Loading...
2017-03-06 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 700 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, March 6, 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; Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman; and Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Patrick Hall, Pastor, Cape Fear Freewill Baptist Church, provided the invocation and Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr. 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 : Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Watkins, to approve the items on 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 Agenda Review Meeting of February 16, 2017 and the Regular Meeting of February 20, 2017. Adoption of Amendment of New Hanover County Ordinance Code Chapter 32, Prohibiting All Tobacco Use (Including Nicotine Electronic Delivery Devices) on the Grounds of the New Hanover County Public Health Department – Health Department The Commissioners adopted an amendment to the New Hanover County Ordinance, Chapter 32, Health and Sanitation, Article 3, County Property, to prohibit all tobacco use (including electronic delivery devices) on the campus of the New Hanover County Public Health Department, and authorized the Board of Health to enact a supporting rule or resolution. A copy of the ordinance amendment is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 27.1 REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS Chairman White recognized members of Boy Scout Troop 234 in attendance, along with their Scoutmasters, to learn about our local government. He commended their attendance, thanked them speaking with him prior to the meeting and expressed appreciation to the Scoutmasters for their leadership. ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 13-18, 2017 AS IN NEW GIRL SCOUT WEEK HANOVER COUNTY Chairman White stated that Ila Chilberg with Girl Scout Troop 1597 requested the Board to consider the adoption of the proclamation declaring March 13-18, 2017 as Girl Scout Week in New Hanover County. This month th marks the 105 anniversary of the Girls Scouts of the USA. Chairman White requested a motion to approve the proclamation as presented. MOTION : Commissioner Kusek MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Watkins, to adopt the proclamation declaring March 13-18, 2017 as Girl Scout Week in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 27.2. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF REZONING REQUEST (Z-966, 1/17) – REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, NEW BEGINNING CHRISTIAN CHURCH, TO REZONE 8.57 ACRES LOCATED AT THE 3100 BLOCK OF BLUE CLAY ROAD, FROM (CZD) R-10, CONDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO (CUD) R-10, CONDITIONAL USE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 68 DWELLING UNITS Chairman White opened the public hearing and announced that the Conditional Use District process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any person wishing to testify must be sworn in. All persons who signed in to speak or who want to present testimony please step forward to be sworn in. The following persons were sworn in: Brad Schuler Ben Andrea NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 701 Chris O’Keefe Donna Girardot Cindee Wolf Curtis Doyle Mary Barber Current Planner Brad Schuler reported that a Conditional Use District is a district that requires every land use within it to obtain a Special Use Permit (SUP) and therefore two separate actions would need to be taken by the Board and any conditions must be added to the SUP. He then presented the request submitted by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, New Beginning Christian Church, to rezone 8.57 acres of a 17.93-acre parcel located at the 3100 block of Blue Clay Road, from (CZD) R-10, Conditional Residential District, to (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, and for a Special Use Permit for a high density development consisting of 68 dwelling units and presented a slide overview of the request. The zoning in the vicinity consists of mostly residential and industrial districts. The residential districts, including R-10, R-15, R-20, and two (CZD) R-10 districts, can be found to the north, south, and west of the property. Adjacent to the property to the north is a large tract of R-10 zoning, approximately 260 acres in area, which contains the Ivy Woods and Runnymeade subdivisions. To the south is property recently rezoned to (CZD) R-10 in order to allow for the development of a performance residential subdivision. That development, Rachel’s Place, is currently under construction. The industrial districts, including I-2 and AI, are located to the east and south of the property, and contain the North Kerr Industrial Park and Wilmington International Airport. The subject property is currently undeveloped. This past April it was rezoned to a Conditional R-10 district in order to allow for the development of a 46-lot performance residential subdivision. The property owner is now seeking to develop a portion of this subject property as a high density development specifically for an active adult retirement community. The main access to the development will be from Blue Clay Road. There are no driveways proposed to be installed along Holland Drive or Alex Trask, however there is cross access to the church parking lot. There will also be connection to the road stub in the Rachel’s Place development to the south. The ordinance further requires the connection to be stubbed further north with the goal of one day connecting to Galway Road in Ivy Woods. One major change in this proposal is it does not include the land adjoining the Ivy Woods subdivision and therefore, this development will not include or require that connection be made to Galway Road. As required by ordinance, sidewalks will be installed along all drives, connecting to the church, Rachel’s Place subdivision, and to the Blue Clay Road right-of-way. The Greenway Plan does call for a greenway to be installed along the western side of Blue Clay Road. The development will generate 9 trips in the AM and 12 trips in the PM. Because the trips do not exceed 100 in the peak hours, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required to be completed. Overall the site plan was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and does comply with the standards of the County’s Zoning Ordinance. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject 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. Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Multi-family residential is encouraged within the Community Mixed Use place type and may have a density ranging up to 15 units per acre. The Planning Board considered this application at their February 2, 2017 meeting and recommended approval of the rezoning to the (CUD) R-10 district, finding that it is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because Multifamily residential is encouraged within the Community Mixed Use place type. The proposed density is consistent with the Plan and is the average density needed to support the small scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that this place type promotes. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the development is located in close proximity to water and sewer utilities, will provide pedestrian amenities to help promote a safe, walkable community, and will add to the range of housing types in the area. The development is also located close to services and employment centers which may minimize vehicle trips for the residents. Staff concurs with the Planning Board's statements that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest, and with the added conditions. If the Board approves the rezoning, then it can consider the SUP portion of this application based on the current information. Based on current information, staff has created preliminary findings of fact for each of the conclusions required to be reached to approve the SUP request and are detailed in the staff summary. The Planning Board also recommended approval of the SUP with the following conditions: 1. The development shall be used only as an Active Adult Retirement Community or Independent Living facility. 2. No gates or traffic calming devices shall be installed unless reviewed and approved by the Technical Review Committee. 3. A 20-foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the County along Blue Clay Road for the purposes of installing a future multi-use path in accordance with the Wilmington/New Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan. Staff concurs with the Planning Board's three conditions being included should the Board approve the SUP. Chairman White requested the petitioner to comment. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 702 Robert Campbell, Pastor of New Beginning Church, stated this project is part of a long-term vision for New Beginning Church. Over 12 years ago, the church developed the goals of wanting to build a five-star church, build affordable housing and ultimately build a community center on the land it owns. The church and its members feel it represents the positive change in the community and there is a need for affordable housing for senior citizens. The church has partnered with East Carolina Community Development, Inc. on this project. He thanked the church members in attendance and the Board for considering the request. Cindee Wolf on behalf of the property owner, New Beginning Church, stated that this portion of the County is starting to see an increase in development due in part to increased services along North Kerr Avenue and Castle Hayne Road. Demographic studies are suggesting that aging households will dominate America’s future for some time. Shifting housing preferences suggest higher density housing options appear to be outpacing the demand for single family homes. The project will begin as a recombination of the existing two parcels owned by the church into two slightly different parcels. New Beginning Church will retain 13 acres and the SUP for the senior housing project will be 8.57 acres fronting on Blue Clay Road by an access drive. The project has been submitted for financing consideration through the Qualified Allocation Plan developed by the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency. The grant funding is particular to specific selection criteria and stringently regulated. East Carolina Community Development, Inc. is dedicated to improving the quality of life for families that are experiencing economic and social stress in their daily lives. They manage quality apartment communities for low to moderate income residents in several locations around North Carolina. The company’s first affordable senior housing development, Camellia Court in Morehead City, NC, received a North Carolina Housing Finance Agency Award for its innovative pin-wheel design four-plex unit. The design allows each unit to have its own entrance with accent gables, attractive color schemes and a combination of brick and siding to have very home- like facades. Prior to the Comprehensive Plan allowing more intensive residential development, the site was previously approved for a Conditional District for the development of 46 single family homes. This proposed project will be an age-controlled community, which qualifies under the use category as senior independent living, apartment complex with 68 units spread across 17 structures. Senior housing generates much less traffic than other housing types. The buildings will have a sprinkler system in each and will be connected to the public utilities system. Due to this there will be fire hydrants and there is good circulation within the site. There will not be a driveway out onto Alex Trask or Holland Drive disturbing the single family neighborhood. Existing vegetation around the track perimeter will be supplemented with additional plantings to provide screening to the south and east. It is believed that the findings of the safety based upon the review meeting with the Technical Review Committee, will have to go through full permitting and meet the safety criteria of all the different agencies before construction can begin. The plan meets all of the other criteria and standards of the ordinance. There appears to be no evidence that projects like this have any adverse effects on surrounding property values as long as mitigation techniques are put into place such as bufferyards, street yards, and not having driveways into the residential communities. Ms. Wolfe concluded her presentation stating that the Comprehensive Plan finds that the County's policies for growth and development encourage that safe and affordable housing be available for every citizen. Infill is good for economic development and increasing the tax base. It is believed the project meets those criteria and presents a sensible density with an attractive design. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolfe stated that Covenant Lane will be built to NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) standards even though it is a private drive and not a street. It will be 24-feet wide with curb and gutter. Due to it being a private drive it will be the development’s responsibility to maintain it and there may be a joint agreement with the church for maintenance. This type of development is for persons 55 years of age and older. No one under the age of 55 will be allowed to live in the complex and these type of projects are strictly managed due to being financed through a tax credit program. The project will be managed by a professional company not by the church. There will be an onsite manager who will be fulltime and a permanent resident. A brief discussion was held about ensuring Covenant Lane would be built to NCDOT standards. Ms. Wolfe reiterated that it is a driveway, not a street and is built to the same standards as a street. School buses will not be allowed on it because it is not a public property. There is not a timeline to turn it over to NCDOT because it is a long driveway. It is designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. It is reasonable to assume that once Rachel’s Place is built out some of those residents may use it as an alternate route. Pastor Campbell stated that New Beginning Church in collaboration with East Carolina Community Development has a budget to maintain the road for life. In response to Board questions, Current Planner Schuler stated if the church wanted to turn the driveway over to NCDOT it would have to be dedicated as a public right-of-way through a subdivision plat. It would then have to be built in accordance with NCDOT standards and NCDOT would examine the road. There is a lag time from dedication to acceptance and Mr. Schuler stated he is unsure if it would technically meet NCDOT’s standard to be taken over. It would be the decision of NCDOT. Chairman White requested those who had signed up to speak in favor or in opposition to the request to give their comments. Curtis Doyle, resident of Holland Drive, stated that he was not in favor of the project and provided a brief history of his mother and other residents in the area working to establish strict standards for farmland where no standards previously existed. He urged the Board to vote against the request as he felt there was no place for 17 units containing 68 dwellings in a neighborhood of only single family homes. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 703 In rebuttal, Ms. Wolfe responded that the project has been designed specifically to not encroach into the neighborhoods with driveways or facing units towards those streets or anything else. The buffering would mitigate what is envisioned as encroachment into the neighborhoods. During the community meeting for this proposed project a majority of the attendees commented that senior housing was a good solution for the site. Mary Barber, resident of Dunbar Road, spoke in favor of the request stating that affordable senior homes coming into this community or any community is good. As more citizens are aging and unable to maintain their current properties, projects such as this allow aging citizens to continue having a fulfilling life with less worry. She concluded her comments stating that more developments specifically for seniors are needed. In response to Board questions, Pastor Campbell reiterated that when New Beginning Church started it was a goal of the church to build affordable homes. The property was purchased specifically for this purpose before the church was built. The church wants to be a part of the community, good neighbors, and will also be looking at building a community center. Extra care has been taken to not allow traffic to go on the roads as it was a concern of the citizens when the project was first proposed. In response to Board questions, Planning and Land Use Director Chris O’Keefe confirmed that the private drive is proposed to be a driveway and not a public road. It is built NCDOT construction standards and may or may not be eligible for acceptance in the NCDOT system. In addition to the construction standards, there is other criteria that would be difficult to meet right away such as residency requirements as well as the project needing to be built out and occupied before being considered by NCDOT. In response to additional Board questions, Current Planner Schuler stated that private roads normally now have a homeowner’s association so the homeowners know they have the responsibility to maintain the roads. The roads that are concerning are the ones dedicated to public use, however, due to a lag time the process takes NCDOT does not take over the roads. For those roads, no maintenance responsibility was setup because it was the assumption the roads would become the responsibility of NCDOT. There are not many assumptions with the responsibilities of private road maintenance. Commissioner Barfield commented on discussions held during the March 2, 2017 Agenda Review meeting about road maintenance. There is a need to have the correct infrastructure, construction and maintenance, in place to ensure there are good quality roads for this community for future years. It is important to be thinking long-term about the road infrastructure for the County as a whole. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant agrees with Staff’s findings and any condition proposed to be added to the Special Use Permit and asked whether the applicant wanted to continue the application to a future meeting or proceed with the Board deciding to approve or deny the request. Pastor Campbell, on behalf of New Beginning Church, responded that the he agrees with the findings of fact and conditions as presented and requested the Board to proceed with the decision. Chairman White requested direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek affirming staffs’ statements that the application is consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because multifamily residential is encouraged within the Community Mixed Use place type. The proposed density is consistent with the Plan and is the average density needed to support the small scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that this place type promotes. Upon vote the MOTION PASSED 4-1. Vice-Chairman Watkins voted in opposition. Chairman White requested direction from the Board concerning the companion Special Use Permit. Motion: Chairman White MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek to approve, as the Board of Commissioners finds that this application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Summary, and with the conditions as recommended by staff. Upon vote the MOTION PASSED 4-1. Vice-Chairman Watkins voted in opposition. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 4 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED July 1, 1974, is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 10A, Page 40. A copy of the order granting the Special Use Permit and listing the findings of fact is contained in SUP Book IV, Page 63. BREAK: Chairman White called a break from 4:51 p.m. until 4:56 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST (A-425, 9/16) - REQUEST BY PLANNING STAFF TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE II, ARTICLE V, ARTICLE VII, AND ARTICLE XI REGARDING SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES Chairman White announced that this item is a public hearing, staff will make a presentation, and the Board will receive public comments in favor or in opposition to the item. Each side will be given 15 minutes for presentations and an additional 5 minutes for rebuttal. Persons who signed up to speak may yield their time to another person if they wish. The rules will be extended to ensure that anybody that signed up does get to speak and there will not be time limits to the overall time. Persons wishing to speak are asked to limit statements to three minutes or less. This is NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 704 the time deadline that will be respectfully enforced so that everyone has an opportunity and a fair amount of time to express themselves. Chairman White then opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation. Planning and Land Use Director Chris O’Keefe presented a request to amend Zoning Ordinance Article II, Article V, Article VII, and Article XI regarding Special Use Permit requirements and the Table of Permitted Uses. Over the past seven months the New Hanover County Planning Board and staff have worked together to gather input from stakeholders and create a text amendment that balances the interests of business development and environmental stewardship. The Planning Board conducted five public work sessions and two public hearings to build consensus for the draft being presented to the Board. The Planning Board at the February 2, 2017 meeting voted 6-1 in favor of recommending the proposed changes for adoption.  Items included in the text amendment:  Changes to the ordinance language:  Text developed through the original staff proposal, LSL input, and the Planning Board work sessions and public hearings.  A clear and predictable process with application requirements and review timelines.  A new process for intensive manufacturing incorporates a community information meeting, longer review period, and disclosure of anticipated permits.  Changes to the Table of Permitted Uses:  The Table of Permitted Uses (TOPU) has been reformatted utilizing the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to clearly differentiate manufacturing uses.  Using the existing TOPU as a basis, the amendment identifies which uses should be permitted by right, with a SUP or not permitted in certain zoning districts.  The table includes a list of uses subject to heightened review as “intensive manufacturing” uses.  Goal: Adjust Processes and Procedures to add Clarity and Predictability:  Article II: Definitions:  Removes definitions for “limited” and “general” manufacturing.  Amends the definition of intensive manufacturing.  Adds definition of “sunshine list.”  Article V: Section 53.3-4.1: Review of external effects:  Removed from the I-2 Heavy Industry section.  Section 70: General Information, Applications, Process, Public Notice, Public Hearings, Review and Decision, and Conclusions Required for Approval:  Combines all information about obtaining a SUP into one section.  Section 70-2: Applications - Lays out the application process:  70-2 (1): Application Deadline and Agenda Package:  Introduces 35-day application deadline for intensive manufacturing uses; 20 days for all other Special Use Permits.  Specifies that additional information that is not part of the application must be submitted no later than 10 business days prior to the Planning Board meeting date if it is to be included in the Planning Board agenda package.  Additional information may be presented at the public hearing.  70-2 (2): Information to be included in a complete application:  D. Site Plan, includes a list of all the required elements necessary for the site plan.  E. A written description of proposal depicting the nature and scope of the proposed development, as well as information which provides support for each of the required conclusions identified in Section 70-7.  I. Community information meeting report for community information meeting per Section 111-2.1 (only for uses classified as Intensive Manufacturing).  J. Identification of all Federal, State or local permits necessary for operation of the proposed use.  70-2 (3): Provides an opportunity for application requirements to be waived where information is not applicable.  Section 70-3: Process:  Describes the process for application review leading up to the public hearing.  Offers an optional pre-application conference.  Discusses application completeness review and provides a 5-day time frame for application review.  Provides for applicants to be notified for both completeness or incompleteness.  Specifies that complete applications will be scheduled at the next eligible planning board meeting.  Describes staff’s responsibility for posting application information on the website within 10 days and notifying the sunshine list.  Specifies that information received from the petitioner after the application deadline shall also be posted on the web page.  Describes preparation process for the Planning Board public hearing and the Board of Commissioners Public hearing.  Section 70-4: Public Notice:  Directs readers to the section in the ordinance where the public notice requirements are contained. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 705  Section 70-5: Public Hearings:  Describes how the public hearings for both the Planning Board and Commissioners will be held  Emphasize quasi-judicial nature of SUP hearings.  Emphasize reliance on “competent, substantial, and material evidence” that is presented at the public hearing.  Discusses each Board’s ability to accommodate the presentation of additional information or evidence.  Section 70-6: Review and Decision:  Explains that the burden of proof is on the applicant to provide evidence supporting the four findings of fact.  Explains that the Board must grant the SUP if the burden is met.  Discusses the Boards’ ability to either deny an application or add conditions which will lead to an application meeting the required findings.  Discusses motion to approve or deny and the appeal process.  Section 70-7: Conclusions Required for Approval:  Presents the four findings that must be satisfied: 1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved. 2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity. 4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County.  Section 71: Validity Extensions, and Changes for Approved Special Use Permits; Resubmittals of Denied Applications:  Information about these items are reorganized and included in one section.  Amending the Table of Permitted Uses:  Translate the definitions for limited, general and intensive manufacturing to NAICS codes.  After finding the appropriate definition for use, Petitioners, staff and citizens would then refer to the TOPU section to determine if a use is permitted:  These definitions will no longer be necessary with the proposed text amendment:  General Manufacturing: Manufacturing, bulk storage, and/or handling of finished or unfinished products primarily from extracted, raw, recycled, or secondary materials. Typical uses include textile mills; textile product mills; apparel manufacturing; leather and allied product manufacturing; wood product manufacturing; plastics and rubber products manufacturing; nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing; transportation equipment manufacturing; primary metal manufacturing; and fabricated metal product manufacturing.  Industrial service firms engaged in the repair or servicing of industrial or commercial machinery, equipment, products, or by-products. Typical uses include: welding shops; machine shops; industrial tool repair; fuel oil distributors; solid fuel yards; and carpet cleaning plants. General manufacturing facilities include those operations that do not have significant negative external impacts on surrounding properties, water resources, air quality and/or public health.  Intensive Manufacturing: Manufacturing and processing of products and chemicals including but not limited to: acetylene, lime, gypsum or plaster-of-Paris, stone, clay, glass, cement, concrete, chlorine, corrosive acid or fertilizer, insecticides, disinfectants, poisons, explosives, paint, lacquer, varnish, petroleum products, coal, plastic and synthetic resins, and radioactive materials. This group also includes smelting, animal slaughtering, paper manufacturing, oil refining, fuel bulk storage facilities, and electricity generating facilities, as well as any manufacturing or processing facility which has a high potential for significant negative external impacts on surrounding properties, water resources, air quality and/or public health.  Intensive Manufacturing Uses: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 706  Identify “intensive manufacturing” uses that will be allowed only in the I-2 heavy industrial district and must get a special use permit with heightened review standards. 1. Animal Slaughtering and processing 9. Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production 2. Pulp, paper and paperboard Mills 10. Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum 3. Petroleum and Coal products manufacturing 11. Foundries 4. Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural 12. Fuel Bulk Storage facilities Chemical Manufacturing 5. Explosives manufacturing 13. Electricity Generating Facilities 6. All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product 14. Sanitary landfills and preparation manufacturing 7. Cement Manufacturing 15. Mining and Quarrying (Low intensity) 8. Lime and Gypsum product Manufacturing 16. Mining and Quarrying (High intensity)  Citizen Issues and Concerns:  This might impact my property. Why was I not notified?  Notification for Zoning hearings and text amendments are handled differently.  This text amendment changes the language in the ordinance but not the zoning of the property.  My understanding is this proposed action in essence allows 11 industries currently in the “Heavy Industrial” zoning to be permitted in “Light Industrial” zoned areas.”:  The proposed amendment does add to the list of industries that may be allowed in areas that are zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) but only after a SUP is obtained.  Public hearings before the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners must take place before an SUP can be granted.  These industries are not consistent with the current land uses in the area (residential, doctors’ offices, restaurants, etc.) why are they proposed to be allowed?  The SUP process is intended to identify proposals that are not consistent or “in harmony” with land uses in the area which it is proposed.  The industries proposed to be added to the “Light Industrial” zoning will substantially impact the value of adjacent and surrounding properties:  The SUP process is intended to prevent projects that will have a negative impact on the value of adjacent or abutting properties.  The emissions (water, air) and traffic impacts from the proposed industries will likely increase the danger to public health and safety:  The SUP process is intended to specifically prevent projects that will endanger public health and safety. This is one of the four findings of fact that must be met. Director O’Keefe explained that the first part of this amendment, the Special Use Permit (SUP) process was reviewed, completely rewritten, and reorganized to add clarity and predictability to the process so that it is clear how citizens and businesses can apply for or follow the process of approval for any special use permit. The proposed process lays out the timeline for application, public notice, completeness determination, and decision making in clear language. In the proposed amendment, a total of 16 uses are classified as Intensive Manufacturing. Separate application requirements are included specifically for Intensive Manufacturing uses. Additional requirements for uses classified as Intensive Manufacturing include that a community information meeting must be held prior to the application submission. The second part of this amendment involves a complete overhaul of the Table of Permitted Uses (TOPU) for manufacturing industries. This task involved interpreting the manufacturing definitions contained in the current ordinance and listing each individual industry separately based on the NAICS codes. This system is used by federal statistical agencies to differentiate business establishments for the purpose of collecting and analyzing data about these businesses. The new table will allow citizens and businesses to identify with certainty what County processes must be followed based on the coding system. Changes to Article II of the Zoning Ordinance include striking the definitions for limited manufacturing and general manufacturing, and amending the definition for intensive manufacturing. The proposed language includes stronger requirements for intensive manufacturing uses to get an SUP. It is necessary to have a definition for intensive manufacturing in order to clearly identify which uses are subject to the requirements. The new definition directs readers to the TOPU where these uses are listed together under the intensive manufacturing heading. Additionally, a new definition is added for the sunshine list. Within Article V, Section 53.3-4.1 (Review of External Effects) is stricken. In Article VII, Sections 70 and 71 are completely overhauled to provide more logical organization, clarity, and predictable processes for application, review, and decision making for SUPs. The bulk of the text amendment refers to Section 70. Section 70 combines all information pertaining to the process for obtaining an SUP into one section. The section is then organized in a logical order following progression through the application and permit process. This reorganization helps to clarify the process for applicants, citizens and staff. Director O’Keefe provided an overview regarding the TOPU explaining the amendments to utilize NAICS codes was part of what the Board requested in order to provide clarity and predictability in the SUP process. The NAICS is used by businesses and governments to classify business establishments according to type of economic activity and process of production in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It is updated periodically to capture new businesses that may develop over time. Using the codes will allow interested parties to find specific uses easily in the TOPU. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 707 In 2014 staff created a TOPU that distributed the uses in the limited manufacturing, general manufacturing, and intensive manufacturing. The intent of the staff table was to be policy neutral with the goal to assure that the uses permitted by-right, SUP or not permitted remained consistent with the table in the ordinance. This table was not adopted in 2014 but it was used as the baseline during the Planning Board work sessions and public hearings. The intensive manufacturing uses will be required to go through a heightened SUP review process in order to obtain approval. As outlined earlier, the heightened process includes a longer review process so that staff and the public have time to research the proposed use. The applicant must hold a community meeting prior to applying for an SUP so that the public can learn about the proposed use and must disclose all Federal, State, and local permits that will be required in order to operate the business. In regards to citizen communication received by the Board, Director O’Keefe explained that a text amendment is not a rezoning. The reason notification did not go to individual households is that no properties are proposed to be rezoned. The action being considered amends the ordinance language which is a policy change not a zoning change. If the amendment is adopted, all of the land that is currently zoned I-1 will still be zoned I-1. Text amendments have different notification requirements then do rezoning requests. For text amendments the agendas are published online and notices are advertised in the newspapers and emailed to over 1,000 individuals who have requested to be made aware when changes to the rules are proposed. For a rezoning, a sign would be placed on the property and every property owner within 500 feet of the property would be notified by mail. A rezoning would generally apply to one parcel and often a specific use is proposed so that citizens and the decision makers can consider the specific proposal. The proposed changes to the TOPU do add to the list of uses that may be allowed in the I-1 district. Each use would only be allowed after going through the SUP process. The SUP process relies on sworn testimony, competent and material evidence for decisions to be made about uses before a permit can be granted to allow a use to be constructed. Director O’Keefe concluded his presentation stating all of the I-1 districts are in the northern portion of the County. I-1 uses take up 1,013 acres of the County or less than 1% of the County’s zoned areas. I-2 areas comprise over 20,000 acres of the County’s zoned land. Most of the I-1 areas were zoned for industry in the early 1970s. The I-1 district between Porters Neck and Marsh Oaks is 30 acres in size and is almost entirely developed; only six acres are left undeveloped. For potential projects, if it can be shown with competent and substantial evidence that the value of nearby properties will be diminished, then the findings of fact cannot be met. As such the project should be recommended for denial by the Planning Board and denied by the Board of Commissioners. The SUP process is also intended to specifically prevent projects that will endanger public health and safety and is one of the four findings of fact that must be met. In response to Board questions, Director O’Keefe confirmed that in the I-1 district plastic, rubber and non- metallic mineral product manufacturing are already allowed by the SUP and those uses are not being changed. There has also been more residential than industrial growth in these areas. Chairman White thanked Mr. O’Keefe for his presentation and asked that persons signed up to speak in favor of the request to step forward. Tyler Newman, President and CEO of Business Alliance for a Sound Economy (BASE), expressed appreciation for the time the Commissioners, Planning Board and staff have spent on this issue. It’s an important issue because SUPs impact new business, existing business, and the County. During the process, it was important everyone looked at existing and new businesses and also quality of life here in the County. A joint letter was sent to the Board from the Wilmington-Cape Fear Homebuilders Association, the Coalition for Economic Advancement, Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, Wilmington Business Development, and BASE in support of the consensus document. Representatives from these organizations in conjunction with the Coastal Federation are here today to encourage the Board’s support of the consensus document and to support the staff and Planning Board recommendation. Mike Giles with NC Coastal Federation (Federation) stated that the Federation has been involved in the issue since 2001. After the SUP was adopted it was apparent it needed tweaking and since 2013 the group has been engaged to help address many of the community and business concerns. He thanked everyone for the hard work. While the text amendment changes are not perfect they will serve to vet industrial proposals until the outdated zoning ordinance is revamped and overhauled. If approved and utilized by all as intended it will provide a process whereby a potential industry will be properly vetted and provide an open, objective and transparent permit process. The Federation worked with business groups to reach some agreeable common ground with SUP text requirements which it feels will serve the County. It has some concerns about the TOPU and urges continued work between staff and the LSL consultant to look at it during the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) process. The NC Coastal Federation supports the text amendment as submitted by the Planning Board and staff and urges the Board to approve the industrial SUP and direct staff to begin the UDO review process as soon as possible. Scott Satterfield with Wilmington Business Development (WBD), expressed appreciation to the Board for taking the concerns of numerous business organizations seriously regarding the current SUP process. The Board’s direction for the Planning Board to take its time and study this complex issue very carefully and seek important feedback from numerous community stakeholders has been critical to the process. The improvements to this process are an essential component in the overall economic viability of New Hanover County. The Board’s leadership is appreciated as everyone works to create jobs and necessary new investment in the region. Hal Kitchen, resident of Hydrangea Place and former Wilmington Chamber of Commerce Board Chairman, expressed his support of the text amendment request. Since 2013 the Wilmington Chamber and other business groups have been working and discussing with County staff, Planning Board members and elected County leaders to express NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 708 concerns over the existing industrial SUP process. The concerns have been summarized as follows. First, the current procedure does not clearly define who does and who does not have to obtain an SUP and tends to require an SUP for many uses in the I-2 district which historically have been permitted by-right. The current procedure does not clearly define what information an applicant is required to submit. The current procedure does not clearly define how long it will take for an application to be brought before the Planning Board for consideration. This proposed amendment addresses each and every one of these concerns and in addition to that it also includes unprecedented requirements for transparency in the application process and more advanced notice to the public. He expressed appreciation to the staff and Planning Board for their work on the matter and commended the Commissioners for allowing the Planning Board the time to work through the process. He urged the Board to support the proposed text amendment. Charlie Mattox, 2017 Wilmington Chamber of Commerce Board Chairman, stated that on behalf of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, he thanked the Board for its leadership in this process. He also thanked County staff and the Planning Board and stated that the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce urges the Board’s support for the proposed amendment. Kemp Burdette, Cape Fear River Keeper, stated on behalf of the Cape Fear River Watch Board of Directors and members that the County is small and densely populated and is growing faster than anywhere else in the country. Water resources will soon be under significant pressure from growth. While heavy industry is a small part of the total County’s economy as a whole, it has historically had a much greater responsibility here than across the country. An SUP that identifies the heaviest industries, those most likely to have negative externalities, impact human and environmental health property values and quality of life and lays out a clear process for vetting those few industries is, simply stated, good governance. He supported the proposed compromise ordinance even though he felt it could have been better and provided more protection to the County’s citizens. He feels the proposed TOPU changes is bad governance as he believes the changes were done at the last minute to benefit a few powerful interests and were pushed through the Planning Board. He urged the Board to approve the SUP but reject the TOPU as he feels it will endanger the people of New Hanover County now and in the future. Robert Shew, resident of Park Avenue, stated he is in favor of the SUP but also has concerns. He thanked all involved for the hard work to craft a compromise SUP that's more agreeable to everyone. New Hanover County has numerous indicators for job and business favorability. The Highway 421 corridor is the proper place for industry and is where it should be concentrated while making sure water and air quality is maintained. The strength of the County is the environment and outdoor recreation. He stated his concern is specifically with the TOPU. Many of those industries previously in the general manufacturing list whether I-1 or I-2, because of their potential impact on the communities and environment, should continue to have more stringent requirements and not be allowed in certain areas. He felt the SUP is very good for the community and requested the Board to reassess the TOPU. Chairman White asked persons that signed up to speak in opposition of the request to step forward. Dr. Bette Bauereis, representing the Porters Neck Homeowners Association located at Porters Neck Plantation, stated that the Association has been following the process since 2011. She has no comments about the SUP but has serious concerns about the changes to the TOPU. The categories bracketed by 3251 through 3279, are now permitted in light industry zones which is not appropriate as they include heavy metal industries and toxic chemical industries. The six acres left of the I-1 parcel in Porters Neck is abutted by medical offices on one side and on the other side over 1,000 homes and residences and there will be a new school opening this year. It is inappropriate even with consideration of a SUP to put heavy industries like chemical manufacturing, organic chemical manufacturing and industrial gas manufacturing in this setting. These industries should be related only to I-2 zones. She stated that for this reason, the TOPU should be tabled until it can be further explored or, better yet, denied altogether and go back to the original uses. Karen Gottovi, former New Hanover County Commissioner serving 1976-1984, stated that when she became a Commissioner her goal was to get the Coastal Area Management Act passed which she was successful in doing. She then provided a brief history of how during her tenure the Board had to address the improperly sited community waste disposal landfill near the Flemington community off Highway 421. Pollution from the landfill contaminated the ground water and caused the wells to produce undrinkable, unsanitary, foul-smelling water. The Commissioners were named, along with the landfill owner, Waste Industries, in a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. It took years of work and millions of dollars to provide a water pipeline to the area, build a waste incinerator as well as a lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment. She does not want this Board to suffer the same fate because it didn't fully research the industries it plans to reclassify. The Board will be held accountable if the rules do not work in the public's best interests, not anyone else. She urged the Board to look at its mission, vision and core values as they are a good guide to follow in regard to making sustainable land use decisions that result in good stewardship of the County's assets as well as property values. She requested the Board to not accept the TOPU without much careful research and make the process and the findings fully disclosed to the public. Al Kennedy, Porters Pointe Homeowners Association President, stated that some areas currently zoned light industry were designated 45 years ago when surrounding areas had limited to no development. Since then significant residential development has surrounded these light industrial areas and some homes directly border the areas. He has concerns about the findings of fact and the lack of transparency which these proposed amendments were undertaken. The use of the web and other communication methods are all effective methods for informing the fully versed in this information and process. For a lay person to have been alerted to this action they would have first had to understand what is a text amendment, know what the current zoning of all the areas in their proximity are, and be able to connect the concept of a TOPU with the text amendment. How notification was handled is not efficient for informing the public that was potentially impacted. The fact that none of the Porters Pointe homeowners were aware of this action NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 709 speaks directly to the lack of transparency. He stated the Porters Neck residents strongly urge the Board to delay taking action on the TOPU until a Unified Development Ordinance is completed. Sheila Fellerath, President of the League of Women Voters, stated that League members have been active observers during the many Planning Board meetings that preceded this hearing. After studying the issue carefully, the League board adopted the following position. First, it urges the Board to consider the proposed text amendments with two caveats. First they should be regarded only as a bridge ordinance until the UDO process is complete and, second, the omission of a requirement to disclose the external effects for heavy industry is a major and substantive deficiency that the League urges the Board to remedy. People have a right to know what to expect. The League does not support the TOPU as presented for two major reasons. First, the failure to publicize and explain the proposed changes from I-2 to I-1 classification in a way that gives actual notice to the residents most likely to be impacted. Secondly, the lack of adequate evaluation and public discussion of the effects the changes will have on the residents of New Hanover County. Should the Board vote to support the TOPU as presented the League strongly urges that it be referred for review to the UDO working group, request information on the changes to the health and safety to County residents, and require this evaluation be completed and widely disseminated to the public prior to any consideration of the UDO by the Board. She asked that the Board take the necessary time to evaluate what is in the best interests of all the residents of the County. Paul Sommers, resident of Inlet Point Drive and a retired physicist, stated that many people share his view that the compromise SUP proposal is fatally flawed by not requiring the applicant to state all the negative external effects. Listing the permitting a company expects to obtain is far from sufficient. Disclosing the negative external effects should not scare away any responsible company and should be required as part of the SUP application. We all want to attract industries that provide good jobs for citizens and increase the tax base. At the same time no one wants an industry that debases the community or degrades quality of life. Neither the County officials nor members of the public have the time or resources to research each of the uses to determine what the negative external effects will be. He urged the Board to amend the proposed industrial SUP process to require that each applicant specify the negative external effects of its operation. Dr. Robert Parr, representing Middle Sound Lookout, cited various examples of where various I-1 industries have caused serious health and environmental issues in communities around the country. Local zoning ordinances are the first vital step in protecting citizens from the serious long-term effects of toxic emissions. All heavy industrial uses belong in I-1 areas where they should then be properly vetted following the tenets put forth in the SUP. Last minute changes to the TOPU not properly vetted now threaten an otherwise outstanding SUP. The changes are not supported by the present zoning ordinance, are at odds with the Land Use Plan, not supported by LSL Planning, and not supported by citizen stakeholders in the surrounding neighborhoods. While he and many New Hanover County physicians urge the Board to approve the outstanding industrial SUP they urge the rejection any expansion of non- vetted heavy industrial uses adjacent to established neighborhoods. The Board was sent a letter of support for these ideas from the Clean Air Carolina and Medical Advocates for Clean Air. Peter Gillman-Bryan, Underwater Quality Coordinator for the Cape Fear Chapter of Surfrider Foundation, stated that the group’s position is that it does to some extent support the text amendments but would like to see a lot more scrutiny paid by the Board. The Association would also like to see further studies made about these industries that are being reclassified to light industrial in the TOPU and wishes the Board would table the TOPU. Kayne Darrell, resident of Castle Hayne, stated her questions have not been answered as to what research has been done, what criteria were met to determine that the industries reclassified to a less intensive industry are now considered safe to locate closer to our residential area, and if these were unsafe enough to warrant a higher level of scrutiny before, what is it that makes them safer now. She also expressed concerns about the removal of the mandatory requirement of an industry to provide information on negative external impacts. She feels the Board has a responsibility to answer these questions because the communities and the families who will be impacted by these changes deserve to have a complete comprehensive fact-based assessment of why these I-2 industries are no longer classified as such. There also needs to be researched-based assurances that allowing them near our neighborhoods and schools will do no harm. She also feels citizens in general need to be included during the UDO process. Harper Peterson, resident of Orange Street, stated that clean water and the public health is sacred. While economic development, public parks, good transportation and infrastructure are important the one thing that drives this community and its livelihood and future is a clean environment and public safety. In regard to the UDO, he would like the public participation to be reexamined as he feels it is currently one-sided and needs to be made representative of all interested stakeholders in the community. He thinks a good template to use for this is the Comprehensive Plan process. He recommended that a complete stakeholder advisory committee be brought together and that the TOPU be tabled and rolled into the UDO. Diana Hill, speaking on behalf of John Sharky of Springview Estates in the Kings Grant neighborhood, stated that he and his neighbors do not want the TOPU to be approved and want the proposed light industries reclassified to have more, not less, scrutiny of the impacts, the specific impacts, not vague titles but exact activities and then ramifications. They also do not want more light or heavy industry closer to where they live. She then stated that when she asked about what technical people were involved in this process, she was told there were no technical people on the Planning staff, Planning Board or Board of Commissioners. She does not think this is a good thing for this county and the citizens need to be listened to first. Susan Skoda, resident of Marsh Oaks, expressed concerns about the safety and welfare of the County’s air and water quality. She feels the present SUP does not really focus in on that area of doing no harm to people and NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 710 asked that the Board look at that aspect. She does not understand how approval can be given when that portion is not included and asked that the Board be very conscientious of citizens’ welfare. Andy Whisnat, resident of Marsh Oaks, stated that if the overall objective is to provide greater clarity and predictability for the citizens and businesses alike concerning the SUP process, how much more clarity is needed than saying don’t build it here. He urged the Board to not allow the text amendment particularly the TOPU to go through. He does not want desirable places to live to become undesirable any more. The overall net effect on the tax base is negative in that citizens will leave the area due to ill-advised poor planning decisions. Phil Clark, resident of Marsh Oaks, thanked Commissioner Zapple for speaking with him over the weekend and stated he feels the findings of fact verbiage is very subjective. It does not illustrate a fair way to get rid of an SUP. In regard to stakeholders, he said the stakeholders are the 1,000 Marsh Oaks residents, all the people at Porters Neck Country Club and all the surrounding areas. He also explained that his property backs up directly to the undeveloped 6-acres of land between Marsh Oaks and Porters Neck. At the time he and his wife purchased the house they were told that it can be developed but will only be used for things like medical, which is already there. Now they are exposed to something much different than what they were told. He feels that if any kind of industry is allowed to come in, there should be more disclosure and it is not in the new rules. He encouraged the Board to relook at the SUP which is a good product but, not near community schools and areas that are desirable neighborhoods. Nelson Beaulieu, resident of Olde Well Loop Road, stated that he was previously in support of the SUP changes but, is now in opposition due to TOPU changes done at what he felt was last minute. He thanked the Board for extending the time to allow everyone an opportunity to speak on this issue. He feels the whole issue comes back to a matter of trust and transparency and the effect of the text amendment is the same as a rezoning. If the effect is the same as rezoning, then the standard should be the same as rezoning. Every home affected should be given the opportunity to know that what is not permitted today could be permitted tomorrow Celeste Roberson-Smith, resident of Santa Maria Avenue on Pages Creek, stated that her neighborhood backs up to Marsh Oaks and Porters Neck. She agrees with the other speakers about the need to be rigorous about the industries placed in our neighborhoods and by our waters. It is the waters that give Wilmington the tourism and make people move here. Another concern of hers is knowing where the government is moving in terms of regulation and reducing regulations related to environment. She encouraged the Board not to move heavy industry to light industry. Jen Johnson, a resident of Orange Street and a licensed professional counselor with a private practice in Wilmington, stated she was speaking to address the mental health issues in connection with the TOPU. She feels the current TOPU poses a clear threat to the health of citizens. When a clear threat is posed to the health of the citizens on a physical level, that also poses a threat to mental and emotional well-being. Toxic air, water and soil and noise pollution put citizens at increased risk for illness and that increases the risk for symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression. She encouraged the Board to consider that this isn't just an issue about money and economic development. This is an issue about real people with real concerns in the community. Spending time in healthy and natural environments promotes health physically, mentally and emotionally. She urged the Board to protect citizens’ physical and mental health by revising the TOPU. A healthy economy is important to any city but there is a need to prioritize citizens' physical and mental health in order to enjoy the economic health. There being no further public comments, Chairman White closed the public hearing and opened the floor for Board discussion. In response to Board questions, Planning Manager Ken Vafier stated that the UDO contract scope of services does not state a finite number of public hearings. It starts with approximately five to ten that are referenced generally within the scope and can be amended as necessary. The next milestone being worked towards is in late April for a joint meeting between the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board to receive information about the blueprint and audit report phase of the project. The consultant has performed a line by line audit of all the County’s land use regulations and will be presenting this report which will outline exactly how the steps are to be taken with the revisions in order to implement the vision outlined in Plan NHC. After the joint meeting there will be a public meeting to unveil the audit to the general public to obtain input on the report. Then the process will enter the drafting phase. At the conclusion of each section that will be drafted by the technical advisory committee and consultant there will be a stakeholder meeting. Again, there is no finite number of meetings and as the process moves forward the number of meetings will become more definitive. With the adoption of a new code there would be as many public hearings before the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners as would be necessary to arrive at a complete product. Mr. Vafier reported that the five to ten public hearings would occur after the unveiling of the blueprint and audit report. The stakeholder meetings could be part of the initial number of meetings or in addition to. The scope of services is flexible enough that the public engagement process can be tailored to what is needed. It has been stressed to the consultants that there's a very active stakeholder community here and every effort should be made to reach all stakeholders and they understand that well. Staff has not reached the point of the project where the firm meeting dates and meeting structure has been set other than what has been described in the scope of services. The process started in late summer this past year with the consultants meeting with a number of stakeholders to obtain an initial idea of the climate of development in the County. It included over 100-plus invitees that were spread over about eight to ten focus groups ranging from the environmental advocacy community, housing advocacy, business development, economic development, real estate, and design professionals. In addition to that there were ten key members of the community such as the Chair of the County Commissioners at the time, the Planning Board Chair, representatives of key development organizations that were interviewed with a purpose to obtain an initial idea of the development climate, philosophy, etc. so that the blueprint could be prepared. There is no firm accepted definition or list of every individual stakeholder that will be engaged as the process moves forward. While working through a section it is NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 711 decided there is a need to have more input from a certain group, contact will be made with the group to obtain their input. Staff has been compiling a mailing list of any and every individual who's been contacting the department asking to be involved in the UDO process. That list will be used to publicize meetings so that everybody can be as aware as possible when the meetings take place. The stakeholder meetings will be all-inclusive so anyone who wants to attend will be welcomed and encouraged to do so. There will also be a technical advisory committee comprised of more staff level persons with an intimate knowledge of code writing. This project is extremely technical and regulatory in nature and staff wants to vet the initial draft through the consultant and this committee before it goes out for stakeholder input. In a manner of speaking this allows for two different levels of oversight. In response to additional questions, Mr. Vafier stated there are eight central themes in this blueprint report which are forms of areas that will be focused on. One of the critical areas is the analysis of the existing zoning district line-ups compared to where we want to go with the Comprehensive Plan and the division that has been established about the Comprehensive Plan. That is the most appropriate part of the project where a particular area of the County would be reviewed and may be found to have an existing zoning that may no longer be appropriate. The result would be a recommended change to that district or it could be done either via a rezoning or a change to the definition of the district. There are options to address the areas which were zoned back in the 1960s and 1970s and such zoning may now be inappropriate for a particular area. In response to questions, Director O’Keefe confirmed that this is one step in the process and the UDO process is the next step to reach some permanent solutions for the zoning issues and get the County in compliance with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. It was discussed at the Planning Board meeting prior to the Planning Board voting to recommend this text amendment to the Board, it was doing so in full knowledge that the UDO process would follow fast on the heels of this to align the zoning and the districts. This is an issue being seen in areas such as Marsh Oaks where it’s been developed in the past 40 plus years in a very different manner from the original zoning designation. The changes in the narrative do need to work with the TOPU changes as one will not work without the other. The largest area where the impact would be most severe is that the number of uses in the table have been changed around. Right now there is a process for intensive manufacturing industries but if you keep the TOPU the same, the intensive manufacturing industry category is a lot larger than it is proposed to be. The proposal being considered by the Board contains precisely 16 uses that would be considered intensive manufacturing and those would be the only uses that would be subject to the increased standards that have been proposed. Mr. O’Keefe confirmed that of the 11 uses in the I-1 district, particularly around the Porters Neck area, there are three uses listed as general manufacturing. The general manufacturing category is allowed in I-1 with an SUP in today's ordinance. There’s an interpretation process of limited and general manufacturing that currently falls to the responsibility of Planning staff to define. By having those industries go through the SUP process the Board has the ability to account for factors such as the scale of the operation. He is unable to provide a definitive answer to the question that with the SUP designation in place it provides a greater protection to those communities as a result of those 11 industries. It is unknown what the proposals coming through are to going to look like. Chairman White asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. Commissioner Barfield commented that in 2008 when he ran for office the first time there was a Board meeting that included discussion about Titan Cement. Then in 2010-2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deemed New Hanover County as a non-attainment county based on the amount of sulfur dioxide (SO) that 2 was being emitted into the atmosphere primarily by the Progress/Duke Energy coal plant, the landfill, as well as the Southern States smokestack. The SUP process for I-1 and I-2 districts was created in an effort to mitigate the non- attainment issue. What is currently in place now is better than what the County had before. Moving forward the goal is to protect the environment, allow industry to grow and prosper here, and make the community what everyone wants, a coastal diverse community that is prospering and doing great things. It is important to learn for the long term the effects of what is being done to make sure what we do is protecting New Hanover County. It has been a transparent process and every Commissioners meeting, Planning Board meeting, work session, etc. are open to the public. There is always the opportunity to participate, maybe not to speak, and learn about what’s happening in the County. The UDO process will help define in terms of how we look at the next goals and make sure they are properly applied. This is the process to get to the next step. He thanked Planning Board Chairman Donna Girardot, Planning staff and all that have been involved over these years for their work on this issue and the community for its input. Vice-Chairman Watkins commented that there is a lot of I-1 areas in the County and if the proposed text amendment was approved, the Board could not exempt the one parcel in the Porters Neck area that is zoned I-1. The SUP hearings are quasi-judicial and the Commissioners cannot say what they would do in the future as they would have to recuse themselves from voting. As an economics instructor and financial advisor, he sees wonderful neighborhoods, several retail facilities, restaurants, and medical facilities in the area. The hope is that a use submitted would be in harmony with the area and the Board would be able to find it is in harmony with the location and character of the area. If the proposed revisions are approved and if the 6-acre parcel were to be submitted for an SUP, the hope is that economically the best use is approved for something that is probably in harmony with those types of existing businesses and structures. His hope is that regardless of the Board’s decision on the proposed amendments the acreage from an economic standpoint would probably be more conducive to something that already exists in the area. He stated he cannot speak to what future uses might be but understands the concerns expressed during the meeting and the Board has listened. Commissioner Kusek commented that after listening to everyone it's her intention and hope that everyone is on the same team. That everyone wants industries that complement our region rather than work to its detriment. We are all advocates for the environment, our quality of life and bringing businesses to New Hanover County which are NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 6, 2017 PAGE 712 going to be good neighbors for us. We want to be able to use the requirements set forth in the SUP to determine which of those that we need and which that we want. Commissioner Zapple stated the revisions to the SUP process currently under consideration are the result of extensive discussion and work by the County Planning and Zoning staff, the business community, the environmental community, homeowner organizations, individual citizens and many other stakeholders. During the Planning Board’s February meeting on the proposed SUP revisions and revisions to the TOPU, representatives from the NC Coastal Federation, Wilmington Chamber of Commerce and BASE all spoke in favor of the revisions. The proposed SUP revisions are a response to legitimate concerns expressed by the development community, economic developers, and the environmental community that the SUP language lacks clarity, predictability, and transparency for applicants and the public. It also addresses concerns that the SUP application form is confusing, there is no defined decision timeline, and the definition of industries is too broad leaving room for subjective or arbitrary decision-making by the County staff. The revisions now provide a defined timeline and materials that are required for the application are clearly explained leaving room for County staff, the Planning Board and Commissioners to request additional material. The definition of industries that currently fall under the broad categories of general, limited and intensive are all specified by using the NAICS codes to define each industry in detail. The language supports the revised TOPU that references the NAICS codes rather than leaving the definitions of business and potential impacts up to the County staff. The proposed revisions to the SUP and the TOPU help the surrounding neighborhoods by eliminating thousands of potential businesses that could be interpreted into the I-1 zone. No revision process attempting to address so many issues is going to be perfect. The SUP process will require at least two public hearings, the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners meetings where public comment will be heard. The four findings of fact stated in the presentation must be met before an SUP can be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Zapple concluded his comments stating the County is also in the process of revising the UDO which is a document that combines all land use ordinances. The UDO process will identify those areas of the County that have developed in ways that may not be reflective of the original zoning. This is the next step where many issues can be resolved in the I-1 areas, particularly in the Porters Neck area. While we do want industry and business we want to be able to provide a clearly defined message of where it is and is not appropriate. The process that has been defined is here right now and allows us to move to the next step. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White requested direction from the Board. Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to approve the text amendments as presented in the staff summary as the Board finds that the request as described is: 1.) Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as the amendment is necessary to provide clarity and predictability of land use regulations to facilitate intelligent growth, stewardship and economic development in the county; and 2.) Reasonable and in the public interest as the amendment allows for clear interpretation of the County’s Zoning Ordinance in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent of the existing regulations. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 27.3. 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 6:58 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.