Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05 May 3 2018 PBM Page 1 of 23 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board May 3, 2018 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Ernest Olds, Chairman Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director Jordy Rawl, Vice Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Donna Girardot Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Brad Schuler, Current Planner David Weaver Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Absent: Paul Boney Allen Pope Chairman Ernest Olds opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Ernest Olds reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Item 1: Text Amendment Request (TA18-01) – Request by Harper Capital, LLC, to amend the Table of Permitted Uses, Article VI and Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the location and access requirements of high density developments. Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the following staff report. Planner Schuler provided background information regarding developments that are classified as high density. He stated a high density development is a residential development that exceeds the density limits established in the applicable zoning district. While most people probably think of high density developments as being large apartment complexes, high density developments may consist of any housing type. They can consist of condos, duplexes, townhomes, and single-family dwellings. No minimum number of dwelling units is required. The term “high density” just means the density is higher than the allowable density established in the applicable zoning district. For example, the TRC recently reviewed a site plan for a high density development that consisted of 37 single-family dwellings at a density of around 6 DU/AC, which our plans and ordinances generally consider to be a low to medium density development. Page 2 of 23 Planner Schuler stated high density developments are permitted in the R-10, R-15, R-20, and O&I zoning districts with a Special Use Permit (SUP), and in the PD zoning district by-right (though one would have to rezone to the PD district, so the development would still need to be considered by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners). These types of developments must connect to public or community water and sewer services; therefore, they typically locate in areas where there is existing infrastructure. High density developments are only permitted in the Urban Mixed Use, Community Mixed Use, and Employment Center place types and must have access to a major or minor arterial street. The County has historically limited high density developments to certain land use classifications listed in the effective CAMA Land Use Plan, specifically in the Urban and Transition classifications. He pointed out that the land use classifications included in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan were tied to existing development patterns, to the location of infrastructure, and to areas where the county anticipated growth. Planner Schuler stated in 2016, the County adopted our current Comprehensive Plan. This plan updated the Future Land Use Map (shown on the left), and it established new land us e classifications, called place types. The Comp plan states that the intent of this Future Land Use map is not to be legally binding, but a general representation of the County’s future growth. It further states that place types should not be interpreted as being parcel specific like a zoning district would be. Also, unlike the 2006 CAMA Plan, the place types, are not defined by the current availability of infrastructure, but instead establish a long-term vision of the County’s development through 2040. Because the Zoning Ordinance requirements for high density developments included references to the previous but no longer existing CAMA land use classifications, it needed to be updated. So, in order to account for the new place types, a “bridging” text amendment was adopted in September of 2016. The intent of that text amendment was to be policy neutral by not making any fundamental changes to the regulatory concepts in the Zoning Ordinance. It sought just to replace the former CAMA land use classifications with the most similar place types in terms of intent and recommended levels of density, until a more thorough approach could be developed during the UDO process. However, because of the differences between the previous CAMA land use classifications and the new place types, the areas of the county where high density development was possible shifted with that text amendment. Under the 2006 plan, property owners could apply for high density development permits in most areas of the county where infrastructure was available. Under the new plan and bridging amendment, most areas where high density developments could locate shifted to the areas of the county where utilities are not currently available. Overall, approximately 15,000 acres of land lost the ability to apply for a high density development permit with the adoption of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the “bridging” text amendment. Planner Schuler stated as for the request itself, the applicant is seeking to provide additional flexibility to the eligibility requirements for these types of developments by modifying the place type and access requirements. First, the proposed amendment will allow for properties located along the mapped boundaries of the Community Mixed Use, Urban Mixed Use, and Employment Center place types to be eligible to apply for a high density development SUP. Currently, the ordinance requires that high density developments must be either totally or prim arily within the subject place types. This proposal will allow for properties within 250 feet of these place types to also be eligible for a high density development. The amendment also removes a reference of the place type requirement from the Table of Permitted Uses. Page 3 of 23 Planner Schuler stated staff is recommending approval of this portion of the text amendment. The Future Land Use Map included in the Comprehensive Plan is not intended to be a parcel-specific, legally binding map like the County’s Zoning Map. Because of this, parcels located near the boundaries between place types could be appropriately developed in acco rdance with either place type. The intent of having general boundaries is to build flexibility into the plan, and to allow for evolving development patterns. However, since the Zoning Ordinance requires high density developments to be located within those place types, it essentially treats the Future Land Use Map as a zoning map, which alters the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. The land along the County’s main thoroughfares provides a good example of this. While these areas are mostly classified for high density mixed use development, in many cases the classification only extends a few hundred feet from the right-of-way before changing to the General Residential classification. Typically, commercial businesses are developed along thoroughfares, and therefore, a strict interpretation of the place types may hinder an orderly transition between higher intensity commercial uses and lower intensity single-family developments by preventing multi-family developments from being built between the two. Planner Schuler presented a map highlighting the parcels that would gain the ability to apply for high density developments with the proposal. He noted that a lot of these areas are already developed property or land that is not likely to be developed for residential purposes due to environmental features or existing zoning. Large tracts in the northern part of the county are currently zoned for heavy industrial purposes. A good portion of another tract is classified as conservation on the Future Land Use Map. He also pointed out land owned by NCDOT for wetland mitigation purposes, as well as the airport. The area is further reduced when the developed properties are removed. He then presented a map showing only the vacant, undeveloped tracts of land, noting that the properties affected by this amendment are for the most part located along the County’s main corridors. Planner Schuler stated this amendment also seeks to add flexibility to the access requirements for high densities developments. Currently, all high density developments must have a direct driveway access to an arterial street or connect to an arterial street by way of a public street built to NCDOT’s residential collector road standards. The proposed amendment will modify that second standard. Specifically, it will add an option for high density developments to access an arterial street through a private street constructed to the County’s collector road standards. Staff is supportive of this as the County currently allows for residential subdivisions of all sizes and commercial developments to be served by private streets. The proposed amendment will also add flexibility to the access requirements by allowing high density developments to access an arterial street by way of a variety of public streets classifications. Staff is also in support of this amendment as NCDOT being the owner of public streets, is charged with ensuring the access is adequate for the subject development through the driveway permitting process. Lastly, the proposal removes the standard that restricts the access to the arterial street to only serve the subject development and future residential development. Staff supports the removal of this standard, as it currently restricts interconnectivity with adjacent commercial properties. As previously mentioned, multi-family developments are generally an appropriate transition from higher intensity commercial uses to single-family neighborhoods, and shared access ways between the uses should be encouraged, not prohibited. Page 4 of 23 Staff recommends approval of the requested amendments, and concludes that the application is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns with the objective of having a non-legally binding Future Land Use Map that is not interpreted as a zoning map. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal updates requirements that may hinder mixed use development patterns; which promote business success, maximize the efficient use of land, and support alternative modes of transportation, thereby reducing the dependency on the automobile. In addition, the proposal does not permit specific high density developments, but it only allows for applications for a Special Use Permit or Planned Development to be considered. Planner Schuler stated staff has also identified that these specific standards, as currently written in the zoning ordinance are likely to be modified with the new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to better implement the Comprehensive Plan. It is important to note that high density developments are still required to be rezoned to a planned development or to obtain a Special Use Permit; therefore, the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners will still have the opportunity to review those applications and any potential impacts they may have on surrounding properties. This proposed text amendment does not approve any specific high density development; it only allows additional properties in close proximity to the subject place types to submit applications. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for staff. Board Member Donna Girardot inquired where the 250-foot number came from. Planner Schuler explained that was a number that was included in the applicant’s proposal and is an arbitrary number. He noted we have to start somewhere and staff has no issues with that number tonight as it moves in the direction of allowing the Comprehensive Plan to be utilized as it was intended. Planner Schuler said if the board wants to modify that number or make a recommendation, the applicant might consider it or update their application. Board Member Girardot asked if you have a piece of property in a location and there is another intervening property there, and a third piece, would the 250 feet apply to the third piece of property and could it also jump across the road. Planner Schuler confirmed the 250-feet could and would apply in those scenarios. He explained that staff would measure directly from that boundary line of the place types, and if that subject property falls within that 250 feet, then it would be eligible to apply for high density development. In response to an inquiry from Board Member David Weaver, Planner Schuler clarified that 15,000 acres would be lost. Board Member Weaver asked if a street built to the County’s collector road standards the same as a street built to the NCDOT collector standard. Planner Schuler stated that the street standards would not be the same. A NCDOT collector road is approximately 32-feet wide and the County’s collector road standard is 26-feet wide. Page 5 of 23 Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl commented that six months ago Ms. Wolf had brought a project before the planning board that had a similar situation. He said he knows the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Map was not to be legally binding, but it seems that those people were bound because they don’t have the opportunity to apply strictly because it doesn’t fit within the Comprehensive Land Use Map. Vice Chair Rawl noted a previous discussion about looking into the process and inquired if there was any way that burden could be eased on an applicant. He noted he understands that we are in a placeholder position now waiting for the UDO to be instituted, but wonders if the 250-foot line off the contiguous parcel boundaries would help to satisfy some of the requests the board is seeing. Planner Schuler replied that it definitely adds flexibility for property owners to again request a high density development in the County. Planner Schuler explained that currently, it is the zoning ordinance that prevents the Comprehensive Plan from being utilized as intended based on having that strict requirement that the use has to be primarily or totally within the subject place type. Mr. Schuler said by adding the 250 -foot rule, this amendment allows for some properties just outside along the boundaries of that place type, but not within that place type to apply for a high density development. Vice Chair Rawl commented that he hadn’t read anything thus far that addresses collector roads in the new UDO, noting he didn’t know if that would fall within the specifics of the UDO. He supposed that it is more of a technical requirement that the County has instituted as a policy that gets reviewed by the Technical Review Committee. Vice Chair Rawl said you need those calculations and figures before you present your conditional land use plan proposal because you’re constricted to that plan. Vice Chair Rawl commented that the County’s collector road policy has some age on it and there are some newly vamped NCDOT requirements that don’t fit with the County’s collector road program. He acknowledged there are many issues with orphan roads and this issue is being discussed by the state legislature and inquired if the county could address what the collector road requirements would be going forward and possibly sync those with the NCDOT requirements. Planner S chuler replied that the collector roads will be looked at in the UDO, noting it is appropriate for the UDO to have roadway standards like interconnectivity and some construction standards for the types of roads based on the amount of travel that is anticipated on the road. Planner Schuler stated they haven’t reached that phase yet of the UDO, but it will be included in Phase II, which includes the development standards. Planner Schuler stated that the key with what's being proposed in this amendment is that it will require the project to connect to a NCDOT maintained road so they have the ability through the driveway permitting process for developments to make improvements to the roads both on the roadway system and in the interior of the high density development. Sometimes, additional turn lanes for getting onto and off the NCDOT roads will also be required. The Traffic Impact Analysis requirements are still in place and will require the high density developments that will generate more than 100 peak hour trips to conduct a TIA to review the traffic impacts. Mr. Schuler stated staff can also require the high density development to meet the County’s current minimum standards for a collector road, which the County currently allows for many residential and commercial development. Planner Schuler stated as the amendment is currently proposed, staff feels this is appropriate and will sufficiently allow or address any traffic impacts that a project may have on the surrounding area. Planning & Land Use Director Wa yne Clark added in regard to the Vice Chairman’s inquiry on the UDO that he has had a number of discussions with civil engineering firms that do a lot of site design in the area. He noted that cities do have construction standard manuals that delineate cross-sections of all the infrastructure. He said because the County doesn’t do roads, we Page 6 of 23 don’t currently have them. Director Clark said landowners and people that build subdivisions would like for the County to do what we can, so when we get to the phase where we’re talking about the standards for development and subdivisions and stormwater, which will be in that late summer phase, we’re looking at the potential for some form of construction standards manual that would allow a variety of private street options to provide flexibility, whether it’s narrow streets with sidewalks, alleys, etc. in the event that the NCDOT public street standards option doesn’t work out or make sense. Director Clark stated that will be brought forward for the planning board’s consideration on a later date. Hearing no other comments, Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. Robbie Parker of Lee Law Firm stated he represents the applicant, Harper Capital and noted that staff had done a good job on the report. Mr. Parker stated that 72-43 as amended by the bridging ordinance provides high density projects permitted in area we discussed, employment, urban and community mix and that's under the 2006 future land use map. Despite the fact that the plan specifically provides that the map is not legally binding or parcel specific, instead it's a tool to be used towards adoption of the UDO. The practical and legal effect of the bridging ordinance is that a future land use map is now treated for all intents and purposes as legally binding and enforceable as parcel‑specific, and landowners located in the area contiguous to or in close proximity, we put 250 feet as the close proximity, that desire the project to be considered for the special use permit are precluded from even applying. The text amendment is aimed for those 250 feet within the areas a chance to apply for the special permit. The applicants are not asking you to approve a special permit by way of this text amendment or asking for a change in the land use map or to change TRC standards or any other safeguard already in the code. Everything will still come through the county boards. Mr. Parker explained that what they are asking is that if there's a piece of property that is in close proximity or adjacent to, and the plans for that is keeping with the Future Land Use Plan and might be a good fit, then they should have the opportunity to appear before the board and give it a shot. They think that there are certainly areas that are around that 200-foot mark or close to it that could be a good rounding out of an area. Mr. Parker stated with respect to the roads or the thoroughfares, the future plan is all about integration, and when you look at multi-phase projects with the possibility of different folks developing different times, even somebody who is already in a mixed-use or employment oriented place type would be looking at not being able to even comply with that. Mr. Parker noted as far as the 250 feet goes, whenever someone is here and it's not the county doing the text amendment, there's a reason for that. There is a quasi‑judicial proceeding coming up at some point in time. He stated he can’t get into the specifics of why the applicants are here, but he wanted to recognize that the goal of the 2016 plan is to create overall areas of place type and not parcel-specific. The goals are not parcel specific. Lines are drawn in different places, and sometimes those lines are drawn in such a way it's in the middle of a parcel. That's why the “primarily or totally within” language was put in. Mr. Parker stated he didn’t know how the board would interpret “totally or primarily within” and noted that would be a very difficult thing to do. He said it is still in there, but he thinks it would be difficult to do. Mr. Parker commented that sometimes he thinks if we were to go through and look parcel by parcel, there may be roads that are in between the border of the place Page 7 of 23 type and the next property. There may be other things that are there that but for that the property would be contiguous to it. He thinks it’s an easier conversation if we say we’re right beside, and therefore, we can just connect to. There are situations where you are for all intents and purposes aside because of some land use or something else, and you need the opportunity to have a little space. With respect to an intervening parcel or something like that, the county boards are the safeguards and TRC is the safeguard if you’ve got 250 feet by 250 feet by 1.4 acres or somethi ng like that. He commented that, obviously, if you have Mixed-Use or Employment areas, and then you have three houses on an acre and a half behind it, you still have to be consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. He pointed out that it’s still there if you are coming in and doing something like that. Mr. Parker stated with respect to the UDO, there are those in-between areas and there may be some hesitancy for some folks not to want to do something on the in-between. The purpose of the 2016 plan is to be a guide for development while we're waiting for the UDO to be implemented. Mr. Parker noted that he can’t say what the UDO will look like with respect to high density projects. He read the blueprint and it says that it is to be considered to be removed, 72-43. There are some other areas, R-5, RMF, and one that says it’s an alternative to high density. He stated in conclusion that he doesn’t know if high density will be around when the UDO comes into effect; however, he is saying that the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan has the safeguards in place to make sure that what needs to be accomplished in that plan can be accomplished even with this text. Mr. Parker offered to answer any questions the board members might have. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for the applicant. Chairman Olds asked about the 250 feet, noting that it sounds like the applicant gave some thought to making the 250-foot enough of a distance to overcome some of the obvious issues like jumping the roads upon the structure that may be there. He asked if there is a number that is too big and if 500 feet is too much. He asked staff to also provide input on that distance, noting if it would matter if they make it 300 feet or 500 feet. Mr. Parker explained that there are certainly different areas that look different in the drawing along the different corridors so in one area he would say that 250 feet might be a good number and in another area, a larger number could be a better numb er. For the applicant’s purposes, Mr. Parker thinks there does need to be a number established as a starting place. Mr. Parker commented that in the interest of other folks who might be able to take advantage of this, expanding that number is something the applicant would be open to. Mr. Parker stated he couldn’t speak to each and every parcel, except that he knows there is a group of people that might have an opportunity but because of the way the ordinance is now, they don’t have a chance to be heard. Chairman Olds stated he thinks it is a great idea to expand that just looking at the arena of those that may be able to partake. He noted if we’re going to do something here, he would like to see something that does enough. Chairman Olds stated in looking at the map presented, it does look like it will do a pretty sizable job of increasing the parcels that would be eligible to he thinks that is certainly a commendable goal. He stated he is okay with the 250 feet proposed, he just didn’t know if there was any reason why the board should extend it or stop at a certain value. Board Member David Weaver commented that the 250 feet or any number there doesn’t Page 8 of 23 remove these land classifications from really being part of a zoning map because it’s a discrete number and is reall y only expanding the boundaries by a discrete number. Board Member Weaver wondered what would happen if they just removed the number and said in the proposed text amendment as shown on page 1-4-4 regarding high density development, in Number 2 that “Each High Density Development shall be located in general compliance with the policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” He pointed out that there may be a parcel out there that is 500 feet and would be great for a high density development, but there might also be a parcel that’s 50 feet away and would be lousy for high density. Board Member Weaver stated that way, especially if we’re doing it on a special use permit basis, each case can be judged on its own merits. He noted otherwise someone might come in next week and ask to increase the number to 400 feet. Planner Schuler stated if that is the way the planning board would like to go, he would recommend taking that standard out altogether because as part of the special use permit process, the board does have to make a conclusion that the proposed development is consistent with the long range plans of the county. Board Member Weaver agreed with Planner Schuler that there is no reason to have it in there at all, but noted that leaving it in does place emphasis on these land use categories. Chairman Olds stated his worry is that if it goes away entirely, that emphasis will be lost so why have it at all. Board Member Weaver explained that he doesn’t like having a specific number because it’s just increasing the boundary of a land use. Applicant Parker stated from their perspective, the idea of keeping the 250 feet or a defined amount is to try to stay in keeping with the place type. He stated the place types are great and the things that are I the place types are great. Mr. Parker noted that a group of people who are much smarter than he is came together over the course of several years and said this is what we want to do. He stated they and anybody else who might want to develop wants to do something that is going to work and round out, integrate, or be part of those areas so being within a certain distance of those areas is helpful in that regard. Chairman Olds stated he would agree with Mr. Parker and noted that the problem is that they don’t have any kind of standard to compare it to. However, he doesn’t have a problem with picking a number of 250 and seeing what happens given we have a year or so before the UDO takes effect. We’ve got some time to massage that, whatever form it takes. Chairman Olds stated it could be that the UDO group looks at this text amendment and determines it should be a mile or whatever and that could be done as part of the working out of that process. Chairman Olds stated that maybe with more reflection and input, there may become a reason for making it a certain value. Planning & Land Use Director Clark stated he agreed with the chairman’s statements. He noted that because this is a private application, the reason the applicant is concerned is that if we fix the problem globally here, it could jeopardize his approval now when staff hasn’t had the opportunity to complete a review of past high density development approvals, which will take a couple of months. Director Clark said the process for the UDO is intending to use multi-family zoning districts and smaller lot sizes to accomplish this in the future so there wouldn’t be the place Page 9 of 23 type issues. He noted there are place types now that say you can’t have high density special use permits that have apartment complexes in the middle of that General Residential category that already exist in an area that you couldn't apply to build one next to it. Director Clark agreed that they need to fix it, but staff couldn’t justify something different because they didn’t wan t to jeopardize his application. Board Member Weaver asked in regard to access if the NCDOT road standard would be acceptable to the applicant, noting he gets nervous about putting a high density development on a private road that is no really built to tough standards. He also commented that the proposed amendment says that high density development could be connected to any existing state public road and expressed concern that a high density development might want to connect to an existing single family residential subdivision’s main access going to an arterial through a vacant lot or something like that. He feels that would be a problem for single family residential. Vice Chair Jordy Rawl commented that there is a need to delineate what the verbiage says. When it comes to building roads built to NCDOT standards, there can mean a latitude of different things. One is to have actual NCDOT construction standards, with eight inches of ABC wash stone for subgrade and two inches of asphalt mix with a NCDOT-rated curb system with drop inlets. There's another road type with specific right-of-way requirements, which in some cases developments can't meet. Sometimes developers have to work within the confines of relatively tight property boundaries. Roads can be turned over to NCDOT if they are built to NCDOT standards; however, if there is a private road at any point in between, the road can’t be turned over to NCDOT. If you have a parcel that is behind a private roadway, you cannot build that to NCDOT turnover standards so he would worry since that would affect not only the current applicants, but also another potential applicant going forward. They are coming forward for a text change to have an opportunity to bring a type of specific plan, but this could affect other parcels, and he doesn’t want to overburden the process by requiring the access road to be built to NCDOT standards when that project may not be able to achieve a road that can be turned over to NCDOT. You have a construction standard that you must meet, but there are a couple of things you and your designer may not be able to accomplish for the project to qualify for turnover to NCDOT. Board Member Weaver stated he agrees with Vice Chair Rawl about the private road concern, noting he isn’t saying that the road has to be inspected by NCDOT, but he would like for the access road to be built to the NCDOT standard and not to a lesser county standard if multiple, high density units will be accessing them. Vice Chair Rawl noted that the road standards are changing often with NCDOT. He said he thinks what the county has in place will ensure that the actual construction standards of the road are built to an adequate thoroughfare interior road design. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the proposed text amendment. Everyone given the opportunity to speak, Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and entertained additional questions or a motion from the planning board. Board Member Girardot commented that this adds more flexibility to the process and restores the ability of property owners to request high density development if they would like to Page 10 of 23 go that route. She said she sees it as a temporary fix, because we are addressing the issue in the UDO. She noted any application will still come before the boards for consideration because it is a SUP so she is very comfortable with the proposed amendment. Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board. MOTION: Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Donna Girardot, to recommend approval as the board finds that this request for a text amendment, as described, is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan because the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use map is not to be binding and not to give an applicant the potential to rezone for its highest and best use. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal updates requirements that may hinder mixed-use development patterns which promote business success, maximize the efficiency of land use, and support alternative means of transportation, thereby, reducing dependency on the automobile. In addition, the proposal does not permit specific high density developments, but only allows the applicants for a special use permit or planned development to be considered. The Planning Board voted 4-1to recommend approval of Text Amendment TA18-01. (Ayes: Girardot, Olds, Rawl, and Shipley; Nay: Weaver) During discussion, Board Member Weaver commented in regard to the proposal being consistent with the plan because it aligns with the objective of having a non-legally binding future land use map that is not interpreted as a zoning map, he doesn’t agree with that because right now these different land classifications are specifically delineated on the comprehensive land use plan, and all we're doing is increasing the boundaries out 250 feet. For that reason, it’s still functioning as a zoning map, almost like an overlay map. Vice Chair Rawl stated he would agree to amend his motion to state that “it increases the width of what an applicant can consider their use to be highest and best for He suggested that if Vice Chair Rawl wants to incorporate it, he would offer an amendment that “it increases the width of what an applicant can consider their use to be highest and best for based on a bordering comprehensive land use type.” He stated that the intent of this amendment is that you have a piece of property within 250 feet of a place type and next to a contiguous parcel that wants to have an opportunity to achieve that type of classification or land use. Vice Chair Rawl said he thinks this text amendment gives that ability to future applicants to actually apply for highest and best use for their property. Board Member Weaver offered alternative wording for the consistency statement, “Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 comprehensive plan because it promotes the objective of flexibility in different residential land use development through the plan and through the special use permit requirements. Board Member Weaver felt that language would accurate and would be more defensible. Page 11 of 23 Vice Chair said his intent is to make a motion to approve adopting this text language, and that intent being that it gives an opportunity for an applicant to come present a case to generate highest and best land use based on their land placement in the county as it adheres to the county land use map and still lends ability for a special use permit or a public rezoning. Planner Schuler commented that he thinks that the intent of what Mr. Weaver is trying to add is that this amendment allows for high density developments to be potentially be developed in areas not classified as Urban Mixed-Use, Community Mixed-Use, or Employment Center so it is adding some flexibility to that type of development, which is in effect in accordance with the comprehensive plan that it states it shouldn’t be a parcel-specific map, and this allows it not to be treated necessarily like that 100% of the time. Chairman Olds said he thinks they are in agreement with it and asked Vice Chair Rawl to restate his motion. Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman suggested Vice Chair Rawl repeat his motion as previously stated and then add verbiage that it will increase the flexibility for high density developments to be developed outside of the subject place types and it meets the spirit of the comprehensive plan as noted by Planner Schuler. Board Member Weaver said he would say “improves the flexibility of providing a range of housing types in accordance with the comprehensive plan policies. MOTION: Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member Ted Shipley, to recommend approval as the Planning Board finds that this request for a text amendment, as described, is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns with the objective to have a non-legally binding Future Land Use Map that is not interpreted as a zoning map. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal updates requirements that may hinder mixed-use development patterns which promote business success, maximize the efficiency of land use, and support alternative modes of transportation, thereby, reducing the dependency on the automobile. In addition, the proposal does not permit specific high density developments, but only allows for applications for a Special Use Permit or a Planned Development to be considered. Following a brief discussion with Board Member Weaver regarding amending the language of the consistency statement, Vice Chair Rawl stated he would like to leave his motion as stated on the table. Chairman Olds called the question. The Planning Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval of Text Amendment TA18-01. (Ayes: Girardot, Olds, Rawl, and Shipley; Nay: Weaver). Page 12 of 23 Item 2: Text Amendment Request (TA18-02) – Request by The Dog Club of Wilmington to amend Article V of the Zoning Ordinance to permit kennels in the I-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning district. Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea presented the following staff report. Planning Supervisor Andrea stated this is a request from The Dog Club of Wilmington to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Kennels as a use permitted by right in the I-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district. The applicant is aware of the current effort to update the county’s land use regulations with the UDO; however, their current business need cannot wait until the anticipated adoption of the UDO next year. Planning Supervisor Andrea summarized the definition for “kennel” from the Zoning Ordinance. Basically, “kennels” are defined as a person or business engaged in certain animal related uses for a fee, and certain situations are excluded from the definition of Kennel. The definition for Kennel includes businesses such as pet day care, pet boarding, pet grooming, and animal training. Also, if a person or business sells more than 1 litter or 3 individual animals at any one time, they would be considered a Kennel. Planning Supervisor Andrea presented a photo of a typical doggie daycare with an outdoor play area. Planning Supervisor Andrea stated the definition for Kennel has some specific exclusions, including the ownership of household pets, hunting or tracking animals, show animals, and guard animals. Kennels are currently allowed by right in the PD, B-1, B-2, Light Industrial, and Airport Industrial zoning districts. They are also allowed in the R-20S, R-20, R-15, O&I, and Rural Agricultural zoning districts. The Zoning Ordinance has supplemental standards for kennels located in The R-15 and R-20 zoning districts. In those zoning districts, the number of animals that a kennel can have depends on the lot size. Structure must also meet a minimum side and rear setback of 50 feet. Planning Supervisor Andrea explained the text amendment proposal before you for consideration by The Dog Club of Wilmington is to add Kennels as a permitted use in the I-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district. No additional standards or requirements are proposed in the application, so any kennel in I-2 would have to meet existing development standards for setbacks, landscaping, parking, lighting, buffering, etc. Planning Supervisor Andrea stated that since a text amendment is a change that affects the county’s entire zoning jurisdiction, he provided some maps for comparison. He provided a map of the zoning districts on the ground that Kennels are currently allowed in to locate by-right. He noted the large areas north of the airport are PD zoning districts. There are smatterings of B-1 and B-2 zoning districts along the major corridors that Kennels could currently locate. Most of these business zoning districts abut residential uses. Another map shows the zoning districts in which kennels are permitted either by-right or by Special Use Permit. He noted that although Kennels Page 13 of 23 could locate in the R-15 and R-20 districts shown on the map, the minimum lot size would have to be two (2) acres. Another map showed all of the zoning districts in which Kennels could located by right or by SUP, and the addition of the I-2 zoning in the county. Most of the I-2 zoning is concentrated along the US Highway 421 corridor and along Holly Shelter Road in the northern part of the county. There are some smaller I-2 zoning districts that would be affected with the proposed amendment, including Dutch Square and also some isolated I-2 districts along roads including Blue Clay Road and Castle Hayne Road. Planning Supervisor Andrea explained that the I-2 district was established to set aside areas of the county for a full range of heavy industrial land uses including manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution uses, and subsequently protect nonindustrial districts situated elsewhere and minimize environmental impacts caused by uses within the district. Although Kennels are not an industrial use, allowing for Kennels to be permitted in I-2 zoning would create opportunity to protect existing residential and commercial areas from the impacts from a kennel such as noise. Staff took a look at whether other areas allow Kennels in heavy industrial zoning, and found that it was common to allow them, including in the city of Wilmington. Planning Supervisor Andrea stated staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as well as consistent with our discussions so far about how Kennels should be regulated in the UDO. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the request and has provided a suggested motion for approval. Hearing no questions for staff, Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and reco gnized the applicant, Diana Scholz. Dyana Scholz spoke on behalf of the applicant, expressing her appreciation to the staff for their assistance and guidance. She stated the proposal is to add kennel as a permitted use in the I- 2 zoning district. This will allow an additional type of business in the I-2 district that will potentially allow more opportunity for business growth in the area where it won’t interrupt other quiet uses that you may want to see for other businesses. Ms. Scholz stated the majority of I-2 property is surrounded by like-minded businesses where noise is not a concern. Currently, a kennel is zoned to be in B‑1 and B-2, which would put a kennel as an immediate neighbor to an attorney, a day spa, and any type of business that's operating. They could have a dog daycare/boarding facility kennel establishment where they're trying to have a serene type of business and they would have barking dogs right next door. This amendment would allow for kennels to be in a more like- minded area where noise is not as big of a problem. She stated one area of concern she saw when looking at this would be that there are heavy industrial businesses/industries that require I-2 zoning as they’re not permitted anywhere else in the county. There are many businesses that are currently zoned to be in I-2, but they’re not dependent on I-2 zoning and I-2 does have a giant range of uses from livestock sales, stables, manufacturing, demolition, landfills, construction to heavy and light industrial uses, Specific businesses that are already in I-2 include a karate studio, alarm security sales, carpet cleaners, and many miscellaneous businesses that are able to squeeze in under the mark and fit in, and they are not dependent upon I-2. Ms. Scholz stated again with the B-1 and B- 2, a kennel would be able to be a neighbor to somebody who doesn't want to have dogs barking immediately next door. She said in their opinion this amendment would put kennels into the right area of the city versus being where right now you could have a kennel next door to The Gap. She Page 14 of 23 noted it doesn't make as much sense as a kennel being next door to a tow truck business. This proposal is putting kennels into a like-minded area. Ms. Scholz commented that the ordinance currently allows for uses in I-2 such as stables, which is the She would in looking at the permitted table of uses, it does allow for uses like stables, which is the housing of horses and other domesticated animals, livestock sales, agricultural, indoor and outdoor recreational activities, and then a very vague opening for private businesses and professional activities, and she thinks this could very easily lump kennels into it. She pointed out that there are hundreds of acres literally for I-2 and this proposed use would not encroach on other industries that are dependent upon I-2 to operate day-to-day. She explained that the current zoning does allow for a kennel to be an immediate neighbor with a resident. With I-2 zoning, it would also allow in some areas where residential is close that a construction plant could be a next door neighbor so in some ways within the I-2 areas a kennel might actually make for a better neighbor than other industries that could be in your backyard. Ms. Scholz stated in regard to the business growth opportunity, it would be beneficial to have areas where kennels could occupy with less dense population and more land to be able to have a good, safe environment for the dogs. She said in conclusion that she is hoping to add kennels to the list of permitted uses in the I-2 zoning district. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for the applicant. He commented that the proposal was very clear and agreed it makes a lot of sense. He was glad the applicant found a hole the county should fill. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the proposed text amendment. All those present given the opportunity to speak, Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Board Member Ted Shipley stated he is skeptical of the proposed text amendment, noting when you look at the table of permitted uses, you have other care facilities, not necessarily for animals, but for humans and there is a purpose behind why we haven’t allowed for certain care facilities to be put in the I-2 district. In the table of permitted uses, uses such as adult daycare, community center, family child care home, group home, and hospitals are not allowed in the I-2 district. With a special use permit, you can have a child care center, which may be because a large manufacturing facility may have a child care center funded by the employer as part of the development on that tract. The County has tended to stay away. He pointed out that educational services are also not allowed in I-1 or I-2. We haven’t allowed these uses simply because we want to preserve I-2 for heavy industry due to its proximity to transportation and water and sewer infrastructure for the development of a significant tax base for the County, not for doggy daycares. Board Member Shipley said the point of zoning is to put certain areas of our county in a position to supply places for residences and for employment centers like a manufacturing facility, not a kennel, so in keeping with the purpose of I-2, he would say the board should vote down this text amendment. Board Member David Weaver stated as a planner that pyramidal zoning is an outdated concept and he agrees with Mr. Shipley’s comments to a certain extent, but at the same time, a kennel has a lot of noise impact and possibly other types of impact like smell, which are the same kinds of impact you get from an industry in I-2. Mr. Weaver stated he didn’t know if allowing Page 15 of 23 kennels with a special use permit would help with that. He understands Mr. Shipley’s concerns because you don’t want to put the kibosh on a good industrial development because there would be a kennel next to it, but he thinks he would support the amendment because of potential impacts. Chairman Olds commented that dogs are a little noisy and smelly. If this was the type of industry that had the potential of taking over great tracts of land, he would feel differently about it. He doesn’t think it will impact a typical I-2 user’s desirability of selecting land because there is a kennel next door. He stated that it may affect the person who wants to use the kennel's desire to use it if it's located next to a factory that they find objectionable, but that would be a business decision for an applicant. Chairman Old said he doesn’t see it as a particular issue, although he would agree that certain kinds of human care facilities aren’t appropriate for that district and should be kept separated. Board Member Girardot inquired if a possible compromise would be a special use permit for kennels in an I-2 area. Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea asked if he might interject, noting if the board is inclined to require a special use permit for a kennel, it would require additional submittal requirements and an elongated application period. Board Member Shipley asked board members to imagine the circumstance if we had an opportunity to get a chemical manufacturing facility here that would employ 1,000 workers that right now in the table is a special use permit and permitted by right next door to them is a kennel owner who would show up and say that we can’t have a chemical manufacturing facility that would add significantly to the New Hanover County tax base because it would have an impact on the permitted by right kennel facility that I have and the animals that I take care of there and their health. There is a laundry list of different things can happen to the dogs if they reside beside a chemical manufacturing plant, and the Planning Board or County Commissioners could possibly deny their special use permit based on this neighboring use. Board Member Shipley said he doesn’t see a reason to go down that path. Board Member Weaver said he would hope that there wouldn’t be impacts from the chemical manufacturing plant on the kennel anymore there would be impacts on nearby residential development. Board Member Shipley pointed out that people show up and say all kinds of stuff without evidence in front of this planning board at meetings. Board Member Weaver agreed with Mr. Shipley, but he still sees the applicant’s point that residential developments don’t want a kennel next to them and a nice business or restaurant wouldn’t want a kennel next to them. He noted if a chemical manufacturing plant comes in and there's one little kennel there that would be objecting to it, he personally doesn’t see where that would be an obstruction to the County wanting to go ahead and work to make the chemical manufacturing plant good because there shouldn't be any more impacts on the dogs than there should be on surrounding residents. Page 16 of 23 Chairman Olds recognized Planning & Land Use Director Clark. Planning & Land Use Director Wayne Clark stated that one of the challenges we have in New Hanover County is we don't have a whole lot of zoning districts, and we have historically tended to broadly use districts. As discussed at the recent UDO meeting, ninety percent of the county is zoned either one of those two industrial districts or a series of low density residential. Communities will typically have a heavy commercial or “commercial services” district, which is a heavy commercial zoning district to separate some of these things out. As seen on the zoning map in the prior case, most of our industrial is zoned I-2 and the smaller areas zoned I-1 are located like a regular Business zoning district right in people's backyards. He noted when Mr. Andrea was showing the map of all the different Industrial locations, there were a number of smaller ones located along the areas of Blue Clay Road that function essentially like a heavy commercial zoning district where kennels are absolutely appropriate in every place he has ever worked, whether we called it I-2 or I-1. The challenge we have is that we don’t have another district to put those in until all these smaller locations, in particularly where this business is located, are in areas like the Highway 421 corridor, the northeast area, and the area around the ports where we are doing most of our economic development recruiting for large industry. He understands the board’s concerns and noted it is staff’s concern from a practical standpoint of how the zoning is laid out in the county is that we have I‑2 areas that are probabl y not where we're going to see Fortune 500 or other major manufacturers arriving. Mr. Clark noted that's just what we have to allow these things in to keep them away from people's houses until we can get to the UDO and create other opportunities, staff didn't recommend against this amendment because the smaller areas are appropriate and that's how they're currently zoned. Board Member Donna Girardot asked staff to confirm that by making this a special use permit in I-2, we create more paperwork for the applicant, but at the same time, this is a temporary thing because we're obviously going to be addressing this in the UDO and this whole issue may be resolved very easily. Planning & Land Use Director Clark confirmed this will be addressed in the UDO; however, he doesn’t know if it will be resolved easily. It is a challenge to make sure we have sufficient land available for economic development, but also to meet the needs of what are typically not the lightest of uses. We will try very hard to address it. Mr. Clark said the issue of if we were to create a new zoning district, we would then have to address the individual landowners and rezoning their land. He doesn’t know if the people that already have I-1 would be happy if we tried to change their zoning. He commented that the county has a bunch of smaller sites, and this one particularly is in an area that is probably an appropriate area to have a kennel. In response to an inquiry from Chairman Olds, Planning Supervisor Andrea confirmed that staff’s research did find that kennels are found in I-2 districts in other jurisdictions. The logic behind that is, as described by Mr. Weaver, the impacts from a kennel seem to be appropriate in a district that is physically separated from residential areas. Planning Supervisor Andrea retracted his previous statement and clarified that if the planning board did require a special use permit, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be an intensive use, and therefore, require the intensive manufacturing process. Kennel could be put elsewhere in the table of permitted uses and still Page 17 of 23 require a special use permit. Board Member Weaver stated he does agree with Board Member Shipley that we do need to protect our industrial areas for industrial development, but not in this case. Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board. MOTION: Board Member David Weaver made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl, to recommend approval of the amendment as the Planning Board finds that this request, as described, is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns with the zoning ordinance and encourages businesses in appropriate areas. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed amendment would promote business success while not impairing quality of life for existing residential areas. The Planning Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval of Text Amendment TA18-02. (Ayes: Girardot, Olds, Rawl, and Weaver; Nay: Shipley) Item 3: Text Amendment Request (TA18-03) – Request by New Hanover County to amend the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to incorporate updated Flood Insurance Rate Map data and ordinance requirements to comply with minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. Planning Manager Ken Vafier provide the following staff report. After a lengthy process, we are pleased to bring before the Planning Board a request to amend the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) to incorporate the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data. In common terms, this is a request to adopt the “new flood maps” and update the FDPO in accordance with required changes to meet minimum NFIP requirements. Planning Manager Vafier stated the National Flood Insurance Program was created in 1968 to make flood insurance available to communities, to identify floodplains and areas at risk of flooding, and to provide standards, framework, and guidance to communities in the management of their floodplains. To be eligible for participation in this program, a community must adopt and enforce FIRMs and floodplain management regulations. In turn, flood insurance and federal assistance is made available to participating communities. New Hanover County entered into this program in 1978. Planning Manager Vafier said the term “flood zones” refers to specific, delineated areas that have different characteristics and recurrence intervals; these zones come with requirements on construction methods and practices, and are used to determine insurance ratings. The zones in the preliminary data closely mirror those in in the effective data. The AE zone is that area having a 1% annual chance of seeing base flood conditions, often referred to as the 100‑year floodplain. Page 18 of 23 The Floodway is within this zone and is the channel that must be reserved in order to effective discharge the 1% chance the flood conditions. The VE zone is an area with a 1% annual chance of incurring these base flood conditions, but with expected wave action from winds or surges. The AO zone which is an area of shallow flooding associated with depths of 1 to 3 feet with no clearly defined channel. A new zone that we'll have in the preliminary data is the Coastal A zone. These are areas found landward of the Intracoastal Waterway, where the principle source of flooding is from astronomical tides, storm surges or tsunamis with wave action greater than 1-1/2 feet. These are still rated as A zones, but have some associated wave action with them. Finally, the Shaded X zone is not a special flood hazard area, but is shown on the maps to indicate the .2% annual chance of flooding or the 500-year flood zone. Planning Manager Vafier stated since entering the NFIP, New Hanover County has had periodic updates resulting from advances in technology, modeling and data availability in order to more accurately portray the areas that are most at risk for flooding in our community. Similarly, NFIP requirements change or need to be updated and clarified, and ordinance language is amended periodically to reflect these changes. Our current effective data is from April 2006 with some panels revised in February 2007 and the ordinance dates back to June 5, 2006. This is a process undertaken by the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP), the Local Governments, FEMA, and stakeholders essentially in five phases: 1) discovery/scoping phase; 2) base map acquisition phase; 3) map creation phase; 4) post-preliminary processing phase; and 5) the local adoption process, which is where we are today. Mr. Vafier reviewed each milestone, noting New Hanover County has been in the post- preliminary process since August 29, 2014. It has taken place over a four-year period to allow for public meetings and revisions with comment periods to the data. On September 17, 2014, a kickoff meeting was held for local officials in New Hanover and Brunswick counties. Both counties are on the same calendar. In June and July of that year, public meetings were hosted at the New Hanover County Government Center and at Carolina Beach Town Hall. These meetings included media coverage, press releases and public notifications to assist in getting the word out. In November of 2015, staff provided an update to the Board of Commissioners on the status of the preliminary data and the process moving forward. In October of 2015, we entered the 90-day period which allowed staff to work with other stakeholders on revisions to the map. New Hanover County filed six appeals or comments to the map, all which were resolved accordingly. In August, New Hanover County had a 30-day follow-up period to ensure the accuracy and resolution. In February 2018 after, FEMA issued a Letter of Final Determination (LFD) which states that the data has been vetted and final, and that the community has followed all prescribed steps in the post preliminary process. Thus, a 6-month compliance period began whereby each local government must adopt the data. After issuance of the LFD, we entered the local adoption process. The flood ordinance is based on a model template provided by the NC Floodplain Mapping Program staff to reflect the minimum NFIP requirements. This model was provided to us after the issuance of the LFD for us to finalize the draft, followed by a review and approval by NC NFIP staff. The key takeaway in the local process is that this item must be adopted by the local government by August 28, 2018, the conclusion of the compliance period, in order to ensure continued eligibility in the NFIP. Upon adoption, the maps and ordinance become effective and Page 19 of 23 are used for regulatory purposes, however the insurance rates do not change until the effective date of the maps, which is August 28, 2018. Mr. Vafier examined some of the on-the-ground changes to the maps in terms of the structures affected. From the current maps to the preliminary data, there is a net increase of 398 total structures in the special flood hazard areas; of these, the majority are seen in the AE zones. There is an increase of 698 structures in the AE zone, whereas in the VE zone, there is a decrease of 300 structures. Structures in an X zone or Shaded X, .2% annual chance and in the areas that are going into an AE or VE zone are part of that 736, whereas structures being removed from these zones altogether are numbered as 338. These are entirely within the AE zone being removed, so there are no structures currently in a VE zone removed entirely. There are a number of structures that are being moved from a VE zone to an AE zone being made less restrictive. That number is 369. Finally, we have 77 structures moving from an AE zone to a VE zone. In our analysis, we looked for where this is occurring, and it’s generally easy to see where the bulk of the changes are occurring spatially when compared to the previous table. The bulk of the increase in structures in the AE zones is along the fringe areas of the tidal creeks, in particular Pages Creek, where Shaded X or .2% chance zones are being delineated to a 1% chance zone. In the VE zone, we see a reduction of structures along the Intracoastal Waterway, some of these either being reduced in Base Flood Elevation or going to an AE zone. This accounts for some of the increase to the structures in the AE zone noted in the earlier table. On the map, the areas where the structures in the AE zone are increasing are reflected with areas on the ground added into the special flood hazard areas on the fringes of the tidal creeks, in particular Pages Creek. The areas in RED are removed entirely from the special flood hazard areas. The net changes in ground areas, not structures, are reflected in a table and increase in every zone and are not regulated a special flood hazard area and the area of AE and it's in the VE zone. That is a significant increase and that doesn't tell the number of structures in the VE zone and the reason for that is a difference in a boundary of the shape file. The new shape file has a large area of VE in open waters where development is not going to be undertaken. That's the reason for that acreage. Planning Manager Vafier reported in regard to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, the template is provided to us by NCDOT floodplain management staff which contains provisions on development practices in the special flood hazard areas that meeting minimum NFIP requirements. The template does include several options for higher standards that a community can elect to include. Many of these, such as a free board requirement, are already in our current code and we are proposing to retain these provisions. The higher standards provide additional safeguards against potential effects of flood events, as well as provide for credits to our points total in the Community Rating System. First and foremost, we need to amend the reference to the effective flood insurance study and data, which will be the date of August 28, 2018. The ordinance provision reflects the exact data set we’ll be using. We’ll also incorporate suggested wording and grammar changes and updated terms provided by the model ordinance. We include new definitions and propose retaining applicable definitions within the code that we didn't find in the model. The next item is a statement on the floodplain development permit that all the materials below the design flood elevation, simply the base flood elevation plus our required two-foot freeboard, must be flood be flood resistant. This is already a requirement in the current code as well as the model code. We're just reiterating this on the permit that’s issued. Next, we would require photographs with elevation certificates. The current FEMA elevation certificate form does not require the Page 20 of 23 inclusion of photographs for insurance; however, they are used in the vast majority of certificates that we receive. We don't think this is a change that will create an additional burden on the applicants or surveyors creating these. It assists us with ensuring that structures are built in compliance at the time of construction. Next is the requirement of a final flood proofing certificate. The current ordinance just requires a flood proofing certificate prior to construction. This would require an as-built. This is the only change that is not an optional change. This is a mandatory change in the model ordinance. County staff must advise property owners of an option to apply for a letter of map change when we encounter data that might lend itself available for a letter of change application. We already do this in practice; this just codifies it as a responsibility of the floodplain administrator and staff. Next is a provision clarifying areas below the design flood elevation that cannot be temperature-controlled. Again, this is a requirement found in other places in the ordinance and this just clarifies that further. Over time, we have had questions on this particular provision as it results to entry foyers in the VE zone. This provision does not prohibit the ability for conditioned air from upper levels of the structure to drift downward and create some conditioning as long as all the mechanic equipment and venting, et cetera, is above the flood design elevation. We have confirmed that conditioning via airflow is not in violation of the requirement. We are expanding the description of acceptable lattice material. The current ordinance just mentions that screening for areas below base flood elevation have to be screened by wood material. We are adding plastic or other to that provision to allow for advances in technology that may come up with other types of material that may be used for screening. We have added an option for breakaway walls with flood openings. Some jurisdictions require that breakaway walls have flood openings. This is in case you have a situation where the wave forces may not break away the walls, but are still causing accumulation of floodwaters around it. The provision of flood openings will still allow entry and exit of those floodwaters. Planning Manager Vafier reported the next four are provisions that provide design parameters for certain practices, such as concrete surfaces so your slabs and things of that nature, like driveways, fill in VE zones, swimming pools and spas, and elevator shafts. All the provisions in here are either referenced in the FEMA technical bulletins or required in the building code so they're not providing additional regulatory parameters. Planning Manager Vafier proposed one amendment to the draft ordinance in Article 5, Section G, Section 7, subsection d on page 27 of the draft ordinance addresses elevator shafts being constructed to reinforce masonry block or reinforce concrete walls. He proposed that the board strike the clause, “located on the landward side of the building.” During a final read-through, that caught his eye and it is taken out of Technical Bulletin 4. Mr. Vafier proposed that be amended slightly to provide more flexibility for the design of the house. He explained that all construction in this zone has to be certified by an engineer or architect that it meets the zone provisions so regardless of where the actual elevator shaft is, it would still be certified that it meets minimum requirements to not be an obstruction. If that is amenable to the planning board, Mr. Vafier said he would go back and ensure that is still approved by the state floodplain management program staff before the text amendment moves forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Planning Manager Vafier concluded the summary of changes to the ordinance and stated staff is recommending approval because it is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Page 21 of 23 Comprehensive Plan, and is reasonable and in the public interest for the reasons noted in the suggested motion in the staff report. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for staff. He noted that staff had done their homework. The ordinance change is very impressive and complex, and the planning board appreciates staff’s efforts in that regard. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the proposed amendment. Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and entertained a motion or discussion from the planning board members. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl asked Planning Manager Vafier to elaborate on the mandatory policy requiring a survey to be submitted certifying where the finished floor elevation will be on a property, noting Mr. Vafier has said there would be no opt-out option. Planning Manager Vafier confirmed the mandatory policy was for a survey certifying where the finished floor elevation would be on a property. On residential construction that certification is typically provided by an elevation certificate. For commercial construction, it does not necessarily have to be an elevation certificate. For commercial construction, it doesn’t necessarily have to be an elevation certificate. For commercial construction, you don't necessarily have to elevate all of that to that reference level. You can keep it at a lower level provided that flood proofing measures such as membranes and things of that nature are provided so the flood proofing certificate would be a substitute for the elevation certificate and providing an as-built is consistent with how we require an elevation certificate. Vice Chairman Rawl asked when the new floodplain map will be instituted. Planning Manager Vafier explained that as a result of the Letter of Final Determination being issued, that is the cue for local governments to move forward with the adoption. Planning staff anticipates that this item will move forward to the Board of County Commissioners on their July 9th meeting agenda, and upon adoption, the maps will be in effect. Hearing no additional questions, Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the Planning Board. MOTION: Board Member Donna Girardot MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member David Weaver to recommend approval of the amendment as the Planning Board finds this request, as described, is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it promotes environmentally responsible growth by identifying those areas most at risk for flooding impacts in the unincorporated county and provides for measures to mitigate the effects of flooding on development in those areas consistent with minimum NFIP requirements. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal incorporates and codifies the most up-to-date flood insurance rate maps and ordinance provisions, providing mitigation measures for those areas determined to be most at risk for flooding impacts in the Page 22 of 23 unincorporated county. Additionally, adoption of the maps ensures continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). With the following change: 1. Article 5, Section G, 7(d) should read, “Elevator shaft enclosures that extend below the RFPE shall be constructed of reinforced masonry block or reinforced concrete walls of the building to provide increased protection from flood damage. Drainage must be provided for the elevator pit.” The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment TA18-03. Board Member Donna Girardot stated that this amendment has been out here for four years, but when the Commissioners consider it in July 2018, if they adopt it, the insurance part of the ordinance amendment will not become effective until September 28, 2018. They have been doing very good outreach to all of their constituents. She noted Mr. Moore was also present and keeps the homebuilders up to speed on this issue. She noted they really need to get outreach to the realtors about this amendment so they can make their customers aware when they sell a house. Chairman Olds inquired if the other incorporated areas are at the same level as the county in terms of approvals. Planning Manager Vafier confirmed Chairman Olds was correct and noted that New Hanover County, Brunswick County, and the municipalities within those counties are all under the same schedule in that six-month compliance period and will be taking this ordinance amendment forth to their respective boards as well. Board Member Weaver inquired if any of those communities are appealing the maps like Wrightsville Beach has done. Planning Manager Vafier noted those types of appeals occurred in the process between October 2015 and January 2016. He reported that Wrightsville Beach filed one appeal and New Hanover County filed six appeals. He wasn’t sure how many other jurisdictions filed appeals at that time, but that was the point in the process where appeals were filed, analyzed, and resolved. Technical Review Committee Report (April 2018) Current Planner Brad Schuler reported that the April 2018 Technical Review Committee Report will be presented at the June 7, 2018 Planning Board meeting due to the timing of the second TRC meeting and the distribution of the planning board agenda package. Approval of Meeting Minutes Approval of the April meeting minutes was tabled to the June Planning Board meeting. Page 23 of 23 Chairman Olds stated that a Planning Board representative for the July Commissioners meeting would be determined at a later date due to the unavailability of several board members on that date. With no other items of business, Chairman Olds adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director