Loading...
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.