2018-07-09 Regular Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 159
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, July 9, 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 Corey Knight, College Acres Baptist Church, provided the invocation and Commissioner Zapple 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 Zapple 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 Special Meeting of June 14, 2018 and the Regular Meeting
of June 18, 2018.
Adoption of State Road Resolution – Governing Body
The Commissioners adopted the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) State Road
Resolution in support of adding the following road to the state system:
Hailsham Drive located within the Lords Creek Subdivision in New Hanover County (Division File No:
1259-N)
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI,
Page 12.1.
Consent to the Hiring of Lloyd Singleton as Cooperative Extension Director for New Hanover County – County
Manager
The Commissioners consented to the hiring of Lloyd Singleton as Cooperative Extension Director for New
Hanover County. New Hanover County is responsible for 50% of his salary and benefits, which is included in the FY
2018-2019 budget. Mr. Singleton’s start date will be September 1, 2018.
Approval of New Hanover County Alcohol Beverage Control Board Capital Project Ordinance – County Attorney
The Commissioners approved the New Hanover County Alcohol Beverage Control Board (ABC Board) Capital
Project Ordinance as required by North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) Chapter 18B-805(d). On June 20, 2018, at
its regular board meeting, the ABC Board adopted the Capital Project Ordinance for the new Wrightsville Beach retail
store at 7000 Wrightsville Ave.
Charge of 2018 Levy – Tax
The Commissioners approved the 2018 Charge of Levy to the Tax Collector pursuant to North Carolina
General Statutes 105-321(b).
A copy of the charge is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI,
Page 12.2.
Approval of May 2018 Tax Collection Reports – Tax
The Commissioners approved the Tax Collection Reports of New Hanover County, New Hanover County Fire
District, and New Hanover County Debt Service as of May 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 12.3.
Ratification of Appointment of Commissioner Barfield as the Alternate Voting Delegate for the NACo 2018 Annual
Conference – Governing Body
The Commissioners ratified the appointment of Commissioner Barfield as the alternate voting delegate for
the NACo 2018 Annual Conference. The Board was polled on June 28, 2018 to amend the NACo 2018 Annual
Conference Voting Credentials form to designate Commissioner Barfield as the alternate voting delegate. The revised
NACo 2018 Voting Credentials form had to be submitted to NACo by Friday, June 29th.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 160
Appointment of Voting Delegate to the 2018 North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) Annual
Conference – Governing Body
The Commissioners appointed Commissioner Barfield as the voting delegate to the North Carolina
Association of County Commissioners Annual Conference to be held August 23-25, 2018 in Catawba County.
REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
INTRODUCTION OF ELIZABETH K. SHARPE, NEW HANOVER COUNTY 4-H MEMBER AND NORTH CAROLINA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YOUTHVOICE 2018 DELEGATE
New Hanover County 4-H Agent Scott Enroughty stated that 4-H is a youth development program that
reaches out to 5 to 18 year olds. The program provides self-esteem, goal setting, and record keeping for over 200
th
pieces of curriculum here in New Hanover County. 4-H is in all North Carolina counties and celebrated its 100
anniversary in 2009. He then introduced Elizabeth K. Sharpe who will be the New Hanover County 4-H representative
and delegate during the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) 2018 Annual Conference’s
YouthVoice Summit.
Ms. Sharpe provided a brief overview of her experience in the New Hanover County 4-H club. She joined
the club when she was 11 years old and is the current president of the New Hanover County 4-H Teen Council. Her
goal as a delegate to the NCACC YouthVoice Summit is to learn more about county government and the decision
process that impacts New Hanover County by getting to know the people who make the policies and decisions. Good
decisions are something everyone should have the opportunity to experience. Through her experience with 4-H and
the skills she has learned, she is currently planning to attend UNC Chapel Hill and major in political science.
Chairman White thanked Mr. Enroughty and Ms. Sharpe for attending the meeting.
Vice-Chairman Watkins thanked Ms. Sharpe for her participation in 4-H.
Commissioner Barfield stated that Ms. Sharpe is in for a tremendous treat, learning opportunities, and
experiences during the NCACC conference. He looks forward to seeing her during the conference.
PRESENTATION OF SERVICE AWARDS AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES
County Manager Coudriet recognized the following employees receiving a retirement award:
Deborah Benton, Social Services, retiring with twelve years of service
Kenda Rodenberg, Social Services, retiring with thirty-two years of service
Chairman White presented retirement awards to the retirees and the Commissioners expressed
appreciation and thanked them for their years of dedicated service.
County Manager Coudriet requested the following employees to step forward to receive service awards:
Five Years: Benjamin Andrea, Planning and Land Use
Casey Barnette, Fire Services
Brianna Grella, Building Safety
Dylan McDonnell, Planning and Land Use
Jamie Moore, Sheriff’s Office
Lisa Worley, Social Services
Ten Years: Norma Escobar, Health
Wanda Isbill, Public Safety/911
Stephanie Matthews, Social Services
Fifteen Years: Dean Olinger, Sheriff’s Office
Patricia Reynard, Social Services
Amy Womble, Sheriff’s Office
Twenty Years: Geraldine Tyson, Property Management
Thirty Years: James Derseraux, Property Management
Chairman White presented a service award to each person and the Commissioners expressed appreciation
and thanked each one for their years of dedicated service.
County Manager Coudriet requested the following new employees to stand and be introduced:
Christopher Boney, Tax
Kayla Cannon, Social Services
Carmita Durham, Social Services
Kimberly Friddle, Social Services
Heath Harrison, Building Safety
Charlotte Hendrickson, Health
Heidi Hermawan, Health
Tiffany McEachern, Health
Ciara Montgomery, Social Services
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 161
Walter Parker, Fire Services
Timothy Poinsette, Property Management
Lisa Pope, Social Services
Sara Warmuth, Property Management
The Commissioners welcomed the employees to County Government and wished them success in their new
positions.
APPROVAL OF BID AWARD AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL SYSTEM
Chairman White stated that the agenda packet presents the information in good detail and he is aware that
Environmental Management Director Joe Suleyman has spoken with the Commissioners on this item. He asked
Director Suleyman if there would be a presentation and Director Suleyman stated that there was not.
Chairman White asked for direction from the Board on this matter.
Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to approve the bid award and adopt
the resolution authorizing a contract for the construction of a landfill gas collection and control system to be issued
to Aptim Government Solutions, LLC, in the amount of $2,032,617.
In response to Board questions, Director Suleyman stated there is a general timeline to move from the gas
flaring to using it as an energy source for the landfill. It is expected to take approximately a year of construction for
this phase. Prior to completion of this phase, there has to be something to show potential bidders what they will be
working with and another request for proposals will be sent out for the third and final phase. That phase will be
taking the gas and doing something with it from an energy standpoint. The state considers the moisture from the
gas a leachate so the department will have to treat it onsite. There are knockout condensers in the system that will
help remove the moisture.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White asked for a vote on the motion on the floor.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI,
Page 12.4. A copy of the contract is on file in the legal department.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY
OWNER, JOHN DIEFFENBAUCH ET AL, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.2 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE 7300
BLOCK OF MASON LANDING ROAD FROM R-20S, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO (CZD) R-20, CONDITIONAL
RESIDENTIAL, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (Z18-05)
Chairman White opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation.
Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner,
John Dieffenbauch et al, to rezone approximately 4.2 acres of land located at the 7300 block of Mason Landing Road
from R-20S, Residential District, to (CZD) R-20, Conditional Residential, in order to construct a performance
residential development. The property is located in an area of the Middle Sound community that consists of a variety
of zoning districts. Directly southeast of the property is the Register Place Estates subdivision which is zoned as R-
20S. Directly to the north is the Mason Harbour subdivision which is zoned as a Conditional Use R-15 district. On the
western side of Middle Sound Loop Road are residential subdivisions within the R-20 and R-15 zoning districts.
The applicant is seeking to rezone the property in order to construct a performance residential
development consisting of eight single-family lots. A performance residential development provides more flexibility
in the design of subdivisions by not requiring a minimum lot size and by allowing for multiple housing types.
However, these types of developments are subject to a maximum density requirement. Performance developments
within the proposed (CZD) R-20 district are permitted a maximum density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre, which
equates to a maximum of eight dwelling units on the subject property. R-20S does not allow performance residential
developments, permitting only conventional subdivisions which require a minimum lot size of 20,000 square
feet. The average lot size of the proposed performance development is approximately 12,000 square feet. By not
requiring a minimum lot size, performance developments allow for additional land to be utilized for open space and
stormwater purposes. The proposed development will provide 1.22 acres of open space (29% of the subject
property). Approximately 15,000 square feet of wetlands located on the western side of the property will be
contained within the open space area.
The applicant has provided trip generation numbers for the proposed development. Those numbers
illustrate that the proposal is not expected to generate more than 100 peak hour trips and therefore, according to
Section 61.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required to be completed. Traffic impacts
will be reviewed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) through the driveway permitting
process.
The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject property as General Residential. This place
type promotes lower-density housing and associated civic and commercial services. Typically, housing is single-family
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 162
or duplexes. Commercial uses should be limited to strategically located office and retail spaces, while recreation and
school facilities are encouraged throughout. The proposed performance residential subdivision is generally
consistent with this place type because it provides infill residential development similar to the existing pattern of
the area, while protecting environmentally sensitive land.
The Planning Board considered this application at their June 7, 2018 meeting. Two residents had questions
regarding the proposed housing type and the preservation of vegetation/wildlife habitat on the property; however,
they were not speaking in opposition to the application. The Planning Board recommended approval (6-0) finding
that the application is:
1.Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides for infill
residential development similar to the existing pattern of the area, while protecting environmentally
sensitive land.
2.Reasonable and in the public interest because the project’s reliance on performance residential
standards allows for the preservation of increased amounts of open space and for the protection of
the natural environment and wildlife habitats.
Condition:
1. Duplex, townhome, multi-family, and mobile home housing shall be prohibited.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler stated that by-right the subject property would be able to fit
eight homes, theoretically. The performance residential has a goal/requirement that density is not to increase the
number of units that would be allowed in a conventional development, but to be close to what would be allowed in
a conventional development. Some of the lots are just a little bit smaller with the average being about 12,000 square
feet per lot. In a regular R-20, it would be either 20,000 square feet if it was a conventional development or 1.9
dwelling units per acre under the performance residential standards.
Chairman White thanked Mr. Schuler for his presentation and invited the petitioner to make remarks.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, representing the property owner, John Dieffenbauch and associates,
stated that she could have with conventional development and creative design reached eight lots, but at 20,000
square feet that would have taken up what they are proposing to preserve, which is all of the wetlands and a wealth
of open space, both at the back of the site for a recreation area and also around the wetlands. Performance
residential doesn't necessarily by-right control the types of units so it could be attached housing. By going through
the conditional zoning district process and the condition put on the recommendation of approval which has been
accepted is that these will only be single family homes on each of these eight lots. Mason Landing Yacht Club, along
with another area, are performance residential developments as well, so the ask is to be allowed to develop, similar
to other projects that are like this, where it is more beneficial to set aside more open space and preserve
environmental characteristics in exchange for some smaller lots. This tends to be what people are more interested
in these days, less yard maintenance and less space to deal with.
The one item that has arisen from the beginning, which was an unusual feature of this, is where Register
Place exists, the street runs along its exact property line. There is a property line and then a right of way. In between
Register Place and Loblolly Landing is a 15-foot gap which is the driveway for people who have a home near the
waterway. The driveway is now fenced, but it is sort of an awkward no man's land.
What she and her client are proposing, based upon a request by the adjoining property owner, Ms. Alison,
as they will be installing another street right of way on the opposite side of that strip are two things. One is they
committed at the Planning Board meeting that all over the acreage of the entire project to preserve as much tree
cover and vegetation as possible, both for the benefit of people buying these lots and also for the benefit of other
projects in the vicinity. Because of this awkward area, there is 9 1/2 feet between the property line, which will be
the right of way line, the adjacent property owner's boundary, and the back of curb. What her client intends to do
is preserve as much of the trees as possible within the 9 1/2 feet. Some things will have to come out for construction,
but it's relatively flat land so they do not see much disturbance necessary for the curb and gutter. If there are gaps
that result along the common property, her client has committed to planting three-foot high evergreen shrubs that
should grow up into the five to six-foot range at some point in time along that boundary so it is a very distinct
partition between the right of way and the adjacent property owner's property.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf confirmed that the Alison property starts at Masonboro Road and
extends down to the waterway. Regarding if Ms. Alison has consented to the thirty-six-inch shrubbery for gaps
proposal, Ms. Wolf stated that she has been in conversations with Ms. Alison as well as Mr. Schuler and to the best
of her knowledge, Ms. Alison is okay with the proposal. She and her client would be comfortable with this being
added as a condition.
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.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 163
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield, to approve, affirming the Planning
Board’s statements that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the
public interest, with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Board and the applicant as follows:
1. Duplex, townhome, multi-family, and mobile home housing shall be prohibited.
2. Any existing trees and shrubs located within the area between the edge of curbing of the proposed
street (Loblolly Lane)/driveway within the private access easement and the southwestern property line
shall be preserved as feasible. A minimum of 36-inch tall evergreen shrubs shall be planted as necessary
to fill gaps at a maximum of eight feet on-center with the purpose of creating a visible boundary
designation.
Chairman White stated that at this time the petitioner may ask to either continue the application to a future
meeting, or to proceed with this Board deciding whether to approve or deny the application. He asked Ms. Wolf if
she would like to proceed. Ms. Wolf stated they would like to proceed.
Chairman White asked for a vote on the motion on the floor.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 3 OF
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED MAY 18, 1970, is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes
and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 3, Page 18.
PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST BY GARY W. KEYES LAND SURVEYING ON BEHALF OF THE
PROPERTY OWNER, GERMAIN NADAUD, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 5.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE 3100-
3200 BLOCK OF ERVINS PLACE DRIVE FROM R-20, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO R-10, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (Z18-06)
Chairman White opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation.
Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the request by Gary W. Keyes Land Surveying, on behalf of the
property owner, Germain Nadaud, to rezone approximately 5.3 acres of land located at the 1500 block of Rock Hill
Road, along the western side of Ervins Place Drive, from R-20 to R-10. A portion of the property adjoins the Walnut
Hills subdivision to the west which is zoned R-10. To the east is the Apple Valley subdivision which is zoned R-20.
Ervins Place Drive was dedicated for public use in 1999, but at this time has not been accepted into the state
maintenance system. The original developer of Ervins Place has requested the road be added into the state system.
NCDOT has inspected the road and provided a list of improvements that need to be completed prior to being added
to the state system. The property also abuts Cottonwood Lane within the Walnut Hills subdivision. The roads within
this subdivision are maintained by NCDOT.
As this is a general map amendment and not a conditional rezoning, any proposed development would be
subject to the regulations and permitted uses of the R-10 district. As both the R-20 and R-10 districts are residential
districts, the uses permitted within them are mostly similar with only slight variations. The primary difference
between the districts is that the R-10 district allows for smaller lots and higher density. Under the performance
residential standards, the subject property would be permitted a maximum of 10 dwelling units at a density of 1.9
dwelling units per acre in the current R-20 district, and if this rezoning is approved, then up to 17 dwelling units at a
density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre would be permitted in the proposed R-10 district.
Traffic impacts will be analyzed at the time a development is proposed. Any use that exceeds 100 AM or
PM peak hour trips will be required to have an approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prior to development. Even if
a TIA is not required, improvements may be required when any proposed use is reviewed by NCDOT during the
driveway permitting process. Based on the size of the property and the permitted density, it is not anticipated that
a by-right residential development would generate enough traffic to warrant a TIA. A detached single-family dwelling
typically generates about one trip during the peak hours. The proposed rezoning would allow seven additional
dwelling units on the property, which would generate approximately seven additional trips during the peak
hours. There is a State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP), U-5863, that will improve the portion of Castle
Hayne Road adjacent to the subject property. The project is the widening of Castle Hayne Road to multi-lanes from
I-140 to Division Drive. Right-of-way acquisition is expected to begin in 2021 and construction is expected to begin
in 2023.
The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject property as General Residential. This place
type promotes lower-density housing and associated civic and commercial services. Typically, housing is single-
family or duplexes. Commercial uses should be limited to strategically located office and retail spaces, while
recreation and school facilities are encouraged throughout. The proposed performance residential subdivision is
generally consistent with this place type because it provides infill residential development similar to the pattern of
adjacent neighborhoods and is in line with the density recommendations for General Residential.
The Planning Board considered this application at their June 7, 2018 meeting. No one from the public spoke
in favor of or in opposition to the application. The Planning Board recommended approval (6-0) finding that the
application is:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 164
1.Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides for infill
residential development similar to the existing pattern of the area and aligns with the density
recommendation for the General Residential place type.
2.Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal provides a reasonable extension of an
existing R-10 zoning district in an area where public water and sewer is available.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler stated in 1999 the road was dedicated for public use on the
subdivision plat. In order to get a road accepted by NCDOT there still needs to be a petition submitted after all the
homes are built. He is not 100% certain of the history but a lot of times you see roads while they are dedicated and
built to NCDOT standards, the original developer fails to actually get the road petitioned over for NCDOT to accept
it. Currently, the previous developer of the property is petitioning to have NCDOT take over the road.
Regarding what NCDOT requirements are to bring the road up to standards, Mr. Schuler stated that there
are minor items such as removing mailboxes, a basketball goal, patch some of the cracks and potholes, and possibly
clean out some of the drainage ditches. There is not a requirement to repave the road.
Regarding the long stretch of the property that comes off Rock Hill Road, Mr. Schuler stated the section
could be wide enough to place houses on as it is about 70-75 feet wide. The ordinance requirements would require
a 20-foot setback along the property line. Along the road there will be a 10-foot utility easement that would need
to be dedicated. The parking would have to be setup outside the right of way which takes up approximately 18-feet
of space. There is potential and room to put in more housing. One of the benefits of our performance housing is it
allows a lot of flexibility of design and allows clustering. There is the potential that many of the houses could be
clustered in that area, but other than that he would defer to the applicant on the plans to develop the property.
There are existing fire hydrants along the road.
Chairman White thanked Mr. Schuler for his presentation and invited the petitioner to make comments.
Gary Keyes of Gary. W. Keyes Land Surveying, representing the property owner Germain Nadaud, stated
staff’s presentation is quite sufficient. The property is currently zoned R-20, R-15 is nearby and this parcel shares a
property line with R-10.
Regarding if there was a plan to bring the road up to the proper conditions for NCDOT, Mr. Keyes stated
there is no plan. He and his client believe the road is a proper road. They will certainly be working with staff on the
matter, but it’s not their current responsibility.
Chairman White thanked Mr. Keyes for his comments and announced that no one signed up to speak in
favor and three people signed up to speak in opposition. He asked the speakers to step forward to make their
remarks.
Frederick Davis, resident of Rock Hill Road, stated he is opposed to this request due to the width of the
property. It is about 70-feet and it is his understanding after speaking with Mr. Schuler that the setbacks would not
be adequate for the project. Currently, there is no information on the type of construction that will be taking place
and he is concerned about the drainage and infrastructure. His property takes on water from both Apple Valley and
Walnut Hills subdivisions. Some of the water drains to a natural pond behind his house, but if it rains for 20 minutes
he has water settling in the backyard. He would like to know about the infrastructure and how many houses would
be put in.
Kevin Clark, resident of Ervins Place Drive, stated he was in opposition to the request. He purchased his
house in January. One of the major selling points was the tree line and vegetation that provides the sound barrier
separation. His concern is the project tying into the road his home is on. He does not know about the traffic, but
there are a lot of people walking through the woods. He does not care to have this entire community use Ervins
Place Drive as a cut through road, especially when it’s not under the NCDOT plan. Unfortunately, the current owner
of the road, Barbara Grady, who lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is dictating how the homeowners live.
Mr. Clark further stated that this project will open the neighborhood up to Highway 17. He is unsure what
type of housing, with the depth, how anything more than a single to a doublewide size mobile home with no yard
can be put in the area. This is a concern of the community because everyone takes care of their yards pretty well.
His and his neighbors’ concerns are the lot size, housing type, additional traffic, and noise. When the current owners
bought the parcel, it was a private road. He understands things change, but the neighbors were under the impression
that it would not be developed due to the skinniness of the tract and having two separate owners of this tract and
the tract behind it. At the last meeting, the owners said they were not interested in buying the tract behind this
parcel. If they were wanting to build a larger scale home, that tract would be perfect. Everything in the area is R-20
or R-15 with a bit of R-10 mixed in. He does not see why there is an effort to put as many houses as possible on that
road and ruin it even more when there's so much underdeveloped land in that area. There are concerns and
questions of homeowners and renters in the area that will be affected.
Margaret Craig, resident of Berry Street, stated she has friends who live on Ervins Place Road and she was
a former renter of Mr. Grady’s when he was developing Ervins Place Road. A very narrow road was installed and it’s
a place where children in the neighborhood would play and enjoy. The road is not really wide enough to
accommodate more cars and people she has spoken with thought it was only going to be five houses. If this is
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 165
approved they will be finding out it will be seventeen. The road really cannot accommodate seventeen houses, as
far as she can see. Her primary issue with the request is that she does not think the people in her area are aware of
what is getting ready to happen. People bought their homes out in the Wrightsboro area and she lives in Walnut
Hills because they like the rural type area with spaces between the houses. There are all types of development going
on around them. She asked that the Board not approve the rezoning from R-20 to R-10. There is not enough room
for all the houses and everyone does like the quietness provided by the trees and vegetation.
Chairman White stated that the petitioner has up to five minutes to offer any rebuttal if he chooses to do
so.
In rebuttal, Mr. Keyes stated in regards to Mr. Clark’s comments about not being interested in purchasing
the other property, that was not true. They simply said they had not pursued it. As far as the development and the
number of homes, they have not submitted a development plan yet and all plans that would be submitted and
eventually approved would be compliant with all of the regulations in place. Utilities, streets, all of those matters
would be addressed to staff’s satisfaction and to any other regulation that is in force at the time.
Regarding the owners and residents, Mr. Keyes did not hear any items that are abnormal coming from any
owner or resident in any particular area. However, a vacant property has no restriction or only has restrictions that
are present. If he buys a lot next door to a vacant property, the purchase of his lot does not restrict that vacant
property, nor do restrictions get attached to that vacant property based on his purchase. Public hearing notices were
sent and they have gone through the public notice process, so residents and owners should be aware.
Chairman White thanked the speakers for their comments and closed the public hearing. He then opened
the floor for Board discussion.
Chairman White asked Mr. Schuler if the rezoning is denied and the landowner seeks to use it as by-right
zoning and construct 10 houses, how would that unfold in terms of the use of that road, NCDOT's acceptance or
non-acceptance of the existing road, access, et cetera. Mr. Schuler stated if the road remains as it is, as essentially a
private road, meaning NCDOT is not maintaining it, staff would work with the applicant during the Technical Review
Committee (TRC) process. Historically, staff has requested and required some type of maintenance agreement or
some type of documentation showing that they have the legal right to utilize that road.
Chairman White asked Mr. Schuler who would give them that right and who owns the road. Mr. Schuler
responded that it would be, currently, whoever owns the road, which are the Gradys, the original developers of the
subdivision. Chairman White then asked if there is any evidence whether or not the Grady’s would authorize it under
existing zoning or under new zoning. Mr. Schuler replied that he has not seen anything and cannot speak for them
on if the petitioners asked the Grady’s that. Chairman White stated that the absence of any evidence, he thinks that
is an answer. He then asked Mr. Schuler if it was proceeding under the normal zoning, what would happen after the
petitioner were to obtain the permission of the Grady’s. Mr. Schuler replied that the petitioner would go through
the preliminary plat process, which is reviewed by the TRC to make sure it complies with existing zoning.
Chairman White stated that he is sure people like Mr. Clark understand there is no legal binding restriction
on the purchase of his home to adjacent parcels, he thinks that goes without saying. He asked if it was correct,
however, that a rezoning is an opportunity for people like Mr. Clark to come express an opinion about whether or
not he wants it rezoned. Mr. Schuler confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Barfield stated his concern is the narrowness of the longest part of the property and how it
will be utilized. He sold a house right across the street, probably the third or fourth house from Rock Hill Road several
years ago and sold a few other homes in that area as well. He understands the unique nature of having an R-20
community. However, in trying to figure out how you would utilize that small bit of space for housing, it would be
different if the area right here was incorporated and he could see the Board possibly supporting this. However,
having this small strip coming down the middle and the other portion, he just does not know how someone would
develop that to make it in harmony with the current community.
Commissioner Barfield asked Mr. Schuler to restate the width of the narrow portion of the longest part of
the property. Mr. Schuler stated it was approximately 70 feet. He then asked Mr. Schuler what could be done with
that area. Mr. Schuler stated the setback would be 20 feet from the property line and another 10 to 18 feet taken
from the other line, but essentially a little over 30 feet or so would be taken. Again, there's no zoning requirement
on the size of your home and it allows for different types of housing, like townhomes and duplexes and things of
that nature. As long as you can fit it within that 30-plus feet, it would meet the requirements.
Chairman White asked Mr. Schuler if it could be mobile homes. Mr. Schuler stated yes, that would be
allowed in the R-10 district.
Vice-Chairman Watkins asked Mr. Schuler to confirm if they are singlewides that requires a special use
permit in New Hanover County. Mr. Schuler stated only in the R-20 District would it be required.
Commissioner Barfield stated that the mobile homes would totally change the character of that community.
He asked if that could be done now as currently zoned. Mr. Schuler stated a singlewide would have to get a special
use permit as currently zoned.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 166
Commissioner Barfield stated that about three years ago, Commissioner Zapple and he met with residents
of Rock Hill Road concerning drainage problems. At the time, he thinks there were maybe some beavers that were
damming up some things and knows County Engineer Jim Iannucci allocated some resources from the County to
assist with the water back up, which he hopes has been cleared up. But typically, you are going to see some type of
way to mitigate water runoff other than the ditches that are out there. He asked Mr. Schuler what the plan was for
that. Mr. Schuler replied it is hard to say at this point without a development proposal. If they are adding more than
10,000 square feet of built-upon area, they would have to comply with county stormwater regulations and have to
hold a 25-year storm on site, and the post development runoff could not exceed the predevelopment runoff. He
does not know at this time how that would be designed.
Commissioner Zapple stated that if you have an R-20 lot and it’s 70-feet wide, that is about a 285-foot long
lot on R-20 right there. He asked Mr. Schuler if he was saying that there is enough space in there with a 285-foot
long lot at 70-feet wide to put in 10 houses. Mr. Schuler replied that most likely they would go through the county
performance residential standards, which do not have a minimum lot size. It would just be the density standard of
1.9 dwelling units per acre. Performance is allowed under the current zoning district and he confirmed that it could
be allowed just by asking for it.
Commissioner Zapple stated he was having real difficulty imagining putting houses along that narrow strip
other than a singlewide mobile home. And on top of that, the drainage issues that Commissioner Barfield brought
up, which in some areas on Rock Hill Road are miserable.
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that for him, his biggest concern is that at this point there is no or has not
been an agreement that the private road could be used by the potential developer. However, it was dedicated as
public access. He asked Mr. Schuler if that was correct. Mr. Schuler replied that it was dedicated as a public right of
way when the subdivision was created in 1999. Vice-Chairman Watkins asked if however, it was correct there is no
guarantee that they could connect to this with driveways or multiple driveways, based on the current owner of the
road. Mr. Schuler stated that was correct.
Chairman White asked if it was also correct that a public right of way is not a license for future users of the
road, it’s used for the public. However, people that are going to utilize it would need to contribute to maintenance
and the underlying owner needs to agree to that arrangement. Mr. Schuler stated yes, that was his understanding.
Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Schuler why is there not a homeowners’ association (HOA) involved with
the road or if there was a particular reason. He stated it seems like there is an awful lot happening with Mr. Grady’s
ownership of it and the potential of what he wants to do with it. Mr. Schuler stated the current county regulation
requires HOAs for private development. If you are going to dedicate infrastructure for private use, that is when the
HOA would be a requirement of the ordinance. For developments that are utilizing the public street, that is not a
requirement of the ordinance because it is the assumption that one day NCDOT will take over that road. Hopefully,
sometime shortly after the homes were constructed within the development. Commissioner Zapple stated that does
not seem to be happening here.
Commissioner Kusek asked Mr. Schuler if it was correct we are almost at 20 years. Mr. Schuler stated that
was correct.
Chairman White stated that at this time the petitioner may ask to either continue the application to a future
meeting or to proceed with this Board deciding whether to approve or deny the application. He asked Mr. Keyes
what he wished to do. Mr. Keyes asked if he could be allowed to address comments from the Chair. Chairman White
stated that the public hearing is closed, but he thinks in the interest, openness, and transparency the Board should
allow that to a certain extent.
Mr. Keyes stated that the Board’s conversation has brought to light other factors that he has not addressed
and he would certainly be happy to do so. Chairman White stated that in fairness, the opponents are not going to
have the opportunity to rebut whatever Mr. Keyes would say to that, so the Board does try to stick to an evidentiary
process of some type. In other words, things one person brings up in a public hearing, other people can rebut and
then that person can rebut. Once that public hearing closes, even though we'd like to make exceptions, the rules
don't allow those in opposition to be prepared to rebut that. That's not the way it works, unfortunately. It is better
to bring it all up front than after the fact. He then asked Mr. Keyes what he would like to do regarding continuing
the matter. Mr. Keyes stated they would like to continue.
Chairman White asked County Attorney Copley if the Board has to vote on a continuance. He then asked if
there was any opposition to the petitioner's request to continue this item. Commissioner Barfield stated that
personally, he does not know that his opinion would change if the matter was continued to two years down the road
versus today.
Chairman White asked if Mr. Keyes was entitled to a continuance. He further stated that it is not the Board’s
fault that the evidence presented was what it was and why should the Board have to go through all this again.
County Attorney Copley stated the Board does not have to do so. Chairman White then asked if Mr. Keyes was
entitled to it under the rules. County Attorney Copley replied she thinks once it’s advertised the Board does not have
to grant the continuance and can make a decision. Chairman White stated people take off work to come here to
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 167
speak. If you want something done you need to have every question answered, as far as he is concerned, before the
Board hears it again.
County Attorney Copley stated that it has been advertised and there has been a public hearing, so she thinks
the Board can certainly do that. Chairman White asked if it was correct that the Board has the discretion to continue
it or not to continue it. County Attorney Copley stated that was correct.
Chairman White asked for direction from the Board on the petitioner’s request to continue the case. He
stated that it might be that the petitioner wants to bring further evidence up and he can certainly understand that.
If the Board does continue it, he thinks there ought to be some type of time limitation on bringing it up to be fair.
Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Watkins to deny the petitioner’s request to
continue the case. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White requested direction from the Board relative to the question
at hand on the rezoning request.
Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to deny the request, as the Board
finds that this request is not consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and is not reasonable and in the public
interest because of the narrowness of the road, the fact it is a private road, and stormwater runoff concerns. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY HERRINGTON CLASSIC HOMES, LLC, ON
BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, LINDA T. MCCALL, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A HIGH DENSITY
DEVELOPMENT ON AN APPROXIMATELY 5.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 6724 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD (S18-02)
Chairman White opened the public hearing and announced that the special use process requires a quasi-
judicial hearing; therefore, the Clerk to the Board must swear in any person wishing to testify. He requested all
persons who signed in to speak or who want to present testimony to step forward to be sworn in.
The following persons were sworn in:
Brad Schuler
Ben Andrea
Ken Vafier
Wayne Clark
Ernest Olds
Amy Kimes
Michael Lee
Robbie Parker
Charlie Cazier
Josh Mihaly
Craig Johnson
Chairman White further stated that a presentation will be heard from staff and then the applicant group
and the opponents group will each be allowed fifteen minutes for presentations and an additional five minutes, if
necessary, for rebuttal. He then asked Current Planner Brad Schuler to start the presentation.
Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the request by Herrington Classic Homes, LLC, on behalf of the
property owner, Linda T. McCall, for a special use permit (SUP) in order to construct a high density single-family
residential development on approximately 5.8 acres of land located at 6724 Carolina Beach Road. A high density
development is a residential project that exceeds to maximum density limits of the subject zoning district. The
subject property is currently zoned R-15 and most of the surrounding areas are also zoned R-15. Directly south is
property zoned I-2 heavy industrial which contains a welding shop and cell tower. Directly north is the Immaculate
Conception Catholic Church. The subject property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling which will be
removed with the proposed development. The proposed development will consist of 37 single-family lots, which
equates to a density of 6.4 dwelling units per acre. This plan has been reviewed by the TRC and does comply with
the standards of the zoning ordinance.
According to trip generation numbers provided by the applicant, the development is not expected to
generate more than 100 peak hour trips and therefore, according to Section 61.4 of the zoning ordinance, a Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required to be completed. However, the traffic impacts of the project will be reviewed
by NCDOT during the driveway permitting process. There have been no recent TIAs conducted for other projects in
the area, and there are no planned state improvement projects. Currently, Carolina Beach Road is operating within
its designed capacity. Lastly, the New Hanover County/City of Wilmington Comprehensive Greenway Plan does
recommend that a greenway be installed along the western portion of Carolina Beach Road.
The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject property as Community Mixed Use. This place
type promotes small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an
attractor for county residents and visitors. Types of uses encouraged include office, retail, mixed use, recreation,
commercial, institutional, single-family, and multi-family residential. The proposed high density development is
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 168
generally consistent with the Community Mixed Use place type. It provides housing at densities consistent with what
is encouraged in this place type and along with the adjacent land uses, creates the desired mix of uses.
As this is a SUP application, the Board must find that the application meets the four required conclusions
supported by findings of fact that are based on substantial and competent evidence: 1) The use will not materially
endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted
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; and 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 plan of development for New Hanover
County.
Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposed use and the information provided as part of the application
package and has created preliminary findings of fact to support each of the conclusions required to be reached to
approve the SUP request. These preliminary findings of fact and conclusions are based solely on the information
provided to date, prior to any information or testimony in support or opposition to the request that may be
presented at the upcoming public hearing at the board meeting. Staff concludes that based on the information
presented with the application, the four required conclusions could be met to approve the SUP request.
The Planning Board considered this application at their June 7, 2018 meeting. No one from the public spoke
in favor of, or in opposition to, the application. The Planning Board recommended approval (6-0) of the application
with the following condition:
1.A 20-foot-wide easement shall be dedicated to the County along Carolina Beach Road for the purposes
of installing a future pedestrian facility in accordance with the New Hanover County/City of Wilmington
Comprehensive Greenway Plan.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler stated the property to the immediate north is zoned R-15.
Chairman White invited the petitioner to make comments.
Michael Lee of Lee Law Firm, PLLC, representing Herrington Classic Homes, LLC, presented the following
information regarding the application:
Property:
The property is 5.784 acres
Project deal with the increase of density:
It is going from 2.5 dwelling units per acre to 6.4 dwelling units per acre
It will not go all the way maximum high density of 10 dwelling units per acre
Existing zoning of the subject parcel is R-15
The site currently includes one single family residence and shed and is adjacent to a church and
office/commercial building
Proposed Plan:
37 single family consisting of three to four bedroom units
Sidewalks, landscaping, and open space
Amenity areas: trail, seating, and community potting shed
Traffic Impact:
SUP: AM Peak of 28 trips and PM Peak of 37 trips
Existing Zoning*: AM Peak of 11 trips and PM Peak of 15 trips
*Assumes 15 dwelling units
Actual Increase: AM Peak of 17 trips and PM Peak of 22 trips
Mr. Lee stated in regards to the New Hanover County Future Land Use Plan, the Community Mixed Use
place type encourages compact design, compact projects along with a mix of uses. The use will not endanger the
public health or safety. The project will be connected to Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) water and sewer.
It is serviced by the applicable fire district in the area.
Mr. Lee concluded his presentation stating that this request is to increase the density. The other prior
conditions, as the Board heard Mr. Schuler state that it does already go through the TRC, will not substantially injure
the value of the abutting properties. It is in character and harmony with the area. There is already an SUP within this
particular district, so it is harmonious and also consistent with the Future Land Use Plan as referenced by Mr. Schuler.
Chairman White thanked Mr. Lee for his presentation, 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, Mr. Lee stated the price point for the homes will be between $200,000 and
$250,000. The idea behind going to the higher density was to create a more affordable product. This is certainly
something that is needed in this particular area. The developer has recognized that, but he still wanted create that
by using the creative site plan shown to the Board. The homes will be two stories.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 169
Commissioner Zapple commended the landscape architect, Josh Mihaly, with the way the trails, sidewalks,
and potting shed are incorporated into a tight piece of property.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White requested direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Kusek MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Watkins, to approve, as the Board finds 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 condition as recommended by the Planning Board:
1.A 20-foot-wide easement shall be dedicated to the County along Carolina Beach Road for the purposes of
installing a future pedestrian facility in accordance with the New Hanover County/City of Wilmington
Comprehensive Greenway Plan.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of an order granting a Special Use Permit and listing the findings of facts is contained in SUP Book
IV, Page 72.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY TO AMEND THE
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE TO INCORPORATE UPDATED FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM)
DATA AND ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLY WITH MINIMUM NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
(NFIP) REGULATIONS (TA18-03)
Chairman White opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation.
Planning Manager Ken Vafier presented the request by staff to adopt the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) data and amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) as required to comply with
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. The ordinance amendments and updated maps will become
effective upon adoption. In 1968, the NFIP was authorized to make flood insurance available to communities, to
identify floodplains and areas at risk of flooding, and to provide standards, a framework, and guidance to
communities in the management of their floodplains. To be eligible for participation in this program, a community
must adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations in flood zones delineated on FIRMs. New Hanover
County has participated in the program under these parameters since 1978. Periodically, advances in modeling and
cartography require that the FIRMs be updated in order to more accurately depict the flood risks in a given
community. Similarly, the incorporation of new floodplain management best practices requires periodic updates to
a community’s floodplain regulations.
The term “flood zones” refer to specific, delineated areas that have different characteristics and recurrence
intervals. These zones come with requirements on construction methods and are used to determine insurance
ratings. New Hanover County has several different flood zones. The AE zone are areas that have a 1% annual chance
of seeing base flood conditions in any given year. It’s commonly referred to as the hundred-year floodplain. Within
this zone there is the floodway, which is the channel that must be reserved in order to adequately discharge the
floodwaters during that 1% chance of flood conditions. The VE zone are areas with a 1% annual recurrence interval,
but with expected wave action from winds or surges in these zones. These areas are found along areas of larger
open water bodies such as the Intracoastal Waterway and the mouths of tidal creeks of the Cape Fear River. The AO
zone are areas of shallow flooding associated with depths of 1-3 feet with no clearly defined channel. The County
has only one small zone that is an AO zone and that’s down in Fort Fisher.
There will be a new zone within these flood insurance rate maps called a Coastal A zone. These are found
landward of the waterway in the Intracoastal Waterway and the Cape Fear River where the principal source of
flooding is from astronomical tides or tsunamis greater than 1.5 feet. Non-residential construction is required to
build to V zone standards in this zone. There is a pending building code change that may be considered, which if
adopted, may result in amending some of the standards of this zone. Shaded X is not defined as a Special Flood
Hazard Area, but it is on the flood insurance rate maps. This equates to the .2% annual chance or again, commonly
referred to as the 500-year flood zone. Construction in this zone is not required to adhere to any specific standard
of flood damage prevention ordinance, but it is on the map to indicate that it is a less risky zone in terms of flooding.
The County’s current effective data is from April 2006, February 2007 and the ordinance dates back to June
5, 2006. Updating the FIRMs and FDPO is a process undertaken by the North Carolina Flood Plain Mapping Program
(NCFMP), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and stakeholders in five phases: scoping and discovery,
base map acquisition, map production, post-preliminary processing, and local adoption process. The County has
been in the post-preliminary process since August 29, 2014, and this process has taken place over a four-year period
to allow for public meetings and presentations, comment periods, and revisions to the maps. The opportunity to
submit petitions to amend the maps was held during the 90-day comment period from October 29, 2015 to January
29, 2016. County staff reviewed and analyzed the preliminary data and worked with property owners to identify
areas where potential corrections may have been warranted.
At the conclusion of the comment period, six petitions were submitted for review and were resolved
accordingly. Upon resolution of these petitions, an additional 30-day comment period was held, where no additional
petitions were submitted. This process culminated in the issuance of a Letter of Final Determination from FEMA on
February 28, 2018, which marked the beginning of a six-month period for the County to formally adopt the new data
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 170
and ordinance. The required updates and optional provisions to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance were
included in the proposed draft, and it has been reviewed and approved by NC Floodplain Mapping Program staff to
ensure all NFIP requirements are met. The County has to adopt the flood insurance maps by August 28, 2018, which
is the conclusion of the compliance period in order to ensure continued eligibility of the NFIP.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Vafier stated that if the adoption does not take place prior to August
28, 2018, there could be a suspension or probation for the community, which would mean no new policies could be
issued. He believes it would be a unilateral suspension and even if the premiums were paid, they may still be in effect
but the new policies being issued, transferred policies, or grandfathered policies may be affected. There also may
be effects on disaster assistance should the need arise. Over the four years the County has been working through
this, staff has done a lot to ensure the word is out to the public. Calls are received regularly from people regarding
the changes and whether they are going more or less restrictive. Staff has not spoken with every single person that
may be affected, but feels very confident that there has been enough work and attention paid to this item that it is
widely known in the community.
In response to Board questions regarding what restrictions would be required at the federal level to be in
basic compliance with the program, Mr. Vafier stated there are a number of optional standards that can be included
in the local ordinance. Staff has tried to approach this with the intention of not requiring any further regulations in
the county ordinance and the options that have been included are either required by building code or included in
the technical bulletin by FEMA and are already standard practice. Staff is confident there are no additional regulatory
concepts or ideas within the document.
In the local adoption process, New Hanover County is in the same general timeline as the beach
communities. The Town of Kure Beach has adopted its data and ordinance. All other communities, including the City
of Wilmington, have this matter on an upcoming agenda in the near future. Upon adoption, the maps and ordinance
become effective. However, in working with some of our stakeholders, staff understands insurance rates do not
change until the effective date of the maps, which is August 28, 2018 or thereafter.
Changes to the delineated flood zones are site specific and vary across the County. However, when
analyzed, certain trends do appear. The FIRMs are becoming less restrictive in many areas of the County with
reductions in Base Flood Elevation, or designation to a less-restrictive flood zone. For properties adjacent to the
Intracoastal Waterway, the general trend appears to be that the VE Zone, which is the zone closest to open water
where effects from wave action are anticipated, does not extend as far landward or has a slight reduction in Base
Flood Elevations. There are some areas of the County where structures that were not previously designated in a
flood zone are being placed in an AE Zone, which is the zone at risk from floodwaters without associated wave
action. These changes are most notable in the vicinity of Pages Creek in the northeastern portion of the County.
The map changes result in a general net increase of approximately 398 total structures in flood zones. There
is a reduction of approximately 300 structures in the VE Zone, while in the AE Zone the number of structures
increases by approximately 698. This data mirrors the trends that are seen in the changes of the delineated flood
zones. The proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is based on a template provided by FEMA that includes
minimum NFIP requirements. The ordinance largely mirrors the content of the existing ordinance. The template
from FEMA includes several options for higher standards that a community can elect to include. The ordinance does
retain some higher standards that currently exist in the code, such as the existing two-foot minimum freeboard
requirement and substantial improvement provisions. These higher standards provide additional safeguards against
the potential effects of flood events and give us credits in the community rating system which is a program the
county participates in that essentially saves taxpayers money on their flood insurance premiums incrementally
according to how many points can be accrued.
Mr. Vafier stated that changes to the ordinance include updated definitions, code references,
reorganization of certain sections, and clarifications to certain construction methods such as pools, concrete slabs,
and fill. The maps and ordinance will both contain a new flood zone, the Coastal A Zone, in which non-residential
construction must adhere to standards for more restrictive flood zone requirements to be consistent with the NC
State Building Code.
The Planning Board considered this request at their May 3, 2018 meeting. At the meeting, following a
suggested revision from staff, the Planning Board recommended amending Article 5, Section G(7)(d) as shown below
in order to remove language specifying where an elevator shaft must be located in a structure:
Elevator shafts/enclosures that extend below the RFPE shall be constructed of reinforced masonry block or
reinforced concrete walls and located on the landward side of the building to provide increased protection
from flood damage. Drainage must be provided for the elevator pit.
No one from the public spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. The Planning Board recommended
approval of the request (5-0), with the suggested revision, concluding that it is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it promotes
environmentally responsible growth by identifying those areas most at risk for flooding impacts in the
unincorporated county and provides for measures to mitigate the effects of flooding on development in
those areas, consistent with minimum NFIP requirements.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 171
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal incorporates and codifies the most up to
date Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Ordinance provisions, providing mitigation measures for those areas
determined to be most at risk for flooding impacts in the unincorporated county. Additionally, adoption of
the request ensures continued eligibility in the NFIP.
Mr. Vafier stated the requirement that these shall be “located on the landward side of the building” was
struck because it was felt to limit the architectural flexibility of the proposal and safeguards for the structure integrity
and the flood plain mitigating measures. As a result of additional input from stakeholders, staff is recommending
one additional amendment to the document recommended for approval by the Planning Board. Specifically, staff
recommends amending Article 5, Section B(4)(b) as follows, in order to provide additional clarity to requirements
related to conditioning below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE):
Shall not be temperature-controlled or conditioned with equipment below the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Vafier stated this would apply to new construction, but could also apply
to existing construction should there be a proposed condition or renovation. This presentation and information was
informally shared with the Wilmington Home Builders Association, the Wilmington Association of Realtors, and many
other stakeholders throughout the process. The result of their input is the information being presented to the Board
today.
Chairman White thanked Mr. Vafier for his presentation and 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.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to approvethe amendment, as the
Board finds that this request as described is: 1) Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan because it promotes environmentally responsible growth by identifying those areas most at risk for flooding
impacts in the unincorporated County and provides for measures to mitigate the effects of flooding on development
in those areas, consistent with minimum NFIP requirements; and 2) reasonable and in the public interest because
the proposal incorporates and codifies the most up to date Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Ordinance provisions,
providing mitigation measures for those areas determined to be most at risk for flooding impacts in the
unincorporated County. Additionally, adoption of the request ensures continued eligibility in the NFIP. 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 12.5.
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Appointment to the Cape Fear Community College Board of Trustees
Chairman White reported that one vacancy exists on the Cape Fear Community College Board of Trustees
with eight applications available for consideration.
Commissioner Barfield nominated John S. Pace for appointment.
Commissioner Kusek nominated William S. Cherry for appointment.
Hearing no further nominations, Chairman White called for the votes as follows:
John S. Pace received two votes for appointment from Commissioner Barfield and Commissioner Zapple.
William S. Cherry received three votes for appointment from Chairman White, Vice-Chairman Watkins, and
Commissioner Kusek.
Vote Results: The Board voted in the majority to appoint William S. Cherry to the Cape Fear Community College
Board of Trustees with the unexpired term to expire June 30, 2019.
Appointments to the New Hanover County Planning Board
Chairman White reported that three vacancies exist on the New Hanover County Planning Board with two
applicants eligible for reappointment and fifteen additional applications available for consideration.
Commissioner Barfield nominated Jeffrey B. Petroff for appointment.
Commissioner Zapple nominated Ernest Olds and Thomas “Jordy” Rawl for reappointment.
Hearing no further nominations, Chairman White called for the votes on the nominations on the floor.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 9, 2018 PAGE 172
Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to appoint Jeffrey B. Petroff and reappoint Ernest Olds and Thomas
“Jordy” Rawl to the New Hanover County Planning Board with the terms to expire July 31, 2021.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman White announced that no one signed up to speak under public comment.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman White adjourned the meeting at 5:47 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.