Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-08 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 643 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Tuesday, September 8, 2020, 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: Chair Julia Olson-Boseman; Vice-Chair Patricia Kusek; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Commissioner Woody White arrived at 4:25 p.m. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Reverend Shawn Blackwelder, St. Paul’s United Methodist Church, provided the invocation and Commissioner Zapple led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Olson-Boseman requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion: Vice-Chair Kusek MOVED, SECONDED by Chair Olson-Boseman, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4- 0. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes – Governing Body The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 24, 2020. Adoption of Emergency Preparedness Month Proclamation – Emergency Management The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing September 2020 as Emergency Preparedness Month in New Hanover County. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLII, Page 17.1. Approval of New Hanover County Board of Education Application for NC Education Lottery Funds for FY21 Capital Projects – Finance The Commissioners approved the New Hanover County Board of Education application for NC Education Lottery Funds for FY21 capital projects. The total for the nine project applications is $2,405,000. The unallocated balance of the Public School Building Capital Fund after this action is $867,795. The applications will be submitted to the NC Department of Public Instruction and once approved, a budget amendment will be submitted to the Board of Education and the Board of County Commissioners for approval. A copy of the application is on file in the finance department. Adoption of Budget Amendments - Budget The Commissioners adopted the following budget amendments which amend the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021:  Purchase Order Rollovers 21-004  Grant Rollovers 21-005  Florence Rollover 21-007 Copies of the budget amendments are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XLII, Page 17.2. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF VALUES FOR 2021 TAX REVALUATION Tax Administrator Allison Snell presented the proposed Schedules, Standards, and Rules for the 2021 Tax Revaluation per N.C. General Statute 103-317(c). She requested the Board to authorize staff to schedule a public st hearing to receive comments on the Schedule of Values at the Regular Meeting of September 21 at 9:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter. Board adoption of the Schedule of Values would be placed on the agenda for the October 5, 2020 meeting at 4:00 p.m. After adoption by the Board, any appeal should be made to the N. C. Property Tax Commission within 30 days. Chair Olson-Boseman requested direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to authorize staff to schedule a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed 2021 Schedule of Values at the Board’s meeting on September 21, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4-0. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 644 Copies of the proposed Schedule of Values are available for review in the Tax Department and the Commissioners’ Office. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR THE GOVERNMENT CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT Chief Financial Officer Lisa Wurtzbacher presented the following information on the application to the Local Government Commission (LGC) for the Government Center lease agreement:  Government Center Redevelopment: LGC Lease Approval:  Background:  Board approved development agreement June 15, 2020  Development agreement authorized County Manager to execute lease  LGC approval required for lease  LGC approval process requires finding of facts  Findings of Facts:  Necessity of proposed financing  Amount to be financed is adequate and not excessive  Adherence to debt management and budgetary/fiscal management policies  Tax increase if any is not excessive  Financing method is preferable to bond offering  Not in default under debt service obligations  Requested Action and Next Steps:  Requested action:  Direct staff to apply for LGC approval  Approve finding of facts resolution  Next steps:  LGC Application: September 8th  LGC Approval: October 6th In response to Board questions, Ms. Wurtzbacher stated when staff did a financial analysis in June, the amount of municipal taxes was calculated and it is anticipated to be $6 million in taxes to the City of Wilmington over 20 years. Insurance, utilities, and maintenance were not included as those are being paid for with the current building and are not additional costs for the County. She confirmed that the County will own the building at the end of the 20-year lease. In response to additional Board questions, Chief Facilities Officer Sara Warmuth provided an overview of the process that was used to configure the building. The visioning sessions began in February before coronavirus was being discussed. Those sessions were not about space needs, rather they were about how to better serve our customers not only today, but also in the future. Meetings were held with department directors regarding the space they currently need as well as challenging each to think about how their department will serve customers in 10 – 20 years. That information started the process and meetings continued throughout April, May and June, and during that time, coronavirus became a factor. As such, the follow-up meetings during that time with each department director revolved around space needs based on what was learned and the fact that some employees are teleworking some of the time. Teleworking has led to a decrease in the need for workstations, but an increase in what is known as hoteling space. While the net square footage remains the same, each department’s space has changed. There are not a lot of offices in the building, but there have been departments added, such as the Office of Diversity and Equity and the Office of Recovery and Resilience. Work is ongoing for what the workstation areas will look like. Currently, the schematic design is being finalized and the point has not arrived yet to focus on the furniture, how to keep social distancing in place in the workspaces or meeting rooms, having automatic doors, etc. Those items will be addressed in the coming months. Once the schematic design is finalized and the actual construction documents are started, she will meet with each Commissioner again to review the plans. The Commissioners expressed appreciation to all involved in the project for being forward thinking and continually evolving the process to accommodate the potential future needs. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to adopt the findings of facts resolution as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLII, Page 17.3. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY WARD AND SMITH, P.A. ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, RIDGEWOOD GARDENS HEALTH INVESTORS, LLC, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 29.96 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 8704 “OLD” MARKET STREET/FUTCH CREEK ROAD FROM B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO UMXZ, URBAN MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT, IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A MIXED-USE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT (Z20-12) Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 645 Senior Planner Brad Schuler presented the request by Ward and Smith, P.A. on behalf of the property owner, Ridgewood Gardens Health Investors, LLC, to rezone approximately 29.96 acres of land located in the 8704 “Old” Market Street/Futch Creek Road from B-1, Neighborhood Business District, and R-15, Residential District, to UMXZ, Urban Mixed Use Zoning District, in order to develop a mixed-use senior living project. The property is located east of Highway 17, adjacent to the interchange with I-140 and Market Street. The site is currently split zoned, with about half of it being zoned B-1 and the other half being zoned R-15. The site is currently an undeveloped and wooded tract of land. “Old” Market Street/Futch Creek Road provides access to the site. In addition, there is a stub road that connects to the property to the north within the Villages of Plantation Landing townhome development that is proposed to provide emergency-only access to the project. Mr. Schuler reviewed the master plan for the development noting that master plans for this type of zoning are intended to be in a bubble format that illustrate the general location and intensity of the land uses within the development. This is similar to what is used for Planned Development zoning proposals. This proposal would allow for a mixed-use senior living facility. There are four main use areas proposed with this plan. Along the frontage of the property, the plan allows for a mixed-use building containing a maximum of four dwelling units and 4,000 square feet for personal service and office related uses. East of that area, the plan would allow for an assisted living facility containing up to 100 units. The middle area would allow for senior independent living containing up to 186 units within multi-family structures. The area would allow for a building or buildings similar to Carolina Bay at Autumn Hall. Finally, along the southern and western property lines, the plan would allow for independent senior living cottages containing up to four units. This area would allow for similar structures to those that are in Plantation Village. The cottages would be a maximum of one-story in height, while the multi-family, mixed-use, and assisted living buildings would be a maximum of 45-feet in height. However, the applicant is proposing to limit the height of the multi-family portion of the development to be a maximum of 30-feet in height within 150-feet of the northern property line. The plan places the more intensive land uses closer to the road and to the existing commercially zoned areas. Mr. Schuler then highlighted the approximate boundary of the existing B-1 zoning in the area noting that the zoning currently contains the Scott’s Hill Hardware store. North of the hardware store and of the subject site is the Villages at Plantation Landing development, which is a townhome project that is still being constructed. Where the site abuts single-family neighborhoods is where the applicant is proposing the one-story cottages. As for transportation, Mr. Schuler reviewed the primary routes to arterial streets. Again, the site is located next to Highway 17. Additionally, people can travel to the Porters Neck commercial node via Futch Creek Road and Porters Neck Road. As currently zoned, it is estimated the site could support approximately 40 single-family homes and 150,000 square feet of shopping center related uses. The applicant also provided a more conservative estimate of commercial uses that could be developed on the site under the existing zoning, which totals around 70,000 square feet of commercial space. Under the current zoning, it is estimated the site would generate around 250 trips in the peak hours. Overall, the proposal is estimated to decrease those projected peak hour trips by approximately 100 to 200 trips. There are two ongoing North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects in the area. One is the Market Street median project and the other is the Military Cutoff extension, both of which are expected to be completed by 2023. There have been three traffic impact analyses (TIAs) completed in the area. Mr. Schuler noted that The Oaks at Murray Farms TIA studied certain intersections within the general area including Futch Creek Road at Highway 17, and the U-turn to the north of that intersection. That analysis found that the intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service and have additional capacity when The Oaks at Murray Farms project is expected to be completed in 2023. Additionally, that project will install a second right turn lane on Futch Creek Road at Highway 17. Also, the Scotts Hill Medical Park will be installing a northbound to southbound U-turn lane on Highway 17 at Scotts Hill Loop Road. As for active subdivisions, there are five in the area with about 700 homes still remaining to be constructed. Mr. Schuler reviewed pictures of the site and surrounding areas. In regard to compatibility, he reviewed typical developments in the R-15 zoning district. Generally, developments in this district consist of single-family neighborhoods, with houses on lots ranging from 7,000 to 12,000 square feet and from one to three stories. The B- 1 district allows for traditional community scale commercial services such as banks and pharmacies. Similar developments to what the applicant is proposing include the nearby Davis Community and Plantation Village retirement communities. Plantation Village also has a mixture of housing types, including multi-family and cottage style housing. Another example is Carolina Bay at Autumn Hall. Overall, the property is located next to a major road corridor, the plan reduces the amount of commercial uses that could be developed on the site, the proposed one story cottages are positioned along existing neighborhoods, and there are similar developments in the area. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the site as a transitional area between Community Mixed Use and General Residential. Again, these classifications are not parcel specific like zoning boundaries, and sites located along the boundary of two place types can be appropriately developed with either classification. Overall, the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it allows for the type of uses recommended for this area, and because it provides an orderly transition between a major road corridor and existing single-family housing. The Planning Board considered this matter during its August meeting, and recommended approval of it (5- 0), finding that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the request was reasonable and in the public interest. Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Mr. Schuler for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 646 Sam Franck, attorney with Ward and Smith representing the property owner, Ridgewood Gardens Health Investors, LLC, stated that senior and assisted living is a needed use in an area where it will be well received. It integrates very well between the arterial road that is Market Street and the surrounding residential area. The development team is present to answer questions and introduced the team members. He asked Thad Moore, Project Director for Ridgewood Gardens Health Investors, LLC, to speak on the vision for the project. Mr. Moore stated the property owner, Ridgewood Gardens Health Investors, LLC, is an entity of Liberty Senior Living. Currently headquartered in Wilmington, Liberty Healthcare is a fourth generation North Carolina family th owned company and is in its 145 year of operation. Liberty Senior Living is the division responsible for the operation of its senior living communities composed of independent and assisted living. Liberty purchased this property in 2007 with the intentions of developing a senior living community. There's a very high level of demand for quality senior housing and licensed assisted living in the area as evidenced by Liberty's experience at its existing communities in the region. Liberty has been providing senior living services in New Hanover County for over 34 years. Locally, Liberty owns and operates Brightmore of Wilmington senior living campus and Carolina Bay at Autumn Hall continuing care retirement community. While being fully aware of the more intensive commercial uses afforded by- right at this site, providing healthcare and senior living are Liberty’s core businesses and is what it does best. He thanked the Board for taking the time to learn more about this proposed senior living community. Mr. Franck continued the presentation by providing an overview of the master plan for the site noting it is an integral component of UMXZ rezoning as it basically establishes the parameters that it will be bound to following approval of this application. As explained by Mr. Schuler, there are four fundamental uses: 1) an independent residential use along the eastern and southern boundaries of the property; 2) an assisted living use in the center of the property; 3) a senior living use closer to the commercial road; and 4) a mixed use commercial aspect along the commercial road. He reviewed the slides showing an aerial view of the site as it exists today. Looking from the west to the east, the area is currently well forested. What is not evident from the satellite shots is that the existing landscaping is pretty significant in terms of maturity with pine trees that range in height from 50 to 70-feet. In the site design and layout, significant steps have been taken to protect that buffer. At the cross section, the maximum height of the building in the middle is substantially lower than the sight line that would be visible from the outside looking in from the adjacent residential single-family residential homes. If those homes were to increase in height by another story, there would not be a clear line of sight between the proposed structures and those that exist around it. To further demonstrate the point, he reviewed a drone photo taken from a height of 49-feet from inside of the site looking out to show the tree cover. As to traffic impacts, it would be hard to identify a mixed use other than this one that has a lower impact and it will have a very subtle impact on traffic. What is being proposed is approximately a third of what could be done by-right. It is simply just the nature of the use that it does not generate a significant number of trips. The master plan demonstrates the fundamental traffic flow both for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It is significant that there is no shortcut opportunity through the adjoining neighborhoods. All of the traffic is managed through the primary access points on “Old” Market Street. The crosshatched access shown on the top of the center section of the property is emergency only and will be gated accordingly. In response to Board questions, Mr. Moore stated that the project does not have a name yet. Andrew Jamison with LS3P explained that the independent living cottages would range from 1,500 to 1,800 square feet and could be combined into duplexes or quadruplexes. Visitor parking for the independent living cottages would also be handled in the same space. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that no one signed up to speak in favor or against the request. In response to additional Board questions, Mr. Franck stated with regard to price structure, it is still very early in the project. He asked Will Purvis with Liberty Assisted Living to provide input on the price structure. Mr. Purvis stated with regard to affordability, the plan is for this to be a rental retirement community along with assisted living. It is tough to look at it in the traditional sense as you would have affordability by it being rental and there not being an entrance fee tied to it. It is not an equity model. It will have a lower price point that will appeal to more people in the County. The price point will probably start around $1,400 to $1,500 per month. Meals will be based on an à la carte service, which would include continental breakfast. The assisted living portion will be fee for service. The company has the certificate of need (CON) for this plan. It is open to the public and a person does not have to start in the independent living portion to have access to the assisted living system. It is anticipated that for the assisted living facility there will be approximately 100 to 110 beds. As such at any given time, there could be 30 employees onsite. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Motion: Chair Olson-Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Kusek to approve the proposed rezoning to a UMXZ district as the Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it allows for the types of support services and residential uses recommended in the plan. In addition, it provides an orderly transition from a major road corridor to lower density housing. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would benefit the community by providing diverse housing options and is expected to reduce the amount of traffic that could be generated under the existing zoning. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 647 A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 5 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 6, 1971, is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 5, Page 84. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, RIPWOOD COMPANY, INC., TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.6 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN THE 600 BLOCK OF SPRING BRANCH ROAD FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO (CZD) R-5, CONDITIONAL MODERATE-HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT, IN ORDER TO DEVELOP 22 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS (Z20-14) Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation. Current Planner Gideon Smith presented the request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, Ripwood Company, Inc., to rezone approximately 3.6 acres of land located in the 600 block of Spring Branch Road from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) R-5, Conditional Moderate-High Density District, in order to develop 22 single-family units. The subject property is located at the end of Spring Branch Road near the northwest corner of North College Road and Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway. It is south of the Spring View Estates neighborhood that consists of single-family homes. The site is undeveloped and mostly wooded with access provided by Spring Branch Road. Mr. Smith reviewed the applicant’s conceptual plan consisting of 22 single-family homes. In addition to the parking provided at the homes, there are an additional 14 visitor parking spaces throughout the development. Of note, there is a future NCDOT project planned along the abutting major highways, however, the applicant has designed this development around the future roadway project. The applicant provided a rendering that shows a general idea of what the single-family homes may look like. Based on the renderings, the homes will be two-story with one car garages. The applicant’s representative is prepared to provide additional details about the specifics on the homes and the development in their presentation. In regard to traffic, the proposed single-family homes are estimated to generate about 22 peak hour trips, which is a net increase of about 10 to 15 trips when compared to what could be developed on the property today. The surrounding roadway network provides three options for people to access North College Road with Kings Drive being signalized. In addition, there is a way to get to North Kerr Avenue using this existing network. Again, NCDOT has a major project planned for the corridor, and as a result, Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Parkway and Kings Drive will be converted into flyover interchanges. However, these projects are currently on hold. As a result of these projects, preliminary NCDOT plans indicate that Spring View Drive will be converted into a cul-de-sac, requiring motorists to travel to Kings Drive which will remain as the key access point to get onto North College Road. This intersection will be converted into a roundabout underneath North College Road with a series of ramps for motorists to use to travel north or south. In regard to ongoing development in the area, there are two active subdivisions that are currently under construction. Between these two developments, there are about 361 homes remaining before they are built out. The vast majority of these homes are located within the Landing at Lewis Creek Estates which only has direct access to Gordon Road. Mr. Smith reviewed two examples of detached single-family homes that are similar to what is being proposed. Overall, the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because it is designed like a traditional detached single-family neighborhood with driveways and garages. In addition, the homes will provide a transition from MLK Parkway and North College Road to the existing homes in Spring View Estates. Finally, the proposed homes are limited to the same building height as all the homes within Spring View and Kings Grant. The subject site is within the General Residential place type as identified by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed number of units is in line with the recommended densities in the General Residential place type, and due to the major highways and planned projects, the development will provide an orderly transition between these roads and the existing residential neighborhoods. The proposal will also provide a diversity of ownership options. The Planning Board considered this application at its August meeting and recommended approval (5-1) finding it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that their action was reasonable and in the public interest. Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Mr. Smith for the presentation and invited the petitioner to make remarks. Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions stated she is speaking on behalf of the property owner and developer, Ripwood Company, Inc. As Mr. Smith pointed out, the site is a residual track left after the development of the Spring View subdivision and the MLK Parkway. Due to controlled access of the parkway, the entry is a removed distance from North College Road and access would be via Spring Branch Road at its intersection with Riplee Drive. Spring Branch Road was specifically stubbed to this subject track during the development of section two of Spring View. The person that owns it now was the developer back when Spring View was developed. Contrary to early supposition of some of the neighbors, this property has no restrictive covenants as verified by a legal review that was prepared. This is a very common transition type of density and housing product between busy highways and more established neighborhoods. Several months ago, the developer proposed a 28-unit attached townhome project thinking that was a reasonable transition, but it was withdrawn based upon the comments of opposition by the neighbors. The developer went back to the drawing board and responded with the single-family homes that were felt were more in keeping with the current community. The homes will be constructed and recorded for fee simple individual ownership. The units would each have a garage and driveway with room for two more vehicles and additional parking NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 648 has also been incorporated for guests. A sidewalk would extend from Riplee Drive around the perimeter of the development for safe pedestrian circulation. The homes will be serviced by both public water and public sanitary sewer. Stormwater management for both the water quality preservation and volume control will be provided within a pond and existing vegetation around the perimeter and within the project itself can certainly be preserved to provide a natural setting and privacy within the community. The homes will be constructed with quality materials and the architectural features and colors can be varied within the community to add aesthetic interest. With a community such as this, the architecture in general is the same, but a lot of things can be varied to provide interest. The project itself is physically isolated from the entire rest of Spring View. There would be no visibility unless someone specifically drove into this small community. The only potential impact it could be said to have would be the addition of those roughly dozen, nine in the morning and 14 in the afternoon, more vehicle trips during either the morning or evening peak hours. Ms. Wolf then reviewed the potential turning movements noting that there are already roughly 500 homes using those same routes to North College Road. As such, the addition of 22 more homes is negligible. There are no issues with flooding of the homes and they have an excellent drainage outlet for the stormwater pond. The base flood elevation in the area is 14.2. That is important when looking at the topography, which shows that every part of the site is above the elevation of 18, which is well over the required finished floor separation for flood protection. Also as pointed out by Mr. Smith, the project has been prepared for the future as far as the envisioned NCDOT improvements for the grade separate travel route on College Road and over Military Cutoff. The closest units, 14 to 16, would still conform to the minimum setback after any possible land acquisition for right-of-way widening. Regardless, the future travel lanes would not extend any closer than they are today as shown in the exhibit concept of how the urban style overpass would work. As a County, including not only Planning Staff, but also the various departments, the Planning Board, community stakeholders and certainly this Board, an extended period of time was spent creating the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan to address imminent evolution. It envisions small scale, but denser development patterns to provide orderly transition from higher to lower intensity areas and to add to the diversity of housing options. Development of up to six units per acre is an acceptable land use in the General Residential place type and that is what the developer is asking for. Ms. Wolf concluded her presentation stating that we have the good fortune to already reside in a highly desirable area. Life here is great and it is no surprise that the expectation for the future is an influx of new residents. That dynamic keeps the County sustainable and increases the tax base allowing more capital improvements and better level of services. Our area’s desirability translates into the fact that developable land is limited and prices are high. Material and construction costs are continually increasing and yet we acknowledge the undeniable need for homes more affordable to our young people, our workforce, and even our aging population. In these times, infill and some increased density is the key to making a good project feasible and not cost prohibitive. Spring Ridge is a moderate density project. It is certainly an acceptable transition along busy highway corridors. The trips from this project will be negligible, as far as impact to current traffic. The homes will be constructed and recorded for fee simple individual ownership at a price point of roughly $250,000. That seems to be the typical lowest cost found in new development these days around our area. This type of real estate is eligible for 95% FHA financing, also making it more affordable to buyers. She and the applicant fully concur with staff and the Planning Board recommendations that this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would appreciate the Board’s approval of it. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf confirmed the price point would be around $250,000 and the square footage is roughly between 1,200 and 1,400 square feet in a two story structure. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that on person signed up to speak in favor and two people signed up to speak in opposition to the request and asked the speakers to step forward to provide remarks. Michael Blanchard, resident of Riplee Drive, spoke in support of the request stating the proposed project will upgrade the value in the niceties of the neighborhood. It will also solve a dumping issue and the homeless people that have been known to live in the wooded area. He personally had an issue with a homeless person who entered the tool shed on his property and was taking food out of the refrigerator until being discovered. The person was removed from the property by a nice gentleman who works for the Sheriff’s Office. Again, he is in support of the project, it will upgrade the value of the properties, and he appreciates the opportunity to speak. Chris Sholar, resident of Terry Lane, spoke in opposition stating that the copy of the petition that has been disbursed to the Board has been signed by 95% of the homeowners against this project when it was first initiated and they are still opposed to it. The applicant has tried to accommodate with single-family homes. However, the existing homes are on half-acre lots and the proposed homes will be 10 feet apart as well as smaller. He asked that the Board deny the application. It was originally withdrawn because it was townhouses and the applicant made it single-family to try and adapt. At the first Planning Board meeting, it was rejected six to one, but was approved when it was resubmitted. During the second meeting a Planning Board member commented that there was only 10,000 buildable acres left in New Hanover County. He does not see why all that acreage has to be used. He and his neighbors have a quality of life and would like it preserved. The project also has environmental issues because it is beside the Smith Creek watershed. There will also be traffic issues with the future NCDOT projects. He and his neighbors feel the Board should stand with the current homeowners rather than one developer and ask that the Board protect the integrity and continuity of their neighborhood inheritance for their children and going forward. Donald Johnson, resident of Terry Lane, spoke in opposition providing an overview of his correspondence with Trace Howell in the NCDOT Division 3 office concerning the proposed rezoning potentially interfering with the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 649 NCDOT North College Road and MLK Parkway interchange project as well as Mr. Howell’s response to him. He also reviewed the handout provided to the Board showing the number of traffic calls to the County’s 911 department concerning accidents in the previous month. He further stated that he and his neighbors believe increased traffic from the proposed rezoning would have an immediate and negative impact on the area and asked the Board not to approve the request. The concerns being expressed will be addressed in future NCDOT plans. However, projected construction would not begin until late 2024 based on a November 2, 2018 Port City Daily news release. The new construction improvements would include Spring View Drive access being closed and the building of two double circles/turnarounds near Kings Drive and Wilmington Christian Academy/Grace Baptist Church. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that the applicant has five minutes to make rebuttal comments. In rebuttal, Ms. Wolf stated half acre lots are no longer feasible for all people. Some people want large lots and those are available in different developments. This particular location would certainly not be feasible for higher end homes on large lots necessarily. There are no environmental issues that cannot be addressed through the permitting process for stormwater, wetlands, vegetation, etc. The applicant does not believe the integrity or continuity of the neighborhood is being disturbed with this project. This is an isolated community within a neighborhood. All that is being affected is the difference of 11 homes. This project is inevitable to be developed and it can be developed with nine units. The difference in a conditional district that is being asked for is this is the project that will be seen if it is approved as presented. If it is only developed for the nine units through the development process even by-right, she does not believe the neighborhood is going to be at all happy with that type of development because it will not be able to be as quality and as laid out with these improvements and what the applicant has projected. This plan has been created with a design and all aspects of the future NCDOT project in mind. There are no concerns that future right away acquisitions would be a problem. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf explained that with the nine units it can be less desirable. The way the subdivision code is written, the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), performance residential allows density by number of units. The density for this particular tract is up to nine units. Those nine units could be in a three-story building of apartments, nine of the proposed types of houses, or they could be nine townhomes, as there is no structure of what that has to be. Whereas, what is being requested today even though it is 22 units, they will be single-family townhomes for individual ownership. That is the part of the conditional district that is guaranteed and she and her client believe it is one of the assets of this project. In response to Board questions, Planning and Land Use Director Wayne Clark explained the process as it relates to the proposed NCDOT project and that the potential need for land for the interchange would be the same whether for single family homes or built by-right. If NCDOT needs the property they will have to deal with acquiring it, whether it has a use on it or not. NCDOT has to be cautious when it comes to these things and the project is at the preliminary design phase. Until the detailed work is done, they will not be able to say absolutely whether there is a claim or not. His understanding is that the language currently being used by NCDOT is common and is the standard language that is given to people this early in the design stage. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf stated as to the quality materials being used for the homes and in trying to make them affordable, vinyl siding will be included as one of the options. She confirmed that it is one design for all 22 homes and there can be variations with either the window style, a shed roof instead of a gable over the windows, and architectural schemes and colors can also vary. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf stated lots 14 – 16 have approximately 90 feet between the back of the units and the travel lane that is already on MLK parkway. Based on what she has seen on the preliminary plans, the lanes on MLK really would not change. Even if they did, the design was done to ensure that the distance of the setback from the existing property line took into consideration the possible acquisition for the additional right of way that NCDOT has shown as the controlled access new line, which is roughly 15 to 20-feet off of the existing line. That being the case, there would still be more than the adequate 20-foot setback. Those properties, just for a marketing aspect, would probably have some type of fenced in backyards and/or other types of screening, just to provide sound separation and visual separation from the parkway. As to whether a berm could be installed, Ms. Wolf explained while it is a possibility, the problem with the berm is that the land is denuded just to put new bushes on top of the berm, when it is felt it would be better to just leave the vegetation that is already there. As to emergency vehicle access, Ms. Wolf explained there is a lot of one-way in and one-way out streets in the County and is why there is a maximum length of cul-de-sacs. This project’s access is 150-feet between the through the street of Riplee and Spring Branch Road and the project’s loop. There are no other means of access. This is the best situation possible as far as having a loop within the site and only having the short access drive as far as being problematic, but it is not unusual. The width of the loop is to the local drive standard of 20-feet of through space, which is the Fire Services mandate. In response to further Board questions, Ms. Wolf confirmed that the three areas of parking spaces are overflow/guest parking spots. She further confirmed that a driver would have to pull into the driving portion of the road, but that is no different than a parking lot, shopping center, or a multi-family complex. There is 20-feet of asphalt plus two feet of gutters on either side for a total of 24-feet and it is a two lane road. The entire loop is a parking lot off the outside and where the driveways are. There are driveways instead of parking spaces, but the minimum depth even on the side with the sidewalk is at least 20-feet for any type of a parked car. The County regulations for parking spaces are 18-feet. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 650 A brief discussion was held about future NCDOT projects and the potential need to take land. Commissioner Barfield explained that several years ago, NCDOT had the ability to do corridor preservations which is where the County and the Wilmington Metropolitan Organization (WMPO) preserve a corridor for a period of three years. In that time period, the developer or anyone really could not do anything with their land other than wait for NCDOT to get the resources to buy the right of way. In the last several years, the courts have ruled that as a taking of land. He then provided an overview of how that was done away with and explained that corridor preservation no longer exists. NCDOT would have to have the resources to purchase the right of way as opposed to limiting access to it. The other option is NCDOT can look at it down the road to see what the cost would be to buy the access, if they deemed it is needed. With the current state budget shortfalls, it is unknown when NCDOT will resume projects in this area and it is unknown where that leaves this community. A brief discussion was held by the Board concerning the average household median value of homes in the County and the effort and County resources that go into trying to provide affordable housing. Ms. Wolf confirmed that it is approximately $309,000 according to an article in the Greater Wilmington Business Journal and that the price point for this project is around $250,000 to $260,000. She further confirmed that the owner of this parcel is the same person who developed the homes adjacent to it. She agreed that moving from nine to 22 homes and the impact of it are statistically very difficult, if not impossible, to measure. Commissioner White stated he thinks voting for this project would achieve the County’s stated policy goal of providing affordable housing, without doing further damage on the things such as traffic and other unsafe things. He stated that he would move to approve the request at the appropriate time. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that the opposition has five minutes to make rebuttal comments. In rebuttal, Mr. Sholar stated he is in the real estate business and he and his neighbors are not against the construction, but what they do not want is apples and oranges, they want apples and apples. The purchasers of the homes will only own the land under their house, not the yard. He and his neighbors own their yards, maintain them, etc. The proposed homes are a lot smaller than the existing homes and will be different construction. Their fear is that investors are going to buy them and college students will move into them. Regarding the company, the same company does own the land, but are not the same people. He and the neighbors want to keep the continuity of the neighborhood. It is clear it does not fit in the neighborhood, but it would be a great project somewhere else. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. A brief discussion was held by the Board regarding the ability to add a condition to the motion to ensure that potential buyers are made aware of where they are buying and what could happen. In response to Vice-Chair Kusek’s questions, Ms. Wolf stated it could be included in the disclosure of marketing it. However, there are maps available from NCDOT showing the future plans. She understands the desire to have it as a condition that it be part of showing the potential buyers rather than the people having to find it on their own. She does believe the condition that they would have to mark the document with the NCDOT master plan would be an acceptable condition. She noted that when the step was taken to record it as a townhome subdivision, because it is detached townhomes, that is what each property would be transferred as with the driveway footprint being limited common area and everything else common area, there would have to be an owner's association for maintenance of the stormwater pond of all of the open spaces, common areas, guest parking, etc. The plat could include a statement on it as a condition that it is subject to NCDOT project, etc. Commissioner White stated it may present problems conveying title to those lots in the back if it is put on a plat. If the area is not a designated corridor that is funded or NCDOT has given vague language, it will have to pay fair market value under the takings clause of the Constitution. He then provided a brief overview of how imminent domain works. He does not think the Board can usurp statutory processes with imminent domain or Constitutional processes with what is required and does not believe it is a probability. Ms. Wolf stated it would affect the homeowner’s association, rather than lots 14 – 16, if that is what NCDOT has envisioned. Commissioner White stated there are tremendous protections, if it were to occur, and he would think a realtor would want to disclose that on the HUD disclosure. Ms. Wolf noted the highway is there already, it might change whether it has the overpass or not, but the highway is already there. Commissioner Barfield stated that for the neighborhoods like this, the developer will give notice that there is the potential for something to happen, such as this interchange, that could impact the property but it is unknown what is going to happen, but notice is being given. It has also been talked about by NCDOT. Board discussion was held about housing affordability and how to attract and keep millennials in this community. The County has an affordable housing taskforce with the City of Wilmington and the County has donated land to Cape Fear Habitat for affordable housing. For people in this community making $45,000 a year, this is their price point. Commissioner Barfield stated that the price of $250,000 is a large amount to him, but at the same time there is a need to be serious about this issue and not turn down projects when the Board is saying it wants affordable housing. When the Board turns down things that fit the bill, he feels mixed messages are being sent. Commissioner Zapple stated he agrees with Commissioner Barfield’s point of view. It is understood and recognized that there is a need for higher density and at some point the Board has to take a stand to move some of the higher density projects forward and also support the Planning Department and its work to address the issue. That is the future and while he feels there is a cramming of a lot of very small homes on small lots on a small road, there is a need to see how this is going to work. He has concerns about the right of way issue and also sees Vice-Chair Kusek’s point of view. Buyers of lots 14 - 16 are going to have a rude awakening when they realize their first morning in their new homes just how close 90-feet is to the three lanes of traffic of the parkway. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 651 Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner White MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district as the Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project’s density is in-line with the density and housing type recommendations for the General Residential place type, and because this proposal will provide an orderly transition between the high intensity roadway corridors and the existing residential neighborhoods. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal assists with providing a diversity of ownership options in the area while supporting opportunities for housing with a range of price points. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4-1. Vice-Chair Kusek dissenting. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 9A OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 1, 1972, is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 9A, Page 59. WITHDRAWAL OF A REQUEST BY ANNA BESSELLIEU MCCAULEY ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, FRANCES BONEY BESSELLIEU REVOCABLE TRUST, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN OUTDOOR RECREATION ESTABLISHMENT (WEDDING VENUE) WITHIN THE R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 175 WHIPPORWILL LANE (S20-03) Chair Olson-Boseman announced that this matter was being withdrawn from the agenda. Ms. McCauley stated she is withdrawing her application for a special use permit as she no longer wishes to move forward with it. She has closed her business and the property is for sale. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY TO AMEND ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 10 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO SIMPLIFY THE METHOD OF MEASURING THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES; INCREASE HEIGHT MAXIMUMS FOR BUILDINGS IN THE RMF-MH, RMF- H, O&I, AND I-1 DISTRICTS; REVISE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; CLARIFY LIGHTING STANDARDS; ESTABLISH NEW DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES IN HIGH-VISIBILITY AREAS; UPDATE TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY STANDARDS; CORRECT MINOR ERRORS MADE WHEN REORGANIZING CODE DOCUMENTS; AND CLARIFY EXISTING PERMISSIONS (TA20-01) Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation. Senior Planner Rebekah Roth presented the request to amend Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to simplify the method of measuring the height of structures; increase height maximums for buildings in the RMF-MH, RMF-H, O&I, and I-1 Districts; revise the planned development district; clarify lighting standards; establish new design standards for self-storage facilities in high-visibility areas; update telecommunication facility standards; correct minor errors made when reorganizing code documents; and clarify existing permissions. This is a collection of development code updates intended to serve two primary purposes: 1) to make sure that the recommendations that came out of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan regarding a greater mix of uses, more housing diversity, and a wider spectrum of residential were allowed by the development regulations, and 2) to clarify and streamline the separate codes regulating development in unincorporated New Hanover County into one unified format to make sure they all worked together, were easier to use and understand, and to avoid unintentional conflicts. Those two primary purposes were addressed, and the core product of the project completed, earlier this year. The eight new zoning districts adopted last summer made sure that the land use goals of the Comprehensive Plan were allowed, and the UDO format provided the easy-to-use and integrated regulatory document. As the County now has a UDO, the items left to address are generally small fixes, housekeeping items to make sure the codes are clear to users, and final upgrades. These targeted amendments were divided into two parts, the first of which the Board will be considering now and a second round that will be considered by the Planning Board next month. This particular project has a very specific scope, which is almost complete. There will not be a wait of another 50 or even five years to update or improve the County regulations. There will still be regular operating system updates to fix glitches or make improvements identified by customers. Future amendments may result from changing legal requirements, additional non-policy related technical needs, policy direction from this Board, new programs like the stormwater ordinance changes being developed in conjunction with the Stormwater Services Program, and new data or information such as the findings from the comprehensive workforce housing study and survey due later this year. The third and last phase of the project, the final targeted amendments and technical fixes, was started this past spring, and the items being presented cover these three types of amendments. The administrative amendments for consideration include:  Clarification of existing lighting standards intended to limit light from spilling over onto neighboring properties  Clarification of existing provisions to make it more obvious that attached housing types, such as townhomes, are only allowed as part of performance residential projects in many districts  Clarification of existing provisions that say RVs and travel trailers can generally only be used as dwellings in Campground/RV Parks or on a temporary basis after an emergency event  Corrections to minor errors that were made when adapting the new zoning districts and when transferring code language into the UDO format NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 652 The legal compliance amendments include:  Updates to ensure telecommunication facility standards are in line with current state law  Revisions to fix the current broad definition of “boat” that has resulted in kayak racks involving stacking being in violation of the Zoning Ordinance if placed in residential backyards  The proposed amendment fixes that issue and provides standards for small watercraft storage to address impacts that could occur in conjunction with uses serving large numbers of people Finally, the amendment also includes:  A simplification of the way to measure the height of a structure  Incremental height increases to multi-family buildings in the RMF-MH and RMF-H districts to allow four story structures and to nonresidential structures in O&I and I-1 to accommodate changes in construction standards and market demand  Revisions to the Planned Development district to make sure it can support innovative projects that take into account the needs of particular properties and different county communities  New design standards for self-storage facilities in high-visibility areas These proposed code amendments have been prepared with the assistance of the consulting firm, Clarion, a nationally-recognized expert in writing development codes. They have been discussed for several months with a variety of stakeholder groups, including site designers, lighting experts, other jurisdictions, homebuilders, architects, engineers, the Cape Fear Realtors, and citizen groups. Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Ms. Roth for her presentation and announced that one person had signed up to speak in favor and one person signed up to speak in opposition and invited the speakers to provide their remarks. Cameron Moore, Executive Officer with the Cape Fear Homebuilders Association, spoke in support of the request stating that a lot of the amendments in front of the Board are, as explained by Ms. Roth, basically administrative corrections, clarifications, and really a strategic operation to now move from what the Board voted on last year with the eight new zoning districts and to this set of amendments forward. It is recognized there are concerns with one or two issues of boats and small watercraft stores, which was brought up to the Planning Board who did unanimously approve this amendment. While he recognizes there is an attorney to speak on those concerns, he does feel that the Board is at the point with these changes to move in its entirety, as far as the text amendments, forward by approving the amendments. Kurt Fryar, attorney representing the Porters Neck Quality of Life Association (Association), stated the Association opposes the text amendments that deal with the definition of the term boat and the provision that adds the small watercraft storage portion of text. He requested that copies of the map recorded in map book 5, page 23, the restrictive covenants recorded in deed book 464, page 419, the Superior Court order entered on August 29, 2017, the January 26, 1993 letter to the Porters Neck Company, and his August 31, 2020 letter be entered into the record. He provided an overview of said documents noting that in 2017, the Association was successful in a court case involving lots 11-A and 35-A, and the golf course placing storage racks on the two lots, which led to the court ordering the racks violated the County Zoning Ordinance. As such, the Association’s position is that the purpose of this amendment is to reverse the 2017 court order and that the County will not be acting in a legislative capacity if it passes the two amendments. It is the Association's position that the County will be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and that is not a lawful purpose to pass a zoning amendment. The amendment will affect only the two properties on Bald Eagle Lane rather than the entire County. Also, the text amendments deal with boat storage which is not mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is passed, the Association would like a requirement that a special use permit be obtained before placing small watercraft storage on a nonconforming use. The two lots owned and used by the golf course community on Bald Eagle Lane are nonconforming uses. However, the proposed text amendment conflicts with sections 44-1 and 44-5 of Article IV of the current Zoning Ordinance. While staff’s agenda packet information minimizes the kayak rack issue, the racks at the golf course community lots look nothing like the ones shown to the Board on slide 70 of the staff presentation. There were nine kayaks placed on a rack on the lots on Bald Eagle Lane; three sets of racks on each lot which total to 54 boats stored. None of those boats were owned by any resident of Bald Eagle Lane. Also, whether or not there is a kayak storage rack or a motor boat storage rack, noise will be created when people travel to obtain their boats. Noise will be created when people congregate around the boats, population will be congested, and the area could be filled with personal litter. The Association opposes the text amendment portion involving boats and small watercraft storage and requests that specific portion of the text amendment not be passed. In response to Board questions, Mr. Fryar confirmed that the court order was successful and it upheld and found sufficient evidence in five of the six Board of Adjustment’s findings. The Association’s argument was that a kayak was a boat and the judge agreed it was a boat. As to whether it was correct that the one finding where the court found that the County's ordinance did not comply with coming from the Board of Adjustment was the two stack kayaks versus three levels of kayaks, he stated that was not an issue before the court. The issue was whether or not dry stack storage of a kayak was permissible under the ordinance and the court ruled that a kayak was a boat, so the kayak racks placed on the lots were in violation of the County’s Zoning Ordinance. In response to Board questions, Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated that if the text amendment was approved it would apply countywide, including the unincorporated County. The amendment would allow a citizen to have two kayaks on a rack in their backyard, which they cannot currently do legally. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 653 A brief discussion was held about the ability to stack kayaks on their nose rather than in a horizontal position on top of each other and not be in violation of any conditions even before this request came forward. As to whether this was correct because it would not meet the standard of boat dry stacking, Ms. Huffman stated that her opinion is if a judge were determining if that would not violate the County ordinance, that would be correct. The same would apply with laying kayaks around on the ground because they would not be the dry stack storage of boats. That did happen in the case being discussed after the court determined that a kayak was a boat, under the County ordinance as it is currently written. The court determined that since a kayak was a boat, the way the County ordinance is written, if there are kayaks on horizontal racks, then that becomes the dry stack storage of boats, which cannot occur in a residential area. It is also her understanding that after the court entered the order, the kayak racks were removed and the kayaks were spread around on the ground, which did not violate the County ordinance, but then, they all went away. She reiterated that the ordinance, as amended, might ultimately, if the Porters Neck people came forward and obtained the special use permit to put a kayak rack on those lots, it could ultimately change what is there now. It will allow, throughout the County, the multitude of people who have illegal kayak racks in their backyards to now be legal. In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that there are least five non-confirming community boating facilities in the unincorporated County based on a review of aerial data and tax data showing when the structures were put into place, and potentially, approximately five more that are known in older subdivisions that have community boating facilities, but do not currently have special use permits. She further confirmed the text amendments would impact all of the facilities. In response to Board questions, Ms. Huffman stated her understanding is that lots 11-A and 35-A have been in place/permitted since 1992. She reiterated that the definition of boat being changed so that it does not include kayak, would now allow a kayak, two of them, to be stored in a person’s backyard appropriately. The additional language would provide for the community boating facility lots that at this point do not have a kayak rack and are in a residential area, if on these lots or any other community boating facilities lot that does not currently have a kayak rack, they would come to the Board and ask for special use permits. That is what the amendment was written to provide. Some people think it is overkill and do not want that, but again contrary to what Mr. Fryar stated, this was not brought forward to overturn the court order. It was brought forward so that people could have kayaks on racks in their backyards. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that the opposition has five minutes to make rebuttal comments. In rebuttal, Mr. Fryar stated that he personally does not know one person who has a kayak rack in their backyard. He has neighbors that have kayaks, but those are not vertically stored. He does not know whether they are aware of the court case. He did make a public records request from the County for records from the date that the court order was entered until the date of his request in August for all internal and external correspondence involving kayaks. Upon review of the information, he did not see one community that requested kayak racks. He saw one e-mail that was sent shortly after the court order was entered and it said that they were going to have the text amendment at this point in time. As such, it seems that the purpose of this text amendment is to overturn the 2017 court order and it is not coming from externally where people in this County are asking to have kayak storage for their boating facilities. In response to Board questions, Mr. Fryar stated he would agree that the legislature can tweak the foundation required and overturn a court ruling and that when judges rule one way, the legislative body that passes the laws changed the laws to overturn the court case. He stated that he was not suggesting that the Zoning Ordinance passed by this governing body cannot be amended. Rather, he is saying this amendment at most is going to affect five community boating facilities in the County. It does not affect enough people in the County for the Board to be acting in a legislative capacity. Commissioner White stated if the amendment does not specify the person, and it applies unilaterally everywhere, it is not unlawful, and it does not specify the two parcels being discussed but it may affect them. While he understands Mr. Fryar’s point, he does not agree with it. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman closed the public hearing and asked for direction from the Board. Commissioner Zapple stated the County now has a UDO that has been worked on for at least three years. It is a huge accomplishment. It is a living document that will constantly shift and grow with future amendments. Again, he thinks it is important to acknowledge and celebrate it, and stated that he would make the motion to approve the request. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Chair Olson-Boseman, to approve the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance that clarifies current provisions, maintains consistency with legal requirements, modifies height measurements and maximums, adds flexibility for planned development projects, and outlines appropriate standards for self-storage facilities and small watercraft storage. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides up-to-date zoning tools that reflect the plan’s recommended place types and development patterns. The Board also finds approval of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it clarifies current practices in the County’s development regulations for stakeholders and code users and allows for development appropriate in suburban communities common in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 654 A copy of the text amendment amending the Zoning Ordinance is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLII, 17.4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chair Olson-Boseman reported that five people signed up to speak on non-agenda items and invited those speakers to provide their remarks. Kerri Allen, representing the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF), stated she was speaking on behalf of the Cape Fear Economic Development Council, New Hanover County NAACP, League of Women Voters of the Lower Cape Fear, Alliance for Cape Fear Trees, Cape Fear River Watch, Cape Fear Sierra Club, and the NCCF to ask the Board to accept the comments that she emailed earlier in the day concerning an update to the County’s UDO process. All of the organizations she mentioned are asking the County to move forward with the evaluation and the public discussion of the industrial use and manufacturing sections of the UDO. It is understood that the UDO updates that have been ongoing are complete and that it is a dynamic document. The organizations request that the Board initiate a public and comprehensive discussion of three main items: 1) to require community information meetings for any light, heavy or industrial applications; 2) a review of external effects for these light, heavy and airport industrial applications; and 3) to engage a heavy manufacturing industry expert to perform an independent analysis to determine what industries are appropriate and each of the sections. She expressed appreciation for the opportunity to be involved in the UDO project and the Board and staff’s ongoing work on it. Priss Endo, representing the Cape Fear Sierra Club, stated it is imperative that community information meetings be required for all industrial special use applications. When the industrial special use ordinance was being finalized four years ago, industrial stakeholders at the last minute slipped in an unsubstantiated reclassification of heavy industries to light industry in the I-1 district. The change was made against the expressed wishes of many concerned citizens and community organizations. Also pharmaceutical manufacturing, actually a form of heavy chemical manufacturing, was designated a by-right use with little oversight. The meetings would serve the applicant, citizens, and the County by opening up negotiation pathways early in the process and openly discussing topics that staff and Board members would be unlikely to explore. She urged the Board to amend the UDO to mandate a community information meeting for all industrial uses. Clark Henry, resident of Shore Point Road, stated he serves on the Cape Fear Economic Development (CFED) Board and that he is a professional planning and development consultant. He congratulated the Board and staff for the work done on the UDO and noted that the consultant the County has been working with during the process is great. Regarding economic development, our environmental quality is an asset that is supporting the County’s economy and future growth. He asked the Board to recognize the importance the UDO and other planning efforts have in maintaining that quality of life and sense of place in that environment. The Urban Land Institute cited in its 2020 predictions that smart growth oriented communities that are walkable and bike-able, have safe and clean environments, and a lot of recreation activity is very important for the ongoing economy and should be realized in suburban as well as rural contexts. The Monkey Junction and Ogden/Porter’s Neck areas should be developing in a way that has some of the attributes of downtown. The UDO has the potential to help realize that in addition to additional planning for small area plans. He encouraged the Board to move forward with the recommendations in the NCCF letter as well as small area planning. Kemp Burdette, resident of Surry Street, stated he is the Cape Fear Riverkeeper and represents thousands of local Cape Fear residents and the freshwater resources that they depend on for their survival and for their livelihood. Industrial polluters are not always truthful about what goes on at their facilities, despite what they would have people otherwise believe. He then provided an overview of the issues with actions taken by Chemours and its parent company DuPont in regard to failing to report spills and attempts to hide the impacts of their toxic waste stream on human health for people downstream from the plants. He noted that other companies in the area have done the same thing and some fairly recently. There is a need for a careful and transparent review of the proposed projects, as it is known that industrial polluters are sometimes untruthful about facility operations, and for the information on the potential environmental and health impacts to a community to be fully presented. The idea that government would seek an unbiased and expert feedback on industries that have the potential to have significant impacts on human health and the environment should not even need to be discussed. Increased trends in transparency are a step in the right direction. Local governments are the first line of defense against industrial polluters that have repeatedly proven that if given the opportunity, they will put profit over people. Recently passed laws at the state level shield polluters from oversight and accountability. Citizens cannot rely on the state or federal governments to protect them and they need local government, as the most accountable form of government, to do that. He urged the Board to include public participation in any future industrial projects in this County, including community information hearings. Dr. Robert Parr, resident of Falcon Pointe Road, stated he is a member of all the organizations that have been mentioned and keeping citizens actively involved in the planning process is vital, especially concerning items that might not have the support of some members of the Board. When the industrial special use ordinance was created, citizens were repeatedly promised that modifications would be open for discussion and change. The UDO is not a static document. Removing early citizen input is precarious as proven in the area's history of industrial near misses. Arbitrarily reclassifying intense industries to less intense industries without a rational vetting process opens the door to ill-advised industrial uses located adjacent to residential neighborhoods, parks, waterways, and groundwater resources is not good planning. Pharmaceutical manufacturing, which is in fact a type of heavy chemical manufacturing with a long history of environmental disasters, should not be a by-right use anywhere. If these NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 655 concepts are to be incorporated into the UDO, they should be discussed in an open format, which is exactly what citizens were promised would be the case. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS Funding Commitment to YMCA for a Natatorium and Request for Project Update Commissioner Zapple requested that a review of the YMCA contract be completed by County staff and for an update on the status of continuing to provide the $150,000 annual funding for a natatorium. He also would like YMCA Director Dick Jones to provide an update on the natatorium plans. County Manager Coudriet confirmed the County commitment of $150,000 per year for 10 years to a capital campaign. The YMCA, he thinks due to obstacles in fundraising, has rethought possibly what the capital approach should be. Once the County was informally notified of this change, the YMCA was informed that the County would stop the funding commitment and if the decision was to go another way, that the prior County contributions should be returned to the County and the Board would need to be informed of what the new capital approach would be. Deputy County Manager Tim Burgess further explained that only two payments have been made and the rest was withheld since learning of the plan to relook at what project was going to be done. Rather than a natatorium, the YMCA is looking at possibly renovating several pool locations. County Manager Coudriet explained the approval of the budget amendment was to rollover funds from the prior fiscal year to the current fiscal year, but the funds specifically for the YMCA are not being disbursed. However, if the YMCA recommits to the original plan, the County would be in a position to honor the commitment, but again the funds are not currently being dispersed. Commissioner White stated his recollection was the Board was in the middle of discussing the parks and recreation bond money and that the advertisement suggested there would be half a million dollars for a natatorium and that did not come to fruition. The YMCA pitched it stating their need of $150,000 for 10 years and the same request was made of the City of Wilmington and the school system. He asked whether the YMCA will be keeping the $300,000 already appropriated and how is it addressed in the memorandum of understanding (MOU). County Manager Coudriet stated the YMCA is not proceeding with spending the County funds. It was left with the leadership that staff would not recommend to the Board to modify the MOU and staff was under the impression that the YMCA would be reaching out to each Commissioner to explain why the plans changed. Commissioner White stated he would never have supported giving public dollars to the YMCA for a natatorium in the absence of the expressed suggestion to the public 10 years before that they were going to get it in a bond referendum. He thinks that was the only reason why it was advocated for because counterparts to this Board suggested to the public that if they vote for the parks and recreation bond, they would get a natatorium and they did not get one. All agreed to give the public one and help fund it and that is the only reason why he would have supported a specific line item appropriation for a natatorium. If the bond item 10 years before had never been in the public domain, he would not have supported it here and told Dick Jones and Jim Hunley that at the time. However, because of that good faith suggestion to the public that they were going to get one, that is why he voted in support of it. Commissioner Barfield stated during the time the funding was allocated, there were other non-profits in great need and this type of instance has happened before. Going forward he wants to make sure when people come to the Board, they have their plans in place and know exactly what they are going to do. $150,000 of the County’s budget for the non-profit is a pretty substantial amount of resources that again, could have helped a lot of other community organizations. He is greatly concerned that the project has still not started. County Manager Coudriet stated he is not suggesting that as a matter of definitive policy the YMCA has changed course. That is what their leadership was thinking about and what they were going to share with the Board. He apologized if they have not along the way, but he is not suggesting the YMCA has completely abandoned its course. As he understands it, there have been fundraising challenges that have the leadership thinking about how to proceed, which is why County funds have not been dispersed to them for the last two fiscal years. He cannot speak as to what the City of Wilmington or the school system have done as far as funding, much less any commitment to the fundraising. That may have been part of the YMCA’s challenge. He confirmed that he will notify Mr. Jones st and/or the YMCA board chair that the Board has asked that they attend the September 21 meeting to provide an update. He will have staff email the MOU to the Board. Request for the New Hanover County Schools Superintendent to Provide an Update on Operation of School Facilities Commissioner Zapple stated that in regard to the New Hanover County Board of Education’s application for NC Education Lottery funds for $2.4 million in capital projects, all nine schools referenced in the application have no students. He did not see anyone from the school system attending today’s meeting that could address his questions. There are 43 brick and mortar schools that the County is putting money into and one application was for $17,000 for paint designs for Ashley High School, which does not include the cost to paint the school. He would like further clarification on that project as well as why four independent design teams were paid for HVAC system designs for four different schools instead of one designer. More importantly, the overall discussion is about the need to start thinking about what will be done with these facilities that are currently not being used. He is not sure they will be used again at full capacity as it is known things are going to change. Commissioner White stated he knows a lot of attention has been paid by the school system to the new paradigm it has adopted. All recognize that charter schools, for the most part, and private schools did not adopt the same paradigm. This Board is not able to affect that nor is it in the Board’s jurisdiction to choose those policy positions. However, Kevin Maurer’s article in the Port City Daily pinpointed what all know intuitively, which is the impact this is having is disproportionately affecting minority children that do not have choice, a computer at home, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PAGE 656 easy access to computers, or easy access to transportation or alternatives. People with choices are migrating to private school, homeschooling, or elsewhere and that accelerates the achievement gap and worsens all of the problems that we are trying to solve. He would like to hear what the school system is doing about it. He has closely followed what they are trying to do with their online capabilities. In addition to maintaining the public school facilities as spoken about by Commissioner Zapple, he thinks it is smart to look at their electricity use and spending capital on empty buildings, but he would also suggest that they need to be occupied much sooner rather than later. If that does not happen, it is going to forever affect the lives of kids without choices. The school system has to balance the interests of the pandemic with the other interest of leaving these kids behind because that is what is happening. He has not really heard a lot from the school system as to what it is doing to address the acceleration of the achievement gaps in those areas. County Manager Coudriet stated it was his understanding that Assistant Superintendent Eddie Anderson was present earlier in the meeting and as such, he does not want the Board to think the school system was nonresponsive. In response to Board questions, he explained there is a new fixed date in October for when the report is due on the per pupil population in the schools. He will clarify that and what the actual average daily membership (ADM) is based on students that showed up. Superintendent Foust and school board members will be asked to st attend the September 21 meeting to for an update and discussion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Olson-Boseman adjourned the meeting at 6:36 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.