2020-11-16 Regular Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 699
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, November 16, 2020,
at 4:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington,
North Carolina.
Members present: Chair Julia Olson-Boseman; Vice-Chair Patricia Kusek; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield,
Jr.; Commissioner Woody White; and Commissioner Rob Zapple.
Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board
Kymberleigh G. Crowell.
Chair Olson-Boseman announced she had to step out of the meeting for a personal matter and asked that
Vice-Chair Kusek start the meeting.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Pastor Gayle Tabor, Church on Tap, provided the invocation and Chair Olson-Boseman led the audience in
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Vice-Chair Kusek requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Commissioner Zapple requested that Consent Item #12: Adoption of Budget Amendments be removed from
the Consent Agenda for further discussion and consideration.
Motion: Commissioner White MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Kusek, to approve the remaining items on the
Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes – Governing Body
The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 28, 2020 and the Regular
Meeting of October 5, 2020.
Adoption of 2021 Schedule of Agenda Review and Regular Board of Commissioners Meetings – Governing Body
The Commissioners adopted the 2021 Schedule of Agenda Review and Regular Board of Commissioners
Meetings.
A copy of the schedule is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLII,
Page 21.1.
Adoption of State Road Resolutions – Governing Body
The Commissioners adopted the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) State Road
Resolution in support of adding the following roads to the state system:
Ulloa Place and Marquette Drive located within the Sycamore Grove subdivision (Division File No: 1225-
N)
Middle Grove Lane located within the subdivision of Clay Crossing in New Hanover County (Division File
No: 1277-N)
Gate Post Lane located within The Lakes at Johnson Farms subdivision in New Hanover County (Division
File No: 1287-N)
Copies of the resolutions are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book
XLII, Page 21.2.
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Repair, Restoration and Rebinding of Register of Deeds Records –
Register of Deeds
The Commissioners adopted a resolution for the removal of record books from the registry for repair,
restoration and rebinding. North Carolina General Statute 132-7 provides that the board of county commissioners
of any county may authorize that any county records in need of repair, restoration or rebinding be removed from
the building or office in which such records are ordinarily kept for the length of time required to repair, restore, or
rebind them.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLII,
Page 21.3.
Adoption of Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation – County Manager
The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing October 2020 as Domestic Violence Awareness
Month in New Hanover County.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 700
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book
XLII, Page 21.4.
Adoption of Diabetes Awareness Month Proclamation – Health and Human Services
The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing November 2020 as Diabetes Awareness 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 21.5.
Adoption of Adoption Awareness Month Proclamation – Health and Human Services
The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing November 2020 as Adoption Awareness 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 21.6.
Approval of Personnel Policy Changes – Human Resources
The Commissioners approved the personnel policy changes to be effective November 16, 2020. In
summary:
A number of changes including text modifications for better clarification to processes already in place.
Change to current policies related to leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and under
paid parental leave. Changes will eliminate combined leave limits shared between employees (spouses
or parents of children) under the FMLA and paid parental leave policies.
Update of education leave policy allowing benefits-eligible employees up to three hours of leave per
week to attend courses for a degree program related to a county function, when the course is only
offered during work hours.
Addition of a personal floating holiday for employees to use each calendar year (beginning January 1,
2021) for religious, cultural, or federal observances not included in our designated holiday schedule.
Approval of September 2020 Tax Collection Reports – Tax Department
The Commissioners accepted the Tax Collection Reports of New Hanover County, New Hanover County
Debt Service, and New Hanover County Fire District as of September 2020.
Copies of the tax collection reports are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and are contained in
Exhibit Book XLII, Page 21.7.
Approval of Eight Donations for Accession into the Museum’s Permanent Collection - Museum
The Commissioners approved a list of eight items to be accessioned into the Cape Fear Museum’s
permanent collection. The objects were approved by the Museum Advisory Board at the meeting on September 16,
2020 and a list of the items is available for review at the Cape Fear Museum.
Approval of Board of Education Capital Outlay Budget Transfer – Finance
The Commissioners approved the Board of Education Capital Outlay Budget Transfer. On October 6, 2020,
the Board of Education approved a Capital Outlay Budget Transfer as follows:
Capital Outlay Fund – Transfer $25,000 from bond contingency to HVAC Control
Improvements. Additional funding is needed to cover the budget shortfall of the HVAC Improvement
project at Rachel Freeman School of Engineering.
Adoption of Budget Amendment 21-021 for Hurricane Isaias Expenses – Finance
The Commissioners adopted budget amendment 21-021 for Hurricane Isaias expenses to cover estimated
costs of the hurricane response, recovery and repairs in the amount of $358,792 for the general fund expenses, as
follows:
Category Estimated Expense
Salary 29,958
Supplies/Services 108,705
Repairs 220,129
As not all costs are known or incurred to date, this budget amendment is only an estimate of costs known to date
and actual costs may vary from this estimate. An additional budget amendment may be brought to the Board once
all costs are known and incurred, if needed. It is expected the majority of the expenses incurred related to this event
will be reimbursed through disaster assistance.
A copy of the budget amendment is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit
Book XLII, Page 21.8.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 701
Approval of Loan Agreement with New Hanover Community Endowment – Finance
The Commissioners approved for the County Manager to negotiate and execute the loan agreement with
New Hanover Community Endowment (Endowment). While the organization has been registered with the Secretary
of State, there is additional work that must be completed to secure the organization's non-profit status and to
prepare for the work they will be engaged in. To complete the work that needs to be accomplished, the Endowment
will need to begin engaging professional services such as legal, consulting and financial assistance. These services
will be required before the close of the sale of New Hanover Regional Medical Center (NHRMC) and the distribution
of proceeds to the Endowment. The loan agreement includes a $100,000 loan to the Endowment at no interest that
will be repaid within 30 days of the Endowment receiving proceeds from the sale of NHRMC. Should the closing not
occur, the Endowment will be required to repay any unspent funds to the County. The source of the advance
payment to the Endowment is additional profit distributions anticipated from the ABC Board and is not coming from
the County's fund balance.
Discussion and Adoption of Budget Amendments – Budget
In regard to Commissioner Zapple’s question on budget amendment 21-022, Chief Financial Officer Lisa
Wurtzbacher stated when budget planning is being done grant amounts have to be estimated because it is not
always known what the amounts are going to be. As grants are awarded the budget has to reflect the actual amount
of the award. The budget amendment increases the budget by $15,359.
In regard to Commissioner Zapple’s question on budget amendment 21-025, Recovery and Resilience
Director Beth Schrader stated when there is a voluntary acquisition program, such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) for accelerated buy outs, there are state funds available for people to help when moving to a new
place costs more, closing costs, etc. It helps to bridge the gap. There are management overhead costs that are
collectable as a result. Once the budget amendment is adopted by the Board, staff can proactively work with the
people to apply who are a part of the HMGP. People can contact her office to discuss if they qualify for this grant or
any others that may be available.
In regard to Commissioner Zapple’s question on budget amendment 21-032, Ms. Wurtzbacher stated that
July sales tax came in better than expected, August was a little off, and what occurred was expected. The large refund
that is typically received in September actually came in August. It was the largest refund received and the tracking
is done on a four-year basis. There is currently no information on October. The merit pool that is utilized every year
is not a new program and is based on evaluations that are administered by supervisors, reviewed by Human
Resources, and said department handles the process to allocate the merits.
Hearing no further discussion, Vice-Chair Kusek asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield, to approve Consent Item #12:
Adoption of Budget Amendments as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.
Additional information: The Commissioners adopted the following budget amendments which amend the
annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021:
Elections 21-019 (to account for additional CARES Act funding awarded to New Hanover County for the
November election)
Health & Human Services/DSS 21-020
Senior Resource Center 21-022, 21-024
Recovery & Resilience 21-025
Finance 21-032
Copies of the budget amendments are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and are contained in
Exhibit Book XLII, Page 21.9.
REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF SMOKING AND VAPING RULE
Health Director Phillip Tarte presented the following information concerning the smoking and vaping rule
highlighting the following:
Rule to Restrict the Use of Smoking and E-cigarettes in New Hanover County:
Effects of Smoke and Smoking:
Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 20 million adults have died from smoking
complications
In 2017, 17.2% of North Carolina adults smoked cigarettes
In 2020 nationally, 19.6% of high school students (3.02 million) and 4.7% of middle school
students (550,000) reported current e-cigarette use
Among current e-cigarette users, 38.9% of high school students and 20.0% of middle school
students reported using e-cigarettes on 20 or more of the past 30 days
Seven out of 10 smokers want to quit smoking
Exposure to secondhand smoke causes an estimated 41,000 deaths each year:
Coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 702
If current rates continue, 5.6 million Americans younger than 18 years of age who are alive
today are projected to die prematurely from smoking-related disease
Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disability in the United States:
16 million Americans have at least one disease caused by smoking
$170 billion in direct medical costs that could be saved every year
In October 2009, the Institute of Medicine released a report, Secondhand Smoke Exposure and
Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence
Conclusions:
The evidence is consistent with a causal relationship between secondhand smoke
exposure and acute coronary events, including acute myocardial infarctions
It is biologically plausible for a relatively brief exposure to secondhand smoke to
precipitate an acute coronary event
There is a causal relationship between smoke-free laws and decreases in acute coronary
events
Less Harmful Doesn’t Mean “Safe”:
E-cigarettes (Vaping):
In addition to nicotine, the aerosol inhaled and exhaled can contain heavy metals, volatile
organic compounds, and ultrafine particles that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs
While e-cigarettes have the potential to benefit some people and harm others, much to
learn about whether e-cigarettes are effective for quitting smoking
E-cigarettes are not safe for youth, young adults, and pregnant women, as well as adults
who do not currently use tobacco products
Smoking and COVID Research
Targeting:
Social Justice Issue:
African American children and adults are more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke
than any other racial or ethnic group
African Americans smoke at a similar rate compared to white people every day or some
days, but they are more likely to die from a tobacco-related disease than white people
Tobacco use disproportionately affects minority groups, who have a long history of being
targeted by the tobacco industry
Economic Impact of Local Regulations:
Goldstein, A.O.; Sobel, R.A., "Environmental tobacco smoke regulations have not hurt
restaurant sales in North Carolina," North Carolina Medical Journal 59(5): 284-287,
September/October, 1998
Pyles, M.K.; Hahn, E.J., "Economic effects of smoke-free laws on rural and urban counties in
Kentucky and Ohio," Nicotine and Tobacco Research 14(1): 111-115, January 2012
Conclusion:
Research shows that this protection resulted in no adverse economic effect on the
restaurant industry. Even in the number one tobacco-producing state in the US, ETS
regulations present no adverse economic impact - Goldstein
There is no evidence that the local economies in Kentucky and Ohio counties were
affected in any way from the implementation of local smoke-free laws; wages increased
following the implementation of the law - Pyles
Current Regulations – NC House Bill 2:
North Carolina’s Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars Law was passed in May, 2009, effective on
January 2, 2010
Enclosed areas of almost all restaurants and bars to be smoke-free
Carve outs:
Twenty percent (20%) of guest rooms in lodging establishments
Cigar bars that meet specific requirements
Private clubs - country clubs or organizations with selected membership - which are
operated by the membership, have non-profit status, and provide restricted food and
lodging services
Establishments that are exempt from the state's sanitation laws
Gave local governments the authority to adopt local rules and ordinances restricting or
prohibiting smoking
Rule for Public Protection:
In July of 2019, the New Hanover County Health and Human Services Board began discussions
related to our youth and their consumption of nicotine containing products
From that early discussion the consideration evolved into a local rule to prohibit the use of e-
cigarettes and smoking:
E-cigarettes – Known contaminants and potential harmful effects
Smoking – History of research and known effects
Iterations and Public Involvement:
Result: numerous iterations of the rule that would be protective of the public’s health
Early on and throughout:
Met with partners that included municipalities and others to discuss the proposed rule
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 703
Solicited public comments from the community
Legislative Intent for Collaboration:
This rule requires approval by an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC)
After approval, it will apply throughout the entire county with no additional action or approval
of city or town councils in New Hanover County:
Rule Ordinance
Jurisdiction Countywide Unincorporated areas
Limitations Related to Health Broad
Enforcement Criminal/Civil/Penalties Fines/Infractions
Impose Taxes No No
Prohibitions for Smoking and Vaping:
Enforcement and Penalties:
Smoking:
Set forth by statute
$50 penalty on the individual
$200 on the facility after third violation
Vaping (e-cigarettes):
N.C. General Statute 130A-18 as an injunction
Violations shall constitute a misdemeanor as set forth in N.C. General Statute 130A-25
Public Education and Implementation:
Public Education - Priority (education over enforcement):
Engagement of community partners scheduled for rollout
Signage available from the NC Tobacco Branch
Media/Marketing campaign
1-800-QUIT NOW (1-800-784-8669) or visit QuitLineNC.com:
Free cessation services including counseling and medication (eight weeks of nicotine
replacement therapy – free)
For more information, visit Health.NHCgov.com
HHSB Members: Dr. Virginia Adams; Dr. Melody Evans; Dr. Linda Francis; Michelle Gunn; Dr.
Kim Horne; Commissioner Patricia Kusek; Jody Long; Amy McLane; Candy Robbins; Frankie
Roberts; Dr. Robert Schiffel; Dr. Stephanie Smith, Chair; Dr. LeShonda Wallace, Vice-Chair; Dr.
Edward Weaver; Dr. David Zub
Staff Recommendation:
Approve the local Health and Human Services Board rule as written for implementation
effective February 1, 2021.
Chair Olson-Boseman returned to the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
In response to Board questions, Deputy County Attorney Kemp Burpeau stated the original draft proposed
included streets and sidewalks. The City of Wilmington, through its counsel, brought attention to how difficult that
would make enforcement. It was shown that some streets and sidewalks have a City easement, not the underlying
fee owner, sometimes they own the fee and sometimes the sidewalks are private. The City also felt it had an attorney
general opinion about enforcement of ordinances stating the municipality has to be in control of the property. As
such, the City felt merely maintaining it or doing other activities did not always rise to the level of control. Bottom
line, there was an enforcement issue as well as some pragmatic issues with the many thousands of cumulative miles
of streets and sidewalks in the City and if additional signage had to be posted, it would be a mandatory impact. There
was also the issue of the kind of treatment, whether you had a public sidewalk in front of your building or a private
area that was somehow designated as a sidewalk with cafes tables. It made it essentially unworkable to address that
and the rule no longer covers sidewalks.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 704
As to enforcement on state properties, Mr. Tarte stated the state has a regulatory scheme with smoking
within their jurisdictional property and that scheme closely matches this new rule. He does not know if vaping is
specifically included in the state smoking rules. Mr. Burpeau stated that he does not know if the state included it
and the state would be at liberty to do what the county and municipalities are doing. Mr. Tarte further stated the
UNCW campus is a state-owned property and would have its own tobacco-free policies as would the school system.
As to how far from the door of an establishment does someone have to be before they can smoke or vape,
Mr. Tarte stated there is typically a 50-foot rule under statute for any facility that public health is located in. It would
be up to that facility to do anything on the outside perimeter. The exception to that would be restaurants and bars
that have an established smoking area and it was understood that the Board wanted to make sure that that
investment had been there. It does not mean that this cannot be revisited at some point in time, along with the
other items, but those establishments would have the outside venues to allow smoking and vaping. As to the
distance required for patrons of the Wilson Center to be from the building to smoke or vape, Mr. Tarte stated that
there is nothing in the rule addressing that. Mr. Burpeau explained that the rule specifically references the general
statute that has to be used and the specific standard for enclosed spaces. The exception is graded restaurants and
bars which can cover other areas, which is why they can have a designated outside area.
As to how the rule pertains to the Carolina Beach boardwalk and the Riverwalk downtown and if those
areas were considered in the sidewalks discussions, Mr. Burpeau confirmed those were and are included within the
parks system on an allowable basis depending on what that municipality wants to do.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for the Board’s direction on the request.
Motion: Commissioner White MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to approve and adopt the rule adopted
by the New Hanover County Health and Human Services Board through the Board of County Commissioners
Ordinance. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the ordinance is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLII,
Page 21.10.
COVID-19 UPDATE
Assistant Health Director Carla Turner presented information on the current status of COVID-19 in the
County as follows:
Weekly trends:
Current Status of COVID-19 in New Hanover County (through 5:00 pm on 11/15/20):
Cumulative lab positive cases: 6,255
5,371 presumed recovered; 837 active
47 deaths: Ages: 25-49: 2; 50-64: 8; 65 and over: 36 (Male: 33; Female: 14)
32 hospitalized (from New Hanover County and surrounding counties)
Commissioner Barfield encouraged everyone to take this matter seriously. A former county commissioner,
Bob McCall, passed away recently from COVID and was just short of 60 and in great health. Ms. Turner agreed with
Commissioner Barfield that it does take on a new status when it affects you personally. It is very important to follow
the three W’s: wear the mask, stay at least six feet apart, and wash your hands with soap and water or hand sanitizer
as frequently as possible. That message is being pushed out as the goal is to do everything possible to protect the
community.
As to the upcoming holidays and how people may want to alter their traditional gatherings, Ms. Turner
stated that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NC
DHHS) have recommended and are pushing out information that people can celebrate with their household unit,
which are people that live together and are together all the time. If other people are going to come to the house,
the indoor gathering limit is ten, according to Governor Cooper’s executive order. If people are going to come in, it
is best if everyone can bring their own food and beverage so no one is sharing plates. If the food is going to be cooked
at one place, one person could cook it and wear a mask and gloves when doing it. When the food is served, have
one person serve the food to everybody, again, with masks and gloves on. Also, have hand sanitizer available or a
bathroom easily accessible so everyone can wash their hands when they walk in, before eating, and when they are
done. When not sitting at a table eating, everyone should keep a mask on and stay six feet apart.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 705
Mr. Tarte continued the presentation highlighting the following:
Support of New Hanover County (NHC) Schools and UNCW:
NHC Schools:
Provided advice and counsel to NHC schools since March
Representative on NHCS Health Committee
Participate in weekly teleconference meetings
School nursing supervisors conduct teleconference meetings with school leadership every
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
School nurses are doing contact tracing with identified in-school case contacts
Community health nurses are doing contact tracing with identified out-of-school case contacts
UNCW:
Advisory committee for re-opening representation
Imbedded contact tracers with UNCW Health Center
Surge testing located on UNCW campus
Expanded hours of test site available for UNCW students
Assistant Health Director David Howard presented the information on the COVID-19 vaccination planning:
COVID-19 Vaccination Planning:
Nine-month duration for total vaccination campaign – mirroring the NC DHHS plan
Phased approach – four phases: 1 (1a and 1b) 2, 3, and 4
Internal and External Partners will play important roles
Early limited supply will go to specific groups – increased supply to broader groups
Initial vaccine availability not known for sure – possibly December
Two vaccinations in Phase 3 clinical trials – others in Phase 2 or earlier
Of note: several therapeutics (treatments) are also in trials
Scenario Planning:
Who: Plans detail our operations for each priority group through the phases
What: Different types of vaccines will require adjustments
When: Will follow phases, and adjust to supply and demand
How: Different types of vaccine require certain working environments
Where: Initially via strike teams to facilities, later fixed locations and Public Health clinic
Other Important Considerations:
Record Keeping Process – CDC developing a system to track all relevant data (two dose regimens;
adverse events tracking
Emergency Use Authorization Indications for each vaccine: age groups, underlying conditions, etc.
Assistant Social Services Director Tonya Jackson presented the following information on the housing and
childcare assistance programs:
Housing Assistance Program (data as of 11/13/20; program end date 11/30/20):
Participation: 261 Households Assisted
Utilization: rent; mortgage; housing deposits; late/past due fees
Total Expenditures: $329,201
Childcare Assistance Program (as of 11/13/20; program service end date 12/18/20)
Participation: 41 childcare centers
Utilization: 418 children
Expenditures: $511,507
Chair Olson-Boseman thanked staff for providing the update.
UPDATE ON HURRICANE FLORENCE HOUSING RECOVERY AND APPROVAL OF NEW RESILIENCE PROJECTS
Recovery and Resilience Director Beth Schrader provide an update on several ongoing recovery projects, as
well as present on new funding opportunities for recovery and resilience initiatives as follows:
Disaster Recovery Act (DRA) Housing Grant Program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
Accelerated Buy Outs. The DRA program is state funded and the program is treated by the County as a
program of last resort. It is essentially for those properties that no other program can help. There are
five families that either have returned to or will be back in their home by Thanksgiving. Four more are
currently underway in construction or being acquired. A meeting with the Historical Preservation
Committee is forthcoming on reviewing a rebuild on a new house in two separate locations in the
historic district for clients. Finally, two contracts are in progress for two homes. There are still people
being found who still have damage and they are being encouraged to continue to reach out to the case
managers and to the County.
The accelerated buyout program took approximately two years to happen and is 75% funded by FEMA
and 25% funded by the state. It is voluntary and targeted to people in the floodplain, who have had
repetitive damage, etc. Six properties have been closed on and the associated lands acquired, and
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 706
rd
another is slated to close on November 23. Two are awaiting an administrative approval by the state
and FEMA to do a cost line transfer and a mortgage lender that has elected to do a follow-up or a
second appraisal to see if the appraisal comes in higher. Additionally, from the non-expedited group,
there are five buyouts and five elevations that staff is waiting for FEMA to send approval. Requests for
information have been received, which shows that these are coming close to the point in time to
receive an award letter.
North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resilience (NCORR) Strategic Buyout Program. NCORR has
allocated the majority of the state’s Hurricane Florence Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Mitigation Funds towards a Strategic Buyout Program. The state independently identified areas that
met their criteria. However, counties also have the option to designate additional areas to participate
in this 100% voluntary program. This is a HUD program that the state is administering and has
additional flexible, low to moderate income requirements, and higher gaps in the amount of money it
can spend. Staff is recommending and requesting Board approval to include several small strategic
areas as part of the program.
FEMA – Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program. For the inaugural year of
this grant program, each state/territory has been allocated up to $600,000 and, additionally, $446.4
million has been allocated to the national competition. North Carolina requested letters of interest
(LOI) for potential projects, and convened a technical review panel to screen and select the projects
that stood the best chance of success. All three of the County’s proposed projects were selected, and
the County has been invited to apply to the national competition. Staff is requesting approval to submit
formal applications to the state by December 18th. Notification of awards will occur on June 30, 2021.
1) Enhancing Community Resilience and Energy Security - In looking at power outage and restoration
data from Hurricane Florence and other recent storms, there are certain parts of the community
that experience extended delays in power restoration. In collaboration with the NC DEQ, US
Department of Energy, UNC-Charlotte EPIC Center, Duke Energy and affected communities, this
project will identify and ensure access to core community services and lifelines such as pharmacies
and grocery stores in the wake of storm events.
2) Enhancing Storm Water and Flooding Resiliency for Prince George Creek Watershed Using Green,
Traditional, and Hybrid Infrastructure Elements – To reduce flooding risk, address stormwater
capacity issues, and water quality, this project will identify green (nature-based) and grey
(engineered) projects that will enhance performance of the watershed system as a whole and
provide additional capacity. The key deliverable will be designed / engineered and shovel-ready
green and grey solutions. This will allow the county to better seek additional funding,
communicate, collaborate, and plan project implementation. The project team includes
Engineering, the Soil and Water Conservation District, Parks and Gardens, Cooperative Extension,
Planning, and Recovery and Resilience, and will invite key non-profit partners to participate as well.
3) Enhancing Storm Water and Flooding Resiliency for Smith Creek Watershed Using Green,
Traditional, and Hybrid Infrastructure Elements – This project is identical to the Prince George
Creek Watershed project, but applied to the Smith Creek watershed. Like the project above, this
will result in a holistic portfolio of designed and engineered projects creating a shared and
coordinated programmatic plan.
Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Ms. Schrader for the presentation and asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner White MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Kusek to approve the recommended areas for
inclusion in the voluntary Strategic Buyout program and approved submission of BRIC applications.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Schrader stated that as it pertains to stormwater resilience (Prince
George) and the potential of adding FEMA to the stormwater utility efforts, it was correct that the County is trying
to use the stormwater utility as the match as opposed to a full ride for doing the stormwater projects. By doing this
on a watershed basis, and including both green and gray infrastructure, it would make the County eligible for FEMA
infrastructure monies and would allow for more funds to work with.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman called for a vote on the motion on the floor. Upon vote,
the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PRESENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2021 FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL RESULTS
Chief Financial Officer Lisa Wurtzbacher presented a fiscal summary for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2020,
which includes financial activity from July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021:
General Fund Revenues:
Total general fund revenues at 12.6% of budget
$26.4 million in property tax received
No sales tax distribution due to lag in state distribution
First quarter comparisons:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 707
2021: Ad Valorem was $26.4 million; Other was $13.9 million
2020: Ad Valorem was $20.7 million; Other was $9.5 million
2019: Ad Valorem was $16.6 million; Other was $8.1 million
Debt Service Fund Revenues:
Revenues collected 10.5% of budget
$3.5 million in property tax received
No sales tax or transfers from other funds recorded in first quarter
First quarter comparisons:
2021: $3.5 million; Other was $1.3 million
2020: Ad Valorem was $2.7 million; Other was $1.2 million
2019: Ad Valorem was $2.2 million; Other was $0.3 million
General and Debt Service Expenditures:
Expenditures through the first quarter represent 23.5% of budget
Most functions trending similar to prior year
Fire Services:
Total revenues collected represent 10% of budget
Property tax revenues collected at 15.4% of budget
Expenditures are slightly lower than prior year
First quarter comparisons:
2021: Revenues were $1.7 million; Expenses were $4.5 million
2020: Revenues were $1.2 million; Expenses were $5.1 million
2019: Revenues were $1 million; Expenses were $4.2 million
Environmental Management:
Charges for services are 17.3% of budget
Expenses are currently in line with expectations
Additional expenses for Hurricane Isaias
First quarter comparisons:
2021: Revenues were $3.5 million; Expenses were $4.3 million
2020: Revenues were $3.4 million; Expenses were $2.3 million
2019: Revenues were $2.8 million; Expenses were $1.7 million
Hearing no further comments, Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Ms. Wurtzbacher for the report.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM - 2019-2020 FINAL REPORT
Brad Rosov with Aptim Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., stated that the monitoring of seven tidal
creeks, a total of 19 sampling sites, within New Hanover County on a monthly basis has been done since November
2007. There are also three sampling sites at Airlie Gardens Lake. The creeks included in this study are Pages and
Futch Creeks, which drain into the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) and Lords, Mott, Barnards, Smith, and Prince
George Creeks, which drain into the Cape Fear River. He then presented the 2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring
Program Final Report highlighting the results of the water quality samples collected and analyzed for biological,
chemical, and physical parameters from the following monitoring stations:
New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Program:
Methods: monthly sampling from July 2019 – June 2020
Physical parameters, chemical parameters, and biological parameters are utilized
Results:
2019-2020 Summary Results:
Prince
Barnards Futch Lords Mott Pages Smith
Parameter George
Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek
Creek
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD FAIR GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD
2018-2019 Results:
Prince
Barnards Futch Lords Mott Pages Smith
Parameter George
Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek
Creek
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD FAIR FAIR GOOD POOR FAIR FAIR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci FAIR GOOD FAIR FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 708
2019 – 2020 Results:
Prince
Barnards Futch Lords Mott Pages Smith
Parameter George
Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek
Creek
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD FAIR GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD
Long-Term Enterococci 2008-2020 Results:
Effects of Rain on Bacteria Loading:
20% (423 of 2,116) of Dry Weather Samples Exceeded the Standard
41% (253 of 613) of Wet Weather Samples Exceeded the Standard
Airlie Gardens Lake Monthly Monitoring:
AG-IN (northern part of lake), AG-Floating Dock (FD), AG-Outfall (OUT)
Physical Parameters, Orthophosphate, Nitrate/Nitrite
Airlie Gardens Lake Water Quality Results:
AG-
Parameter AG-IN AG-FD
OUT
Turbidity GOOD FAIR GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen POOR FAIR FAIR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD POOR POOR
Nutrient levels at AG-IN have been higher, on average, compared to the other two sites further
south and closer to the outfall.
Constructed wetlands and recent dredging may improve water quality in the future
Conclusions:
Turbidity and Chlorophyll-a levels were deemed to be “good” in all creeks.
In general, the ratings for Dissolved Oxygen decreased while Enterococci bacteria improved
between the 2017-2018 and the 2018-2019 reporting periods.
One possible reason for the improvement with Enterococci could have been a result of a
“flushing” of the watersheds following the passing of Hurricane Florence and its associated
heavy rains and flooding.
Enterococci bacteria issues persist at Pages Creek.
Water quality within Airlie Gardens appears to be driven in part by nutrient-laden stormwater
runoff which may spur algal blooms and reduced dissolved oxygen
Next Steps:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 709
Address elevated Enterococci levels in Pages Creek via interpretation of thermal images
obtained via the deployment of a UAV (drone) in partnership with UNCW’s Socio-
Environmental Analysis Lab
Continue monthly monitoring within seven tidal creeks and at Airlie Gardens
In response to Board questions, Mr. Rosov explained that as it relates to the Bayshore boat ramp sampling
site, it is not a new issue and it has been spoken about for a number of years. Both of the sampling sites are located
at the end of the little feeder creek portion of Pages Creek, so it is where the creek ends into the headwaters.
Adjacent to both of them are the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) lift stations, which is an obvious concern
that would sort of show an issue there. Years ago, when this issue was looked into and work was done to source
track at the same time, the CFPUA engineers did perform some structural analysis to determine whether or not there
were any issues with the integrity. At the time the results came back, nothing was revealed. He cannot speak to the
engineering side of it, but it would warrant further investigation. Also in the Bayshore neighborhood, septic tanks
had originally served it up until the mid-90s. While there could be a possibility of illicitly connected septic tanks, it
seems unlikely to him if any were abandoned poorly and any residual material were in there. He also thinks that
would have been degraded by now and no longer would be a continued source, but that could be a thing as well.
Beyond the lift stations, potentially, there could be other leaky infrastructure below. Otherwise, it's speculation, that
is what is leading him to looking at the thermal imaging study that will hopefully give more information that cannot
be seen just by looking where the leaks, seepages, or contamination loading may be coming from.
County Manager Coudriet stated that about ten years ago after this report, the Board did direct staff to
move forward with an extensive outreach in the Bayshore area where people may have improperly abandoned
septic systems. The outreach was done over many months to ensure that Bayshore homeowners had the tools,
resources, and the information to ensure that their septic tank had been properly abandoned/crushed. Work is still
being done to look into the issue. Mr. Rosov noted that the County also put up a warning sign at the boat ramp of
the potential for elevated bacteria in the water so that those who utilize the ramp are aware.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Mr. Rosov for the presentation.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY TRASK LAND COMPANY, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY
OWNER, TF HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 158.65 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERCHANGE OF INTERSTATE 40 AND INTERSTATE 140 FROM I-1, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AND R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO RMF-L, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY LOW DENSITY
DISTRICT, AND R-5, RESIDENTIAL MODERATE-HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT (Z20-18)
Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation.
Planning Supervisor Ken Vafier presented the request by Trask Land Company, Inc. on behalf of the property
owner, TF Holdings Limited Partnership, to rezone approximately 158.65 acres of land located at the northeast
quadrant of the interchange of Interstate 40 and Interstate 140 from I-1, Light Industrial District, and R-15,
Residential District, to RMF-L, Residential Multi-Family Low Density District, and R-5, Residential Moderate-High
Density District. The property is a portion of approximately 509 acres owned by the applicant on the northeast and
southeast quadrants of the interchange. This application is a general use or "straight" rezoning, which was the
primary type of rezoning prior to the adoption of conditional zoning district provisions in 2012. Generally, a straight
rezoning is intended for larger tracts without current plans for development.
The site is located at the northeast quadrant of the interchange of Interstate 40 and Interstate 140, in the
north-central area of the County. The proposed area to be rezoned consists of approximately 159 acres. The property
is split zoned between I-1, Light Industrial and R-15, Residential. The I-1 portion (62.01 acres) was applied in a 1999
rezoning request while the remainder of the area zoned R-15 (96.64 acres), which is representative of the majority
of the zoning pattern in the northeastern part of the County, was given this designation in 1972. The applicant, in
their submittal documents, states that the request to rezone the property to these districts is to provide zoning
districts that will better accommodate a variety of housing products in line with the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. The property has historically been used for agriculture and it abuts the northeast quadrant of the interchange
on two of its boundaries, with undeveloped and low density single family development on or near other boundaries.
Approximately 62 acres of the site, the portion zoned I-1, is proposed to be rezoned to the R-5 district, while the
remaining area, almost 97 acres zoned R-15, is proposed to be rezoned to RMF-L.
A site of this area, particularly with it not being currently served by utilities, typically has a longer-term,
phased build-out on the order of 10 years from initial approval, so staff does not anticipate the full impacts from the
project that to be fully incurred in the immediate future. Under the County's performance residential standards, the
residentially zoned area of the site would be permitted up to 242 dwelling units at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per
acre (du/ac) as currently zoned. For the I-1 district, staff used existing building footprint calculations within
comparable industrial areas which show that typically around 10% of an industrial park’s total site area is developed
with building footprint space. Using this methodology, staff has made a general estimation that approximately
296,000 square feet of traditional light-industrial uses could be supported within the 62 acres. For context, this area
is similar to the area of Dutch Square off Market Street from North Green Meadows Drive to Judges Road, a linear
distance of about half-mile. If developed at the maximum densities of 10 du/ac in the RMF-L district and eight du/ac
in the R-5 district, this could yield a total of approximately 1,462 dwelling units. The net change between the typical
development under the current zoning districts and the proposed zoning districts is an increase of 1,220 units and a
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 710
decrease of 296,000 square feet of light industrial area. Estimates are dependent upon specific proposal and are just
an estimation based on allowable density and 10% building area calculation.
Direct access to Sidbury Road, which is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) maintained
collector road, is available and provides further access to Dairy Farm Road and points north as well as Blue Clay Road
to the west and Highway 17 further east. Trip generation under the current zoning districts, again, using the
maximum allowable density in R-15, and the 10% building footprint methodology, could yield about 280 AM and 315
PM peak hour trips. Under the proposed districts, again, under the theoretical maximum densities, there could be
about 630 AM and 750 PM peak hour trips. The result in increase is 350 AM and 435 PM peak hour trips. Traffic
Impact Analyses (TIA) are not required for a straight rezoning, as a specific development proposal is required to
thoroughly analyze access, potential trip generation, and roadway improvements. If a future specific site
development proposal estimates more than 100 peak hour trips will be generated, a TIA will be required in addition
to the Technical Review Committee’s review of all plans for compliance with applicable land use
regulations. Any recommended roadway improvements will be completed as required by a TIA or through the
NCDOT driveway permitting process during the construction process. Sidbury Crossing off Dairy Farm Road, was
recently approved by this Board and the TIA for the project, while it does not include any traffic impacts from this
subject proposal, can help provide general information on the level of service (LOS) of nearby intersections in the
area. This TIA studied the intersections of Dairy Farm Road and Sidbury Road, Blue Clay Road and Sidbury Road, and
Blue Clay Road and North College Road. Generally, the Sidbury Crossing TIA found that the required improvements
to these intersections from this project will improve the expected delays at these intersections. Any improvements
required to mitigate impacts to these intersections or any other part of the affected transportation network which
are directly related to the subject property in this rezoning request would be addressed at the time of an actual
development proposal. There were two subdivisions in the staff analysis that came up as being under development
in the vicinity, not including Sidbury Farms, which was recently improved and there are a large number of units still
remaining to be built out. It is expected for this to occur over a decade-plus duration with the Sidbury Farms project,
which the TIA for that indicated had a full build out of 2034.
In regard to impacts to school enrollment, using a generalized historic student generation rate,
development within the proposed zoning districts can be estimated to generate 351 (161 elementary, 73 middle,
and 117 high) students, which is approximately 293 more than if developed under existing zoning. County Planning
staff has worked with school system staff to analyze recent trends related to development patterns and student
generation. From 2015 to 2019, student enrollment remained at a generally stable rate of just over 27,000 students
enrolled despite the issuance of approximately 11,000 permits for new residential units throughout the entire
County. Using the generalized historic student generation rate, staff would have estimated that about 3,000
students would have been generated from the new units over the five-year period. However, this increase is not
reflected in the enrollment data. As a result, recent trends indicate new residential development may be generating
much less student population than the historic generation rate would have indicated and the student generation
estimates for this proposal may be much greater than the actual resulting student growth. Additional enrollment
projects and analysis based on the full anticipated build-out on this property will likely require collaboration with
NHCS on long-term facility planning.
Mr. Vafier reviewed site photos noting that the site is adjacent to interstate corridors on its western and
southern boundaries, and much of the neighboring property is undeveloped with the exception of the northeastern
boundary, which is developed with single-family attached dwelling units. While the surrounding area was zoned for
low density housing in the 1970s, the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends a mixture of higher density
housing and commercial uses along the Sidbury Road corridor. One of the goals of the New Hanover County Strategic
Plan for 2018-2023 is to encourage the development of complete communities in the unincorporated county by
increasing housing diversity and access to basic goods and services. The proposed R-5 and RMF-L districts would
allow for attached housing types less likely under the current R-15 zoning and could increase the diversity of housing
types in the Castle Hayne community area.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as Community Mixed Use. The proposed RMF-L and R-5
zoning is generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the densities and uses allowed in these
districts are more in line with the densities and uses recommended for Community Mixed Use areas than the existing
zoning. These districts would allow for the development pattern and diverse housing options recommended for this
area and would provide an orderly transition from a major road corridor to areas zoned for lower density housing.
The Planning Board considered this application at the October 1, 2020 meeting and recommended approval of the
application (5-0), finding it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because these
districts are more in line with the densities and uses recommended for Community Mixed Use areas than the existing
zoning and would allow for the diverse housing options recommended for this area. The Planning Board also found
recommending approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because it would allow for
the desired development pattern in this area and provide an efficient use of land between the interstate highway
and Cape Fear Community College (CFCC) Growth Node to the west and the existing residential districts and future
Community Mixed Use development along Sidbury Road to the east. Staff concurs with the Planning Board and
recommends approval. Also, when a site specific development proposal is considered on the property, the project
would be subject to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and zoning compliance review processes in order to
ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. These include a review for compliance with transportation,
stormwater and engineering, utilities, fire services, and zoning standards (such as setbacks, landscaping, buffering).
Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Mr. Vafier for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 711
Gardner Noble, Trask Land Company, Inc. Sales Associate, representing the property owner, TF Holdings
Limited Partnership, stated this can be an excellent site for a diverse housing community instead of an industrial site.
The current I-1 and R-15 zonings are outdated and do not reflect the growing conditions of the County. The zoning
districts of this particular property were established in 1972 when the population was roughly 80,000 people, and
in 1999, when the population was roughly 160,000 people. With today's current population, estimated at 240,000
people, the applicant does not believe that the zoning districts reflect this market or the needs of the population.
The subject site is located next to a New Hanover County designated growth node and this rezoning is consistent
with the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The property is considered Community Mixed Use, and these proposed
districts would provide a higher density of housing units. The proposed zoning districts would allow mixture of
housing types, and could be a great chance to help provide workforce housing in the County. If rezoned, it could
provide housing for people who work in New Hanover County and live elsewhere due to the lack of workforce
housing. The intent for this property is to be developed for workforce housing. Workforce housing consists of citizens
who are nurses, law enforcement, teachers, retail workers, and more. Based on statistics from the 2016
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, close to 30% of New Hanover County's workforce is either in the healthcare industry
or retail industry, and with rising land prices, there is a need for more modern zoning to address this problem in the
community. If allowed the flexibility that R-5 and RMF-L provides, the applicant would seek to provide this need in
New Hanover County. The subject site is also located near key areas of employment, including the Cape Fear
Community College north campus, New Hanover County Sheriff's Detention Center as well as the industrial park. If
rezoned, this could be an opportunity to keep these people in New Hanover County compared to having them
commute from neighboring communities.
Mr. Noble then reviewed the intention of each section of the preliminary plan. The yellow section is
envisioned for townhomes, the orange section is envisioned for single family detached, and the blue section that is
closer to Interstate 40 is envisioned as multifamily housing. If the property were to proceed with rezoning and once
appropriate utilities reach the site, the applicant would be required to complete the TRC process before any
development could take place on the property. It would include retaining the stormwater and implementing the
recommendations of any TIA. Based on the applicant’s research, this rezoning is important for construction of single
family homes and possibly multifamily rentals that would be considered affordable to New Hanover County residents
earning 65-85% below the average median income for New Hanover County, which is about $72,000 a year. It is
believed the rezoning would help address the workforce housing shortage of this County.
In response to Board questions, Raiford Trask of Trask Land Company, Inc., confirmed that the intention of
the plan is to have walking trails, parks, etc. As to the Sidbury Road access, there will have to be conformity to the
TIA process. He cannot state that he has a cure for the traffic, but his company will work hard with NCDOT to improve
the road. It’s going to take a long time to have the property built out, ten years, in which there will be the ability to
improve the traffic facilities throughout the County. The homes will be a healthy mix of single family dwellings,
townhomes, and multifamily units, but again, it will not happen overnight.
Chair Olson-Boseman stated that no one signed up to speak in favor and one person signed up to speak in
opposition to the request and asked the speaker to provide comments.
James Godsey, resident of Ennis Acres Drive, spoke in opposition stating that he has lived in the County for
55 years, he grew up in this County, his wife was born here, and he is a small business owner. The concern with the
project is a personal one. Their property borders the subject property. Their concerns are their safety, the
environment, and flooding of their property. The whole property adjoins to the subject site where the building will
occur. He and his wife bought the property in 2017, developed it in 2018, and moved into their new house in 2020.
It is their forever home. They were surprised to learn about the proposed development of the subject site. The site
has the potential for 966 dwelling units and on average of two people per unit that is 2,000 people that will be in
their backyard, accessing their property, that also includes a walking trail around the property. The walking trail will
be a direct access to their home when people go walking into the woods. The safety concern is with the amount of
people coming onto their property. As to the environmental concerns, there are a lot of wetlands in the area and
the national wetlands inventory does list the site. They have had the Army Corps of Engineers walk the property and
the representatives cited that the southeast corner of their property as truly wetlands. The third concern is flooding
because in looking at their property, there is a canal cut in that goes down the side of their property and is on their
property line. It is called Northeast Riley's Creek Canal. It is a manmade canal that runs to Interstate 40 and cuts
through the Trask property. It floods and pulls water off of Interstate 40. The concern is about the stormwater that
is coming from the 97 acres that is being developed. He understands the applicant will retain their stormwater, but
he wants to know what happens when the retention ponds overflow or have to be drained. When the water is
released and comes down the canal, it will flood his property and overload the culvert along the access road. It did
this during Hurricane Florence due to the farmland and other areas in the back that feed the culvert. He and his wife
want to live in concert with their neighbors behind them. They would like a buffer, some of the land to be left
undeveloped, a fence, or a retention pond on the back of the property line where the two properties join. He would
like for the wetlands to be left alone and a buffer to be installed to try to preserve their privacy and respect for them
and their home. As far as the flooding, it needs to be looked at by an engineer because it needs to be controlled due
to the canal. He expressed appreciation to the Board for the opportunity to speak.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Godsey stated that his property consists of six acres. He has not asked
about buying a portion of the subject site to build the buffer, but would be glad to do so. He was aware of the canal
when he bought it in 2017, but not about the Trask land surrounding his property. He did not research it, he knew
there was farmland behind him, and knew it had always been farmland and thought it would remain that way. He
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 712
does understand that as the property is developed the canal will be looked at very hard by engineers and developers,
and it is possible that the canal will be improved as a result. If the access road washes out due to the canal
overflowing, he is unable to access his house.
In response to Board questions, Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated that the Board cannot
condition (add conditions) to a straight rezoning.
Chair Olson-Boseman stated that the applicant and opposition speakers would each have five minutes for
rebuttal.
In rebuttal, Mr. Trask stated he appreciates Mr. Godsey’s concerns and heard the same concerns expressed
during the Planning Board meeting. He and his team are committed to working with Mr. Godsey on the buffer and
they will follow through on that.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman closed the public hearing and asked for the Board’s
direction on the request.
Motion: Commissioner White MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Kusek to approve the proposed rezoning to a RMF-
L and R-5 district as the Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
because these districts are more in line with the densities and uses recommended for Community Mixed Use areas
than the existing zoning and would allow for the diverse housing options recommended for this area. The Board also
finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because it would allow for the desired
development pattern in this area and provide an efficient use of land between the interstate highway and CFCC
Growth Node to the west and the existing residential districts and future Community Mixed Use development along
Sidbury Road to the east. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAPS OF AREAS
8A AND 8B OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 7, 1972 AND AUGUST 2, 1999, is hereby
incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8A, Page 42 and Zoning Book II,
Section 8B, Page 81.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY TRASK LAND COMPANY, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY
OWNER, TF HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 350.01 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERCHANGE OF INTERSTATE 40 AND INTERSTATE 140 FROM I-2, HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AND R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO R-10, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (Z20-19)
Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation.
Planning Supervisor Ken Vafier presented the request by Trask Land Company, Inc. on behalf of the property
owner, TF Holdings Limited Partnership, to rezone approximately 350.01 acres of land located at the southeast
quadrant of the interchange of Interstate 40 and Interstate 140 from I-2, Heavy Industrial District, and R-15,
Residential District, to R-10, Residential District. The property is a portion of approximately 509 acres owned by the
applicant on the northeast and southeast quadrants of the interchange. This application is a general use or "straight"
rezoning, which was the primary type of rezoning prior to the adoption of conditional zoning district provisions in
2012. Generally, a straight rezoning is intended for larger tracts without current plans for development.
Mr. Vafier reviewed an aerial of the subject site noting the existing land use pattern. The property has
historically been used for agriculture, two sides are adjacent to the interchange, while the remaining two sides are
undeveloped property owned by the applicant and owned by NCDOT to the east. The site contains a 50-acre lake
feature, which resulted from the construction of Interstate 140 and the adjacent interchange. Both the I-2 and R-15
area of the site are proposed to be rezoned entirely to the R-10 district. Similar to the previous item, a site of this
area again, without direct access to the utilities at this time, will typically be a longer term phased build out, and can
be on the order of up to ten years or more from the initial approval. Again, there is no anticipation of seeing the full
impact from the project to be fully incurred in the immediate future. Under the County's performance residential
standards, the residentially zoned area of the site would be permitted up to 625 dwelling units at a density of 2.5
du/ac as currently zoned, while the industrially zoned area could potentially accommodate up to 435,000 square
feet of heavy industrial space. The proposed R-10 district could potentially allow up to 1,155 units at 3.3 du/ac. The
1,155 total potential units is an increase of 530 units more than would be allowed by-right under the current zoning
districts. However, with the requested zoning change, the site will no longer be able to be developed with a variety
of heavy industrial, manufacturing, and commercial uses.
Access to Murrayville Road is provided via an existing gravel road at approximately 12-feet in width within
a 30-foot raised crown area, approximately 1.3 miles from Murrayville Road. The access road or any additional access
points would have to be improved to a local road standard at time of subdivision (minimum 24-foot travel way within
a 45-foot right of way). It is estimated the site would generate about 750 AM and 890 PM peak hour trips if developed
under the parameters of the current zoning districts using the maximum density in R-15 and the 10% building
calculation in I-2. Development under the proposed R-10 development could increase the estimated number of peak
hour trips by approximately 76 in the AM peak and 175 in the PM peak compared to those potentially generated
under the existing zoning. TIAs are not required for a straight rezoning as a specific development proposal is required
to thoroughly analyze access, potential trip generation, and roadway improvements. If a future specific site
development proposal estimates more than 100 peak hour trips will be generated, a TIA will be required in addition
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 713
to the TRC’s review of all plans for compliance with applicable land use regulations. Any recommended roadway
improvements will be completed as required by a TIA or through the NCDOT Driveway permitting process during the
construction process. On the southern portion of the site, there have not been any recent TIAs in the vicinity that
would impact the transportation network used by development on the site. The same two subdivisions that
appeared in the previous item, in addition to the Murrayville Crossing, are the area subdivisions under development.
As to school impacts, the conclusions are the same as from the previous item. Using the generalized historic
student generation rate, development within the proposed district could be estimated to generate 277 students.
Based off of staff’s additional analysis of enrollment trends, the new residential development may be generating less
student population than the historic generation rate would have indicated and the generation rate estimates for this
proposal may be much greater than the actual resulting student growth that's comprising this enrollment trend. The
additional enrollment projections and analysis based on a fully anticipated build out of this property would require
collaboration with the school system and a long-term facility planning in this area.
In response to Board questions, New Hanover County Schools Assistant Superintendent - Operations Eddie
Anderson stated with regards to both requests, he concurs with staff's recommendations. Historically, the student
population has grown at a much faster rate and it did not change overnight. He thinks when looking at the past few
years and the type of development that is being seen, the type of residential development that is being constructed
today, is not generating the same number of students that it was ten years ago. He would add that he thinks this is
consistent with the school system’s long range plan, which is currently being updated. The school system maintains
a ten-year plan and the need for a middle school and elementary school has been identified in this area of the County
in the five to ten-year time frame. Again, it is consistent with the school system’s plans as well. As to the impacts of
COVID-19, he could state that a reduction in the average daily membership (ADM) has been seen; there has been a
reduction in kindergarten enrollment. He thinks it is pretty common across the state and suspects it is across the
nation as well. He does not know the long-term effect is at this point. He is a little encouraged by the presentation
of the Health Department and thinks that in August of next year, it will be a better situation, those children will be
seen returning to school, and some normalcy will be seen in the membership and ADM. He has not heard any
projections of what will be lost from in-person learning to virtual learning. He thinks the virtual learning option will
always be available and probably grow. That has already been seen with one student that graduated from the local
school system without ever having stepped foot in one of the facilities. The option has always been there, but it has
never been really popular. He thinks this experience will probably change that, but how the virtual school option will
look and how many students take advantage of it, he is really not sure at this point. The updated ten-year plan will
be presented to this Board possibly in early spring. It has to be submitted to the department of public instruction in
January, then to the board of education and then to this Board.
Mr. Vafier continued the presentation reviewing the site and compatibility photos, noting the general
representation of the site, a typical cross-section of the interior access road that would have to be improved to a
local road standard at the time of subdivision and where the road transitions to the improved section further south
in front of Murrayville elementary school. Representative developments in the R-10 district are typically
characterized by single family detached units, lots about a quarter of an acre or less, and as well as in the R-15 district
where similar development patterns are seen on lots about a third of an acre or less. Comparable industrial
developments in the industrial park zoned I-2 include the North Kerr industrial park and Dutch Square, where there
are larger manufacturing distribution centers in the buildings, usually about a 100,000 square feet or larger. As for
compatibility, the site is adjacent to the southeastern quadrant of the interchange, thus separating these boundaries
from adjacent land uses and it is also adjacent to undeveloped property on the other two boundaries. The proposal
would provide a land use pattern that transitions to the single family developments near Murrayville Road and
Murrayville elementary school. It also removes the potential for heavy industrial uses in the area and the 2016
Comprehensive Plan recommends mixture of higher density housing and commercial uses in the area of the County
generally north of Murrayville Road.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan, again, classifies this in the Community Mixed Use place type, which is a mix
of uses, including single and multifamily residential. It is appropriate when limitations to mixed development exist
and staff has noted that specifically because of the lack of direct access from the interchange and in the distance
from Murrayville Road, the staff analysis finds that the proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the
Community Mixed Use plan because the district is more in line with the densities and uses recommended for this
place type than the existing zoning districts would provide. The Planning Board considered the application at its
October meeting, and did vote to recommend approval of the request (4 to 1) finding it to be consistent with the
purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, as well as being reasonable and in the public interest. Staff
concurs with the Planning Board's action and recommends approval. Also, when the site specific development
proposal is considered on the property, it will again be subject to the TRC and zoning compliance review procedures
to ensure full compliance with the ordinance requirements and including transportation, stormwater and
engineering, utilities, fire services, and zoning standards such as setbacks, landscaping, buffering, building height,
and all of those site design parameters.
Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Mr. Vafier for the presentation and invited the petitioner to make remarks.
Gardner Noble, Trask Land Company, Inc. Sales Associate, representing the property owner, TF Holdings
Limited Partnership, stated the site is strategically positioned at the gateway of New Hanover County and the City
of Wilmington. It can be an excellent site for a residential community with multiple housing types with high
recreation opportunities. The property owners believe that the current I-2 and R-15 zonings are not the highest and
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 714
best use of the property. They would like to have a modern zoning for this property and eliminate the potential for
a heavy industrial use. One major reason for this rezoning is a lack of access that a commercial or industrial use
would require. When Interstate 140 was built, it shut off access to most commercial and industrial users. The
property's future land use classification is Community Mixed Use which calls for a mixed use at 15 du/ac. What is
being requested is a total density of 3.3 du/ac. The proposed land planning calls for townhomes or apartments closer
to Interstate 140 and then cluster development around the lake. Of the over 300 acres, approximately 110 acres are
wetlands and the applicant believes the flexibility of R-10 can provide TF Holdings the parameters to develop this
property sufficiently, while being environmentally conscious. The property owners would like to avoid wetlands as
much as possible and it is believed R-10 zoning can help in that regard. The site also reflects the Community Mixed
Use future land use classifications by promoting physical and recreational opportunities with access to a 50-acre
lake. A lake this size could provide many different types of activities, such as canoes, kayaks, fishing, and paddle
boarding, and walking trails can be implemented. As Mr. Vafier stated, at the appropriate time of development, the
property owner would have to go through the TRC process and deal with any recommendations from the TIA and
stormwater perspective.
Raiford Trask of Trask Land Company, Inc. stated the access with this site is a challenge, but there are a lot
of exciting opportunities that come with it. The company has a good relationship with Olson Farms to the southwest.
He thinks if both can collaborate and work with NCDOT, the result will be something really neat and exciting from a
land use perspective. Another goal is to have a good traffic alternative to what is out there now and to also talk with
the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) about a connection with the plantation, which would
get people out to Highway 17. He is not sure it is totally doable but it is being worked on. The rezoning request would
provide the opportunity to start working on the property.
Chair Olson-Boseman announced that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition to the request
and closed the public hearing.
In response to Board questions, Planning Board member Colin Tarrant stated the dissenting vote was from
member Jeff Petroff and his concern was with access. However, the Planning Board as a whole had a lively discussion
about the access. Ultimately, the members that voted in favor deferred to the fact that the applicant would have to
comply and with NCDOT in order to make sure that whatever happened with access there would meet its
recommendations. He thinks that the proximity to the school is also a concern, but ultimately the applicant is going
to have to be put through some pretty heightened restrictions in order to meet the NCDOT requirements.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to approve the proposed rezoning to
an R-10 district as the Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
because the district is more in line with the densities and uses recommended for Community Mixed Use areas than
the existing zoning. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because the densities and range of housing types allowed in the proposed zoning district would support existing and
future community-level nodes, and while the current I-2 zoning designation would allow for the commercial uses
recommended for Community Mixed Use areas it is more commonly associated with Commerce Zones because of
the range of industrial uses possible. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAPS OF AREAS
8A AND 8B OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 7, 1972 AND AUGUST 2, 1999, is hereby
incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8A, Page 43 and Zoning Book II,
Section 8B, Page 82.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY LEE KAESS, PLLC ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER,
MCADAMS HOMES, LLC, TO MODIFY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LANDING AT LEWIS CREEK ESTATES TO
ALLOW 17 ADDITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT (Z17-08M)
Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing and announced that the special use process requires a
quasi-judicial hearing and therefore, the Clerk to the Board must swear in any person wishing to testify. She
requested all persons who signed in to speak or who want to present testimony to step forward to be sworn in.
Brad Schuler Colin Tarrant Don Bennett Jeff Headrick Mike Torbit
Rebekah Roth Amy Schaefer Garry Pape Kay Boone
Ken Vafier Jack Morgan Grady Gordon John Boone
Chair Olson-Boseman further stated that a presentation will be heard from staff and then the applicant
group and the opponents group will each be allowed fifteen minutes for presentations and an additional five
minutes, if necessary, for rebuttal. She then asked Senior Planner Brad Schuler to start the presentation.
Senior Planner Brad Schuler presented the request by Lee Kaess, PLLC on behalf of the property owner,
McAdams Homes, LLC, to modify the Special Use Permit (SUP) for the Landing at Lewis Creek Estates to allow 17
additional single family lots within the development. The subject site is located adjacent to the interchange of
Interstate 40 and Gordon Road. The subdivision is actively under construction with about 125 homes being
completed within the development at this time. The property was rezoned to a conditional R-15 district in 2017,
which allows for a maximum of 422 dwelling units on the site. The plan was modified in 2018 to convert 40 of the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 715
single family homes to townhomes. The applicant is now seeking to construct 17 additional single family lots in the
subdivision. The applicant originally proposed 18 lots with this modification request and after the Planning Board
meeting, the applicant removed one of the lots to convert that area to open space in response to feedback received
from some of the residents within the development. The 17 lots are proposed to be placed within the same general
location as the single family homes that were included in the initial subdivision approval in 2017. This proposal would
bring the maximum number of units for the development to 439, a little over five du/ac, which does comply with
the maximum density that can be permitted under the additional dwelling allowance standard that allows up to 10.2
du/ac in the R-15 zoning district. This does apply with the applicable standards of the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) and it is accessed by Gordon Road, which is less than a quarter mile from the interchange at
Interstate 140.
The TIA was completed for the development in 2017. All of the required roadway improvements have been
installed at this time, including the installation of a new traffic signal on Gordon Road at the site's access and the
installation and extension of certain turn lanes in the area. As such, the WMPO and NCDOT have determined that
an update to the TIA is not required and completed improvements are sufficient to handle the additional traffic
generated by the 17 additional lots. There are two major NCDOT projects planned for the area that will make
improvements to College Road and Gordon Road. The College Road project is currently on hold at this time. As for
the widening of Gordon Road, plans are currently in place to accelerate the project start date to 2024. There are two
other active subdivisions in the area with about 76 homes still remaining to be constructed. As it is the developer of
the existing property who is seeking this modification request, it is expected that the homes constructed in the
proposed 17 lots will be similar in nature to the existing homes. As for compatibility with the area, the site is located
adjacent to arterial streets, the required roadway improvements for the project have been installed and there are
existing single family developments within the development.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies the area as urban mixed use, the highest densities in the County,
therefore, this modification to expand the subdivision is generally consistent with the goals of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan. As this is an SUP, the Board must make the four following conclusions in order to issue the
permit:
1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and
developed according to the plan as submitted and approved.
2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the UDO.
3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a
public necessity.
4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved
will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County.
These conclusions must be based on substantial evidence presented at this hearing, staff has provided a
preliminary findings and the staff report which the board does have the discretion to modify as needed. Again, the
Board must find that the use will not endanger the public health or safety; that it complies with all of the standards
of the UDO; that it will not injure the value of the adjoining or abutting property; and that it is in harmony with the
area and in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board recommended approval of this at the
October meeting (4 to 1). At that time, the applicant was proposing 18 additional lots which is now modified to 17
after the Planning Board's decision. Finally, there is one additional condition proposed with this modification, and it
is that the existing modifications will remain on the permit.
In response to Commissioner Barfield’s question on the additional apartments, Mr. Schuler stated that the
modification for the additional apartments was administratively approved in 2018. Commissioner Barfield stated
that the challenge he has with those kinds of decisions is from the end user’s standpoint. When people buying in the
neighborhoods think it will be one thing, then invest money and have the same conversation about the project that
the Board did not hear, that it was going to be off of College Road, Whiskey Creek, or Whiskey Branch. People are
buying a home and expect one thing and then apartments pop up. As a homeowner and a realtor, he would want to
be able to advise clients that something like this may happen and explain that may or may not impact the property
value. He thinks it is important that a way is found, administratively at least, to know when those changes happen.
Again, because to him, those things impact people and their potential property values. It is a concern that he has
spoken about on a few occasions when people have come back before the Board desiring to add things in.
Commissioner Barfield further stated he knows this is additional land on the property that he assumes is
owned by the developer. He asked Mr. Schuler if they are going to come back for a third time and ask for other
things to be built in that area. Mr. Schuler responded that he does not think he clarified it earlier that the apartments
were always included in the original plan in 2017. The staff's approval was to convert 40 of the proposed single family
lots into the townhomes. The apartments have always been part of the approval. As to the question of what could
happen next, yes, the applicant could potentially request additional expansions. He would say it's getting more
challenging to do so as this type of development requires 35% open space and they are basically at that number
right now. In order to get more density, they would have to build up and with it being the townhomes and the single
family lots, those would have to be modified to some form of multifamily structure in order to increase the density.
He thinks they are getting really near to the capacity of this site under the current layout.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 716
Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Schuler why the applicant did not ask for the 18 houses with the original
proposal in 2017. Mr. Shuler stated that they sort of did and showed what was approved in 2017. He showed on the
layout which lots were taken and moved around to get townhomes in two areas. The applicant is now asking to put
those lots back within the development. He confirmed that what he was saying is that they were approved before.
Commissioner Zapple asked why this matter was coming back to the Board if that is the case. Mr. Schuler responded
it is because the applicant is increasing the density of the development and that is something that is considered a
major modification.
Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Mr. Schuler for the presentation and invited the petitioner to make remarks.
Amy Schaefer, attorney with Less Kaess, PLLC, representing the property owner, McAdams Homes, LLC,
stated the team with her for this matter were Garry Pape, Civil Engineer with GSP, Don Bennett, Traffic Engineer
with Davenport, and Grady Gordon, Vice-President of Operations with McAdams Homes. The principal wanted to
attend but he had a conflicting engagement, and Cal Morgan, appraiser, is not here tonight but has submitted an
affidavit. This is a modification of an SUP. The four findings still have to be met that the request will not materially
endanger the public health or safety, it meets all required conditions and specifications of the ordinance, it will not
substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties, and that the location and use is in harmony with
the general and in general conformity with the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan. She asked that staff’s
report and presentation be incorporated into the recorded and confirmed that Mr. Schuler nodded in the affirmative
to the request. As to the history, in 2017, the applicant did come and request this project for 230 single family lots
and 192 apartment units. The apartments were included in the initial request with about 35% open space. In 2018,
there was an administrative modification to change some of those single family lots to townhouses. At the Planning
Board meeting, the question came up about that, and more digging was done and she and her team were able to
find the TIA approval. At the beginning of the 2017 approval, many of the lots, the single family lots were accessed
off of the main drive into the complex. When NCDOT reviewed it, they wanted a 400-foot clear area. So there was
not the ability to access those single family lots and the applicant had to do a little subletting, which Mr. Gordon will
explain in a few minutes. The request right now is for 17 additional single family lots and one of the lots has been
modified to open space for the neighbors. At the Planning Board meeting and prior to, there were concerns about
some additional open space so that was a modification made after the Planning Board meeting, but before coming
before this Board.
The first finding of fact that has to be met is that it will not materially endanger the public health or safety.
The property is serviced by New Hanover County Fire Services, and the WMPO and the NCDOT have determined that
the applicant does not need an update to the TIA approval. Based on the updated trip generation, the number of
trips has decreased from the 2017 approval. She asked Mr. Bennett to discuss traffic with the Board.
Don Bennett, Traffic Engineer with Davenport, stated he worked for NCDOT for seven years and 23 years
with the City of Wilmington as a traffic engineer. In response to Ms. Schaefer’s request to address the TIA portion of
the request, Mr. Bennett stated when the original TIA was prepared in 2017, it was operating under the ninth edition
of the Institute Transportation Engineering's Trip Generation Manual. As that manual goes through periodic updates,
they get more precise in the studies and more statistical data on the trips generated by the various land uses in the
manual. If one were to go in and run the current development with the additional 17 units in there, for just a
development on the south side and 24-hour period, there would be approximately 187 less trips based upon the
new trip generation formulas. He thinks there was about 38 AM peak reduction and 54 PM peak reduction. In
response to Ms. Schaefer’s question of in his opinion, whether the traffic mitigation improvements be satisfactory
to comply with this SUP request, Mr. Bennett stated that yes, the original TIA was actually the original TIA and
mitigations were designed for the heavier traffic load associated with the ninth edition trip generation manual for
the prior development. Therefore, those improvements should be adequate to serve a lesser trip generation from
this site.
Ms. Schaefer stated that all of the required improvements have been completed to date. As stated by Mr.
Schuler, the TRC has already gone over this and found that it meets all of the ordinance requirements. Additionally,
the applicant is well within and under the density allowed for additional dwelling units. The request is for slightly
over five units and there is almost 10 du/ac that is permitted. As to the impact on adjoining or abutting property
values, Cal Morgan has prepared an affidavit. Mr. Morgan is a certified general real estate appraiser, a North Carolina
real estate broker, a North Carolina general licensed contractor, and quite a few other letters behind his name. She
then passed out the affidavit and asked that Mr. Morgan be found to be an expert. He has determined that after an
evaluation, the request will have no negative impacts on the market value of the adjoining or abutting property. The
location is in character and harmony with the area. Clearly, it is already a residential development, it is the same
builder, and the plan is to put a very similar product into the area. In general, conformity with the New Hanover
County Comprehensive Plan, the New Hanover County average median income (AMI), $81,000 a year, the homes
fall well within the range of affordability for that and the applicant plans on sticking with a similar price point. Again,
it will not materially endanger public health or safety, meets all required conditions and specifications, will not
substantially injure the value of the adjoining or abutting properties, and it is in harmony with the general conformity
of the area and the Comprehensive Plan. She then asked Garry Pape, a Civil Engineer with GSP Consulting, to speak
on the changes from the prior modification and that he be considered an expert in civil engineering.
Mr. Pape stated that originally, the plan was to design to have single family homes accessing directly off of
the main drive into the development. Once plans were submitted to NCDOT, the recommendation was that there
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 717
not be any driveways to enter or exit the main drive area. That is how the townhomes came about so the area could
be accessed further away from Gordon Road.
Ms. Schaefer concluded the presentation stating the change and access required by NCDOT, in addition to
the market conditions, and all of the townhouses which are filled out due to the need and their price point, were
good additions to the development.
Commissioner Zapple asked Ms. Schaefer what the $81,000 income that is the price point being targeted
boils down to in actual cost. Ms. Schaefer responded that the $81,000 is the New Hanover County AMI as determined
by Housing and Urban Development (HUD), it is not necessarily the applicant’s target. The project just happens to
fall into that, but Mr. Gordon can explain better the products and what is being offered to the neighborhood. Mr.
Gordon with McAdams Homes stated the townhouses initially started at $199,000 which is well below the current
norm in New Hanover County. The single family houses started at $234,900 and he thinks the most expensive house
in the neighborhood starts at $265,000. Again, the prices are well under the current norm in New Hanover County.
Ms. Schaefer stated that if there are no further questions, she does believe there are residents who signed
up to speak in opposition. Because this is a quasi-judicial hearing and in an attempt not to keep interrupting the
speakers, she would like to make a continuing objection that any evidence presented that is not competent evidence
as to the use of the property, and anyway that that would affect the adjoining property values, must be testified by
an expert. In addition, any increase in vehicular traffic in any resulting development, should that pose a danger to
the public, must be testified to by an expert and any other matters which would require expert testimony. She and
the applicant would ask the Board that it not consider any of those items which are not testified to by an expert
witness or presented by an expert witness, and they would ask that the Board to find that to be not competent
evidence.
Chair Olson-Boseman announced that no one signed up to speak in favor and three people signed up to
speak in opposition to the request and invited the speakers to make their remarks.
Jeff Headrick, resident of Lewis Landing Road Avenue, spoke in opposition stating that Kay and John Boone
who have also signed up asked that he speak in their stead. He stated that he moved here approximately seven years
ago, primarily for the coastal lifestyle and the beauty of the community. He left the beautiful state of Tennessee to
come here, so that is how wonderful he thinks this area is and how excited he is about living here. The basis of his
presentation is a study of the impact additional home construction and land development could have on the
community. As the councilor stated, he does not have five attorneys with him, so the Board certainly does have the
right to discredit everything he says, he does not have a lot of initials after his name, and he did not bring three or
four engineers in. However, as Commissioner Barfield was, he felt, alluding to as well as Commissioner Zapple, there
seems to be some gray area with what the company says it is going to do, and then what this company actually does,
regardless of how many lawyers or people one has that can speak for them. He will say when it comes to safety and
some other things, if one has kids in the neighborhood, they are commenting about already needing to add speed
bumps. It is becoming unsafe and if they had a lot more time, they have been in the neighborhood five or ten years,
they would have a bigger tightly knit community. He was the second person to move into the development. As to
the lack of safety due to overbuilding, it is felt there will be a decrease of property values. He does not think anybody
has a crystal ball, but the hope is that it doesn't affect it, and they do not know that the property values will be
decreased. As to the destruction of wetlands, it is clear that those have been poured over with concrete in order to
get in “x” amount of units. As far as harmony, there is no harmony left when you take out the wetlands and you put
in more units. He does not understand that and thinks that is one of the four criteria that the Board is looking at. He
reviewed a document from the City of Wilmington noting that he tried to use something that maybe the Board had
seen a lot before. He then reviewed a site plan explaining where the neighborhoods, including his, are located. The
number of vehicles is one of the biggest objections that he is hearing as far as safety. There are a lot of children in
the neighborhood. At a recent neighborhood meeting with the homeowners’ association, he asked for a raise of
hands of all of the residents who had been told about the apartments. Zero hands went up. He would again ask that
even if the lots are approved, that the culture and the transparency that the realtors and the builders are using just
match the words that they say. He thinks that is important in any city. As far as traffic, he used the metric for the
apartments of 1.5 cars per unit with some being one bedroom, he is not sure if they are allowing two cars per unit
or not, but the total is approximately 288-384 cars for the apartments. In reviewing the other categories, Mr.
Headrick stated in the end one ends up with about 798 cars currently, even before the next few homes are approved,
that are going to be driving through one road. One way in and one way out and he lives fairly close to the entrance,
so his son already really cannot play in the street. It is not a matter of playing in the street, he cannot ride his bike
down the side of the street, because there is so much happening and it is so tight and narrow. Again, street safety is
already under heavy pressure and he thinks that will decrease property values. He and most of his neighbors were
told that the developer was never going to build on the subject site because, “look at this beautiful wetland, you can
live back here on the corner where you have this privacy’” so a person buys into this. This is what they are told and
then learned later they should have gone down to the courthouse and seen what was voted on in 2017. To the
layperson, they are not always able to do that. Destruction of the wetlands, location and character, and not
harmonious are some of the issues. He asked that in a city where there is Airlie, Wrightsville Beach, and wonderful
parks, what we are trying to be mindful over and is there a need to tear down more natural wetlands that people
were told would be there to remain beautiful in order to build 17 more houses? That is 17 more houses that he and
his neighbors feel will not be harmonious to the area, will take away from area, take away from the things that they
moved their families here for, and that they were sold and bought into.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 718
Mike Torbit, resident of Runaway Bay, spoke in opposition to the request stating he owns lot 50 in the
subdivision. He moved in the area last April to take a new job. In May he went into the Landing of Lewis Creek, was
sold and was told, he thinks, that nothing was going to be developed behind his lot and what he was shown had a
little plan on it. In 2016 or 2017, the 18 lots were approved and in 2018, administratively changed he heard today,
they were taken out and sold. It was not shown on the plan he has. He is coming here, laying out his complaint, to
say he feels backstabbed. That was done in 2017, then it changed in 2018, and in 2019 he put in a contract to buy
the house and then the applicant wants to put houses behind him when he was told nothing was going to be there.
Mr. Headrick further stated he thinks with the traffic and the safety of children, one of the things that kind
of dawned on him is with as tight as it is, he thinks they mentioned 2024, four more years of traffic and however
good or however bad it is on Gordon Road, it doesn't seem to be too fantastic as it is. But with the many cars, many
entrances to the subdivisions, and all of the apartments that have been added recently in that area, he is not sure
how many units are there, it just seems to him it puts too much pressure on Gordon Road. The Board has a lot more
purview as to the other developments, if any are going around the area, he just knows with the ones he sees that
the concentration in there is steep. He also wonders once COVID passes about the pressure that it's going to put on
College Road itself and people waiting to get off of this intersection. He is speaking primarily about the safety of the
kids and having this be another neighborhood that he has driven in, and not just Wilmington, it's other cities, too,
but sometimes you drive into a development you get halfway back there and you think, who put this together? Who
approved this? If a Board member drives back and sees the few kids that are congregating and how tight it is getting
they would consider what if that were their children. He thinks it would give them a different perspective. He hopes
that will speak louder than any scientific evidence that we may or may not have, things are getting a little crowded.
This is a beautiful area we have. He is all for construction and growth and definitely wants the applicant to build a
good home and make a good profit. However, there comes a point where you have to give growth what it is due,
but you also have to save a little something for later. Leave a little something there and maybe not totally say no
now, but relook at it in five or ten years and maybe something will come up that is more creative instead of rubber
stamping another project, ripping down a part of the environment. Most people in the community appreciate
wildlife and nature, and when you buy a home, or you buy anything, it is location, view, aesthetics and those are
certainly being taken away from them, along with safer streets and walks to and from friends’ houses for all of the
children there.
Vice-Chair Kusek asked Mr. Headrick if it was correct that when he and the others bought their homes, they
were told that there was going to be 798 cars. Mr. Headrick responded no, when they bought their home, they knew
the applicant had a certain amount of plans, a certain amount of wetlands, and a pretty map showing behind the
house was blue water. They told him a few months later, “Yeah, our design guy went overboard with that.” They did
not get into cars but the only thing that they told 100% of the neighbors that he has spoken to was that everything
across the street would not be apartments, it would be single family homes. Now literally across the street, and they
will probably be great, he is not saying they will be bad apartments. It is just that, you see forest across the street
and you’re envisioning homes, you see wetlands behind you and this is before the traffic. You are just thinking all of
these wonderful aesthetics, but they did not tell them 600, 700, or 800 cars, but they also did not ask that. There is
a huge piece of land over there, and when asked what is going on with it, they did give an answer.
Commissioner White asked Mr. Headrick when he bought his home. Mr. Headrick responded June of last
year. Commissioner White then asked if he had read the minutes of when this was approved in 2017. Mr. Headrick
responded he did not. Commissioner White asked if Mr. Headrick knew whether or not neighbors around there
objected to the home that he lives in. Mr. Headrick stated he did not understand the question. Commissioner White
asked when his home was built. Mr. Headrick stated 2019. Commissioner White stated his question is if he knew if
anyone objected to the original approval in 2017; in other words, have they come here and objected that his house
may not be there and if he had looked at any of that. Mr. Headrick responded that the only thing he has looked at
since, he thinks, after he bought his home, is what the Board voted on. He thinks when the Board voted on it, it was
by one. The Boones were the second people to move in and they are present. He did not mean to digress with the
apartments, but it keeps being brought up, so he thought he would shed light on that as well.
Chair Olson-Boseman stated that the applicant and opposition each had five minutes for rebuttal.
In applicant rebuttal, Ms. Schaefer stated she cannot speak to what realtors told their buyers what was
approved around them. She does know quite a few good realtors who would do their due diligence and tell their
buyers what was approved behind them. She understands this is not the case, but she can only tell what was
approved. As to the actual issues that were mentioned, the wetlands, the applicant is not building on wetlands. The
2017 approval showed that the applicant was not impacting the wetlands except for West Lake Crossing. In addition,
that area would provide an additional access to and from the property, if the neighboring property which is not
owned by the applicant was ever developed. It would be a connector to provide additional access, if the applicant
was permitted to build the additional 17 lots. That was reviewed by the TRC and she thinks Mr. Schuler can speak to
that as well. There are sidewalks throughout the community. Those were amenities that were provided. Walking in
the street isn't always necessary. She has been out there and there are sidewalks in the community. One of the other
concerns was about the apartments across the street, which are not the applicant’s project, but knowing that traffic
was a major concern, Mr. Bennett was asked to look at how that would impact this project and these 17 lots.
Mr. Bennett stated that he had one correction to his prior testimony. He said there was a 54 vehicle
reduction in the PM peak, it is 45. He transposed those numbers in his mind. As to the apartments across the street,
the TIA came slightly around the time of the original approval and just like this approval, it did a TIA and was also
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 719
based on the trips and traffic that it generated and would have been based on that ninth edition. Since then, again,
th
the 10th edition has come forward. What the 10 edition does is that it took the townhomes and moved them from
single family homes over to multifamily homes and added different classifications of multifamily homes. There are
one to two floor homes, three to ten floor homes, and then ten and above. If one goes in with the tenth edition and
the same number of apartments as listed in the original TIA, there is a 24-hour reduction of 320 vehicles with an AM
reduction of 54 vehicles, and a PM reduction of 58 vehicles from the traffic across the street. This means that the
mitigations that were designed out there were designed grand total, both projects, were designed for an additional
507 vehicles over a 24-hour period. This means there has been a reduction with the new trip generation of 507
vehicles over the 24-hour period, he believes it would be 92 in the AM peak reduction, and 103 with the PM
reduction. The mitigations that are out there are designed for a heavier traffic load than what would be predicted
currently from the site.
In opposition rebuttal, Mr. Headrick stated he wanted to reiterate, he is pretty sure on his math about the
798 automobiles. As can be seen by the map it is very closely knit, and if looking at all of the other developments
and all of the other areas, there is probably the same width of road, but there is a lot more real estate. So when
driving from way in the back and there are kids playing and some are using sidewalks, some are actually on bicycles,
and sometimes people are running and then again not all of the streets have sidewalks. So 798 cars, if this is approved
today, it will bump that number up to 832. His neighborhood has one entrance, and it is a beautiful entrance, there's
a lot of great things going on in his neighborhood. The neighbors and he are just trying to keep some of the great
things that they have had for a while and to continue to enjoy them. As far as the safety or the improvements on
Gordon Road, since he moved here seven years ago his experience has been that it is one of the roads, when driving
it in the morning, you have to make sure you have your mojo on, it can be a little tricky. If traffic is safer now with
798 homes here, and all of the apartments across the street, then that's some pretty amazing traffic flow and he
does not know where it is going. He expressed appreciation for the Board’s time.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman closed the public hearing and asked Board direction.
Commissioner Zapple reported that Chad Kimes, NCDOT Division 3 Chief Engineer, sent an email out last
week stating that NCDOT was able to put money together to begin the right of way acquisition for the Gordon Road
project starting in January 2021, which is a three-year acceleration of the project. All have known and talked a lot
about how important getting the Gordon Road widening started and this is the first step in making that happen.
Commissioner Barfield stated that he voted against this item when it first came to Board, but his rational
was about process. The fact that there were apartments that were going to be built across the road, were already
approved, the TIA was in place, but there was a delay in building the apartments. Then this project came along and
his concern was that NCDOT was not taking into account the fullness of what was going to be there with the
apartments across the street, the homes on the other side of the street, and the impact on that part of Gordon Road.
He has since gone through the area, has been on Blunt Drive with new traffic lights and other improvements and
thinks those definitely helps the flow a good bit. Recognizing the need for homes in this price point, he is okay with
the number that the applicant is requesting. There is such a limited amount of affordable homes in the community,
it is a tremendous challenge and at this price point, it almost does not exist. They will probably be sold before they
are built. Again, his concern initially was with the process making sure that the TIAs are in place before the Board
approves projects, which in this case, the TIA on this project was not completed when this project was approved
against the norms of the Board in previous times. That being said, he would be in support of the project as presented.
Chair Olson-Boseman asked Ms. Schaefer if the applicant agrees with staff findings. Ms. Schaefer stated
that the applicant does and with all of the conditions.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner White MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to approve as the Board finds that this
application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the finding of facts included in
the staff report and with the following staff suggested condition:
1. No changes to the existing 2017 Special Use Permit conditions or additional conditions are proposed.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of an order granting a Special Use Permit and listing the findings of facts is contained in SUP Book
IV, Page 84 and a copy of the affidavit is contained in Exhibit Book XLII, 21.11.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY TO AMEND
ARTICLES 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 8 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE COUNTY'S TREE
RETENTION STANDARDS, STANDARDIZE AND COORDINATE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, MODERNIZE SETBACK
AND RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, REFINE LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING STANDARDS, UPDATE
PARKING STANDARDS, PROVIDE FOR CLEAR AND CONSISTENT USE PERMISSIONS AND STANDARDS, AND ADD
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS (TA20-02)
Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 720
Interim Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth presented the request to amend Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 8 of the UDO to update the County's tree retention standards, standardize and coordinate open space
requirements, modernizes setback and residential height requirements, refines landscaping and buffering standards,
updates parking standards, provides for clear and consistent use permissions and standards, and adds Erosion and
Sedimentation Control ordinance provisions. The UDO project was started to meet the two primary goals of making
sure that the County’s development codes allowed the mix of uses, diverse housing types, and range of residential
densities recommended by the Comprehensive Plan and integrating the County’s separate code books into one easy-
to-use document. With the 2019 adoption of the amendment that added eight new zoning districts and the February
2020 adoption of the reorganized UDO format, those two primary purposes were addressed and the core product
of the project completed. The last phase of the project, which was started in early 2020, included two rounds of
amendments made up of small fixes, housekeeping items to make sure the codes are clear to users, and final
rd
upgrades. The first round of those amendments was adopted by this Board on September 3. While there will not
be a wait of another 50 or even five years to update the regulations, it anticipated future amendments based on this
Board’s policy direction, changes in state legislation, and periodic technical updates, today’s amendment includes
the final updates associated with this project. The UDO project is complete.
These final updates are the result of the recommendations of the consulting firm Clarion, stakeholder
conversations, Planning Board discussions, and public feedback considered over the past 11 months. Ms. Roth then
provided an overview of the amendment which includes the final ordinance changes associated with the UDO code
update project designed to implement the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. It consists of three categories of updates to
existing regulations:
1. Tree-Related Amendments:
a. An update to strengthen the county's tree retention standards that became a part of the scope of
the project last fall during the discussion on preserving large live oaks
b. An amendment to provide consistent open space provisions that coordinate with Tree Retention
standards to incentivize the protection of existing tree canopy
2. Infill Supportive Amendments:
a. A modernization of setback and residential height requirements
b. Refined transitional buffers and landscaping standards that coordinate with the tree-related
amendments
3. Amendments to Modernize and Update Provisions:
a. Updated parking standards that reflect the list of principal uses adopted as part of the Unified
Development Ordinance format in February 2020
b. Amendments to provide for clear and consistent use permissions and standards
c. The addition of an updated Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance to the Unified
Development Ordinance
Commissioner Zapple commended Ms. Roth for her efforts to get the project completed. It is a living
document and he is fully aware there will be amendments to the UDO moving forward.
Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Ms. Roth for her presentation and announced that one person had signed
up to speak in favor, no one signed up to speak in opposition, and invited the speaker to provide remarks.
Cameron Moore, AICP, Executive Officer of the Wilmington-Cape Fear Home Builders Association
(WCFHBA), spoke in favor of the request commending staff, the Planning Board, and all of the stakeholders that
made this possible. The Board was sent an email from Tyler Newman with Business Alliance for a Sound Economy
(BASE) supporting all of the amendments and a joint letter of support from the WCFHBA/BASE and Tree Alliance
regarding heritage trees/legacy trees as part of the UDO. He asked that the Board adopt the amendments as
presented.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman closed the public hearing and asked for direction from
the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Kusek, to approve the proposed amendment to
the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance that updates the county's tree retention standards,
standardizes and coordinates open space requirements, modernizes setback and residential height requirements,
refines landscaping and buffering standards, updates parking standards, provides for clear and consistent use
permissions and standards, and adds Erosion and Sedimentation Control ordinance provisions. 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 and encourages plan goals of infill
and redevelopment and conservation of environmentally critical areas. The Board also finds approval of the
proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it includes the zoning tools essential to address
the Comprehensive Plan's listed goals and provides for clearer and more consistent standards. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the text amendment amending the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby incorporated as
part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLII, 21.12.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 721
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Appointment to the New Hanover County/City of Wilmington Community Relations Advisory Committee
Chair Olson-Boseman reported that one vacancy exists on the New Hanover County/City of Wilmington
Community Relations Advisory Committee with two applications available for consideration.
Commissioner Zapple nominated Kimberly Geiger for appointment. Commissioner Barfield seconded the
nomination.
Hearing no further nominations, Chair Olson-Boseman called for a vote for the nomination on the floor.
Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to appoint Kimberly Geiger in the Education Community category to
the New Hanover County/City of Wilmington Community Relations Advisory Committee to serve an unexpired term
with the term to expire September 30, 2022.
Appointment to the New Hanover County Commission for Women
Chair Olson-Boseman reported that one vacancy exists on the New Hanover County Commission for
Women with ten applications available for consideration.
Commissioner Barfield nominated April Scott for appointment.
Commissioner White nominated Meaghan Lewis for appointment. Chair Olson-Boseman seconded the
nomination.
Commissioner Zapple nominated Vanessa Lacer for appointment.
Hearing no further nominations, Chair Olson-Boseman called for a vote for the nomination on the floor.
Vote Results: The Board voted in the majority to appoint Meaghan Lewis to the New Hanover County Commission
for Women to serve an unexpired term with the term to expire May 31, 2023. Chair Olson-Boseman, Vice-Chair
Kusek, and Commissioner White voted in favor.
Appointments to the New Hanover County Cooperative Extension Advisory Council
Chair Olson-Boseman reported that five vacancies exist on the New Hanover County Cooperative Extension
Advisory Council with three applicants eligible for reappointment and six additional applications available for
consideration.
Commissioner Zapple nominated Dietrich Blum, Colleen M. Higgins, and Charles F. Mincey for
reappointment, and Daniel Spann and Dave Spencer for appointment.
Hearing no further nominations, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for a vote on the nominations on the floor.
Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to reappoint Dietrich Blum, Colleen M. Higgins, and Charles F.
Mincey, and appoint Daniel Spann and Dave Spencer to the New Hanover County Cooperative Extension Advisory
Council to serve three year terms with the terms to expire December 1, 2023.
Appointments to the New Hanover County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Chair Olson-Boseman reported that two vacancies exist on the New Hanover County Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council with two applications available for consideration.
Commissioner White nominated Hazel Eyles and Alexandra Rivenbark for appointment.
Hearing no further nominations, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for a vote on the nominations on the floor.
Vote Results: By acclamation, the Board voted to appoint Hazel Eyles in the Under Age 21 category to the New
Hanover County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council to serve an unexpired term with the term to expire September
30, 2021, and Alexandra Rivenbark in the Under Age 21 category to the New Hanover County Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council to serve a two-year term with the term to expire September 30, 2022.
Appointment to the New Hanover County Non-County Agency Funding Committee
Chair Olson-Boseman reported that one vacancy exists on the New Hanover County Non-County Agency
Funding Committee with one application available for consideration.
Commissioner Barfield nominated Marvin Brooks for appointment. Commissioner Zapple seconded the
nomination.
Hearing no further nominations, Chair Olson-Boseman called for a vote for the nomination on the floor.
Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to appoint Marvin Brooks in the Public Safety/Judicial category to the
New Hanover County Non-County Agency Funding Committee to serve a three-year term with the term to expire
June 30, 2023.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 722
Appointments to the New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment
Chair Olson-Boseman reported that four vacancies exist on the New Hanover County Zoning Board of
Adjustment with two applicants eligible for reappointment and four additional applications available for
consideration.
Commissioner White nominated Richard F. Kern in the Alternate category and Cameron R. Moore in the
Regular category for reappointment, and Maverick Pate in the Regular category and Luke A. Waddell in the Regular
category for appointment. Commissioner Zapple seconded the nominations.
Hearing no further nominations, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for a vote on the nominations on the floor.
Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to reappoint Richard F. Kern in the Alternate category and Cameron
R. Moore in the Regular category to the New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment and appoint Luke A.
Waddell in the Regular category to serve three year terms with the terms to expire December 1, 2023, and appoint
Maverick Pate in the Regular category to serve an unexpired term with the term to expire December 1, 2021.
REMARKS BY COMMISSIONER WOODY WHITE
Commissioner White stated that he knows it has been a long night and he appreciates this indulgence from
his fellow Commissioners and made the following remarks:
He has achieved much of what he set out to do on that cold winter day in 2012 when he filed for New
Hanover County Commissioner just minutes before the filing deadline expired. He almost did not do it. As he left the
house that morning, his wife Tammie did not know what he was going to do. They had not decided together. And
even in the parking lot that day he hesitated because he knew what it was going to take to have a meaningful impact
on the future in our County. He knew that running a campaign and pursuing a vision to lead this County forward
would be a huge personal sacrifice. Looking back now and the many ups and downs over these two terms he was
right, but he is glad that he made the decision that he did. Under his leadership, funding for classroom education
rose faster and higher than any period in modern New Hanover County history. New Hanover County enjoys its
highest bond rating ever because of his insistence that the Board adopt written fiscal policies. Taxpayers have saved
over a million dollars in the County, achieved from his efforts to root out waste at Cape Fear Community College.
Taxpayers have also saved $30 million in the County due to the promise he made to cut property taxes. He kept that
promise, when this Board adopted back to back tax cuts when he was chairman from 2016 to 2018. For a number of
years, he carefully considered the ethical and fiduciary obligations he felt the County had to assess New Hanover
Regional Medical Center's future and what pathway would ensure better hospital care and more access to medical
services. Avoiding this important community discussion because of political fallout was never something that he
considered and enduring the untruths and misinformation peddled by some was difficult for his family to endure.
But he is very proud that he decided to help initiate the evaluation that has now resulted in an unimaginable
inflection point for our community, and the future of our local healthcare. He ran for this office to pursue a vision of
big things for our County and many of them were accomplished. But at times, it felt that crisis management
consumed his time more than pursuing the things that drew him to public service. For example, 10 days into his first
term the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school devastated our country and forever changed how local
governments look at school security. The first six months of his first term, regrettably were consumed by efforts to
confront a stressful situation caused by a fellow Commissioner, the unnecessary disruptions to the many other
obligations before the Board had to end, taking action was necessary, and he did so. He will never forget June 8 of
2017, six months into his second term, when the GenX water crisis consumed our community. Navigating the many
different levels of crisis like that was difficult, but it was done so effectively. And because of the determination, a
difference was made. September 2018 brought us hurricane Florence, it damaged us with flooding, it took away our
electricity, and for many our homes, it cut us off from the outside world for a few days. It challenged us in ways that
we didn't fully expect, but when it was over, we embraced the hope in our community of a brighter future. And for
a moment in time, we all realized true unity and purpose. It was inspiring to watch other people of New Hanover
County including the incredible staff, and Commissioners, all come together in love, kindness, and determination to
rebuild. It was an honor for him on one day to be wading into the floodwaters to chainsaw his neighbor's downed
trees, to the next day sitting at a table talking face to face with the President of the United States of America.
Throughout those trying times our team set an exemplary standard for other communities across the country who
face crisis.
Throughout his two terms, the opioid crisis became worse and worse, its toll on the lives of our fellow
citizens and our County resources mounted. In October of 2019, he stood at a podium in a Cleveland, Ohio United
States District courtroom before Federal Judge Richard Posner at his unexpected invitation for him to speak on behalf
of 230,000 people that he represents in this County. He slowly walked across that beautiful 14th floor courtroom
and collected his thoughts thinking about what to say, he had no notes, and had not prepared any remarks. And with
hundreds of the nation's leading lawyers and attorneys general looking on, the words he chose to speak were
inspired by New Hanover County families, many of whom he personally knows, and sadly, a few of whom he has
cried with over losing their loved ones. This country has been devastated by the opioid crisis and he is proud of the
decision he made to help lead it in responding to the scourge. There are many other events as important as the ones
he has mentioned. There were also many difficult and dark days and failures that he experienced. He will never
forget these eight years and will always be proud that he helped to make our community better.
To his fellow Commissioners, he appreciates serving with them and he is grateful for the wisdom that
usually emerged from thoughtful and respectful dialogue and a deliberative setting. They have not always agreed
and have not always been thoughtful and respectful, but they got it right more than they got it wrong. He would
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 723
especially like to recognize Commissioner Chair Julia Olson-Boseman, a true gift he received in these last two years
was her friendship and the opportunity for them both to put an ugly chapter in their lives behind them. He
appreciates her willingness to work with him and in doing so, allowing both of them to demonstrate to others that
people who often hold different points of view can still work together for the greater good if they only choose the
greater good over themselves. He would like to express his sincere appreciation to Commissioner Pat Kusek for her
decision to make the sacrifice and run for this office in 2016. Her dedication in helping steer the County these last
four years will be impactful for many years to come. It's not very often that someone with her skill, intellect, and
ethical standards decides to leave private life and run for public office and for the sake of this County, he is glad she
did. Serving with Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr. was also a privilege for him. He respects Commissioner
Barfield’s service to the council and the perspective he offers, even in the rare times when he has not agreed with
him. No matter how much they might have disagreed on something, he always welcomed him at each meeting with
a warm smile and a “How are you brother?” Last he would like to thank former Commissioners Skip Watkins and
Tom Wolfe for their commitment to serve, their service, and for their friendship. All of these relationships have
enriched him beyond measure and he is genuinely thankful for each of them.
To the staff and employees of New Hanover County, he thanked them for their unwavering and highly
professional services they provide to the citizens every day. It took a lot of patience on their part, but they all made
him a better Commissioner and more importantly a better person by setting the bar of excellence so high for him to
follow. He would like to especially say sincere thank you to the following people: thank you to former County Clerk
Teresa Elmore, wherever she might be tonight, who was so patient with him and who would always in her sweet
and quiet but firm way suggest the correct methods of the way things should be done. Lucky for him, he always
followed her advice. Thank you to Lisa Wurtzbacher for her patience in responding to the many budget and financial
questions he asked her. He never actually saw Lisa roll her eyes at him, although she would have been justified many
times had she done so. Thank you to Beth Schrader. Although she did roll her eyes at him often, which was fine,
because it always made him stop to think about what he was saying, which is always a good thing to do. Thank you
to Tim Burgess for his late night texts to him after tackling some new problem he tossed his way after 5PM on any
given day. Auburn University is certainly proud of his service to our County. Thank you to Bo Dean for his infectious
optimism and for his nonstop advocacy for his fellow employees and human beings. Thank you to Eric Peterson and
Brett Cottrell, the guys behind the cameras and up in the booth. They had hard jobs making him look good, but they
did their very best to make us all look good, even when we really didn't look that good. Thank you to Jessica Loeper
for her wisdom and guidance during critical moments when crafting a message to the community was so important
especially during Hurricane Florence and the GenX crisis. Thank you to Mark Francolini for his advocacy and
friendship during a very trying time for his family. His kindness during some very dark moments comforted Tammie
and him. He witnessed firsthand the care and compassion Mark has for the entire County workforce. Thank you to
County Attorney Wanda Copley and Deputy County attorneys Sharon Huffman and Kemp Burpeau for always talking
him through their very well-reasoned legal opinions and for being there whenever he needed them. They wisely
talked to him off a ledge a time or two over these last eight years and they deserve much more than a gold watch
for what he has put them through. Thank you to County Clerk Kym Crowell and Deputy Clerk Dahria Kianpour for all
they have done to help him do his job as a Commissioner. He owes them both so much, not the least of which is
forcing him to get his health assessments and flu shots every year. Ultimately, he has to admit, they ended up being
right. Getting those shots didn't kill him. He did survive each one, but it was close. And he is also grateful for their
agreement, although he thinks Dahria did this, to expand the snack options at the meetings which took a real
challenge of his skills of negotiation. Their friendship means a lot to Tammie and him. And lastly, thank you to County
Manager Chris Coudriet for his poise, ethics and honesty, and how he manages very difficult situations. New Hanover
County is fortunate to have his steady hand at the helm, and Tammie and he are fortunate to count Leigh and him
as their friends.
To the citizens in New Hanover County, from his first day on the job he kept every promise he made to
them. He always put their interests first. He is indebted to them for giving him the privilege of serving them in 2012
and for rehiring him for the job in 2016. He worked his hardest to represent them to the best of his abilities and will
be forever grateful for the many wonderful experiences they allowed him to have. As he ends his years of service,
he looks forward to more time with his loved ones. He will be thankful for more time to cultivate the relationships
in his life that enrich his spirit. He is excited about what lies ahead for him and how this new chapter will reignite his
imagination as to what is possible in life. And lastly, he is humbled and honored to resume full time the fulfilling
practice of law that for 26 years has allowed him to change the world one person at a time. Thank you all very much
and he will see everyone again much sooner than they think.
REMARKS BY VICE-CHAIR PATRICIA KUSEK
Vice-Chair Kusek stated that this is probably one of the first times that she did not have anything prepared
to say except what was in her heart because she did not want to follow Commissioner White, but she did not want
to do it next week either. For somebody like her who makes their living on numbers, it's very embarrassing to realize
that the worst calculation she ever made was how much time it was going to take to be a good County Commissioner.
She grossly, grossly underestimated that. She also did not realize when people were asking her to run for County
Commissioner, whether she should kiss them or kick them, and she sees a few of them in the room today. She still
does not know that she knows that. She asked Chris Coudriet a couple of things her first year when she threw her
first fit, and she told him that she hoped that when she left that he would not say he was so glad and that she had
been the worst County Commissioner he would ever had to deal with. She believes she can honestly say, after sitting
up here with these five people, she is not the worst. So anyway, all puns intended there, we did an awful lot. We
changed WAVE, we changed Health and Human Services, the school system, we lowered taxes. Then we had to deal
with GenX and Hurricane Florence. Nobody knew what a hurricane the hospital was going to be until it landed. She
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 2020 PAGE 724
thinks that kind of put the challenge to all of us. Politics brings out the worst in people and it brings out the best in
people as well. She will always know where she was on June the 23rd of 2020 and why she was the County
Commissioner on June the 23rd of 2020. Hopefully for decades and generations to come, the people of this County
will remember that day. They will be utilizing funds that they have and a community foundation to do so much good
for this community that we cannot even imagine what it looks like now. But the best thing she learned was that this
organization has some of the best people she has worked with in her entire life, and Woody named a lot of them
and she wouldn't even begin to, but she is going to miss everyone. The employees are the finest people she has ever
had the pleasure of working with in her life and thank you because it has been such an honor.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Chair Olson-Boseman reported that no one signed up to speak on non-agenda items.
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
There were no additional items of business.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice-Chair Kusek adjourned the meeting at 7:43 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.