Loading...
2018-06-04 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 130 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, June 4, 2018, 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 Mark Gaskins, Temple Baptist Church, provided the invocation and Vice-Chairman Watkins 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 Commissioner Kusek, 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 May 17, 2018 and the Regular Meeting of May 21, 2018. Approval of Sale of County-Owned Property at 217 S. Water Street (PIN: R05308-008-010-000) – County Manager The Commissioners approved the sale of County-owned property at 217 S. Water Street (PIN: R05308-008- 010-000). On October 19, 2017, New Hanover County, through the foreclosure process for unpaid taxes, obtained fee simple title to the property located at 217 S. Water Street (PIN: R05308-008-010-000). The property is approximately .055 acres and is encumbered by three known easements and a Notice of Residual Petroleum has been placed on the property by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality. There are no structures on the property. The property is primarily used by Tanyard Parish for access to the condominiums/parking deck and for parking by Port City Properties. New Hanover County Tax Department has estimated the value of the property at $4,800. The size of the property and the existing easements probably make the property unbuildable. New Hanover County does not have a use for the property and staff would propose that the property be sold. Mr. Sam Simmons, owner of Port City Properties, has offered to purchase the property for $4,800, subject to the easements, Notice of Residual Petroleum, and the upset bid process. Mr. Simmons' offer was accompanied by the required 5% deposit in the amount of $240.00. Approval of Request from Coastal Horizons for New Hanover County to Serve as Applicant Agency for a Grant with the U.S. Department of Justice – Finance The Commissioners approved the request from Coastal Horizons for New Hanover County to serve as the applicant agency for a grant with the U.S. Department of Justice. The County is eligible to apply for a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice titled Improving Reentry for Adults with Co-occurring Substance Abuse and Mental Illness. Coastal Horizons Center, Inc. is requesting the County serve as the applicant agency for the application. Coastal Horizons will act as the implementing agency for the proposed initiative and the County will be responsible for fiscal oversight. New Hanover County has served in this capacity as the applicant agency for various entities in the past, including Coastal Horizons. The grant application is for $750,000 and the term is three years. There is no county match required and this grant is consistent with the Board's strategic plan. Approval of the Award of a Bid for the Purchase and Installation of a Scale at the New Hanover County Landfill – Environmental Management The Commissioners approved a resolution for the award of a bid for the purchase and installation of a scale at the New Hanover County Landfill to Toledo Carolina, Incorporated. The turnkey bid price for purchase and installation is $132,641. This project was scheduled for FY18 and funds for this purchase are available in the Fiscal Year 2018 adopted budget for the Environmental Management Enterprise Fund. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 10.1. Approval of Seven Items to be Accessioned from the Museum Collection – Cape Fear Museum The Commissioners approved a list of seven items to be accessioned into the Cape Fear Museum’s permanent collection. The objects were approved by the Museum Advisory Board at the meeting on May 16, 2018 and a list of the items is available for review at the Cape Fear Museum. Approval of Modification to the Airlie Gardens Foundation Bylaws – Airlie Gardens The Commissioners approved the modification in the Airlie Gardens Foundation bylaws to reflect officer elections be held biennially in May, not January. Approval of April 2018 Tax Collection Reports – Tax Department NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 131 The Commissioners approved the tax collection reports of New Hanover County, New Hanover County Fire District, and New Hanover County Debt Service as of April 2018. NCGS 105-350 requires the tax collector to submit a report showing the amount of taxes collected. Copies of the tax collection reports are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 10.2. Adoption of Budget Amendment – Strategy and Budget The Commissioners adopted the following budget amendment amending the annual budget ordinance for fiscal year ending June 30, 2018:  Room Occupancy Tax 18-064 A copy of budget amendment 18-064 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 10.3. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVES APPROPRIATIONS Chairman White opened the public hearing to receive comments on appropriations and expenditures for economic development and economic incentive agreements. The source of funding for the appropriations and expenditures will be from the General Fund. The purposes of economic development and economic incentive agreements are to increase the population, taxable property, agricultural industries, employment, industrial output, or business prospects for New Hanover County. The economic development expenditures that follow have been recommended for appropriation in the FY18-19 Budget and are under consideration for adoption: Economic Development Agencies / Organizations These appropriations will be funded from General Fund revenues of the County: Paid Organization Amount Description of Activities/Expense Over Support arts-driven economic development activities Arts Council of Wilmington $10,000 1 payment to increase attendance and encourage increased spending in the local economy Support seasonal staff for The Cucalorus Festival (Film, Stage, Connect) events which encourage Cucalorus Film Foundation $16,000 1 payment visitor/tourist attendance and encourage increased spending in the local economy Support job creation and sustainable growth through Foreign Trade Promotion Council $2,000 1 payment expanding global trade by North Carolina companies Support educational programs to increase Friends of Fort Fisher $3,000 1 payment visitor/tourist attendance and encourage increased spending in the local economy Support hull repairs and educational programs to Friends of the Battleship $10,000 1 payment support visitor/tourist attraction and encourage increased spending in the local economy Assist with project development necessary for the Southeastern Economic Development $18,240 1 payment solicitation of grant funding from the Economic Commission Development Administration (EDA) Provide regional and targeted industry specific The Southeastern Partnership, Inc. $20,000 1 payment marketing and conduct familiarization events Provide recruitment/assistance for business expansion Wilmington Business Development $199,749 4 payments and/or relocation efforts Provide activities to increase the number of Wilmington Downtown Inc. $25,000 1 payment businesses, jobs and tax base in Wilmington’s Urban Core Promote/assist TV & film production activities to Wilmington Regional Film $126,231 4 payments drive local entertainment business growth, support Commission local production infrastructure & businesses Phase II: Request for Proposal (RFP) Preparation and Benchmark Planning, Inc. $20,000 2 payments Selection for Project Grace Hazardous Materials Study and Phase II SM&E Engineering Services $35,000 2 payments Environmental Assessment study for the Project Grace site Bateman Civil Engineering $10,000 1 payment Alta-Survey for the Project Grace site JC Morgan Co. $15,000 1 payment Commercial Appraisal for the Project Grace site NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 132 Financial Analysis of development proposals for First Tryon Bank $85,000 2 payments Project Grace Space allocation and concept design for existing Cape Vines Architecture, Inc. $49,000 2 payments Fear Museum site to be converted into a collections and research center Provide project management for and procure geotechnical, flood study, survey, environmental and Wilmington Business Development $100,000 1 payment traffic engineering services for county-owned land located on Blue Clay Road Previously Approved Contractual Incentive Payments The following are incentive payments that were previously Board approved as outlined in the incentive agreement contracts to be paid upon the company meeting specified investment / job requirements: Fortron, up to $100,000, one payment. In addition, the County will carry over two incentive payments budgeted in FY17-18 to the FY18-19 budget for payment in FY18-19 for Castle Branch, up to $50,000, one payment; and Live Oak Bank, up to $65,000, one payment. These appropriations will be funded from General Fund revenues of the County. Infrastructure Investments A capital project investment of $525,000 the second of three annual contributions to CFPUA, to provide fire flow to the water system being constructed along Highway 421, and $250,000 for the Town of Wrightsville Beach, the first of two annual payments, for infrastructure improvements. These appropriations will be funded from General Fund revenues of the County. Chairman White announced that no one signed up to speak in favor or opposition to the matter and closed the public hearing. He then asked for direction from the Board. Motion : Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to approve the economic development appropriations and expenditures based on the finding that the appropriations and expenditures will increase the population, taxable property, agricultural industries, employment, industrial output, or business prospects of the County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman White stated that staff is directed to do any and all things necessary to finalize the appropriations and expenditures for economic development. A copy of the 2018-2019 capital projects funds ordinance is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 10.4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FY 2018-2019 RECOMMENDED BUDGET Chairman White opened the public hearing stating that pursuant to NCGS 159-12(b), before adopting the budget ordinance the Board shall hold a public hearing at which time any persons who wish to be heard on the budget may appear. This public hearing on the FY 2018-2019 Recommended Budget meets these requirements. The Board will now hear public comments. New Hanover County Schools Deputy Superintendent Dr. Rick Holliday expressed appreciation for the County’s continuous support of New Hanover County Schools. The Board of Education requested $2,800 per pupil for operating expenditures for public and charter schools, $3,696,000 in capital outlay, and $487,422 for pre-k, all of which are included in the County Manager's budget proposal. Most of the operating increases will be used for state salary and benefit increases for the 698 locally paid employees. In New Hanover County, this school system is very fortunate to be able to provide a quality education for all of our students. This is done not just by the state expenditures it receives, but what the County Commissioners do to help bolster and support those efforts locally, which he believes makes this if not the best, then one of the best local school systems in the State of North Carolina and commended the County Commissioners for it. Combined with the $26.2 million in county funded school debt, the total recommended is $108.7 million. Additionally, the County budget proposal includes funding to address the most pressing safety and security needs, including additional school resource officers, mental health workers, and school nurses. The school system believes it is ready for what comes because the Commissioners and County have given it the necessary resources. Dr. Holliday further stated that the County’s continued partnership with the New Hanover County Schools providing both direct and indirect support for the students of New Hanover County is to be commended. On behalf of the Superintendent, Board of Education and all of the students, he thanked the Commissioners for their support. Cape Fear Community College Jim Morton, President of Cape Fear Community College, on behalf of the Board of Trustees, expressed appreciation for the County’s support throughout the year. The support of the Commissioners by either serving on the Board of Trustees and/or attending special events, graduations, and various meetings is greatly appreciated. He further expressed appreciation to the County Manager, County Attorney, and various county departments for their support. This year Cape Fear Community College (CFCC) was able to partner with the public library to use additional county NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 133 facilities for instructional space. CFCC is also excited to be partnering with the Sheriff's office. CFCC collaborates with the County in many different ways, not just through financial support, and it values all of these partnerships. This year CFCC begins renovations downtown while maintaining the facilities of both the downtown campus and northern campus. He is pleased to bring forward CFCC’s proposed operating budget which is less than last year's budget. It does incorporate an annual escalation for the employees’ salaries and there was an increase in insurance expense after a decrease last year. However, CFCC was able to offset those increases by a reduction in one position, lower utilities, and a reduction in contracted services. The electricity expense is approximately $2 million and CFCC is exploring ways to try to reduce this through actions such as relighting parking decks and other areas with LED fixtures. President Morton concluded his comments stating that it is not overlooked that the County is still supporting the debt service of the 2008 bonds for $15.5 million for next year. He thanked the Board for the financial and other support given to CFCC. Other Agencies/Individuals Comments Karen Chapple, Executive Vice-President of Coastal Horizons Center, thanked the Board for its support in addition to approving the County partnering with Coastal Horizons Center on the United States Department of Justice grant that will be submitted later this month. She also commended the Outside Agency Funding Committee for its work and recommendations for the funding of several agencies. One agency recommended for funding is the Reentry System for Effective Treatment (RESET). This is an innovative program to reduce recidivism for women with co- occurring disorders in the New Hanover County Detention Facility. The proposal for the Fiscal Year 18-19 budget is to broaden this program to assist men. The proposal includes all of the partner agencies it has worked with historically, which includes Leading Into New Communities (LINC). The program has a proven success rate of reducing recidivism during its first two years of operation, which was the stated goal of 40% to 14.9%. She feels this speaks volumes for the County and its support. She thanked the County for its partnership with Coastal Horizons Center and helping it to reduce recidivism. Chelsea Croom, Supervisor of the Rape Crisis Center of Coastal Horizons Center, along with Jennifer Craft, Youth Shelter Residential Manager, spoke on behalf of their clients they serve to ask the Board to approve the FY 2018-2019 Recommended Budget. Ms. Croom stated that Open House provides twenty-four-hour access to safe and secure shelter for at-risk youth in crisis. It is the only emergency shelter for youth within this county. Without this service, this often marginalized population might otherwise have no place to go for safe shelter and may have no choice but to choose dangerous and unlawful survival strategies. In addition to meeting the basic needs of youth in crisis, the program also provides counseling for families to address issues that led to the initial crisis and prevent future crisis. All services are provided by a licensed clinical social worker at no cost to the youth and their families. The Rape Crisis Center (RCC) is the only standalone sexual assault service provider in coastal North Carolina. It provides crisis intervention services to all victims of sexual violence in this county as well as their loved ones. Because of the support from community partners like the County, it is able to provide sexual assault victims in our community with free access to a crisis hotline, hospital response, law enforcement advocacy, court accompaniment, therapy services, support groups, and links to community resources. Last year, the RCC provided these services to over 400 residents in New Hanover County alone. Additionally, the Rape Prevention Education Department provided programming to over 1,000 students in New Hanover County Schools in efforts to reduce the rate of sexual violence in the County. Ms. Croom concluded her comments stating the County’s continued support has made it possible to help thousands of at-risk youth and survivors of sexual violence over the years. She thanked the Board for its dedication in helping provide these vital services in this county and for its support of Coastal Horizons Center Crisis Intervention Services. Frankie Roberts, Executive Director of LINC, Inc., thanked the Board for its ongoing support of LINC and for providing the old weekend jail for $1 per year. LINC does not take this support lightly. The result of this support has been that LINC was chosen to sit on the statewide Reentry Council and to chair the housing group. LINC is fortunate to be recognized as a leading housing provider and most of that is due to the County’s support. On behalf of the Board of Directors and the people LINC serves, being able to turn people’s setback into comeback, and also to not have people judged by their worst mistake, Mr. Roberts thanked the Board for its continued support. Chairman White thanked the speakers for their comments, closed the public hearing, and opened the floor for Board discussion. Commissioner Barfield stated that regarding Dr. Holliday’s comments about the 698 positions, those are positions that the Board and County funded beyond the state mandate. It is done gladly to ensure our public school system and our teachers are adequately manned, and also to help provide the 8%+ supplement for our teachers. It is important to supplement the state pay to be competitive. The budget with CFCC is roughly $26 million. It provides operational support as well as funding the debt service for the buildings such as the CFCC North Campus, Union Station, and the Fine Arts building. This Board has always been supportive of public education. He is a product of this public school system and is proud of the local system. He looks forward to continuing to work with our public education system. Commissioner Zapple asked Ms. Chapple if Coastal Horizons Center’s (CHC) program at the jail includes a GED program for female inmates. Ms. Chapple stated that it does not and is not part of CHC’s plans. What is being looked at with the Bureau of Justice Assistance proposal is to provide Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), which is a Correctional Counseling, Inc. (CCI) program. It is a cognitive based program so that when you think about going out into the public again, you are going to look at the potential of using drugs or selling drugs, etc. and you are going to think about it before you actually do it. The rate of recidivism is substantially reduced when the CCI program is NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 134 initiated. CHC does offer GED courses but not in the jail and LINC does offer GED. Part of the issue CHC has had in that situation is space. Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Morton to explain how the current police force service being cut and services being moved to the Sheriff’s office will work and what is the impact to the community. Mr. Morton stated that the police department has three funding sources via state funding, county funding, and the institutional/parking fund. The funding will continue in the same nature. The scenario that will be used is similar to school resource officers, but they will be college resource officers. They will be dedicated to CFCC and not called in individually. There will be more expenses initially, but CFCC will be able to have access to more resources through the Sheriff’s office with the depth of their available resources. This is all in planning to heighten the level of security and safety of law enforcement services by all means. Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Morton about the proposed budget cut from the state and the effect that will have on CFCC services. Mr. Morton stated that the state’s proposed budget cut of $1.5 million is a projected budget decrease for CFCC based on the full-time equivalent enrollment (FTEs). The state provides early projections so a community college knows how to prepare for the incoming year based on available funds. The amount could change once the state budget is approved. At this point however, CFCC staff has to work with the information provided because CFCC is based on state contracts and thirty days’ advance notice has to be given to employees to prepare for the next year. The state uses FTEs from the previous two years, which declined for CFCC and is also why the budget is impacted. Commissioner Barfield stated the County often funds quite a few organizations and for him, he always really looks at those that say thank you. It’s not an automatic give that the County will fund various agencies and he appreciates the effort. Commissioner Kusek asked if the Board could move forward with voting on the budget. Chairman White stated that it was up to the Board and asked if there were any further questions or comments about the budget items. Commissioner Zapple stated he would like the opportunity to continue the conversation with CFCC about the state cuts. He would like to see to what extent the state cuts are and if indeed there needs to be consideration given th to county funding for CFCC. As such, he would like to continue the conversation and wait until June 18 as originally planned to vote on the entire budget. Chairman White stated that according to Mr. Morton's comments, he's taken that into consideration and asked the Board to approve the funding as recommended. He does not see any benefit to that, but certainly if there's anything to be discussed about the budget, it's open and the Board is discussing it now. Commissioner Kusek stated she would like to discuss the potential of increasing the minimum hourly wage for all New Hanover County employees to $15 an hour. Chairman White asked County Manager Coudriet if his understanding was correct that this increase would affect 95 employees and would have a budget impact of approximately $160,000. County Manager Coudriet confirmed that was correct based on a quick estimate. If the Board chose to set a minimum hourly rate of $15, or not less than $31,200 per year as a compensation minimum for 2,080 hours, it would affect 95 to 98 employees and have a $160,000 impact. However, he would like to reserve the opportunity to say he was wrong, but he’s really close. Chairman White stated he would support doing this. He thinks the budget would accommodate it and asked that the County Manager keep the Board apprised if the figure does come in a little over or under. If the Board needs to make a budget amendment, it will do that at the appropriate time. He feels it is appropriate that this is a policy choice, that the Board is raising the wage to $15, and he would support that. County Manager Coudriet requested the Board set it at not less than $31,200 a year if someone works 2,080 hours per year or $15 an hour. There are employees that work more than 2,080 hours because of shift work that would, perhaps, have less than a $15 hourly rate, but their compensation is far in excess of $31,200 because of the number of hours they work. He understands the policy intention as the Board is discussing it and it will be documented in the Human Resources files. His understanding is that if an employee works the equivalent of 2,080 hours per year or is a part-time employee that is an authorized position that employee would not make less than $15 an hour, or not less than $31,200, as a compensation minimum for 2,080 hours. Regarding if this will affect the approximately 95 employees being discussed, County Manager Coudriet stated it would take effect post market adjustment. There are employees who would move because of the Board’s market adjustment to $15 or more. The balance that would not meet that new threshold would be on the order of 95 to 98 employees. The County is currently at $11.78 per hour as the lowest minimum wage. Commissioner Kusek stated she would like for the Board to also consider exempting itself from the 2% pay increase that other County employees will be receiving. Chairman White stated he would support the request. Commissioner Zapple asked that Commissioner Kusek further explain her thoughts on the request. Commissioner Kusek stated that she thinks it is a matter of principle and the Commissioners got into this to be of service to the community. It makes a statement that the Commissioners take that very seriously. Commissioner Zapple stated he knows the Commissioners value their time and the amount of time that each puts into it varies. He thinks a 2% raise is appropriate for the work they put into it, but he is willing and understands the kind of motivation behind it. He thanked Commissioner Kusek for the explanation. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 135 General Consensus: By general consensus, the Commissioners agreed to exempt themselves from the 2% pay increase. County Manager Coudriet briefed the Commissioners on the proposed changes, in addition to what has been discussed during this item, to the Recommended Budget as follows:  Changes to Recommended Budget:  Sheriff’s Office:  Add nine (9) positions, operating expenses, and offsetting associated revenue, to provide law enforcement services to Cape Fear Community College  Miscellaneous Changes:  Adjustment down to estimated value of Wrightsboro Park (est. value $500,000)  Appropriated Fund Balance decreased by $41,000  Capital Project Ordinances:  Increase of $100,000 to Division of Juvenile Justice New Facility Fund to include Construction Manager at Risk during design phase  Room Occupancy Tax projects reduced to reflect funding of Carolina Beach / Kure Beach projects which were recently approved in the current fiscal year Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to adopt the FY 2018-2019 Recommended Budget as presented and amended with the changes presented by the County Manager and to set the minimum hourly pay rate at $15. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman White stated he thinks it is important to note that this budget in conjunction with last year's budget lowers taxes by $9.7 million, increases public education funding over the last five years by 23%, and goes to the heart of public safety with making our schools safer, providing additional school resource officers, mental health workers, and school nurses. It is serving the needs of this community and the Board is very proud of it and appreciates the hard work of Mr. Coudriet, Ms. Schrader, Ms. Wurtzbacher, and their staffs. A copy of the 2018-2019 budget ordinance is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 10.5. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY HARPER CAPITAL, LLC, TO AMEND THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES, ARTICLE VI AND ARTICLE VII OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE LOCATION AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS OF HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS (TA18-01) Chairman White opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation. Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the request submitted by Harper Capital, LLC, to amend the Table of Permitted Uses, Article VI and Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the location and access requirements of high density developments. A high density development is a residential development that exceeds the density limits of the applicable zoning district. It is important to note that high density developments may consist of any housing types such as duplexes, townhomes, and single-family dwellings. Also, there is no minimum number of dwelling units required. While the term “high density” is used in the ordinance, it is probably not the most accurate name for the types of projects that must be reviewed under these standards. For example, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) recently reviewed a site plan for a high density development that consisted of 37 single-family dwellings at a density of around six dwelling units per acre, which county plans and ordinances generally consider to be a low to medium density development. High density developments are permitted in the R-10, R-15, R-20, and O&I zoning districts with a Special Use Permit (SUP) and in the Planned Development (PD) zoning district by-right. An applicant would have to rezone to the PD district, so the development would still need to be considered by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. These types of developments must connect to public services; therefore, they typically locate in areas where there is existing infrastructure. These standards tie high density developments to certain land use classifications (Urban Mixed Use, Community Mixed Use, and Employment Center place types) of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and require direct access to a major or minor arterial street. While high density developments have been historically required to locate within certain land use classifications of the effective CAMA Land Use Plan, the adoption of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and its companion “bridging” text amendment (A-424) resulted in an unintended consequence in which approximately 15,000 acres of land lost the ability to apply for a high density development permit. The Future Land Use Map included in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan is not intended to be a parcel-specific, legally binding map like the county zoning map. The intent of having general boundaries is to build flexibility into the plan and to allow for evolving development patterns where appropriate. The applicant is seeking to provide additional flexibility to the eligibility requirements for these types of developments by modifying the place type and access requirements. Specifically, it would allow for property owners with land near the boundaries of the required place types (Urban Mixed Use, Community Mixed Use, and Employment Center) to be eligible to apply for a high density development SUP. The proposed amendment will also allow high density developments to access an arterial street via a private street or from a variety of public streets. Because high density developments are required to be rezoned to a PD or obtain a SUP, the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners will have the opportunity to review any application for high density development that might become NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 136 eligible as a result of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment does not permit any specific high density developments, but only allows for applications to be submitted in areas in close proximity to the subject place types. Staff concludes that the proposed text amendment is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it aligns with the objective of having a non-legally binding Future Land Use Map that is not interpreted as a zoning map. The Planning Board considered this application at their May 3, 2018 meeting. No one from the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the application. The Board recommended approval of the application (4-1), concluding that it is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns with the objective of having a non-legally binding Future Land Use Map that is not interpreted as a zoning map. 2.. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal updates requirements that may hinder mixed use development patterns; which promote business success, maximize the efficient use of land, and support alternative modes of transportation, thereby reducing the dependency on the automobile. In addition, the proposal does not permit specific high density developments, but it only allows for applications for a Special Use Permit or Planned Development to be considered. Staff concurs with the Planning Board's action. Staff has also identified that these specific standards, as currently written in the Zoning Ordinance, are likely to be modified with the new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to allow the 2016 Comprehensive Plan to be utilized as it is intended. Chairman White invited the petitioner to make comments. Robbie Parker with Lee Law Firm representing the petitioner, Harper Capital LLC, stated as a result of the bridging ordinance adopted in 2016 the urban transition disappeared. As noted by Mr. Schuler, there are some things about the bridging ordinance that were unintended. The Future Land Use Map included in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan provides that it is not intended to be legally binding, but to be a general representation of the vision for New Hanover County’s future land use developed by the citizens and community leaders that participated in the Plan NHC process. The goals of the Future Land Use Map place types are to identify overall areas of applicability to each. However, the individual place type locations should not be interpreted as being parcel specific like a zoning classification would be. The map is essentially a tool for the planners, the Planning Board, and the Board of Commissioners to make decisions. The practical effect of the bridging ordinance as it stands now is the Future Land Use Map is being treated as legally binding, legally enforceable, or parcel specific. Landowners in contiguous to or close proximity to those areas who desire to be considered for a SUP cannot apply for a SUP. The request is not if the parcel is located within 250 feet or is contiguous, an applicant should automatically get a SUP. The request is to have the opportunity to apply or ask for the due process to come in and apply for a SUP. As written right now, that is not even a possibility. With respect to the private road portion, the reality is that on most of the major thoroughfares pointed out as a possibility for this, those thoroughfares are already developed. There is high density commercial all along those areas. Most of those over the years have probably been mainly concerned not with who is behind them, but what they need to do to get approved to do their business. They may have been required by NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to install a turning lane or install some other small road. Outside of that, everything behind a project is going to be served by a private road or access easement of some sort. Mr. Parker stated that he believes in the future, possibly in the next 20 years, what will be discussed about these major thoroughfares are the areas located behind those areas. As stated by Mr. Schuler, in some areas it is only 300 feet wide and as such what is being discussed is a pretty small swath along each side of the road. In regards to the subdivision regulations already in place, they provide two options of being either public roads or private roads. There is no other option. With public roads, NCDOT has a lot of input on that. NCDOT looks at approval rights, what any potential public road might connect to, and they make recommendations on how those roads could be improved, how the classifications could be increased, or even construction standards. However, private roads have to go through the Technical Review Committee (TRC). When private roads are being discussed, the TRC has to review it and looks at items such as connectivity, topography, and also whether or not there's a legally established property owner’s association. On the maps that have private roads listed, there are typically two large disclosures listed and are also in the subdivision manual. One disclosure will be related to developers certifying that they built the private roads to the County standards and the second one is a notice to everybody who buys in the neighborhood that says the road is going to be maintained by an association. Those disclosures are very clear. From his perspective as a real estate attorney, those maps should be provided to everyone who buys a place in that area at the closing and buyers should be receiving the notices. Before plats are filed, they are thoroughly reviewed staff, the County Attorneys’ Office, and he has a number of comments on them when he receives the plats back. Mr. Parker understands the concerns about private roads in the County. He knows there are private roads that have never been maintained like they should be maintained by the private owners of those roads or those who have easement rights. There are certainly situations where developers have gone under and did not maintain the roads as should have been done or roads were supposed to be built to NCDOT standards and never got turned over. He NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 137 recognizes those situations do exist. At this stage, he thinks that the regulations in place already with respect to the higher level of review that has to take place, specifically with high density projects, that there are enough safeguards now that having a private road in place is really not as big a concern as it used to be. Mr. Parker reiterated that the request is not asking to change the Future Land Use Map, the TRC standards, subdivision regulations, nor remove any of the safeguards that are already in place. The safeguards include the requirement for an applicant to appear in front of the Board for a SUP. An additional safeguard is when it is said the roads have to be built to the County's minimum standards and he feels he’s looking at the County standards. He is not an engineer and does not want to get into the difference between NCDOT roads and the County's roads, but if there's something the Board wants to see changed, the Board has the right to make that change. Any development going forward has to comply with either the rules that are in place now or the rules that the Board puts in place. He thanked the Board for its consideration. Chairman White thanked Mr. Parker for his presentation and announced that one person signed up to speak in favor and no one signed up to speak in opposition to the request. He invited Matt Nichols to step forward to speak in favor of the request. Matt Nichols, representing Tribute Companies, stated that he and his client are in support of the text amendment proposal. In looking at it, he would only emphasize what has been previously stated, that from his understanding this would allow some additional properties to be eligible to seek a SUP from the County and ultimately the Board of Commissioners with the exception of the PD zone, which is really a different development altogether requiring at least 100 hundred acres. It is sort of a dynamic large scale development process and he does not think that is what would be encountered with this text amendment. However, what it would do is allow additional properties to submit for a SUP which would have to be approved by the County Commissioners. Hearing no further comments, Chairman White closed the public hearing and opened the floor for Board discussion. In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler stated that should staff receive a request for an exception, they will be accepted from private individuals and staff will offer a recommendation based off the merits of what is in the request. He thinks what would stop someone from continually trying to amend the ordinances would be for this Board to actually deny an application. As to whether the possibility will continue to exist, Mr. Schuler stated his understanding is that it would allow someone to submit a text amendment. In response to further Board questions, Mr. Schuler stated this particular issue is currently being discussed during the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) process. Staff has highlighted these requirements that are tied to place types as something staff needs to closely examine and potentially modify. This will be done during the second phase when they get into the development regulations. He confirmed that if this request is approved, someone applying for the exception would still have the ability to bring it forward, but as a SUP. In regards to if the UDO process will eliminate or restrict the number of SUP applications, he does not know what the final results will be at this point but it is something that is being examined. Regarding the public’s ability to respond to a project with a proposed SUP, Mr. Schuler stated the public does have the opportunity to provide evidence. He believes it is correct in the kind of questioning the role that the Board plays in a quasi-judicial process in which it must consider competent and substantial evidence and make its decision off that. There are notification requirements that will notify the public of these applications and they could provide experts to provide some evidence. Typically, that does not occur but there is the ability for them to do that and to appeal the action of the Board of Commissioners if they felt the decision was not based on correct evidence. The burden is first placed on the applicant to show the four findings are being met and then it falls on the public to hire expert witness/expert testimony to provide evidence in opposition. Regarding why staff is supporting this text amendment rather than waiting for the UDO process, Planning and Land Use Director Wayne Clark stated there are only two ways to get density higher than the current base density, either through performance residential or through high density SUPs. In staff’s opinion, it is going to try to provide some flexibility for the Board in the future to having zoning districts that allow by-right zoning districts that people will use and maybe move away from reliance on SUPs. In his experience, ordinances do not typically outright prohibit the ability to apply. The intent statement that would say you shall have this kind of access and shall have five acres, etc. does not allow staff nor the Board to consider all the aspects of a rezoning request. Mr. Clark’s understanding is that this issue came from an inadvertent impact of the bridging ordinance. Nobody has said we shouldn't have high density SUPs or residential developments located in the area and shift all these up to the northeast corner. It was just by switching from one type to another and nobody looked at the map and saw 15,000 acres were being removed from the ability to ask. As the request came forward, it was reviewed to see if it does any harm and in his opinion it does not do harm. It is adding a little bit of flexibility consistent with the direction staff thinks it is going to bring to the Board with the code as it comes forward. This request does not solve every problem and it does not provide the options of other zoning districts. As the Board went through the discussion this evening, the majority of the real impact of this is a little bit more flexibility off our major road corridors. In looking at it, it still requires each case to be heard on its own merit. He does not personally believe it's going in a direction inconsistent with the UDO at this time. Although not perfect, the bridging ordinance is really what created this situation. Again, it is just allowing a little more flexibility until staff can get to the point of bringing forward a more thorough recommendation. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 138 In response to Board questions, Mr. Clark stated the County does not have a construction standards manual. Mr. Schuler stated that there are design standards with right of way, curb and gutter, things of that nature and the road is constructed to NCDOT standards. Construction standards would be how much stone and asphalt needs to be put down. The private road standards have a different design standard, but the actual construction is generally the same as NCDOT. A private road not built to the standards would not be accepted by NCDOT because it has to be dedicated as public on the final plat. It would potentially have to be upgraded to be accepted by NCDOT. If it is built to County minimum standards, it probably would not meet the NCDOT standards. NCDOT prefers if the roads are going to be dedicated as public, an applicant go through the NCDOT subdivision review process as well, which occurs before the final plat is signed. In further discussion, Mr. Schuler stated he thinks the option is going to benefit the existing commercial development already served by a private road system. If a high density development wants to locate directly behind it and share access with that commercial development, the current ordinance would prevent that. Generally, the hope is a commercial development is not going to agree to allow someone to connect to their road unless they participate in the maintenance of that road. Generally, what will be seen is some type of agreement worked out and an easement dedicated for the high density development to use that road for access. Mr. Clark stated that would be one of the factors staff considers in recommending approval or denial of the place. If somebody comes in and wants to put 200 apartments on a street that is substandard, that would be one reason staff would not recommend approval. This would give the Board an out as far as safety or consistency with the plan. The problem now is just a black and white prohibition on the ability to ask. Therefore, 37 single family homes get treated the same as a complex of 200 apartments on a private street. He feels with this item and the next, people understand staff is working on a global fix to everything. However, there are certain things that people have happening where the timing doesn't line up with us. In response to Board questions, Mr. Clark stated when the UDO is finalized it will either supersede this text amendment or incorporate in the code some provisions for roads. He does not know if staff would recommend doing away with it completely. Staff is trying to recommend multi-family and high density zoning districts that would have some statement where they should go and how they would function. The Board would have the ability as the legislative body to make that decision instead of acting in the quasi-judicial court setting. He is not prepared tonight to recommend doing away with it. He confirmed this is a request to add another bridge to the existing bridging ordinance. Regarding the 250-foot mark seeming arbitrary, Mr. Clark stated there's not a good solid science he is aware of to figure out a demarcation line. The 250 feet came in as what the applicant asked for. Staff shares the concern that that may not catch everything and did its best to let anybody know that had any conceptual discussions with them, which is why Mr. Nichols is here. Staff wanted to make sure there were no surprised people who say if they had only known they would have asked for 300 feet. Nobody asked for more and based on the application 250 feet is what is requested. He noted that staff would have a problem with 500 feet. He thinks the Board should be careful getting too far, but 250 feet is not something staff was opposed to. In response to Board questions, Planning Board member Dave Weaver stated that the Board is not missing any part of the Planning Board’s discussion. The reason he voted against it was the fact that there is a UDO process being done that is supposed to be covering all this. The 250-foot distance really is not adding flexibility as much as it is simply expanding the areas by 250 feet where high density could be applied for, and it is an arbitrary number. Finally, which was also touched on tonight, he feels the access requirements for high density are being lessened and that the direct access to an arterial would be going away to a great extent. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to approve as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 1. Commissioner Zapple voted in opposition. Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman asked that Vice-Chairman Watkins amend his motion to state motion to approve the text amendments as presented in the staff summary, or as approved by the Planning Board, that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest. Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that he would amend his motion as requested by Deputy County Attorney Huffman. Substitute Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to approve the text amendments as presented in the staff summary, affirming the Planning Board’s statements, that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest. A brief discussion was held about how there seems to be an underlying narrative that these text amendments, and this one in particular, are inviting unregulated development and that the Board is not doing its job and it is not considering things that it needs to consider. In response to Board questions, Mr. Clark agreed that this text amendment is being recommended for adoption because he and staff believe it to be a better outcome than the bridge ordinance adopted in September 2016. He thinks they have a challenge in diversity of housing types that can be built in the County. The way the zoning code is structured right now, it is fairly limited to do anything other than on a quarter acre, third of an acre, or higher levels. With the workforce housing discussions and his understanding of our priorities and trying to arrive at a diversity of housing stock, the bridging ordinance inadvertently removed a lot of land options to ask to do something more diverse than that. It made it harder for people to find property where they could build a house for maybe $200,000. Mr. Schuler's comment earlier about it being high density tends to generate the image of NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 139 a large apartment complex, but they are not all that way. The only way you can get to diverse lot sizes outside of performance residential, which does not change the density, just the lot layout, is by this method. By having this restriction in place for the next year or so, we are starting to see a lot of residential requests, either conventional zoning or some SUPs to try to get at lots where homes can be sold on the price spectrum lower than $350,000 - $400,000. He thinks it allows people to potentially hit a target market for housing that's a little more affordable to the workforce housing group. In response to Board questions, Mr. Clark stated it would limit the residential option if the Board does not allow this amendment. If the Board votes against the amendment, it makes it harder to build. In his opinion, this would limit supply, which drives up the cost. If someone wanted to bring a project forward now without this text amendment in place and it was not in the specified place types, they are not allowed to apply. If they are in those place types, they are allowed to apply. Commissioner Zapple stated he does not think anything dealing with this text amendment or his comments are meant to slow down or stop development in New Hanover County. There is a process with the UDO that has been identified and is moving forward that can fix this rather than a series of bridging or band-aids that the Board puts on each step. His objection is with not relying on the UDO process which we have all committed to and are paying a lot of money for. He understands there has been some confusion inadvertently caused with the September 2016 bridging document. He would like to see the problem solved and solved positively so that we can move forward with some sort of coordinated building and development. The County may be buying into problems that are unanticipated at this point by putting in an artificial 250-foot boundary that’s being asked for in this text amendment. He has great faith that the Planning and Land Use department is going to work through this so there is a positive outcome for development as well as for the County in the future. Commissioner Barfield stated that he appreciates Mr. Clark’s further explanation and recognizing the lack of affordable housing in our community. He has buyers that have been approved for $150,000 and that house doesn't exist. If it does exist, it is going to be in a situation where they're going to need to put in a lot of money to get it to where they want it to be. There's such limited supply and great demand that some are starting to pay above list price for properties which will make it harder for the first time buyer. He looks at the price point now as $200,000, that's the number, which is kind of hard for many folks to attain in this community. He knows the Affordable Housing Task Force has been put together with the City and County looking at this one issue. It is not just about apartments to him, it's about affording a home as well, a place you can build equity in and call your own. He can support opening up the flexibility and opportunity for that. He has run into too many people that just can't afford to buy a home here. He knows our bedroom counties are becoming the next stop for folks to locate because they can't find affordable housing in New Hanover County. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White asked for a vote on the motion on the floor. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the text amendment amending the Zoning Ordinance is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 10.4. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT AS REQUESTED BY THE DOG CLUB OF WILMINGTON TO AMEND ARTICLE V OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT KENNELS IN THE I-2, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, ZONING DISTRICT (TA18-02) Chairman White opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation. Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea presented the request submitted by The Dog Club of Wilmington to amend the Table of Permitted Uses in Article V to the Zoning Ordinance to add kennels as a use permitted by-right in the I-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning district. The applicant is aware of the current effort to update the County’s land use regulations with the UDO. However, their current business situation needs to be addressed before the anticipated UDO adoption in 2019. They inadvertently moved into a location that is actually in a I-2 zoning district which does not allow for kennels. Essentially, kennels are defined as a person or business engaged in certain animal related uses for a fee, and certain situations are excluded from the definition of kennel. The definition for kennel includes businesses such as pet day care, pet boarding, pet grooming, and animal training. Also, if a person or business sells more than one litter or three individual animals at any one time, they would be considered a kennel. The definition for kennel has some specific exclusions, including the ownership of household pets, hunting or tracking animals, show animals, and guard animals. Currently, kennels are permitted by-right in PD, B-1, B-2, I-1, and Airport Industrial zoning districts, and by SUP in the R-20S, R-20, R-15, O&I, and the Rural Agricultural zoning districts. The Zoning Ordinance has supplemental standards for kennels located in the R-15 and R-20 zoning districts. In those zoning districts, the number of animals that a kennel can have depends on the lot size. Also, structures must meet a minimum side and rear setback of 50 feet. No additional standards or requirements are proposed in the application, so any kennel in I-2 would have to meet existing development standards for setbacks, landscaping, parking, lighting, buffering, etc. There are some smaller I-2 zoning districts that would be affected with the proposed amendment, including Dutch Square and also some isolated I-2 districts along roads including Blue Clay Road and Castle Hayne Road. The I-2 district was established to set aside areas of the County for a full range of heavy industrial land uses including NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 140 manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution uses, and subsequently protects nonindustrial districts situated elsewhere and minimize environmental impacts caused by uses within the district. Kennels are typically a low traffic generator with minor external impacts including noise that are best suited for business and industrial districts and separated from residential uses. When researching other jurisdictions, including the City of Wilmington, staff found that kennels are commonly allowed in industrial zoning districts. Staff concludes that the proposed text amendment is generallyconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it updates the Zoning Ordinance to encourage businesses in appropriate areas. Most of the I-2 zoning in the County is within the Commerce Zone or Employment Center place types. In both of these place types, the Comprehensive Plan suggests that a mixture of uses is appropriate, including commercial services. The Planning Board considered this application at their May 3, 2018 meeting. At the meeting, no one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the request. The Board recommended approval (4-1) of the application, finding that it is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns the Zoning Ordinance to encourage businesses in appropriate areas. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed amendment would promote business success while not impairing quality of life for existing residential areas. Staff recommends approval of the application. Commissioner Barfield stated that while he does not have a problem with this, he would like to know how it is different from the Oxford House situation that the Board dealt with where people were located in a place that they were not allowed and then came to the Board for permission to ratify that decision. He would think a business person would perform the due diligence upfront to make sure that where the business is being moved to is in compliance with a specific area. Mr. Andrea stated that he does not disagree with Commissioner Barfield on doing the due diligence. In a violation situation staff is obligated to advise the alleged violator, violator in this case, of options to come into compliance. The options in this case are either to have a text amendment approved to allow kennels in the I-2 district, have the property rezoned to a district that would allow for kennels, or to move to a new location in a zoning district that would allow kennels. In response to Board questions, Mr. Andrea stated that he believes the applicant has been in the current location since December 2017/January 2018. He believes the location is being used via a lease. He cannot speak to if the person leasing the property to the applicant knew of the zoning for the area. Staff received a complaint about the facility being located in its current location and a notice of violation was issued. The facility remains in violation until one of the options he described is obtained. There is no financial penalty because the ordinance allows anyone in violation to submit a binding plan. The plan would need to be agreed upon by staff, and that was submitted and agreed upon. If this text amendment were denied, there would be another option, which would be to pursue rezoning or move out. Mr. Andrea further stated that staff has looked at other places and how they regulate kennels. It is not uncommon to allow kennel use in a heavy industrial district. Although it's not a heavy industrial use, the impacts that can come about from a kennel are aligned with the geographic locations of I-2 in the County. Kennels currently are allowed in districts that abut existing residential areas so there is a potential to allow for kennels in areas that might not be not in harmony with residential areas. Regarding why kennels would not fit into an I-2 district, Mr. Andrea stated the only thought staff has heard to support it, from the Planning Board member who voted against the amendment, was that the I-2 district is the County's heavy industrial district and should be preserved for only heavy industrial uses. He would state that the Zoning Ordinance currently allows for other uses that aren't heavy industrial in the I-2 district. He does not think a proliferation of kennels would be seen in the I-2 district and using up all the I-2 land. Commissioner Barfield stated he does not know if he sees a lot of kennel owners operating on Highway 421, so for him it is not a big concern. Chairman White invited the petitioner to make comments. Dyana Scholz, owner of The Dog Club of Wilmington and petitioner, stated that as a small business owner she was given a very limited amount of time to find an adequate building for what she needed. It was a large error that was made because she personally comes from Charlotte and had dog daycares there which were allowed in the I-2 district. The real estate agent, owner of the building, and she did not do enough research prior to her being up against a very hard deadline and having to make a decision. As a small business owner, she could not afford to be out of business while she kept looking for a new location. It would have impacted her ten employees, her livelihood, as well as all her clients, so it was a decision that was made out of pure necessity for being a small business owner and not having deep pockets. She presented the following information about her request:  Text Amendment Proposal:  Objective: Add “P” for kennels in I-2 in the Table of Permitted Uses.  The Opportunity: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 141  By allowing an additional type of business to I-2 it potentially will add more opportunity for business growth to our area  Majority of I-2 property is surrounded by likeminded zoning where noise is not a concern  Would allow for kennels to operate without interfering with the quiet enjoyment of a private home / professional businesses and services  Area of Concern:  I-2 zoning permitted land needs to be available for industries where they are dependent upon I-2 zoning as they are not allowed in any other zoning  Many current businesses in I-2, although permitted, are not dependent upon I-2 permitting  Zoning in I-2 currently permits a large range of uses:  Livestock sales; stables; manufacturing; demolition/landfills; construction; and heavy/light industrial  Specific businesses currently in I-2 zoning: karate; alarm security sales; carpet cleaners; copier / printer leasing and sales office; medical office; and employment services  Within current allowed uses, kennels would not be an abnormal addition  Rationale:  In other zoning areas where kennels are currently permitted (B-1, B-2), professional services / business are put in the same category as kennels. This would allow for professional services / business to be immediate neighbors with kennels.  Considerations and Benefits:  Ample I-2 zoned land, adding kennels as permitted use would not obstruct other business growth which currently require I-2  Kennels compliment many of the industries already permitted within I-2 zoning likeminded categories of business  Kennels will make for a better neighbor to other businesses in this category  Business growth opportunities without hindering current allowed industry and businesses. Allowing more land in denser populated areas for business needing the space.  In areas where residential is neighboring, a kennel would be a better choice of neighbors than many of the facilities / industry already permitted Ms. Scholz firmly believes kennels make for better neighbors in areas that already allow for noise. For her, it would make more sense to be arguing the other way around asking where should we be pulling kennels out of versus should kennels be allowed in an I-2 zoning. It belongs more appropriately where noise is not going to be impacting people's quiet and enjoyment they should have. Ms. Scholz expressed appreciation to the Board for the opportunity to make her request. This dog daycare and boarding has been a passion of hers for a long time. One of the things that makes her business different than any other place found in Wilmington is the rescue work they do and the help they offer to the community if a person has a dog that is not well-behaved. She is the person someone calls because she is going to be able to work with that dog where a lot of other facilities really only like perfect dogs. The goal of the business is to help people have their dogs at home, have them be more social, have a place to bring them so it's safe, and in the right area so that it is not impacting on residential or other businesses that may not want to be right next door to a dog day care. Chairman White announced that no one else had signed up to speak in favor or in opposition and closed the public hearing. He then opened the floor for Board discussion. In response to Board questions, Ms. Scholz confirmed that the address is 2904 Blue Clay Road. It is just off North Kerr Avenue with the baseball fields behind it. Next to her location is I-2, there is also an airport residential next door, and behind the facility quite a distance away are residential houses. Vice-Chairman Watkins stated if a person were to stand in Ms. Scholz’s front yard, the ballpark for Castle Hayne is about 80 to 100 yards behind the property and the property to the south is airport residential. He understands the Planning Board member’s dissenting vote about the preservation of I-2, but he does not think there would be an overabundance of applications for I-2 in certain areas like Highway 421, etc. and this is one of the smaller areas. Regarding if kennel operations will be allowed in the I-2 areas through the UDO process, Mr. Andrea stated what staff has recommended to the Board tonight is consistent with what has been discussed so far in the UDO. Staff does anticipate and, he would say at this point, would recommend to allow kennels in I-2. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield, to approve, affirming the Planning Board’s statements that the text amendment as presented in the staff summary is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the text amendment amending the Zoning Ordinance is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 10.5. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chairman White announced that one person signed up to speak under public comment. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 142 Zachary Piech, representing Cape Fear Flight Training, stated he wanted to share the Cape Fear Flight Training business plans to operate a commercial flight school at Wilmington International Airport (ILM). He and his wife operate an online pet retail business with 55 employees and ship about 30,000 orders per month. Their most highly compensated employees live here and their business profits also pass through New Hanover County. They built their business with no outside investors and no long-term debt. He and his wife are active in the community and give all they can to local charities. Five years ago, they developed and co-founded the Cape Fear Flying Club at ILM. Pilots have benefited from this flying club for personal and business travel, including service men who have obtained their fixed wing instrument and commercial ratings, and have gone on to work for the airlines. In 2018, they proposed to launch Cape Fear Flying with the addition of modern composite training aircraft to be located ideally at the south ramp at ILM. As the Board is aware, ILM demolished four smaller hangars on the south ramp last summer and tenants were evicted from their hangers with no other hangers to move into. In fact, Mr. Barber stated on June 7, 2017 that it was his understanding that the big hanger was staying so the Airport Authority could bring in a company and they would have a place in the big hangar while the Airport Authority developed the ramp that would be made available by taking down the old hangars. No operator has been identified and no new hangers have been built to replace those already demolished. A developer did bring plans to ILM to construct new general aviation hangers, but was unable to agree to the terms put forth by staff. Now that the airport staff has demolished the four smaller hangers, they changed their story and now wish to demolish the large south ramp hanger. Mr. Piech proposed to pay the same rent for the south ramp hangar, parking lot, and apron as the last tenant and offered to use their own monies to complete both immediate and long-term repairs on the facility which he estimated to be $25,000 upfront and $50,000 over the next few years and in total, offered nearly one half million dollars and to fix it with their own money. Chairman White stated that Mr. Piech was out of time, but would allow him up to one more minute. th Mr. Piech continued stating that he was told a letter of credit for $307,500 be provided by May 28 based on a contractor estimate with less than 50 words. In fact, the Fixed-Based Operator (FBO) that rented the entire facility paid $5,400 per month, again which is what they offered to pay per month, bringing the offer to approximately $18,212 per month for two years at which point they would be evicted and would have to build a new hangar on the north ramp. Authority member Harry Stovall spoke up in dissent saying, nobody would do that. Other tenants have offered to rent it. The staff will say the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) wants them on the north ramp, but nothing can be shown in writing. The master plan does show some general aviation on the north ramp, but that plan is 20 years old and the FAA encourages regular updates to the master plan for the airport and the operators. The airport minimum standards as still published today on the County website violate FAA regulations by preventing such things as maintenance on owned aircraft even though these rights are stated by the FAA. He asked why have lawsuits been filed against ILM; why have there been FAA complaints against ILM; why is the staff preventing competition; why would they tear down a useful facility; and why did it take Live Oak Bank three years to construct their facility. Chairman White stated that he would stop Mr. Piech at this point as his time is up. It needs to be stated for the public that the Airport Authority is exactly that, it is a self-governed entity created in the late 80s. It is governed by not only federal regulations, but certainly state regulations. It is not governed by New Hanover County expressly under the statutory scheme that was set out for its creation. The Board of Commissioners does appoint its members, but does not have any authority to question decisions that are made in a deliberative process. What the Board can do and what he will ask County Attorney Copley to do is, there is a joint meeting with the Airport Authority next week, and he would like for this issue to be addressed by Airport Director Wilsey. Some of this, all of which might be true, or some of it may be just differences of opinion in terms of policy choices. He understands all of that, but he thinks it's sufficiently articulated by this gentleman that it should be at least addressed at the meeting next week, not that the Board can do anything about it, but at least it can be discussed as an information item. Commissioner Barfield asked County Attorney Copley to explain exactly what the Board’s authority is above and beyond appointing members. He knows several years ago the Board kind of bumped heads with the Airport Authority when it wanted a bit more oversight and he thinks the Airport Authority went around the Board, going to Representative McComas to prevent it. In the end, the Board prevailed and now appoints members to the Airport Authority and can remove them with or without cause. County Attorney Copley stated the Board of Commissioners does appoint the Airport Authority members, but the Airport Authority has been statutorily created as a body corporate and politic that has the duties of such things as having a corporation and coming up with regulations. Their regulations are in the New Hanover County Code of Ordinances and the reason for that is for enforcement issues, for mainly issues such as zoning or to have the, for lack of better term, the teeth of the County Ordinance. This issue was discussed at last month’s Airport Authority meeting. It was presented to the Airport Authority and it has, as Mr. Piech said, answered and given some criteria of minimum standards for what it wants to do with regard to the hanger. The master plan is to have everybody on one ramp. We also know that Mr. Cherry just sold his FBO. FBOs have certain opportunities to try things first, an FBO can have a flight training school, it can expand and have the opportunity. Mr. Piech’s group, as she understands, does not want a full FBO. They want to be a training school and it's her understanding that at the last meeting the Airport Authority did have discussion of what would be the minimum requirements in order to have a flight school that includes, of course, insurance and what would need to be done for the building. It has always been the intent to tear down the hanger because the Airport Authority decided, whether you agree or not, that it is an antiquated building and feels it doesn't come up to standards. What the standards are is not for her to say. It would be for the Airport Authority, whether they feel the building is feasible to rent and if they do rent it, at what rate and what standards have to be met. Her further understanding is that at the upcoming meeting Wednesday night she believes Mr. Piech is on the agenda again to discuss this with the Airport Authority. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018 PAGE 143 Commissioner Barfield asked County Attorney Copley if there is anything prohibiting a County Commissioner from serving on the Airport Authority. County Attorney Copley responded that the County Commissioners certainly could be appointed. There is nothing in the bylaws that prohibits a county commissioner from being on the Airport Authority. In response to additional Board questions, she confirmed that up to nine members are allowed on the Airport Authority and in 2015 it was expanded from five to seven members. Chairman White stated to Mr. Piech that he needs to understand the County Commissioners are not on the Airport Authority, but thinks he has raised some good issues. He knows he would probably defer to the process that the Airport Authority follows, the rules that they follow, the strategic plan that they identify, etc. Again, he does think Mr. Piech has raised a sufficiently important issue at least for the County Commissioners to hear about next week so it will ask the Airport Director to address his concerns. Mr. Piech gave the Clerk to the Board information packets that he stated would substantiate some of his comments. Chairman White reconfirmed with County Attorney Copley to ask Airport Director Wilsey to address Mr. Piech’s concerns during the joint meeting. Only an update is needed from the Airport Director. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS Commissioner Barfield stated that everyone had a great time at the employee appreciation event Thursday evening at the Wilmington Sharks game. He thanked Chief Human Resources Officer Mark Francolini and Human Resources Analyst Bo Dean for working to make it happen. He commended Commissioner Kusek for recommending the minimum hourly wage be increased to $15 for employees and stated that when you take care of your people, your people take care of you. He expressed appreciation to County Manager Coudriet for putting these things in motion and to Deputy County Manager Avril Pinder and Assistant County Manager Tim Burgess for their efforts. Commissioner Zapple stated he completely agrees with Commissioner Barfield’s comments about the Sharks game. It was an absolutely terrific night and he would like to suggest consideration be given to adding another night before the end of the season. It was extremely popular with everyone who attended. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman White adjourned the meeting at 6:00 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.