be connecting to a sewer line and will be extending that sewer. That will be a main because they can't connect into the force main. The water system runs down Raintree. It is a CFPUA water system, they worked with them and they are part of easements, they are all documented easements. Chairman White asked Ms. Wolfe to explain the installation of the southbound U-turn and if her client is going to pay the fee and wait until the DOT installs it at a later time or is the client going to install it in conjunction with this development. Ms. Wolfe responded that the U-turn that is approximately 800 feet south of the southern Alexander intersection will be part of the DOT project so, no her client is not required to install the U-turn. At the point where that U-turn is in and this project is operating, it will be possible that there would be some type of a surety or bond that would secure if this operates before that happens the possibility of a traffic signal. She stated she and her client are willing to accept those conclusions and recommendations of the TIA. It will be possible to evaluate at that point what type of traffic has expanded, whether it is needed but yes, it is a recommendation or condition we have accepted. It is a function of the median installation. Chairman White asked if it would be put in before or after her client would be operational and if she knew why the TIA would have made that recommendation. Ms. Wolfe responded that if she guessed if it's construction to begin toward the end of 2018, we'd probably be operational before that project is completed. The recommendation was made because they felt that, and personally she can't imagine NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 773 anyone from Porters Neck driving down here to get gas and making a U-turn to go home. You are going to be accessing this particular facility as you drive by whether it is on your way to work or home. Chairman White asked but if you are northbound, doesn't a U-turn require a cement median to be installed. Ms. Wolfe responded no, if you are northbound, you would either make a U-turn at Marsh Oaks traffic signal or you wouldn't go to this particular station. Chairman White stated the way that road goes presently, it has five lanes, it has a center turn lane and it allows a left turn going north into Bump Along. He asked Ms. Wolfe if he was correct about that. Ms. Wolfe stated there will be a median eventually. Chairman White asked when. Ms. Wolfe responded it sounds like sometime in 2019 perhaps. Chairman White stated correct. He then asked Ms. Wolfe why she thought that is going to be installed, if she were to speculate, why does she think DOT is requiring that. Ms. Wolfe responded they aren’t requiring it. That’s a project they came up with several years ago. Chairman White asked why does she think they did that. Ms. Wolfe responded to prevent left turn lanes in what’s commonly known as the suicide lane. Chairman White stated right. Chairman White asked Ms. Wolfe so in this TIA when it recommends the installation and that's going to be in the future, what evidence does she have that would address that concern which is in the present right now. Ms. Wolfe responded is that they would require us to have what's called a pork chop so that it was right in, right out only and that people exiting Bump Along Road would not be able to try to turn left onto Market Street. Chairman White asked if this is approved and it comes into operation before that's installed, is it fair to say it's going to increase left turns in the northbound lane into this facility. Ms. Wolfe responded no, she’s saying that would be an intermediate remedy is to put in that island so that left turn lanes were prevented. Chairman White asked if she agreed to that. Ms. Wolfe stated they wouldn't need it at the point that once the median is in, they wouldn't need that center island because you could only turn right or left. Chairman White asked Planning and Land Use Director Chris O’Keefe and Current Planner Brad Schuler, did his questions, and he wasn’t inviting them to say something if it didn’t prompt them to want to say something but is there any evidence or information either of them could offer to address his questions. He guesses his question is simply, if this gets approved will it be operational before there is a cement median put in the middle of Market Street, yes or no. Mr. Schuler responded that’s possible. Chairman White stated that’s not an answer. Mr. Schuler stated he does not know what their development schedule is. DOT’s development schedule is going to be late 2018; that's why they’re maybe going to require the fee in lieu. Chairman White stated correct. Mr. Schuler stated the idea is that they don’t want this property owner to do all these improvements and then DOT have to come back through and rip it all up and reinstall it. So what they are saying is you will pay DOT what the cost is to install those improvements and then DOT would actually make those improvements with the median project. Chairman White asked if it was correct that until that happens or if DOT changes its mind on its maintenance and construction schedule, this would be operational with additional trips turning left from the northbound lane. Mr. Schuler stated that is potentially, it could happen that way. Again based on the TIA, he believed the build year is 2018 for this development. That is when DOT is going to start construction on Market Street. So in the event that does occur then it could be a few months. Vice-Chairman Watkins asked Ms. Wolfe and Mr. Prevette if the underground tanks are going to be individual or compartmentalized construction. Mr. Prevette responded that it has not been discussed in detail at this point but his guess is there probably will be at least one compartment tank. He then asked if Mr. Prevette could describe the construction of whether it is an individual or compartmentalized and the safety measures that are involved in the construction of those underground tanks. Mr. Prevette stated that all of the tanks that we propose to use would be double-walled tanks with an interstitial monitor. Anytime there is any fluid that leaks into the interstitial you would get an alarm in the monitoring back at the facility site. You actually get an audible alarm that lets you know there is a fluid that has collected inside the space. If the tank is a compartment tank then you would take a large tank, subdivide it with a double-wall and it would still have that single interstitial that would monitor the entire compartment. Vice- Chairman Watkins asked what type of construction material will be used for the exterior compartment construction and the interior construction, he is assuming they would be double-walled. Mr. Prevette it's going to depend on what the owner decides for final design. It is probably going to be either a metal tank with a fiberglass outer shell or a double-wall fiberglass tank. Whatever material is used, it would be would be something that is currently approved and authorized by DOT. Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that his concern is not necessarily about the next five or six years but the ongoing; the life span and the viability of the interstitial monitoring. He knows the monitors can be replaced from the top. His question is viability beyond the road not necessarily the immediate future and he would like to know more about what that would be. At this point we don't have those answers. He thanked Mr. Prevette for his responses. Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Prevette what the water table level is where the fuel tanks will go. Mr. Prevette stated that he does not have the information but thought the environmental people would have it. Commissioner Zapple went on to ask if it was correct that the fuel tanks will be in the wetlands area. Mr. Prevette pointed to an area on the map where the fuel tanks would probably be simply because the WB-50 tanker truck will have to come in and loop around and get back out or out the other way. A WB-50 tanker truck takes about 150 feet to make a 90-degree turn and cannot use a regular automobile track. He stated that the final decision has not been made where the tanks will be sited. Commissioner Zapple commented that he noticed on the elevation on the map in the agenda packet that it said 24-feet in that area that puts it in the lowest lying area and he recognizes the area will be backfilled to lift the elevation. Still it’s a low lying area and that until is it known where the actual tanks will be sited it is hard to know at this point and it is unknown what the level of the water table is at that point in there either. Mr. Prevette stated that the water level is really not going to be impacted because the tanks have to be anchored with concrete to make sure they won't float. The tanks are setup with a detection system to notify if there is anything leaking from the tank to the interstitial or from the environment into the tank so going both ways. Commissioner Zapple commented that at gas stations of any sort, petroleum products get inadvertently spilled. Commissioner Zapple asked if it was correct that it is designed so those will flow to the stormwater runoff which will then flow to the retention pond in the back. Mr. Prevette stated that his understanding is that everything will be flowing to the pond in the rear. Commissioner Zapple NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 774 then asked if there is any capture or treatment in between because of the residue from the surfaces of the gas station to capture that to make sure it is tested before being released in the pond. Once it is released in the pond then the concept is it leeches down into the aquifer or ground. Mr. Prevette stated that there should not be anything spilled to begin with; if there is, it should be visible evidence of it. They could certainly figure out some way to make sure if there is anything flowing across it they have materials on hand to block and dam for spills which they would have anyway. Ms. Wolfe stated that these types of facilities have structured clean up policies and rules and regulations and signage and what sand that is thrown in any situation. That's part of the policy and regulations. Mr. Prevette stated that typically, if you are going to have a significant spill it is from a fuel tanker when he is making the transfer. And those folks all provide their own cleanup equipment as part of their delivery equipment. The minimal spills you get from somebody pulling a hose out of a car or something, most of the time it is such a minute amount that it will evaporate before it hits the groundwater. There is eight inches of concrete under the canopy pad so it is not likely to get into the groundwater unless someone turns on a hose and walks away. Chairman White asked Ms. Wolfe and Mr. Prevette if either knew the delivery patterns of fuel tankers to this particular location; do they come off of I-140 and drive south or do they drop off somewhere else and go up Market Street and turn left going north. Mr. Prevette stated he did not know but could find out. Chairman White stated that it may be too early to start to entertain contracts for fuel delivery but he would like to know the answer to that if it is knowable right now and asked if it is an 18-wheeler turning left or right. Ms. Wolfe stated eventually it won’t be able to turn left and the fuel delivery schedule is unknown. Planning and Land Use Director O’Keefe stated that staff has consulted with the County Health Department who verifies that on both sides of Bump Along Road there is water service available. The residents on Bump Along Road actually rely on wells for their water supply; the nearest house is about 400 feet from the proposed use. The Bump Along Road residents are not on the CFPUA water service. They rely on wells for drinking water. Chairman White requested those who had signed up to speak in opposition to make comments. Andrew Fazzari, resident of Sansberry Court, showed pictures of a facility the developer has done on Gordon Road by the interstate, where it belongs. He also showed photographs of wetlands on the site where the applicant wants to fill in and stick tanks in the ground in these wetlands. He wants to point out this does not stand alone. These wetlands are connected to the lot next to it, to the lot beyond that, and to the lots across the street. The entire neighborhood drains into this area and it forms a holding area to the neighborhood. Big events like dialing back to the late '90s that storm, Raintree Road was flooded over. If you fill this area you are going to push the water further back up stream causing more flooding. He would like to dispute the accuracy of this interconnectivity and the amount of traffic that this is going to put in to the neighborhood. Remembering that the neighborhood, or rather this proposed property is surrounded by R-15 residential properties. If you drive Market Street in the morning, you will know, probably Monday through Thursday, traffic backs up from the southbound lane, sometimes beyond Bump Along Road almost to the light at some times. People are going to take the opportunity to then travel down Raintree Road, go through a neighborhood, get on to Alexander and get themselves further on down Market Street to avoid traffic. He thinks there's going to be more traffic than they project. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. Rachael Cassal, resident of Sansberry Court, thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. She stated that she was present not only as a resident of Wilmington and a resident that lives within 500 feet of the border of the proposed property and also as a professional. The first thing she would like to talk about is your duty as our Commissioners to continue the prosperity of New Hanover County. Her husband and she moved to New Hanover County two years ago because it was a growing city. They loved the development, loved the fact it is growing and that they can grow with it. However, she believes it is the Board’s duty to continue the diversity offered in our area. The Board has already heard testimony on the fact that the south side of Market, within a mile of this proposed development there's going to be a Publix, as well as an Aldi and there’s already a Harris Teeter. On the north side we have a super Wal-Mart and a Food Lion. There's no reason to have a food convenience store in this location. There's accessibility for all residents within a mile for everybody and less than. The Board has heard there are gas stations north and south of the area, as well. She encourages the Board to support a diversity of businesses in our area. In particular, last year, in 2016, North Carolina was ranked number nine in the nation for number of underground gas storage tanks per person. That is a lot of gas tanks per person that isn't really necessary when we can have other development as it stands as office and institutional. Second as a resident of this neighborhood that is going to be impacted by this gas station, she is also concerned with the traffic. As her neighbor Mr. Fazzari suggested, she is not an expert in traffic, but she does know common nature. The proposal for the car wash is on the corner of Raintree. They are proposing saying that people will make a right and loop back on to Market. But again, there's a lot of traffic on Market and common nature is for people to try to skip out that traffic and they are going to go on Raintree. The 5% increase, the 10 vehicles per hour during peak times are morning and evenings. During that time, their neighborhood has lots of families, including hers. There are several young families in this neighborhood. It is a friendly neighborhood and they enjoy walking their safe roads. They also have a lot of dog walkers in their neighborhood. The increase in traffic is not going to make it safe for them. Ten cars more an hour will deter people. In fact, they already have people considering moving out of their neighborhood. In their cul-de-sac alone one of the young couples who spoke at the last public hearing has already put their house up for sale because of the potential impediment. Ms. Cassal stated that lastly she wanted to speak to the Board as a credible reference and stated that she is a professor of environmental science at UNCW. She is concerned, as well as many of you have expressed tonight, about the contaminants of having underground gas storage tanks. As of 2016, there were 312 underground storage tanks in the Wilmington and Washington area considered by the Department of Environmental Quality as high risk of producing pollution to cause harm to humans. That’s 312 gas tanks that are at high risk; that's not the number of gas tanks in the area alone. In the last 30 years there's been over 19,000 reported discharges from commercial and residential underground gas tanks in North Carolina. The funding to mitigate these spills, called the underground NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 775 storage tank fund, the GA has reduced that money and now there is a backlog until 2046 to take care of high-risk areas. It's not going to cover funding for commercial entities with even small and moderate risks. She shared a short excerpt from a scientific peer reviewed journal article from the Journal of Contaminant Hydrology published in December 2016 by Hilbert and Grace stating that part of their abstract, summary of it, “Our study suggests that over the life span of a gas station, concrete pads underneath gas dispensing stations accumulate significant amount of gasoline, which could eventually break through into the underlying soil and groundwater. Our model also shows that lifetimes of spilled gasoline droplets on concrete surface are on the order of minutes or longer. Therefore, contamination can be carried away by foot traffic or precipitation runoff. Regulations and guidelines do not typically address subsurface and surface contaminations due to chronic gasoline spills even though these spills can result in non-negligible human exposure to toxic and carcinogenic gasoline compounds.” In response to one of the questions asked of Ms. Wolfe, Ms. Cassal stated that her house is within 500-meters of this property and has an irrigation well. They have a garden they rely on for vegetables every summer to supplement their food and for their family and she does not want to see that contaminated. Chairman White asked Mr. Harren, Mr. Cromartie, and Mr. Peterson to be mindful of the time as there was five minutes and 52 seconds left during which to make their comments. Jim Harren, resident of Sansberry Court, stated that he would like to ask the Commission to take a ride up to where they are talking about. If you are not familiar with the area, the third cardinal rule of plumbing is that stuff does not flow up hill. This site is just below the top grade of that particular area, that being the Marsh Oaks stoplight. If you come downhill, if you will, from their proposed retention pond there is a cypress swamp there at this point. They could potentially be in for groundwater contamination from a spill or whatever. And having spent 30 years in the boat business and working in marinas that had to have gas tanks dug up, it isn’t pretty when you get in there and start to dig up gasoline. They feel like this will be one of the impacts. Also in regards to Ms. Cassal comments that on the traffic scenario, five to nine cars come through the area now on the weekends and there are kids riding through there at night. It's going to be a crowd traffic increase for us, too. They'd appreciate the Board’s consideration into finding another use for this property. Chavalier Cromartie, resident of Raintree Road, stated that he is not in direct opposition of the landowner of whatever he wants to do and respects his right to build what he wants. What he wants to comment on is the backwater situation that is currently present and that he is directly affected by this as he lives within 300 feet of the proposed plan. He then asked if it was okay with the Committee to present it with some information and some picture that have been taken of the area to better illustrate the ongoing problem in the area. Chairman White asked that the time clock be paused and asked County Attorney Copley if it was allowed, if the petitioner hasn’t been given copies of these in advance, should the Board allow them to be presented. County Attorney Copley responded that the Board can take in any evidence it wants to consider but she thinks the speaker should provide and let the petitioner see it so they can respond, but believes the Board can. Chairman White noted that the rules of the public hearing provide for rebuttal and that it might be the petitioner wishes to offer some rebuttal for whatever evidence he wishes to offer. Chairman White asked Mr. Cromartie to disburse the copies and then continue with his comments. Mr. Cromartie shared contour maps he was offered by New Hanover stormwater but also New Hanover DOT. He stated he happens to be related to a stormwater engineer who worked for Wake County. In a consulting manner, he came and provided his expertise or his opinion on the ongoing backwater situation. Chairman White asked if the information from the stormwater engineer was offered in affidavit form, is it under oath. Mr. Cromartie stated that the gentleman’s credentials are listed and can be confirmed and verified if necessary. Mr. Cromartie continued his comments stating that rather than sitting here and illustrating or summarizing what it is all about, it has some technical jargon included that he was not that familiar with but, his issues are with stormwater, and that he has several maps. One was provided to him by stormwater that illustrates the contour, the 24- foot contour within that area and in and around his house. He stated that for the record his address is 7839 Raintree Road. He is either the last house on the road or the first depending which way you are coming from and has been adversely impacted by back to back hurricanes. He found himself in a situation to where he was having to get answers from both stormwater and DOT. He had the stormwater engineer out first and the gentleman told him that based on the map he lives within the 28-foot contour. In other words, a bowl. As well as the adjacent properties which are considered the wetlands. A couple of important dates, October 15 - Hurricane Joaquin and October 16 - Hurricane Matthew, almost a year to the day of each other put a lot of water this the area. He understands that was a unique event, but these are some of the issues he is currently up against as a landowner on that road. In a map from stormwater he illustrations of the elevation and contour and went on to cite there's no outlet under the road for DOT. He then explained he contacted DOT and Road Maintenance Supervisor Trey Moore with DOT came out as well as Mr. Moore’s immediate supervisor. When stormwater came out, they indicated there are several logistical issues in that area, all over Brickstone Estates and ranging from collapsed culverts to inadequate road ditches which Mr. Cromartie stated he is a victim of and so forth. He stated that again, his concerns are, of course, increased water in the area and there's fundamental issues throughout this area. He then found himself in a position where stormwater was pointing a finger at DOT and DOT was pointing the finger at stormwater. He is now stuck as a tax paying citizen left frustrated without being able to get help. He concluded his comments that he respects the landowner's rights to develop there but would hope our rights as citizens in that community are not overlooked based on tax revenue. Chairman White stated to Mr. Cromartie that Mr. Peterson was 20 seconds left to speak and he would like for him to at least have an opportunity. Mr. Cromartie stated that he knows there is a General Statute 7-71-14 that is about the position of diffuse surface water in North Carolina. He is curious as to who he can hold responsible if the water situation is directly NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 776 affecting his property; is that something he takes up with the landowner or the County? He asked that the Board reconsider. Chairman White stated that as Mr. Peterson came up to the podium, the Board had questions of the petitioner which lengthened the time but their presentation was strictly limited to 15 minutes. When the Board has questions the time is suspended. Just so that everyone knows opposition speakers were afforded the exact amount of time as the rules allow. He reminded opposition speakers that they have five minutes of rebuttal should they seek to take it. Harper Peterson, resident of Orange Street, stated that he thinks the application is incomplete. They have not included the retention pond that will handle the water that will be generated by filling in over a half acre of wetlands and take into consideration storm flow, rain flow from the property from the north and to the south. He thinks that has to be a part of it. As Chairman White raised the question and concern about the median in Market Street being complete before this project is done or completed. So the stormwater, there's no engineering oversight or study that has taken place and he thinks that is essential. When talking about the four findings of fact, he thinks it fails 1) protecting the public health and safety and 2) devalues adjoining and abutting property owners without a complete engineered stormwater program. Chairman White stated that the petitioner now has up to five minutes to offer any rebuttal if it chooses do to so. In rebuttal, Ms. Jenkins stated that as a first matter they object to any submission of the documents that were presented by Mr. Harren on the grounds they are hearsay. They have not had the opportunity or not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine whoever prepared this evaluation, Ken Cromartie. A survey map with handwritten notations on that, again, they have had no opportunity to cross-examine whoever prepared that map. Chairman White asked Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman if the opposition materials in the Board’s agenda packets were provided to the petitioner or what are the rules for providing those to the petitioner. There are two pictures that Mr. Fazzari held up that are in the packet. There's a letter from Kenneth Cromartie, which is not under oath but was also provided in the packet. He asked if the petitioner got those before. Ms. Jenkins stated yes, they received the agenda packet. Chairman White then asked on what grounds was Ms. Jenkins objecting. Ms. Jenkins responded that it is presented either in the packet or here tonight, as she understands as some sort of expert testimony and they did not have the opportunity to cross-examine that expert because he's not here. Chairman White asked Ms. Jenkins when did she receive the notice of the opposition materials. Ms. Jenkins responded that she accessed them whenever they were available. Chairman White stated that Ms. Jenkins objection is based on the lack of expert, not cross examining them. He then explained this for the viewing public’s understanding. If this Board denies this SUP and if the petitioner were to decide to appeal it in Superior Court, the things that were offered with witnesses were not available to be cross-examined would not be relied upon by a court and sitting as a court us five cannot also consider those items. It’s a common concern that we have during some of these SUP items when one side has counsel and the other does not but it’s always worthy of reminding people why the rules are the way they are. He then noted that he did not use any of Ms. Jenkins rebuttal time and asked that she proceed with her statements. Ms. Jenkins stated she would like to address some of the issues regarding connectivity and traffic. The initial plan and the application that they initially submitted did not contemplate connectivity. They had sole ingress and egress along Bump Along Road. Connectivity and the consequent, perhaps, traffic increase as a result of that came from the Planning Board. It was a condition imposed on them from Planning staff and the Planning Board at the meeting. She thinks the TIA analyzed both with connective and non-connectivity and their findings were about the same. This did not come from the applicant. It was imposed on the applicant. They have worked hard to accommodate that condition but she wanted to clarify where that came from. Ms. Wolfe stated that basically what Ms. Jenkins is saying is if the Board finds that this facility would have an impact because of that connectivity, it is something that they are fine with the connectivity or without the connectivity. Chairman White asked Ms. Wolfe what she had to say about one of the persons in opposition pointing out a lack of a retention pond on the site plan. Ms. Wolfe responded that there is a retention pond on the site plan on the rear site. Ms. Wolfe stated that the rear property is owned by her client, and he would grant himself or this front property a drainage easement and that pond would be designed not only to take care of this project but eventually tract two or tract b, the rear project if that were ever to be developed. So development of that tract is not included in this petition for the SUP but a pond can be off site for any development, as long as appropriate easements are granted. Chairman White then asked Ms. Wolfe what the permit process would be for the stormwater runoff pond as it relates to the opening of the store and requested she walk him through the process. Ms. Wolfe stated that upon approval of this entitlement, if that's the case, then they would be free to go into the detailed design and permitting. They have the preliminary topographic maps and that sort of thing but, a detailed topographic map would be done in the field. An engineer would take that information and the impervious surfaces from this particular project and calculate how much water is the pre- and post- runoff and those calculations would be submitted not only to the State of North Carolina for the water quality issues but to the New Hanover County Engineering Department for the attenuation and detention requirements as part of the stormwater policies. That pond has to be installed and ready before the first amount of impervious surface can be laid down. So all permitting has to occur before the construction authorization is released. And those ponds have a maintenance agreement. They will have perpetual maintenance and oversight by whoever's name is on that permit. They are evaluated on an occasion, as far as those maintenance classifications. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 777 Ms. Wolfe then asked that as part of the drainage rebuttal and the wetlands development, Withers and Ravenel Senior Environmental Scientist Troy Beasley to make a statement. Mr. Beasley stated that he is handling the 404/401 permitting of the wetland impacts under the nationwide permit and understands one of the issues with drainage with the residents. One of the causes of the drainage problems is there is no drainage connection between the wetlands. The dirt road was built through the wetlands and there is an impoundment of the eastern most wetland. That wetland actually backs up and then has to spill over the road where it comes into the well they will be impacting. Right now the only drainage or the connection to the ditch that goes to the pipe under Market Street is actually maintained by an undersized culvert which is perched to the point that it essentially have to reach flood stages in order to get any positive drainage downstream. As part of the site plan, you are actually going to see improved drainage from the eastern most wetland downstream as well as improvements to the drainage underneath, basically getting that water quicker under Market Street and to Pages Creek. Aside from catastrophic flood, hurricane, something like that you should see a general overall improvement of the drainage, at least under Market Street as a result of site improvements. Chairman White asked if the stormwater pond is on the back parcel and how is it foreseen the drainage across Raintree Road, would it be with a ditch. Ms. Wolfe responded that it would be piping system. The runoff from surfaces on this facility would be collected in drop inlets or whatever, it would be directed to the pond in one way or the other. The pond has a four bay for settling out, it has a detention area, and it has a spillover. At whatever point it spills over, it would go in the natural drainage pattern. Right now there's no way for that water to get under Raintree and that is why that has backed up. That's why that sort of back up is what Troy is saying is the problem with the Market Street culvert. They are responsible for maintaining that through drainage through our site. If Raintree gets connected, if the Board chooses to approve this with this connection, then a culvert would be designed appropriately to get that water the way it is supposed to be going now. She doesn’t know all of the details of the DOT’s ditching system in Brickstone; that is a maintenance issue that they need to address with the DOT. If it is backing up in this area right here, then their solution will certainly be a remedy of that and will improve it. If that connection is not made, and instead the project sits alone they would still propose to put in the sidewalk or there would be some type of culvert there, no matter what, to release the water from the pond to the normal drainage system. Commissioner Zapple asked of Ms. Wolfe if he is hearing her right, the stormwater pond does not exist at this point. Ms. Wolfe responded no, it is part of this plan. Commissioner Zapple then stated she went to great lengths earlier to show that the front parcel is all we are looking at tonight. Yet what he is hearing now is that the stormwater pond is a significant part of this project and he asked if this was correct. Ms. Wolfe stated yes. He then stated what he is hearing is there hasn't been any, he has not seen any engineering as to how this will work, even though she did a good job explaining from her own background how this will happen. An obvious question he thinks that any engineer who looks at that is that we have a large amount of wetlands adjacent to where this pond is. And what we are hearing tonight from, granted it is people who live there and not professionals, is there's significant backup of water throughout here. He asked Ms. Wolfe to comment on what’s to prevent the existing wetlands from basically overwhelming the retention pond. It seems there's a lot of engineering here that we haven’t seen as part of this proposal. Ms. Wolfe responded that they generally don’t do detailed engineering prior to the entitlement process. Best management practices, her experience and the other professionals that she works with lead to the plan that they put in front of the Board. This project can't start and get off the ground unless the detailed permitting occurs through the DOT, the water quality, the State, and the County. Everybody has to look at it. The pond is part of that. Ponds for commercial can be off site. It is on a commercial tract. This site in the back is also zoned O and I. There is no problem or ordinance issue with them locating the pond on an adjacent site that’s by the same owner. The problem created in this entire area is the lack of a culvert in that location and that causes the backup. That they have verified through Mr. Beasley’s field investigation of the two wetlands. Initially, he felt they were isolated pockets. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined there is a nexus that it is in fact a continuous wetland and so it is not isolated. They are taking that approach based on that. But that's your key right there to just about everything that anyone has said about drainage. That will be a part of their requirement to provide that through drainage, if they have a plan and get permitted for this project and that pond. Chairman White asked if those in opposition have any rebuttal to the rebuttal and requested comments be limited to what was discussed in the petitioner’s rebuttal. Harper Peterson, resident of Orange Street, stated if this is the site plan then he thinks the retention pond should be represented as handling the stormwater that's going to be created by this development. This is a layman's illustration. More attention is given to the actual gas station, convenience store, and car wash. Two, the culvert that Ms. Wolfe references, he does not think that is existing presently. There is one further up Raintree but not where she's laid it out. Regardless, has the applicant considered the City? There is a 30-inch culvert that exits this property underneath Market Street into City property. A 30-inch culvert. When you have 25-year storm events that’s a lot of water moving over this land. He thinks the stormwater retention is paramount to the Board’s consideration of this application. And a comment, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, with regard to Superior Court consideration, did this th body, the County Commissioners, have you considered the April 6 Planning Board meeting and any testimony or any consideration they gave or any decisions they made. Because without approved minutes, he doesn’t know how the Board can consider anything that took place at that meeting. Regardless of it was on TV or any other communication. But the Board should have approved minutes in front of it, if it is considering anything that took place at that meeting. He thinks that's a legal question. Stormwater, not just here, but throughout the County, throughout the City, is essential. In talking to County staff, a stormwater utility is again something we need in this County. We are not a rural area anymore. Even though we are outside of the City limits, we need it. Especially if you look at a future street plan in the northeast part of the County. This will be repeated and repeated again and again. We put in our Comprehensive Plan that water resources need to be protected and restored. We need to be looking at stormwater issues and this is a good example of one. Again, he thinks this is incomplete application. The Board should continue the item until the Board has a better picture of how they will protect the health and safety of citizens and protect the value of property in this community. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 778 Vice-Chairman Watkins asked that the countdown clock be stopped and that County Engineer Jim Iannucci address from a regulatory, etc. if at this point is it common practice to have a similar stormwater retention pond rendition drawing and not be in great detail. County Engineer Iannucci was sworn in by the Clerk to the Board before responding to the Vice-Chairman’s questions. Chairman White stated to Mr. Peterson that he, for one, never watches Planning Board meetings for the very reason that Mr. Peterson cited. So he has not seen it, never have watched them, does not want to be tainted by any evidence that may or may not be presented. For the record. County Engineer Iannucci stated that yes, on both residential and commercial developments we typically don't require full engineering drawings to be done on a project that has not been approved. That's a lot of detail and effort that needs to go in to it. There needs to be enough of it addressed that we look into is stormwater going to be handled on site, is it going to meet the County and State regulations, is there wetlands and things that need to be the Corps if it is connected or the State if it’s isolated. We do look that they are going to be addressed but that is something that is going to happen during the design phase. Vice-Chairman Watkins commented that overall, they are all treated the same, this is just like any other plan and asked if it is approved, is it correct that Mr. Iannucci’ s department will make sure we are safe from the stormwater. Mr. Iannucci stated yes sir, that is correct. Mr. Cromartie stepped forward to speak and Chairman White noted that there was one minute and 59 seconds left in the rebuttal time. Mr. Cromartie stated that he forgot to pass on a contour and elevation map directly from the office of New Hanover County. It directly contradicts the elevation and contour as presented with their plan in as far as the backwater situation is concerned and what impact that backwater will have not only on his property but adjacent properties. Chairman White asked Ms. Jenkins about an earlier objection she cited to what Mr. Cromartie submitted as it relates to his family member doing work or offering opinions, which is a valid and reasonable objection because he's not here to cross-examine. He stated that however, Mr. Fazzari was here to be cross-examined and asked Ms. Jenkins if she wished to ask him any questions related to his common sense comments about traffic at peak hours diverting down Raintree Road, that’s in direct opposition to what the TIA seems to show, which he is not sure that they took that into account. Ms. Jenkins responded that again, the TIA did not come from them and they have not examined that, nor do they feel, they haven't prepared to defend that because again their initial application, they did not plan for connectivity. They don't care if there is connectivity or not. Again, that came from Planning and the Planning Board who can speak best to why they wanted that. They don't feel they need to address it, defend it and they would be equally pleased if it went away. Chairman White then stated that he will ask Ms. Jenkins on the same question about connectivity because that’s a good point. Ms. Rachel Cassal made the same good points. She cited generally known statistics nationwide and in our state as it relates to underground storage tanks. Those comments were general in nature and Chairman White takes it from her vocation as a professor in environmental science, she didn't qualify herself as an expert. Chairman White asked Ms. Jenkins if she wished to cross-examine her on some of the things she said about the statistics that she cited. Ms. Jenkins responded that she will rest on the testimony of Dean Prevette, their expert, who she feels addressed those more than adequately. Chairman White then asked Ms. Jenkins if the finder of fact found that Ms. Cassal’s evidence outweighed Mr. Prevette’s would she object to that. Ms. Jenkins responded that she would object to that. She does not believe they are persuasive, local in nature, and specifically address the concerns that came out of the Board about storage tank safety. Again, she believes it relied on general statistics and not specific hands-on experience as far as the construction, remediation, and monitoring of those tanks in real-life terms. Commissioner Zapple stated to Ms. Jenkins that earlier she objected to a map that had some hand drawing on it, etc. He asked if she was referring to the map passed around with the photographs. Ms. Jenkins responded no, but it is a map with coloring on it. It looked like it was a survey prepared for Liberty Baptist. She only got a glimpse of it for a second. It says something about Liberty Baptist at the heading in the upper left. She stated that she was assuming it was offered as some sort of basis of expert testimony or reference and there’s no basis for that; she does not know who prepared that and in what context. Commissioner Zapple stated he wanted to make sure because there seems to be confusion with stuff passed around and knew Ms. Jenkins didn’t have a chance to take a look at it. Chairman White asked Current Planner Brad Schuler to comment on the connectivity issue that seems to be one of the points the opposition has raised and if the plan did not include a plan for connectivity. Mr. Schuler stated the TIA examined the trips that are generated from the proposed development. So it is not looking at the cut through, potential traffic. It is looking at the trips that are going from the gas station and leaving the gas station. It did look at two examples, one with the connection and one without. It found that with the connection, the trips generated from that site only 5% would utilize it because of how close everybody would be to Market Street and that would be the quickest and direct route for them. So it did condition, or did include in one of its recommended improvements that the connection be made. People can cut through the property now as mentioned earlier. Also in testimony that sometimes some kids drive through there. That cut through is already possible so he does not see how this connection is going to add a lot of traffic, based off of this document which was reviewed by professional traffic engineers and conducted by a professional engineer that it's going to be a substantial change to Raintree Road, which is a public right of way and open for public use. It is maintained by DOT. Chairman White asked if it was correct that when they do traffic impact analysis there's a component of the equation they put together that considers behavioral patterns and decision making and that's how they come up with a statistical number as to 5% will turn left or 5% will do this or that. Mr. Schuler confirmed that was correct. Chairman White then stated that right now it is a dirt road and looks like you would be stuck if you drove a big truck through it. He asked Mr. Schuler, if it was paved, if he had any comments about what Mr. Fazzari has to say about behaviors because it seems to him that he could permissibly infer, based on his own common sense, during peak traffic hours, if he pulls in there and get fuel, it's going to be impossible NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 779 to pull out and turn left. It’s going to difficult to pull out and turn right so, why not drive through the neighborhood and find an easier way, path of least resistance. He understands TIAs and knows they are technical and very useful. Often they don't take in to consideration what you can glean from basic common sense about decisions people make about how to get out of some place when the traffic is congested. Chairman White stated he was interested to hear Mr. Schuler’s comments because we can solve that problem if we don't require connectivity. If Mr. Fazzari is right and we make an exception and don't require it, then that problem is solved. Mr. Schuler responded that while he sees Chairman White’s point he counters that having options and having the ability for people to take options to get from point a to point b are a benefit for everybody in New Hanover County, and not just the benefit of a few by potentially denying that connection. Let's say there's an accident right there on Market Street. It will provide another way for people to get to where they are going to where it's not backed up. One of the big concerns we always get in this County is traffic, traffic, traffic and that's because everybody drives their car and they have to get on a handful of roads. Until we start fighting for interconnectivity we are never going to address the issue and all we will do is seeing it forward and forward. So staff recommendation, as it is based on the Comprehensive Plan, which has multiple guidelines that call for interconnectivity, our recommendation is that connection be made. It is a public right of way and maintained by the State. There's no maintenance issues as we have seen in other ones. It will just remain a dead end and we will be known as the County with a bunch of dead ends is what he fears. Chairman White acknowledged that Mr. Schuler was passionate about it and asked if he thought that concern which is legitimate, outweighs the concerns of people that walk their dogs and use what is, right now, primarily a residential roadway to enjoy the outdoors. Mr. Schuler responded that is a public right of way and it is open for public use. They bought property that stubs into vacant property on Market Street. He thinks it is safe to assume that eventually that property is going to develop and that connection is going to be made. Commissioner Zapple commented on the layout of the facility. The car wash, which as we know, a person is offered a free car wash with their fill up. The direction of the traffic on site here funnels you into Raintree. So his concern is and he would like to know if Mr. Schuler gave it any thought or maybe was there some discussion at the Planning Board, is that he thinks that more than your usual amount of people exiting here as they go through the car wash, which is a convenience, puts them right onto Raintree. Following Chairman's White's concept of common sense is that he would take a left on Raintree and keep going especially if he knew the area. He asked for Mr. Schuler’s input and if he saw this as a pro or a con. Mr. Schuler stated that it appears to be a one-way street and looks like you have to turn. The car wash looks like it gives you an option. He thinks most people will take the direct route, the shortest route to get from point a to point b and that would be going to Market Street. Again, there's no left outs. Commissioner Zapple stated he was referencing about left outs onto Raintree, not Market Street. Planning and Land Use Director O’Keefe stated that he felt he needed to comment on this as he thinks we need to stick with what the TIA is telling us which is 5% of the trips may use that Raintree exit. Chairman White's comments got him thinking the same that if he was driving down Market Street and it is backed up he would think well, if he turns here maybe it is shorter. In this case, Mr. O’Keefe thinks this is the choice you may make once and you will find out that, first of all, it's a lot longer because Raintree kind of curves out. You have to take another left turn and then it comes back to Market Street and where most likely you’ll be sitting in the same traffic and maybe waiting longer to get into the same traffic. Although he understands it and as he states he would probably try it once himself, he thinks it would prove to not be the shortcut that people might think it is. Mr. Schuler stated that again with the median you are going to be downstream so you are going to be the first to be able to take a right onto Market Street. If you go the longer route, then you are still going to have to wait for the person that exited the site and eventually you have to take a U-turn to head north. As stated in the TIA, most people are going to take the Bump Along exit. Chairman White asked Mr. Schuler if he had an opinion on why DOT is going to require a median in that area. Mr. Schuler responded that medians are to help the flow of the road. They limit points of conflict and when you limit points of conflict you limit accidents. Anytime someone cuts in front of somebody the car in front stops and the car behind has to stop and it's a chain reaction. So this is the superstreet type of method, similar to an interstate highway. Again, there is a median on the interstate highway, they have controlled points where you can access and enter the road. This is kind of a design that's for a local street or a collector street and that is the reason why the median is being put in. It's going to make Market Street flow better and it's going to reduce the number of accidents. Chairman White asked Mr. Schuler if he thought it favorably affected or reduced the danger to the public health and safety of people traveling on that road. Mr. Schuler responded that it would be a benefit to the public health and safety to have the median in place. Commissioner Barfield stated that having been on the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) for the last nine years, this has been a pattern of DOT. They put the same superstreet on South College Road between Holly Tree going all the way up to probably Monkey Junction. He objected to that particular superstreet as they were cutting off access to the road that is one block off of Holly Tree. It was a dead end street but they blocked it off anyway and they couldn't understand why living in that section of town, they didn’t see the accidents that DOT said were there but they were not there. They are using a national model to come in and actually streamline traffic throughout our community. So he thinks this is part of the Market Street Corridor Plan that DOT has and it's something that has been in place for the last four or five years or better now. They are fulfilling a mission of putting medians up and down Market Street. This was something they decided many moons ago. Chairman White closed the public hearing, moved to Board discussion and requested direction from the Board. Commissioner Zapple asked Planning Board member Dave Weaver to step forward regarding the Planning Board’s 5 – 2 vote and provide his input on what transpired at the meeting and if the discussions mirrored what the Board is discussing. Mr. Weaver first spoke about the two dissenting votes. He stated that Mr. Boney, he thought, had major concerns with the wetland being filled in on the gas station site. Mr. Boney talked about the retaining wall that NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 780 would be on the southeastern side of the gas station site. Mr. Rawl talked about how he was concerned about the drainage, the wetland, the traffic congestion, and the 24-hour, 7 days a week nature of a convenience food store. The people that were in favor of the motion to approve the SUP, including himself, felt that it met the requirements of the Land Use Plan and the policies for Community Mixed Use development. He knows the Board has talked a lot about interconnectivity and when they first looked at the site plan and it showed only a one-way connection going from the east, from the southeast to Bump Along Road on the backside of the gas station, they thought that it would be much better to be a two-way connection like it is now shown on the site plan for two reasons. One, emergency vehicles coming from the north would have better access going into that subdivision on some of those roads. But then also a big one in his mind was that people in the Raintree subdivision that would want to go to the convenience food store. By having a two-way access going to Bump Along Road, means they can go to the convenience food store, turn around and go back along Raintree back into their subdivision without having to make a right hand turn or any kind of access onto Market Street. In Mr. Weaver’s mind and other people's mind this was safer than to do it with just a one-way connection on Raintree. So interconnectivity in this case they felt was a very good thing. Mr. Weaver stated that with regard to underground storage tanks, they didn't talk about that too much. And he doesn’t pretend to be an expert on underground storage tanks. He is familiar with the fact that there are a lot of leaking underground storage tanks in the County and they are a potential problem. He is also familiar, as was discussed here tonight, that new underground storage tanks that are put into the ground because of past problems are very well built, well regulated, and are monitored frequently. The chance he thinks as a non-expert and the other members of the Planning Board, the majority of the Planning Board, he thinks also felt that the possibility of a major significant underground leak that would get to the point of contaminating groundwater would really be pretty small with a modern underground storage tank. Mr. Weaver further stated that drainage was an issue. New Hanover County is not a great place to get rid of stormwater. We have regulations in place that were worked out over a long period of time and they have standards that are met that regulate how much water can be discharged from a newly constructed site. The State also has regulations. In his mind and he thinks in some of the other people's minds on the Planning Board, the majority, it was felt that while you absolutely cannot do any development anywhere in the County without negatively impacting stormwater. But the fact is this development would meet the standard if they do what they say they're going to do. He pointed out that this development will not go forward unless the detailed stormwater plan that they show meets County standards and regulations and meets the State water standards and regulations. That's similar to getting a building permit and meeting the building code after receiving a zoning permit to go ahead and do a development. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White stated that a Special Use Permit which is denied may only be resubmitted if there has been a substantial change in the facts, evidence, or conditions of the application as determined by the Planning Director. He asked the petitioner if they would like to continue the application to a future meeting or to proceed with this Board deciding whether to recommended approval or denial of the application. Ms. Wolfe requested the Board to proceed with the decision. Chairman White asked Ms. Wolfe if she agrees with staff findings and any proposed conditions. Ms. Wolfe stated yes, all of the above. Chairman White requested direction from the Board. Commissioner Zapple stated he has some comments and Chairman White stated that Board discussion was closed. Commissioner Zapple asked if a motion could be discussed. Chairman White responded yes, after a motion is made he thinks it would be proper to make any discussion and asked for a motion to approve or motion to deny. Commissioner Zapple made a motion to deny. Chairman White stated that there is a motion to deny and he will second the motion and include in the motion a) that it will endanger the public health and safety by the absence of a median in the middle lane and b) that it does not meet condition number four that it's in harmony with the surrounding area and in general conformity to the plans and development for New Hanover County because of (a) the unanswered questions related to stormwater mitigation; (b) underground storage containers; and (c) the 24-hour continuous operation nature of the convenience store. He asked Commissioner Zapple if he would consent to these items being added to his motion. Commissioner Zapple stated yes. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Chairman White, to deny as the Board finds that a) that it will endanger the public health and safety by the absence of a median in the middle lane and b) that it does not meet condition number four that it's in harmony with the surrounding area and in general conformity to the plans and development for New Hanover County because of (a) the unanswered questions related to stormwater mitigation; (b) underground storage containers; and (c) the 24-hour continuous operation nature of the convenience store. Chairman White stated that there is a motion for denial and he would like the record, before the we vote on it, to reflect unless there is some specific finding by this Board, that the evidence that is cited in the motion does not include Mr. Cromartie’s evidence from his friend or family member. It does not include any other maps or documents presented to us that were not in the public package made available before tonight. Chairman White stated that there is a motion on the table and asked if there was any further discussion by the Board. Commissioner Zapple stated that he feels somewhat conflicted even with the motion to deny. The situation with the connectivity and the discussion on that, he agrees with the Planning Department and absolutely understands and respects that. However, from his point of view for the reasons that were explained earlier here it's the potential for the flooding, filling of the wetlands, the underground tanks, the historical evidence of chronic flooding, the potential NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2017 PAGE 781 for petroleum by-products or fuel itself to be spread into the local water system there either through the retention pond or through natural water flowing off the hard surfaces. He just doesn’t feel as though he had enough data that would overcome his reservations on all those as well as the 24-hour, 7-day a week operation there and the impact it has on the local community. Those are his comments. Chairman White stated because the petitioner may appeal this and if so, a Judge would be asked to find facts as to why we may deny this. He would add to Commissioner Zapple's comments that DOT has made a clear finding of public health and safety in requiring a median there over time. This Board has also required a median to be installed with other developments just north of this before development was to be allowed for the same reasons. Turning left in the north bound lane is dangerous and developing things without taking that into consideration adds to that danger and increases the likelihood of injury to people unnecessarily. A finding that the State obviously agrees with. He does not think there's been any finding or evidence of value of property. There's been no evidence offered. And so he doesn’t believe that the record reflects that there's been a finding that it would damage the value of any of the adjoining neighborhoods. That's not why the motion to deny was made. That's not a fact, he doesn’t believe a court would look to. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman White asked for a vote on the motion on the table. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4-1 to deny the petition. Commissioner Barfield voted in opposition. A copy of an order denying a Special Use Permit and listing the findings of fact is contained in SUP Book IV, Page 65. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chairman White reported that no one had signed up to speak on non-agenda items. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman White adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kymberleigh G. Crowell Clerk to the Board Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners meeting. The entire proceedings are available for review and checkout at all New Hanover County Libraries and online at www.nhcgov.com.