Loading...
2019-04-01 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 341 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, April 1, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. in the Andre’ Mallette Training Rooms at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present: Chairman Jonathan Barfield, Jr.; Vice-Chairwoman Julia Olson-Boseman; Commissioner Patricia Kusek; Commissioner Woody White; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Pastor Mark Gaskins, Temple Baptist Church, provided the invocation and Commissioner Woody White led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Barfield requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion: Commissioner Kusek MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairwoman Olson-Boseman, to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes – Governing Body The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Agenda Review Meeting of March 14, 2019 and the Regular Meeting of March 18, 2019. Approval of the Second Reading of a Franchise to New Hanover Regional Medical Center for Emergency Management Services – County Attorney The Commissioners approved the second reading request for the execution of New Hanover County Contract #19-0315. This is the renewal of the existing franchise. As in the prior franchise, New Hanover Regional Medical Center requests authority to operate a Cat. I (emergency), Cat. II (non-emergency), and Cat. III (critically ill patient) ambulance service; and authority for Cat. IV (air transport) and Cat. V (water transport) ambulance service. New Hanover County Contract #19-0315, authorizes a renewal and extension for a subsequent ten-year term with Commissioner approval. The first reading was approved on March 18, 2019. This second reading is required by G.S. 153A-46. Adoption of Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation – Department of Social Services The Commissioners adopted a proclamation declaring April as Child Abuse Prevention Month in New Hanover County. April is Child Abuse Prevention Month in North Carolina. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 26.1. Approval of February 2019 Tax Collection Reports – Tax The Commissioners accepted the Tax Collection Reports of New Hanover County, New Hanover County Fire District, and New Hanover County Debt service as of February 2019. Copies of the tax collection reports are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 26.2. Approval of Board of Education Budget Amendment #6 – Finance The Commissioners approved the Board of Education Budget Amendment #6 as follows: On March 5, 2019, the Board of Education approved budget amendment #6, which includes the following in the State, General, Capital Outlay, and Other Restricted Revenue funds:  State Fund – to record State Revisions 32-35 and reduce initial textbook allotment to Snipes and Freeman for transfers included in Restart School Plan.  General Fund – to establish budget for county reimbursement for shelter damages, losses and expenses beyond original estimate and record budget transfers.  Capital Outlay Fund – to record budget for the Lottery Fund allocation for construction portion of SeaTech Renovations.  Other Restricted Revenue Fund - Transfer from unbudgeted Medicaid reserve to contracted services, set up budget for RTI grant and record miscellaneous program transfers. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 342 ADOPTION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION Chairman Barfield invited Yasin Holland, LGBTQIA Victims Advocate with The Rape Crisis Center of Coastal Horizons, Inc., to step forward to make remarks. Mr. Holland read the proclamation into the record and stated that the request is for April 2019 to be recognized as Sexual Assault Awareness Month in New Hanover County. The theme of this year's Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM) campaign is "I Ask." The campaign champions the power of asking for consent. Consent is a clear, concrete example of what it takes to end sexual harassment, abuse, and assault. The goal of the campaign is to empower everyone to put consent into practice. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Barfield asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Kusek MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to adopt the proclamation declaring April 2019 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 26.3. ADOPTION OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WEEK PROCLAMATION Chairman Barfield stated that Commissioner White would read the proclamation and invited Dr. Charles J. Hardy, Dean of the College of Health and Human Services of UNC-Wilmington, to make remarks. Commissioner White stated that it is an honor to serve on the New Hanover County Board of Health and on the UNC-Wilmington Board of Trustees, and expressed appreciation for Dr. Hardy’s work. He read the proclamation into the record. Motion: Commissioner White MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to adopt the proclamation declaring April 1-6, 2019 as Health and Human Services Week in New Hanover County. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Barfield asked for a vote on the motion on the floor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Dr. Hardy thanked the Board for adopting the proclamation. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 26.4. APPROVAL OF FIRST READING TO AWARD A SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE TO SELECT RECYCLING WASTE SERVICES, INC. Deputy County Attorney Kemp Burpeau stated that this is a typical application by a company seeking to obtain the mandatory franchise to collect solid waste. The Environmental Management Director, Chief Financial Officer, and the Legal department have reviewed the application and have no objection. The corporation is a Virginia corporation but is registered to do business in North Carolina and he understands that the company will open a New Hanover County office. Kenneth Inman with Select Recycling Waste Services is present to answer any board questions. Commissioner Zapple stated that the community may know Mr. Inman as the manager of Pink Trash. He understands that company has gone through a change and Mr. Inman has started a new company to focus on solid waste. He is delighted Mr. Inman decided to stay in the community. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Barfield asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to approve the first reading request to award a solid waste franchise to Select Recycling Waste Services, Inc. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. In response to Board questions, Deputy County Attorney Burpeau stated that a second reading is required by statute, but the matter can be placed on the consent agenda for the next meeting. APPROVAL OF THE AWARD OF BID FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFILL CELL 8A Environmental Management Director Joe Suleyman stated the five-acre expansion on the southern property is the second cell to be constructed on the new southern property expansion. Bids were received earlier last month and there were five bidders. The range of the bids, between the highest and the lowest, was over $690,000 for the project. The department has previously worked with ES&J Enterprises, Inc. in cell construction and cell closure projects. In response to Board questions, Director Suleyman stated the department has previously worked with the company on liner installation. ES&J Enterprises has performed cell construction and cell closure projects for the department in the past. He is absolutely satisfied with the work and the company is phenomenal to work with. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 343 Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Barfield asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to authorize the award of the construction of Landfill Cell 8A to ES&J Enterprises, Inc., and authorize and direct the County to negotiate and execute a contract, the form of which shall be approved by the County Attorney. 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 26.5. POSTPONEMENT OF PRESENTATION OF PROJECT GRACE PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Chairman Barfield announced that the presentation of the Project Grace proposal evaluation and recommendation has been postponed and may come back in the near future. PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF A REQUEST BY ROUNTREE LOSEE LLP ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, HILTON PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 63.02 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN THE 4100 BLOCK OF CASTLE HAYNE ROAD, FROM RA, RURAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, TO (CUD) I-2, CONDITIONAL USE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AND FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A HIGH INTENSITY MINING OPERATION (Z18-19) Chairman Barfield 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 Ken Vafier Wayne Clark Jeffrey Petroff Fred Royal Steve Coggins Todd Woodard Bill Tode Blynn Beall Trevor Tarleton Dave Tripp Steve Hart Katie Greene Phil Norris David Fort Kayne Darrell Rick Wilson Julius Rothlein Audrey Mizrahi Robert Conger John Gale Kathleen Gale Waylon Webbon Leah Mclean Dr. Sarah von Rosenberg Dr. Stan Smoote Marion Kreh Linda Emmerich Stephanie Koehn Charles Koehn John Carroll Peter Emmerich Will Grant Felicia Grant William Mahon Chairman Barfield further stated that the Board has received a lot of calls and e-mails from individuals. The Board is acting as judge and jury in the situation. All it can do is hear the information presented today and make a decision on evidence, not on hearsay or opinion. 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. Being that such a large crowd is present, Chairman Barfield stated he would extend that the time would be extended to 20 minutes for each group. Senior Planner Brad Schuler presented the request by Rountree Losee LLP on behalf of the property owner, Hilton Properties Limited Partnership, to rezone approximately 63.02 acres of land located in the 4100 block of Castle Hayne Road, from RA, Rural Agricultural District, to (CUD) I-2, Conditional Use Heavy Industrial District, and for a NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 344 special use permit (SUP) in order to develop a high intensity mining operation. Therefore, there are two possible actions that the Board must take, the first on the rezoning of the property and the second on the special use permit for the proposed land use. As shown on the zoning map the subject property which is approximately 63-acres in size, is currently zoned RA, Rural Agricultural District. It abuts land owned by General Electric (GE) to the south, which is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial. North, east, and west of the property is zoned RA, Rural Agricultural District, River Bluffs and the homes along Indian Corn Trail and Trail Oaks Drive are located approximately a mile and a half from subject property. To put that into perspective, that is approximately the distance from where we are today to the old K-Mart on South College Road. The mining operation is accessed by Sledge road, which is a private unpaved road that is located on property also owned by the applicant. The road is approximately two miles in length and connects to Castle Hayne Road. About half a mile of the road is adjacent to the Wooden Shoe Subdivision. This subdivision contains approximately 70 lots with nine existing single-family dwellings and one equestrian facility directly abutting the road. The equestrian facility is on the western portion of the property. In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler stated he is unaware of the name of the equestrian facility. The portion of the road that abuts the homes is within the area of the property that is approximately 60-feet in width. The road is currently about 10 feet in width. Throughout the review of this application, there have been discussions about possible improvements being made to the portion of Sledge Road which abuts the homes to help mitigate the impacts generated from the trucks traveling to and from the mine site. The notable improvements consist of paving Sledge Road to start about 50-feet east of the back corner of the first residential lot and extend to about 250-feet past the equestrian facility. The applicant is also proposing to install a buffer along the road. Section A of the buffer, which directly abuts the residential lots, will consist of two rows of vegetation and a 10-foot tall, stick-built, wooden fence. Section B of the buffer, which is along the equestrian facility will consist of one row of vegetation. There is an existing berm and fence located on the equestrian facility property. There is also an existing ditch that runs along the property line, between the property line and the road. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) issued a mining permit for the proposed operation. The permit allows for a mining operation of 28.1 acres to take place on the western side of the property. The permit was modified in 2015 to address concerns regarding groundwater contamination in the area. The modification permit reduced the mining operation from approximately 56 acres to 28.10 and required monitoring wells to be installed near the contaminated area. It also requires mining to cease immediately upon notification that regulatory limits have been exceeded for those contaminants. The applicant is prepared to provide additional information regarding any potential impacts the mine may have on the contaminated area and address any concerns or questions. Lastly, no use of explosives, on-site processing, or dewatering are proposed by the applicant. During the review process, the applicant has also proposed certain conditions be added to the permit. These conditions were considered and modified by the Planning Board during its March 7, 2019 meeting and included in its recommendation. The conditions also include requirements relating to the paving and buffering of the road as well as construction and maintenance of the road and to the operational characteristics of the mine. The recommended conditions are listed as follows: 1. Sledge Road shall be improved as illustrated on a site plan dated February 26, 2019 (Exhibit B), included with the application, and as noted below:  Sledge Road shall be paved, 20 feet in width, generally along the residential properties and equestrian facility, including the extension of the pavement, as illustrated on the site plan:  The pavement shall consist of at minimum 8 inches of NCDOT ABC stone atop the subgrade and 3 inches of NCDOT S9.5B asphalt pavement.  In addition to geotechnical testing, proof rolling methods shall be utilized to test the subgrade of the road prior to paving.  The improvements to the road shall be designed and constructed so that the road is pitched away from the abutting residential lots so that it drains to the existing ditch along the southwestern side of the road. The improvements to Sledge Road shall comply with State and County stormwater rules.  A buffer shall be installed along the northeastern side of Sledge Road abutting the residential properties and equestrian facility as illustrated on the site plan:  Section A of the buffer shall consist of:  A 10-foot-high wooden fence. The fence shall be stick-built on site with posts embedded in concrete to 4-foot depth. The fence shall contain a gate/door entrance to allow access to 2 existing groundwater monitoring wells located at 5711 Dekker Road.  Two rows of staggered planted vegetation. The vegetation shall be spaced as noted on the site plan and so that there is a 5-foot wide opening through which access can be gained to the two groundwater wells located along Sledge Road behind the residential properties at 5715 and 5719 Dekker Road.  Section B of the buffer shall consist of:  One row of vegetation as illustrated on the site plan.  The vegetation within the buffer shall consist of a minimum of 3-gallon bulb Wax Myrtles, Green Giant Arborvitaes, or Nelly Springs Hollies at planting. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 345 2. The applicant/owner of the mining site shall be responsible to repair any damage to drinking wells on the adjacent properties caused by the improvements to Sledge Road. 3. The applicant/owner of the mining site shall maintain Sledge Road and the culvert underneath Sledge Road. 4. The existing entrance gate on Sledge Road shall be relocated approximately 1,000 feet west on the road in order to prevent queuing of trucks onto Castle Hayne Road attempting to gain access to the mine site. 5. The hours of operation of the mining operation shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., closed on New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. 6. Speed limit will be 15 MPH along the section of Sledge Road behind the residences. There will be speed limit signs along the road and the mine operator will be required to implement procedures for enforcing the speed. 7. The mining operation shall comply with the County’s noise ordinance. The proposal will require a driveway permit from North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The number of vehicle trips generated by the mine is expected to vary based on the demand; however according to the applicant, the mine will average 60 to 80 truckloads per day while it is in operation. NCDOT has reviewed the proposal and provided preliminary comments. The comments indicate modifications will have to be made to the Sledge Road driveway prior to operating the sand mine. The exact improvements have not been defined at this time, but will be determined once an official driveway permit is applied for. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as Commerce Zone. This place type promotes light and heavy industrial uses. As mining is considered an industrial use, this proposed mining operation is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Board approves the rezoning, then a decision will need to made on the SUP. In order to grant a SUP, the Board must make four listed conclusions: 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. 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. Each conclusion must be supported by findings of fact based on competent evidence presented during the public hearing. Staff has provided preliminary findings in the staff report, however the Board does have the discretion to modify those findings. The Planning Board considered this application at their January 10, and March 7, 2019 meetings. At the January meeting, the Board recommended approval of the rezoning of the property (5-1) during the January meeting, finding it to be: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the property is classified as Commerce Zone, a place type that encourages light and heavy industrial uses. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed mining operation site is located adjacent to existing heavy industrial zoning and will provide employment opportunities. Additionally, the mining operation site is located approximately 1.5 miles from an existing single-family subdivision. However, truck traffic generated by the operation could be heavy at times and without sufficient mitigation could impact the nearby homes. Mr. Schuler further stated that during the March meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval (5- 0) of the SUP with conditions previously presented during today’s meeting. Both the applicant and opposition have prepared extensive presentations for the Board and will provide testimony regarding the rezoning and the four conclusions required for the SUP. Chairman Barfield thanked Mr. Schuler for his presentation and asked the Board if there were any questions for Mr. Schuler. Commissioner White asked Mr. Schuler to highlight where the trucks will enter and exit on the proposed map and approximately how many homes they will pass. Mr. Schuler showed on the map where the trucks would enter and exit. He stated there are 10 lots, with nine existing single family homes and one equestrian facility that the trucks will pass. Commissioner White asked what neighborhoods are passed when turning right to head to I-140. Mr. Schuler responded that they would pass the GE site and there is a low density residential development on the east side of Castle Hayne Road. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 346 Chairman Barfield asked how much of the road would be paved. Mr. Schuler stated that over half a mile will be paved and under this proposal, there would be no requirement for improvements outside of anything that NCDOT would require with the driveway permit. Mr. Schuler stated NCDOT would generally require an apron up to the property line. An apron is a continuation of the asphalt to help the automobiles get better traction as they are pulling out onto the roadway, which is generally asphalt or concrete. He stated that NCDOT generally requires the edge of the pavement road to the property line and has the ability to require more during the process. Asphalt or concrete would be added up to the point of the property line, and there is no current proposal to improve beyond that. Chairman Barfield stated there would be a large section of the road that would become damaged by vehicles driving on it, with potholes and such. In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler stated the property owner would be responsible to maintain that and it would allow their business to continue. Commissioner White asked Mr. Schuler to describe what the rural agriculture by-right can be used for today, the types of vehicles that can drive through there, and by comparison how this rezoning would change it. Mr. Schuler responded that in a rural agricultural district, the purpose is to allow for agricultural uses, such as farming operations and equestrian facilities. It also allows for residential with large lots and a very low density, usually about 30,000 square foot lots in this area. This rezoning would do what is exactly being proposed, and since this is a conditional use district, the applicant would only be allowed to do the sand mining operation as shown on the applicant’s approved plans. Any substantial change to this plan, if it were to be approved, would have to come before the Board for consideration. Commissioner White stated that in summation, the present use is agricultural and the requested use is conditional for the sand mine. Regarding the permit that DEQ granted in December 2015, Commissioner White asked when the property was acquired. Mr. Schuler stated he does not know and deferred to the applicant. Commissioner White stated it would be prevalent for him to know when they acquired it and for what purpose, and when or whether the sand mine was part of that acquisition. Commissioner Zapple stated that in the packet, he noticed the current use of the property is for lumber and hunting. He asked if that was currently permitted by the County and if this would include lumber trucks and are they currently active on that road at this time. Mr. Schuler responded that there has been lumbering and as long as there is approval to lumber that is not subject to the County’s tree removal standards. There has been some lumbering and the trucks have used the road for access. He deferred to the applicant for the current status of that operation. Steve D. Coggins of Rountree Losee, LLP, representing the property owner, Hilton Properties, which he stated is a family partnership. This is the largest single contiguous tract left in the County of 4,000 plus acres and has been in the family for generations, which was acquired about 100 years ago from the Corbett family. They conveyed the property, which is now the GE plant, to GE. The new neighbor from that transaction polluted the northeast portion of that property and has not proved to be the best neighbor in the world. He stated a lot of concerns have been heard about environmental issues arising from that. Present with him representing the family is David Fort, Todd Woodard, and Steve Magenbauer. Also present is Steve Hart who is an expert hydrologist who has testified in parts of the state in various local governing bodies regarding environmental impacts, including from mining operations. David Tripp is a mining operator who the family has dealt with for purposes of operating the mine. Blynn Beall, who is an MAI appraiser certified in both North Carolina and South Carolina, is present to speak on the lack of impacts adjacent to residential properties. Phil Norris of Norris and Tunstall Engineering who came up with the particular site plan for the road is also present. To answer Chairman Barfield’s previous question, Mr. Coggins stated that the paving starts where the residences begin because of the primary concerns voiced about the noise and dust, etc. and the applicant wanted to try to mitigate that in areas where the residences are along Sledge Road. Sledge Road is not an easement. Hilton Properties owns that dirt. In going back through the generations, they conveyed away all the properties to the north, south, west, and the east and they kept open the 60-foot wide stretch. The part that is subject to being rezoned and where the SUP would apply is where the overall 63-acres are located, but only on which 28 acres, the western third, is where mining operations will actually take place. Chairman Barfield asked Mr. Coggins if Sledge Road was a private road. Mr. Coggins confirmed that Sledge Road is a private road owned by Hilton Properties. Chairman Barfield asked if it was open to the public. Mr. Coggins stated that it was not open to the public. Historically, it has been used from time in memoriam for logging and there has been mining of sand that took place probably in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as shown by historical photos that he has. Mr. Coggins showed pictures from 1966 and 1981 stating that the pictures show evidence of clearing that had been taking place there and that sand had been removed going way back. It also shows the logging operations have been going on for a very long time that predates all of this. Mr. Coggins stated it had been revealed through a public records request some reports that had been submitted by the opposition dealing with injuries to values, the environment, and noise. He stated he and his client object to those and have tendered an email that was sent to the Commissioners late today outlining the objections. He deferred to Chairman Barfield regarding the procedure for the appropriate time to address that. Mr. Coggins stated there is a considerable overlap in the factors for the rezoning of the CUD, I-2, and the SUP. He stated that he would like to get to the factors that deal with the SUP and stated that is probably the thing that has captured the most attention. He stated what is important to remember is that on the GE site, GE dumped some hazardous waste (inaudible). Chairman Barfield asked Mr. Coggins to speak into the microphone at the podium in order for his comments to be heard. Mr. Coggins showed on a map where the migration of the hazardous waste takes place and explained this is why the state mining permit limits to where the mining can take place. Even though testing shows there are no NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 347 levels of concern of contaminants, and in fact no levels of contaminants in the swamp area that is at the top of the map, monitoring wells have been placed all throughout. If there is any indication at all that contaminants migrate and are going towards what is called phase one of where the mining would take place, the mining must stop. Mr. Coggins deferred to Mr. Hart if there are particular questions about that. He noted there is no potential or existing groundwater contamination on the phase one site. He stated to keep in mind that the mining site will not do anything to exacerbate the contamination that already existed at the GE site. It will do nothing to accelerate any kind of migration whatsoever. There will be no dewatering at this site, it will be wet mining, so there will be no change in the water levels or anything like that that would accelerate or cause the waters to move. There are no explosives. There will not be any processing or breaking up large rocks into gravel. There will only be digging sand, putting it in the dump trucks, and moving it from there. The lake will be left there at the completion that also prevents the migration of contaminants. There will be testing of the lake on an annual basis to provide assurance on that. Mr. Coggins stated the northern swamp exists as a hydrologic barrier. The wells all along are monitored twice per year for contaminants and for the groundwater levels. Under the mining permit, activity must stop on indication of contaminants at levels of concern. He showed excerpts from the state mining permit provided. Mr. Coggins invited Mr. Hart to make remarks and asked Katie Green, attorney of Roundtree Losee, LLP, to move into evidence Dr. Hart’s curriculum vitae. Commissioner White stated he understands where Mr. Coggins is in the presentation, but it seems to him Mr. Coggins is introducing evidence relevant to a SUP. Mr. Coggins replied that he is. Commissioner White said his questions begin earlier than that. He wants to hear evidence or commentary about how this is reasonable and in the public interest, the second prong of the rezone. If the rezone is approved, then they get to the SUP. If the rezone is not approved, then they do not get to the SUP. Mr. Coggins stated it is reasonable because it will increase the tax value of the land. It will provide a terribly needed local source of sand for construction. There is no place to go, including the room we are in and the homes where we sleep at night, where sand is not used and it is an indispensable component of growth and maintenance of what already exists in the infrastructure in the County. It is vitally needed and the closer the source of the sand is, the more available it is and the more reasonable the price. Commissioner White stated that we live in the fastest growing community in the state. He asked how having a sand mine this close to our urban base, particularly the residences and he heard earlier today that the clients sold off the last two decades to build houses, and asked how does that lower the price for sand acquisition or in any way contribute to the economy. Mr. Coggins replied that built into the price of the sand is the transportation costs. The price almost geometrically increases the farther away the sand has to be shipped from the source. It is also important for the beach communities to use it for beach re- nourishment purposes. Sometimes the permitting is difficult for the dredging and sometimes they have to bring sand in, and we have, post Hurricane Florence, has had demands for it up and down the region. Commissioner White asked if it is a condition that the sand mine would be used solely for sand projects in the County. Mr. Coggins replied it is not, but the market will be a slave to the market which virtually guarantees its source. Commissioner White stated if it is reasonable and in the public interest could Mr. Coggins provide comments on how his view of the tax value being increased would be balanced against the cost of the 80 trucks per day driving back and forth. Mr. Coggins replied that the material increases the value of the land and the properties to which the sand will be transported, elsewise, development in the County would end, it cannot exist in the absence of sand. Commissioner White said it has existed up to today without this sand mine. Mr. Coggins replied that was correct. Commissioner White asked if Mr. Coggins agrees regarding the rezone question for this Board to approve and agree that it is reasonable and in the public interest, if it would be fair for the Board to consider the impact to the surrounding residences, not just in monetary value, but in habitability, quality of life, and transportation with 80 trucks per day. Mr. Coggins responded that to the limit to the degree as set forth by the ordinance, he would proceed and show that. For instance, it must be consistent with the future land use map. This particular property is classified as commerce already. He stated that value judgment of policy has already been made. Commissioner Zapple asked what use is there for the sand in the community, whether it was for road construction or a need on a general basis. Mr. Coggins responded that it is vital to road construction and serving as the base for any basic infrastructure or building in the region. Commissioner Zapple asked if the NCDOT projects currently going on could use large amounts of the sand. Mr. Coggins stated that was correct and the NCDOT project rd that will connect and widen Castle Hayne Road from I-140 down to North Kerr Avenue and 23 Street, that sand has to come from somewhere. He stated he would put into evidence at the appropriate time a NCDOT report that talked about the sea level rise and based on those projections, there will be a dramatic increase in the need of sand to provide protective features for existing road infrastructure, let alone for the new roads that need to be built at that time. Commissioner Kusek asked if there are contracts already existing for the sand out of this mine for beach re- nourishment. Mr. Coggins responded that there are none for any purpose at this point. Commissioner Zapple asked regarding the use of the roads if discussion is about hundreds of cubic yards or thousands of cubic yards or tens of thousands. Mr. Coggins stated it is thousands, if not more. Mr. Coggins proceeded and stated that significant neighborhood changes have been a factor. They have the change of the issuance of the state mining permit and that the sand mining to a degree has already taken place on the GE site and also on the subject site, historically. There is also an increased community demand for the sand. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 348 He said it serves the public interest in the availability of local, readily accessible sand, operating the sand in accordance with the permit would provide employment opportunities, and increase the tax value of the land. It would be operated in a way to protect the public health and safety. Once those mining operations are complete, the mine site will be reclaimed as a way to support wildlife and to provide habitat. Mr. Coggins reviewed excerpts of the study from NCDOT where it discussed the projects and improvement sites, such as the Wilmington International Airport, from the SiteTech report in the agenda packet starting on page 63. He stated he believes he covered the various factors for the rezoning and whether or not it is consistent with the future land use plan and if it is reasonable and in the public interest, that it does. He said this is located in an already heavily industrial zoning and will provide those opportunities. He said Dr. Hart is available to answer questions regarding the environmental concerns and in the absence of questions, maybe to add that to the rebuttal. Chairman Barfield informed Mr. Coggins that he was almost at the end of his allotted 20-minutes for his presentation. Commissioner Kusek asked how many jobs would be available. Mr. Coggins responded that he was not sure, but there would be a lot of people driving trucks. He said it could be hundreds of jobs because there could be 80 something trips, but the number is not known. Mr. Coggins asked if he could formally submit evidence. He provided an email from Detective McCracken of the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Department who had come at their request to measure the noise conditions at the site and found that they were slightly above decibel levels of areas where it is unimproved, but they would be mitigated by the buffers that would be provided for the pavement. It is also measuring closer than what was required than where the closest residence is according to the noise ordinance. He is also putting into evidence the sea level report from NCDOT and some executive summaries from the appraisal firm, Streamline, that is in rebuttal to certain things which Mr. Coggins has objected to regarding their appraisal evidence, specifically The Hite Report and specific comments that were made. Commissioner White asked Planning and Land Use Director Wayne Clark to provide his comments regarding the second component of the rezoning that the Board has to decide. The Board needs to find if it is consistent with the land use plan in the first component, which he thinks that goes without saying for the most part for his vote. The Board also has to find that it is reasonable and in the public interest. Within those boundaries, it is fair to deliberate and weigh evidence, pros and cons, traffic, and all the things associated with this kind of use of the land. He asked if that was a fair statement. Mr. Clark stated it was. Commissioner White stated that he believes Mr. Coggins was correct in saying the County’s ordinance contemplates the balancing act that they have as a Board. He asked Mr. Clark to describe to the public in general what the balancing act is and what the Board’s choices are on the rezoning. Mr. Clark responded that the reasonable and in the public interest allows the Board as a legislative body some discretion as to whether it is right for New Hanover County. It is balancing looking at the use itself and the land use map that shows it is an industrial use with its setting in that exact location. There is the challenge that it may be generally good for the Comprehensive Plan, but is it the right location. Staff had the same concerns and the initial application that came forward did not have the same improvements to the roadway that it has today that is in front of the Board today. Staff had a concern that while the site itself where the mining will take place is a long way away from a lot people and is immediately adjacent to industrial uses for the state permits. They were looking at how that itself fits on the use of the land with the challenge of how to get to it. That is where the challenge came as there is one access road to the site that passes directly behind residential uses. Staff tried to put that in their report to show that the balance at the time of the initial application, there was some concern that would be an issue because of the volume of truck traffic. As it has come forward, there has been some substantial concessions from the original dirt road to a road paved to NCDOT standards past that area with some screening and buffering. That is where the decision comes to the Board, is that sufficient to address the challenges and concerns regarding the access being appropriate on that side. Chairman Barfield stated he wanted to add comments piggybacking on Commissioner White’s question regarding what is in the public interest. Two NCDOT projects came to his mind. With NCDOT putting in the I-140 bypass in Brunswick County, one of the unintended consequences was the road coming behind the Windsor Park community. Unbeknownst to them, the road goes in and folks’ backyards are backing up to it and now they hear the traffic at all times of the night, and NCDOT with their contract to remove the buffer of trees there, so they hear this often. The second project is the reworking of the interchange at Market Street, with an offshoot that is coming in behind some homes. Although the road is not open yet, the elevation is such to where the folks sitting on their decks with a six-foot privacy fence are looking six feet into the air at the road that is elevated there. The argument could be made that I-140 and the interchange of Military Cutoff and Market Street is in the public interest for transportation. He asked Mr. Clark to explain how this would be in the public interest with the homes backing up to a dirt road with that many trucks going by. Mr. Clark stated that reasonable and in the public interest is a very broad standard to try to beat. It is balancing the actual use of the land and its industrial form with the people who live there. Staff had to address the challenges that it has been an access point and has been used for logging operations. There are legal standards and case laws for what would drive the standing of reasonable. Staff viewed it from the challenge of that is the only way in and there is no other way to access that property. The GE facility has limited requirements because of national th security following the September 11 incident. There is not a way to use the GE property to get through. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 349 Commissioner White stated that in the public interest is a phrase that defines itself. It means the public in general is interested in this proposed use and that it is sufficiently outweighed by concerns for accessibility, noise, traffic, etc. The public interest is outweighed by any concerns and does not that mean the Board has to find that. Mr. Clark agreed. Commissioner White asked if it is true that the Board has to find the public interest to having a sand mine is outweighed by any other concerns, regardless of environmental, traffic, or access concerns. That the public interest for having a sand mine outweighs the negatives. Mr. Clark stated that is his understanding. Commissioner White stated if that is the case, is it not squarely within the Board’s purview to decide if the sand mine is needed or if it is not needed. The marketplace has taken care of sand up to today. He asked if that is the fair analysis of what the decision the Board has to make regarding the second prong of the rezone. Mr. Clark stated he believes that is correct. It is a fair decision for the Board to make whether it is or is it not in the public interest to have the sand mine there. He agrees with Commissioner White’s assessment of looking at the broad range of things that impacts the public. Commissioner White stated in an underserved community for a school or a hospital or a police station, or a hundred other things, a thousand other things, the argument could be made this is really within the public interest. For example, a cell tower is needed in an area because if there is no cell tower, 911 operations can’t work. Really within the public interest, it outweighs any concerns you might have for a cell tower or something else. Commissioner White asked Mr. Clark if the Board has to find that. Mr. Clark responded he believes the Board does, yes. Commissioner White asked what has been presented today, not related to access or mitigation for buffers, but what has been heard or what should be heard for the Board to find that having a sand mine is in the public interest. Mr. Clark stated he does not want to argue the case for the applicant. Commissioner White said he has asked the question, that is the question he has and needs to know how it is in the public interest in order to vote on the rezoning. Mr. Clark stated he thinks that Mr. Coggins more mitigated the negative impacts then he argued the case for the positives related to it. Commissioner White stated he understood that was done but Mr. Coggins also said that ordinance says that policy decision has already been made. He does not necessarily agree with that. If it has already been made, then the Board has no choice but to grant the rezoning and the Board is being asked to make a choice. Mr. Clark stated that may be better argued between attorneys. Commissioner White stated he understood. Commissioner Zapple stated the location that came up early when it was being described and the question of why is this the appropriate location for this kind of activity. The reason location is there is because that is where the sand is and the appropriate kind of sand they want to pull out is in that site. That is why the location is there. You cannot pick up and start a sand mine anywhere. It is site specific. There is a demonstrated need as pointed out by the applicant for sand in this community. He knows it sounds simplistic. There is the same type of discussion about sand going to the re-nourishment of the beaches. Sand is the foundation of a tremendous amount of growth currently being experienced and will continue to be seen into the future with as many as 100,000 people moving into this area and to get everyone around in the transportation issues. He thinks the biggest user of the sand is NCDOT and if he read the applicant's information correctly, there are currently 22 major road improvement projects. There currently is not the volume of sand locally to support that as well as homebuilding and commercial building. There is a need for it. He has many of the same concerns eluded to by Commissioner White about the impact of the community. He would like to hear how, if it is possible, to mitigate those issues impacting the community. As far as the need there, he thinks and agrees that there is a demonstrated need for the product, and the location is selected because that is where the sand is. Chairman Barfield stated that the Board would now hear from the opponents to the request and that a total of 25 minutes would be allotted for all the speakers. Commissioner White stated that he asked a couple of specific questions and respectfully asked that Chairman Barfield let Mr. Coggins answer them. He understands that he is asking Chairman Barfield for discretion on the time limit, but he posed the question and thinks it would only be fair to allow Mr. Coggins the opportunity to answer them. Mr. Coggins stated with respect to the record of what has been submitted by the applicant on the need for sand, he would direct the Board’s attention to page 11-7-62 of the agenda packet. This is an extensive report which has been prepared and titled The Public Necessity for Additional Sand Mines – New Hanover County. With respect to Commissioner Zapple’s questions about the efforts of mitigation, time did not permit him to go into that but there is great detail. Phil Norris with Norris and Tunstall Engineers that designed the site plan improvements is prepared to explain as to why it would mitigate the noise, dust, impacts of the adjacent houses that are being discussed. Chairman Barfield asked County Attorney Copley if he could allot more time. County Attorney Copley responded that he could do so, but if he did the same amount of time would have to be allotted to the other side. Chairman Barfield stated he would allow Mr. Coggins an additional five minutes. Mr. Coggins asked Mr. Norris to step forward to speak. Mr. Norris asked what specific questions the Board has. Chairman Barfield stated that he thinks they have already been asked. Mr. Norris stated that as far as what his firm prepared for the area behind the residences and the equestrian center is an existing gravel road based on concerns from the community meetings about dust, noise in the area, so the proposal is to widen the road to a ten- foot-wide gravel road to a 20-foot wide paved road designed for the heavy duty asphalt pavement. Also at this time there is a geotechnical firm that is doing a study to make sure that this section is adequate. If the firm comes back and says a heavier section is needed that the trucks will not destroy, that is what his client intends to build. The purpose of the pavement is for dust control and also will help in some of the noise that will be created by truck traffic. In addition to that within the 60-feet that is available, his client intends to put in a 10-foot high solid wooden fence along back of all those properties and put as much vegetation/plantings in that area between the haul road NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 350 and those residences to try to mitigate noise. He does not think anyone can say it will cut out the noise, but it will certainly help mitigate the noise. Commissioner Zapple asked if there was any consideration of paving the road all the way to Castle Hayne Road. Mr. Norris stated there has not been at this time. The road will have to be maintained. It is a gravel road and as the mine is operated there will have to be ongoing maintenance because obviously they have to get the trucks in and out. The road will not be allowed to fall apart. If it falls apart sand cannot be mined, so it will be maintained by more gravel and whatever is necessary to keep it in operation. Commissioner Zapple asked if technically it was possible. Mr. Norris responded well sure; the whole thing could be paved, but again the purpose of the pavement was more for dust control in the area where the residences are. The rest of it is in the woods and it is not as big of a concern. Commissioner Zapple stated it is also his understanding in looking at the drawings the road is being designed so the water sheds away from the homes and into an existing ditch on one side. Mr. Norris stated this was correct. There is an existing draining feature that will be used and he wants to point out that should the Board decide to approve this, there will be additional permitting required such as the driveway permit and also stormwater regulations that will have to be addressed and permitted as well. As far as water quality from any runoff and such that would have to be addressed as well. Commissioner Zapple stated that to summarize there will be a paved road that sheds water away from the homes, in some cases there is an existing berm up by the equestrian facility, a solid ten-foot high fence, and multilayers of vegetation that is proposed as part this to help mitigate. Mr. Norris stated that was correct. Chairman Barfield stated that the clock is ticking and a total of 25 minutes will be allocated for those who signed up to speak in opposition to the request. Kayne Darrell, resident of Castle Lakes Road, spoke in opposition to the request stating that she hopes to fill in some history, some facts that she thinks are important for the Board to keep in mind as it makes its decision. The history starts in 2014 when this SUP application first came before the Planning Board. It took five years, two community meetings, one mining permit, one lawsuit against Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for improperly issuing a mining permit, one more modified and revised mining permit and three appearances before the Planning Board to get here in front of this Board today. The numbers tell a few things. One, this is not a cut and dried issue, it is in fact quite complex; two, that the applicant, although five years would seem is ample time to do so, have not done much at all on their own initiative to address the legitimate concerns of their neighbors; and three, number two is important because there is a history here. In December 2013, on a Friday before Christmas in a small room tucked at the back of a warehouse, in an industrial area that had no visible address posted on the street, a few very resourceful citizens still managed to show up at the first required community meeting held by the applicant. A meeting at which almost none of their very legitimate questions and concerns were answered by the property owners. When the planning staff presented the SUP application for approval in February 2014, those resourceful citizens were present at the meeting and once again they were hoping to get their issues and concerns addressed. There are experts here today who she hopes will be given ample time to speak to some of those issues. For the record, she will suggest that her expertise is in the importance of community engagement. To that, she would like to talk about one of the issues, the dangerous and toxic chemicals heard about such as uranium, vinyl chloride, and chromium to name a few, spreading from the GE property directly beneath where the applicant initially wanted to dig their 68-acre sand mine. When she and others stood before the Planning Board to talk about the litany of toxins, known carcinogens, health and environmental impacts, it was the first time the Planning Board had heard of it. The question is, did Hilton Properties know about the toxins, and if so, did they willfully and knowingly not disclose the information? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the area an inactive hazardous waste site in the 1990s, a designation that still holds today and the EPA is still monitoring. She has a letter from GE dated in 2013, which specifically discusses contaminants at the site and the spread to the adjoining property. She referenced Commissioner Zapple’s question about the plans to address the waste during the first community meeting in 2013. Though the property owners did not deny knowing about the toxins, they offered no answers. Think about that for a second. Were the property owners ready and willing to risk the potential contamination of the groundwater, drinking water, aquifer, and environment? Can their lack of disclosure lead to a conclusion other than they considered it perfectly acceptable to risk exposing their neighbors, community and environment to the extremely toxic, cancer-causing chemicals for their own financial gain. Based on that history, based on these and the many other unanswered questions, she asked the Board to think long and hard about why these people should be trusted to abide by the long list of conditions seen on the screen. Will reliance have to continue on resourceful citizens to protect people from those that have given no reason to trust them? Or can the citizens expect that their government officials will step up to do the right thing by the community, a community with nothing to gain and a lot to lose if this permit is granted? Rick Wilson, resident of Hyacinth Avenue, spoke in opposition to the request and stated he had filed the lawsuit initially which caused this to be cut in half. He said he has an email from Bryan Lamb, environmental specialist, who would be the one, if he stays in his current job, to inspect the mine if it is approved. He had asked Mr. Lamb a few weeks ago how often it would be inspected and Mr. Lamb had answered once a year and more if there were complaints. The other question Mr. Wilson asked was how Mr. Lamb would check the depth of the mine since it was supposedly limited to sea level as far as going into the water tank. Mr. Wilson said he had a copy of the email if anyone needed it. Mr. Coggins objected. Chairman Barfield asked how to proceed. Ms. Copley stated this was not quasi- judicial. Chairman Barfield stated Mr. Wilson could proceed. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 351 Mr. Wilson read the email as follows: “Our normal inspection schedule allows for one inspection per year. In addition, we will follow up with complaints as needed. Regarding the mine depth, we think it is a problem. We can require documentation from the permitee and a survey of the mine depth. Signed, Bryan Lamb.” Mr. Wilson stated it is an email so it is not a signature. His concern is where is the compliance, where is the check and balance. He does not have a warm and fuzzy feeling about what they’ll do to comply once it is open. It is a private road way back in the woods and no one else can go back there without permission or they are trespassing, other than someone who will be there once per year. Regarding the depth concern, at this point in time in the County, there is not a way to check the depth themselves. And if there is not a marker back there showing the sea level, he asked how anybody walking back to inspect it could know what the depth level is. Ms. Copley reminded the Board that at this point, they are handling the rezoning request. If it is approved, then the Board will go into the quasi-judicial request. She wants to make sure the testimony heard now for the rezoning does not seep into what will be considered at quasi-judicial. Mr. Coggins’ objection was looking at hearsay, which is someone not here, not under oath, and that cannot be cross examined. She would ask that the public speakers state what is known and factual and their experience and their knowledge, so if the Board approves that, and make the record so as not to confuse the testimony. Julius Rothlein, a resident of Minerva Lane, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that his family recently relocated to New Hanover County from Virginia seeking a better quality of life. He stated he is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel in the Judge Advocate General Corps and after 21 years in that service, he then joined the Navy Office of General Council where he worked for over 20 years. He culminated his experience by working with the Marine Corps and was the counsel at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia. He stated the group he is with consists of people from the Indian Corner Trail, Trail Oaks Drive, Wooden Shoe, River Bluffs, and the equestrian facility. He stated he believes it is significant to understand that they are here both as established communities and as relatively new residential communities in the Castle Hayne area. He stated this Board is instrumental in approving new residential activity, and River Bluffs is one of those. They have previously provided the Commissioners and staff with a briefing package that explains their opposition. Mr. Rothlein stated he heard earlier the four findings that the Board has to make before going forward and he will be discussing the things that deal with a serious and sustained negative economic impact on the adjoining or abutting properties, and the negative impact on health and human safety to the community. Ms. Copley stated Mr. Coggins was standing up to object and that is what she cautioned, she does not want the information to seep into the SUP. Mr. Coggins stated he formally objected to the report which is based in large part on The Hite Report and he said they have outlined the cogent reasons as to why this is incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant evidence and speculative. He appreciates the significant procedural challenges that this governing body has to simultaneously hear legislative and a quasi-judicial particular type of proceeding. But if the Board can appreciate, if he does not object here that they would have lost and they do not want this body to come under the impression that these are very serious admissibility issues with respect to The Hite Report. That can be gone into with the experts, but they want to preserve that objection. Chairman Barfield stated the Board will indeed rule in favor of the applicant that it cannot hear this portion at this point. He said Mr. Rothlein could proceed without addressing the SUP since they are not at that point yet. Mr. Rothlein stated the presentation was primarily geared towards the SUP. They did not understand that tonight they were going to be addressing the basic question if there should be a rezoning. As a result, he wanted to reserve his time. Ms. Copley stated that would be appropriate if the Board gets to the SUP point. As she had stated earlier, everything has to be restricted to the rezoning portion, which is for the public interest and if it meets the land use, all of those conditions. The Board cannot get into beyond what the rezoning requirements are. She understands this is very difficult for people who want to speak, but this is a two-step process. Unless someone has comments regarding the rezoning, she asked that they hold their comments until such time as the Board has voted to proceed with the SUP. Commissioner Zapple asked where is the bright line because the discussions are about the same thing. The issues of getting the information whether this is an appropriate rezoning or the details of it. To him, they go into his decision making. He is trying to look for the bright line. Ms. Copley stated it is difficult in the two-step process. For the quasi-judicial, The Hite Report is not to be heard when it comes to rezoning. She said they cannot address things such as sworn testimony, under oath, and the opportunity to ask questions of those not present, such as The Hite Report. If this item does go into a lawsuit, the record has to be preserved and the Board has to make sure it has not crossed the line. Commissioner Zapple asked if discussion of the road at this point is inappropriate. Ms. Copley stated no because the road does affect the public interest, such as if the road is going to be adequate or inadequate to serve the needs or asking if the roads will destroy or cripple the neighborhood. Commissioner Zapple asked about contamination of the soil. Ms. Copley stated that is getting on the edge of things and although she is not a judge reviewing this, she thinks it gets to the edge of things. Although not in a courtroom, where as Mr. Coggins said, he does not get to cross-examine the witnesses. They have not gotten to the part of the meeting that anyone is sworn, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 352 the clerk swore them in but they are not getting that evidence. Ms. Copley suggested for the Board to limit it to the two items to consider for the rezoning and unless testimony is going to be regarding those items, she suggested the Board would get into dangerous territory. All of the comments if they proceed with the rezoning will be able to be put into the record at the time of the SUP. Chairman Barfield stated the two items Ms. Copley is referring to are that it is consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the property is classified as Commerce Zone, a place type that encourages light and heavy industrial uses. The second is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed mining operation site is located adjacent to existing heavy industrial zoning and will provide employment opportunities. Additionally, the mining operation site is located approximately 1.5 miles from an existing single- family subdivision. Those are the two things to consider. Chairman Barfield stated that the Board conferred with the County Attorney earlier in the day about the complexity of this and to make sure they are not hearing the right thing at the wrong time, so to speak. There are two items to look at whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest. Dr. Audrey Mizrahi, resident of Arvida Spur Road, spoke in opposition to the request stating she owns Cape Fear Spay Neuter Clinic on Castle Hayne Road which is three tenths of a mile near the entrance of the proposed sand mine. Her surgical suite faces Castle Hayne Road and on any given day, six to seven hours a day, she hears speeding vehicles, squealing brakes, and honking horns. Her employees’ and her clients’ safety is already at risk trying to come and go during business hours. The speed limit of 50 miles per hour on this two lane road with steep ditches is too high. In addition, there is a passing zone for both north and southbound traffic that begins directly in front of her business promoting more excessive speed. The applicants are claiming that the sand mine will average 60 to 80 truckloads per day when in reality it will be considerably more than that. She said to keep in mind that when the word “truckloads” is referenced, the ingress and egress must be considered so each truck will be seen twice in the traffic pattern. There has also been some discussion that the trucks will be making a right hand turn to use the interstate. And while that may be true for the empty return trips, the fact is that dump trucks are paid by their maximum weight at capacity and because the federal bridge law imposes weight restrictions for interstate commerce, the reality is that the majority of the loaded trucks will actually be using the non-interstate roads. Over the past few years, she has repeatedly reached out to the New Hanover County traffic engineers with NCDOT concerning the speed limit and the passing zone. They have been unwilling to make any changes. Over the past 12 ½ years, her mailbox and sign have been hit, she has seen a vehicle veer off the road and land upside down in her parking lot when it was full, and she has seen numerous vehicles drive into the ditch. She respectfully requests the Board take into consideration both the suggested time frames as well as the quantity of truck traffic have been deliberately minimized in order to downplay the impact this will have on neighboring Castle Hayne Road, commercial, and residential property owners. The opening of the sand mine will lead to an excessive influx of dump truck traffic and based on what she has witnessed firsthand over this past decade, will undoubtedly create a public safety nightmare. The lack of infrastructure in this area for industrial business will generate conditions that the community cannot handle. She asked the Commissioners to please consider these perils before bringing anymore traffic to the neighborhood. Robert Conger stated he wanted to defer his time. John Gale, resident of Sea Holly Drive, stated he is a licensed realtor selling real estate in the area since 2001. He asked if it would be appropriate to discuss financial possibilities about project and what it will cost. Chairman Barfield stated that the Board is here to hear only his opposition to the project as it relates to either the 2016 Comprehensive Plan or whether it is reasonable and in the public interest. Mr. Gale stated his concerns relate to whether it is reasonable and in the public interest. Chairman Barfield asked him to state his concerns. County Attorney Copley asked Mr. Gale if he was going to delve into the land values. Mr. Gale responded yes. County Attorney Copley stated the land values cannot be discussed. He would have to stick to the two areas of concern. The public interest is in general and not particular appraisals. Mr. Gale thanked County Attorney Copley for the clarification. Kathleen Gale stated she wanted to defer her time. Waylon Webbon stated he wanted to defer his time. Leah Mclean, resident of Berg Lane, spoke in opposition to the request, stating that she lives 119 feet away from the haul road. Her testimony is her about being able to enjoy her new home and backyard. The home had everything her husband and she both wanted. They fell in love with the tree lot with nothing but trees behind it and turned the backyard into their own Shangri-La. Within months of moving in, they gained custody of their energetic nine-month old grandson. Now they spend more time outside, spraying the hose, playing in the kiddie pool, watching him hopefully run out of steam. They have plans for a larger pool when he is older and a trampoline. Each of the 12 residents that border the haul road have their own story. Their families and fears about their home and investment. It is not just 12 that border haul road, the entire community of Castle Hayne will be affected by this type of industry. For the 12 that live on haul road, this will be a game changer. Her grandson will not be allowed to run free and she will need to hold his hand just as she would in any road or parking lot situation. Frankly the proposed buffer is a slap in the face. It offers no protection of noise, dust, vibration and no protection of the approximately 56,000-pound trucks mere feet away. There will be no trampoline, no pool, burgers at the picnic table, the noise, dust and vibration NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 353 for 250 days a year, each day 8:00 to 5:00, will keep them inside with their doors and windows closed. If this moves forward, her Shangri-La is gone. Has the applicant proven to the Board with just a few words that it will have no effect on the surrounding properties? Dr. Sarah von Rosenberg stated she wanted to defer her time. Dr. Stan Smoote stated he wanted to defer his time. Marion Kreh, resident of McDougald Drive, spoke in opposition stating she has a few questions that she believes are in the public interest that were never answered before. Due to the contaminants in the area, how will the depth of the mine be monitored to ensure that it does not exceed the limits imposed by the permit? How often will the test wells be monitored? Is once a year enough? What is the process if they exceed safe standards? What is the plan for maintenance and upkeep of the haul road? What is the ramification and recourse if the number of trucks exceeds 100 per day? Who and how will the 15 miles per hour speed limit be enforced? How will the applicant be held responsible for drainage issues that may occur? How will the applicant be held responsible for exceeding the County noise ordinance? What if the chemicals still in the ground and still a threat end up contaminating the groundwater, wetlands, and aquifer? Linda Emmerich stated she wanted to defer her time. Stephanie Koehn stated she wanted to defer her time. Charles Koehn stated he wanted to defer his time. John Carroll stated he wanted to defer his time. Peter Emmerich stated he wanted to defer his time. Will Grant stated he wanted to defer his time. Felicia Grant stated she wanted to defer her time. William Mahon stated he wanted to defer his time. Chairman Barfield stated that was the end of the list of those in opposition to the request. The Board will allow five minutes of rebuttal by the applicant to rebut anything in regard to those two items. In rebuttal, Mr. Coggins stated as a point of order first, what he would offer is on environmental as well as protections from the buffer. However, it would be also competent for the SUP and would be in the form of sworn testimony by persons other than himself. He would be happy to proceed according to the pleasure of the Board, but confesses he is not certain how to proceed. Chairman Barfield stated that right now the Board is looking for rebuttal to anything Mr. Coggins heard from the speakers in opposition. Mr. Coggins asked if it would be acceptable to bring forth rebuttal testimony, stated under oath to be incorporated by reference into the SUP proceedings if the Board elects to go forward on that basis rather than taking the time. He is in an impossible conundrum of honoring the time limit as well as the procedural requirements. Chairman Barfield stated that the Board’s first ruling will be on the rezoning not the SUP. Mr. Coggins stated he understands and is trying to save time. He would not want to bring the same person forward to say the same thing yet again at the SUP point. Chairman Barfield stated he would close the public hearing at this point. Commissioner White asked Chairman Barfield if he could ask Mr. Coggins a question. Chairman Barfield stated that he could do so. Commissioner White proceeded stating he thinks it is in the purview of what is allowed during rebuttal. The Board is getting ready to vote on the rezoning. The Board’s job is to vote yes or no. For his one vote, he needs to be convinced the burden of proof has been met on the initial two-prongs of a rezone. He thinks the burden of proof has clearly been met on the first prong. If the applicant is trying to convince him that the burden of proof has been on the second prong related to “in the public interest”, Mr. Coggins cited an addendum in his materials that Commissioner White saw a few days ago from SiteTech, he asked Mr. Coggins if that was what he was referring to. Mr. Coggins responded that was correct, that was a necessity. He also has evidence on the environment due to issues being raised whether or not there is a danger to the public. He does have an expert present. Commissioner White stated he understood. He does not know how everyone else feels, but he thinks the materials address that sufficiently for his vote on the environmental side. However, the materials do not address it for his satisfaction on the public interest side on the necessity. He stated he is asking Mr. Coggins and giving him an opportunity to make sure he has everything. From the packet he has the first page from SiteTech and a second page, which are pages 11-7-62 and 11-7-63 and asked Mr. Coggins if that was everything. Mr. Coggins stated that Commissioner White is missing the entire report in the record. Commissioner White stated this is why he has asked NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 354 all the questions about public necessity. He has not seen it and as such, the burden to him has not been met. Mr. Coggins asked that he be allowed to get the entire report for him. Commissioner White stated he thought that was important. Mr. Coggins asked Chairman Barfield for a brief recess to get the housekeeping matter taken care of. Chairman Barfield asked if there was a reason why it was not included. Mr. Coggins responded that he does not know as he knows it was tendered. Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Coggins what the title was of the report. Mr. Coggins stated that it was the Streamline Report on Public Necessity, but Commissioner White says it only has two pages. Commissioner White stated he has no reason not to believe this was not it until Mr. Coggins comments, because he was expecting more evidence on it. On prima facie, on its face it does not meet the burden to him. He looked in Vice-Chairwoman Olson-Boseman’s book and her packet is the same as his. He is not trying to nitpick, but it is important to him because he can go either way. He is trying to give Mr. Coggins the opportunity to convince him that this is a public necessity and he has not been convinced thus far. Mr. Coggins stated he would ask that he be allowed time to get the Board the full report if it is not in the record. Chairman Barfield asked how much time is needed to get five full reports, time to read and go through it. He is not sure that is part of the norm. Commissioner White stated he would note that it does not appear that it is a deficiency on the Clerk to the Board’s office because the pages are sequential, 62, 63, 64, 65. There is not a break in the pages from the Clerk. Chairman Barfield stated that typically it is the applicant’s responsibility to bring forward the complete package with whatever the applicant wants the Board to read. The Board has had time since last week when the agenda books were put together to go through the wealth of information to help the Board make a decision based on what it heard tonight. He does not want to take another 50 minutes to read a report that was just handed to him. To him that is not fair to the whole process and he knows it is not Mr. Coggins’ first rodeo in regards to making presentations. He would just elect that process continue on and Mr. Coggins can make his comments in terms of rebuttal and then the Board can make its determination based on what is heard tonight. Chairman Barfield asked County Attorney Copley if he was in the right place. County Attorney Copley stated yes, it is the Board’s discretion. Chairman Barfield thanked her. Chairman Barfield asked Commissioner Zapple if he had something additional. Commissioner Zapple asked if the report being discussed is the one marked attachment number seven in the packet. He asked Mr. Coggins if that was the one he was referring to. Mr. Coggins stated that it was not; attachment number seven deals with the evaluation. Chairman Barfield stated that time had run out for the rebuttal. He closed the public hearing, stating that there was nothing said by the applicant to rebut by the opponents and opened the floor for Board discussion. Vice-Chairwoman Olson-Boseman made a motion for the Board to deny the rezoning request as it is not reasonable and in the public interest. Commissioner Kusek seconded the motion. Chairman Barfield stated there is a motion to deny the rezoning with the statement that it is not reasonable and in the public interest. County Attorney Copley asked Vice-Chairwoman Olson-Boseman to expand on the public interest as it needs to be done for the record. Vice-Chairwoman Olson-Boseman stated there has not been evidence presented that shows that the public interest outweighed the need. She does not believe that it has been adequately shown that there is a public interest that we need to have the sand mine so she does not think that the prong has been met. Chairman Barfield asked if there were any comments from the Commissioner that seconded the motion. Commissioner Kusek stated her feeling was the same, that the Board did not have enough to show that it was reasonable and in the best of the public interest for the sand mine to be here. Motion: Vice-Chairwoman Olson-Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to deny the application for rezoning as it is not reasonable and in the public interest as it has not been shown that it is reasonable and in the public interest for the sand mine to be there. Chairman Barfield stated that there has a been a motion and a second and he would now allow discussion. Commissioner Zapple stated that the applicant indicated there was a separate report the Board did not receive that had been submitted. Mr. Coggins stated that it appears to be that it was a two-page document which was double sided and the two reverse sides are not, for whatever reason, before the Board. Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Coggins if there was more information. Mr. Coggins responded yes. Commissioner Zapple stated to simply be fair, he thinks the Board should have the advantage of taking a look at it and being able to read and digest, and could not agree more that it is inappropriate to hand it to the Board now. If there is significant information that all of the Board has questions about, the applicant, he believes should be allowed to present or get it to the Board before the Board makes a decision. Mr. Coggins stated if necessary, he would formally move to continue the matter at this time to allow that to happen. Commissioner White stated he did give Mr. Coggins the opportunity to proffer or offer that evidence, because he thought this was it and learned now that maybe there was something missing. However, what would it NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 355 have said, what did it say and he asked Mr. Coggins to just let the Board know that. Mr. Coggins stated that it extensively reviewed what the number of projects are that are going on in New Hanover County, the volume to sand. Commissioner White said the commercial side on the document he does have, but what is missing from that document is if any of those projects are being unreasonably inflated in their costs, have they been delayed because of no access to sand. Rhetorically, he needs to know, the burden of proof that he has seen is that the applicant has to prove that this particular sand mine is a public necessity. It seems like at least the two pages he has read is an opinion that SiteTech said that it is but it may be an opinion others do not share, including himself. He asked Mr. Coggins what is missing that would relate to this particular sand mine being a public necessity. Mr. Coggins stated that Mr. Dave Tripp who is present, sworn in and testified before the Planning Board speaking at great length about the challenges that face the construction community in New Hanover County for obtaining the sand it needs and how it significantly increases in price and makes it prohibitive the further the sand mine site is from that. Mr. Tripp is here for that purpose and could state to that. That material was also within the report that apparently the double- sided pages are missing from, but Mr. Tripp is here to do that. Chairman Barfield stated he wanted to acknowledge Jeff Petroff who is a member of the Planning Board. He asked Mr. Petroff if this was the same packet that the Planning Board saw at its meeting. Mr. Petroff stated that yes, it looks to be a similar package. Commissioner Kusek asked Mr. Petroff if this particular report was in the original package submitted by the applicant. Mr. Petroff stated yes it was. Commissioner White asked Mr. Petroff if he recalled the testimony that Mr. Coggins just referenced as it related to an expert that opined that projects cost more and there is a necessity for the sand mine; and if so, were there any questions posed as to how other projects’ costs might be inflated because of the lack of other things that might be needed. No community has everything necessary to build everything. It is always part of the marketplace and construction in general to bring in goods and services, etc. such as labor, metal, sheetrock, sand, cement, concrete, all kinds of things. To proffer evidence that one commodity poses a higher cost to a project as it relates to other commodities, he just needs to know if it is 100% and if our projects are not happening, our road projects are delayed which is harming the public's interest or houses are not being built fast enough to serve housing needs, etc. then it would be a necessity. But in the absence of that evidence it is not a necessity. It might save somebody some money but the marketplace levels that out. Commissioner White asked Mr. Petroff if the Planning Board talked about that at all or did the expert address any of that. Mr. Petroff stated yes, the Planning Board spoke at great length about that. This was a complicated issue for the Planning Board. It was heard in January and then again in March. The applicant did offer evidence, he thinks it was Mr. Tripp that spoke at length about the needs and demands and it got fairly technical on the Planning Board. Experience from the Planning Board members indicate there is a need for sand, easily developable land has been developed. What is left in the county, the city, and surrounding area is more difficult to develop. After the hurricane, more emphasis is being placed on fill. A few thousand dollars to bring up a lot makes sense now. There was some of that discussion, but he cannot speak to actual cost and what that does. It is absolutely correct that sand can be brought in from other places, but evidence was presented to the Planning Board convincing it that it was warranted in this case. Commissioner White stated it would seem to him that if it is an issue of increase in costs, that the marketplace would dictate that. If it costs more to prep a lot, which is what he is hearing, if you ship sand 60 miles versus 20 miles, if follows that it might cost a little bit more to get it here, or 200 miles or a 1,000 miles. But if that cost increase is artificially suppressing homeownership, artificially preventing accomplishing road projects, then it would be a necessity. If it is not, then it is just a matter of an equation that is one variable in a long equation, and it is the Board’s job to decide whether or not it is a public necessity. He is not asking Mr. Petroff to comment on that, but those are just his thoughts. Commissioner Zapple stated he thinks Mr. Tripp is standing at the podium and is wondering if the Board could hear what he has to say about this. Chairman Barfield stated he has closed the public hearing and Board discussion is being held now. Chairman Barfield stated he is getting the nod from the County Attorney that would not be appropriate. County Attorney Copley stated the hearing has been closed. Chairman Barfield asked if there was more Board discussion or comments, and stated there is a motion and a second on the floor. He reiterated to Mr. Coggins that the public comment portion was closed. Mr. Coggins stated that he did move to continue the matter. Chairman Barfield stated that Mr. Coggins is requesting to continue the item. He asked if he handles the first motion made or the continuance request first. County Attorney Copley stated that Mr. Coggins is asking for a continuance and she thinks the Board can certainly tell him whether it would or would not be granted. She would go with handling that first. Chairman Barfield stated that the petitioner has asked to continue the item to a date certain or not certain. Commissioner Kusek asked that it be to a date certain. Chairman Barfield stated that would be the Board’s first meeting in May. Chairman Barfield asked if there was a motion to continue the matter. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED to continue the matter so the Board has the opportunity to hear all of the testimony. The MOTION FAILED for lack of a second. Chairman Barfield stated that the Board would now consider the original motion which has been seconded and asked for a vote on the original motion on the floor. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 356 Upon vote, the MOTION TO DENY REZONING PASSED 4 to 1. Commissioner Zapple dissenting. A copy of the curriculum vitae for Steven C. Hart, PG; email from Detective Robert McCracken with the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office; NCDOT February 2019 Sea Level Rise Assessment (Cape Fear Crossing STIP No. U- 4738); and Streamline Evaluation Services Executive Summary as submitted by the applicant during this meeting are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLI, Page 26.6. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.04 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 5155 SOUTH COLLEGE ROAD, FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO (CZD) B-2, CONDITIONAL HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT (Z19-02) Chairman Barfield opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation. Planning Manager Ken Vafier presented the request by New Hanover County to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land located at 5155 South College Road, the existing Myrtle Grove library, from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District with a limited number of proposed uses. The subject property is located directly fronting South College Road, just north of the Monkey Junction intersection in the southern portion of the County’s jurisdiction. The R-15, Residential District zoning dates back to October 15, 1969 when zoning was first applied in this area. It is bordered directly to the east by single family lots within the Greenbriar Subdivision which is zoned R-15. To the north and south, are institutional uses, specifically a medical office and bank, both with a Conditional Office and Institutional Zoning designation, rezoned in 1995 and 2000, respectively. To the west and further south, there are large areas of B-2 and conditional B-2 zoned property with large, destination retail centers that characterize this immediate commercial node. New Hanover County has owned this parcel since 1989, and has operated a public library on the site since 1993. With the acquisition of property near the intersection of 17th Street and South College Road for the new Pine Valley library facility, which is scheduled to open this spring, the County will be selling the existing Myrtle Grove Library property. Prior to the sale, this rezoning proposal has been initiated in order to provide a zoning district that is more compatible with the location, general land use pattern, and future land use designations at the specific site. The initial R-15 zoning was applied when the land use patterns in the area were largely rural to suburban. The area has seen significant growth since then, and the Monkey Junction area is one of the two largest commercial nodes in the unincorporated county. As the site has direct frontage on South College Road, rezoning it to (CZD) B-2 would provide the opportunity for the proposed commercial uses in close proximity to other commercial, office, institutional, and residential uses, contributing to the vision of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. A single residentially zoned lot along a major commercial thoroughfare at this location is no longer compatible with the urbanized development pattern in this node. The County proposes that any utilization of the site be limited to the following eight uses of the approximately 91 permitted by-right in the B-2 district, which were narrowed down to consider mitigation of potential impacts from adjacent property owners:  Eating and drinking places  General merchandise stores  Miscellaneous retail (excluding vape stores)  Banks, credit agencies, savings and loans  Business services, including printing  Barber and beauty shops  Personal services (excluding tattoo establishments)  Offices for private business and professional activities As a result of the community meeting held on February 5, 2019 where attendees expressed interest in mitigating potential impacts of some activities that may come with the proposed uses, the following condition is proposed for Eating and Drinking Places:  No outdoor entertainment shall be allowed after 10:00 PM As it is currently developed, the current building is approximately 6,800 square feet on the 1.04-acre site. Should the site be redeveloped, there are a number of design parameters including, but not limited to, addressing setbacks, buffers and landscaping, screening of features such as loading and storage areas, dumpsters, HVAC units, and lighting may be required to be addressed. All applicable ordinance requirements will be reviewed and applied as part of the development review process at the time of a specific site development proposal. As for potential traffic impacts, three recent Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) were analyzed for this request and detailed information on them are contained within the staff report. Due to the nature of this request, with there being no specific development proposed at this time, any proposed development that is consistent with this conditional zoning request will be required to adhere to the traffic impact requirements in the ordinance at the time of site development. For purposes of obtaining a preliminary analysis of traffic impacts, staff estimates are based on a typical building footprint of about 25% of the gross area of the site. For this site, using an estimated building for redevelopment of the site of approximately 11,325 square feet, an approximate number of anticipated trips for each proposed use type was generated using the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Traffic Generation Manual. For a one-story structure with this footprint, the potential trip generation ranges from approximately 17 to 246 peak hour trips. Based on taken in March 2018, the road is operating at a volume to capacity ratio of 0.55. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 357 In response to Board questions, Mr. Vafier stated that the bank owns the northern most row of parking spaces (14) on its property. The library has 40 spaces on its own site. There is a shared parking agreement. County Manager Coudriet stated that the County is not compensating the bank for the use of its parking spaces. When the development was done, there was an agreement to allow overflow parking in the bank lot as part of the development. Mr. Vafier stated it would be incumbent on the potential buyer to negotiate with the bank on any overflow parking agreement. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this site as Urban Mixed Use, which promotes development of a mix of residential, office, and retail uses at higher densities. Types of uses encouraged include office, retail, mixed use, small recreation, commercial, institutional, single-family, and multi-family residential. Staff has determined that the proposed B-2 Conditional Highway Business District would allow for a variety of retail, commercial service, and office uses. Commercial uses are included in the mix of uses envisioned for this area, and commercial districts are identified as typical zoning categories for this place type. The proposed conditional B-2 rezoning is generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it allows for the mix of commercial and office uses envisioned for the Urban Mixed Use place type. The Planning Board considered this application at their March 7, 2019 meeting and recommended approval (5-0) of the application, finding that it is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the Urban Mixed Use place type as the place type designation in this area is meant to provide a variety of commercial services for the southern portion of New Hanover County, and the proposal allows for the mix of commercial and office uses envisioned for the Urban Mixed Use place type. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it would allow for a variety of retail, commercial service, and office uses. The proposed uses are included in the mix of uses envisioned for this area, and commercial districts are identified as typical zoning categories for this place type. The Board recommended approval with the following condition on Eating and Drinking Places: 1. No outdoor entertainment shall be allowed after 10:00 PM. Chairman Barfield thanked Mr. Vafier for his presentation. Chairman Barfield 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 Barfield asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner White MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to approve, affirming the Planning Board’s statements that the application is 1) Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and 2) Reasonable and in the public interest, with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Board: 1. No outdoor entertainment shall be allowed after 10:00 PM. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF MASONBORO OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED OCTOBER 15, 1969, is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 1, Page 24. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Barfield reported that one person signed up to speak on non-agenda items. Diana Hill, resident of Klein Road, stated that she wanted to bring to the Board’s attention that recently, Senator Harper Peterson brought to her attention that Giovanni da Verrazzano made landfall in 1524 on the North Carolina coast. Verrazzano was the first European explorer to reach what is now known as North America. Senator Peterson and Secretary Susi Hamilton are interested in exploring opportunities to highlight this endeavor. There is a map on Wikipedia showing where Verrazzano landed in the Cape Fear first then went north to New York. She is appealing to the Board to consider how this history can be celebrated in New Hanover County. Mostly, she would like for it to be a citizens’ endeavor and not involve anyone else until there is a plan and a budget. In 2024, there will be a celebration that would draw visitors from North Carolina as well as from across the country. This is the first place any European touched America. Although five years away, this will allow the correct amount of time to enhance the museum to facilitate this great achievement. Senator Peterson and Secretary Hamilton will work with the General Assembly officials to assist with this plan. She asking for the Board to say yes, go forth and come back to the Board when there is a plan. She thanked the Board for its time. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS There were no additional agenda items of business. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2019 PAGE 358 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Barfield adjourned the meeting at 6:13 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.