2021-02-01 Regular Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 758
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on February 1, 2021, 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 Deb Hays; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.;
Commissioner Bill Rivenbark; and Commissioner Rob Zapple.
Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board
Kymberleigh G. Crowell.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Pastor Mark Gaskins, Temple Baptist Church, provided the invocation and Commissioner Barfield led the
audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Chair Olson-Boseman announced that the agenda item for the “Consideration of a Proposed Memorandum
of Understanding with ZAC, LLC – Redevelopment of a County-Owned Block” has been removed from the February
1, 2021 agenda.
PRESENTATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 2020 TRANSIT ADVOCATE
AWARD TO COMMISSIONER JONATHAN BARFIELD, JR.
County Manager Coudriet, as the 2020 Chair of the Wave Transit Authority Board, presented Commissioner
Barfield with the North Carolina Public Transportation Association 2020 Transit Advocate Award, which was awarded
to him in recognition of his leadership and dedication to transit in the state. Commissioner Barfield expressed
appreciation for being an award recipient and thanked County Manager Coudriet for his leadership of the Wave
Transit Authority this past year.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Olson-Boseman requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays, to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes – Governing Body
The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Agenda Review meeting held on January 13, 2021.
Approval to Submit a Grant Application to the N.C. Governor's Highway Safety Program (GHSP) for FY21-22 in the
Amount of $25,000 and Adoption of Associated Resolution – Sheriff’s Office
The Commissioners approved the submission of a FY21-22 grant application for the GHSP grant funding in
the amount of $25,000 and adopted the associated resolution. The total project cost is $25,000 for supplies and
training/travel for Sheriff's Office personnel that will assist in the campaigns and training. No grant match is required.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLII,
Page 24.1.
Approval to Apply for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) 2021 Community Waste
Reduction and Recycling (CWRAR) Grant Program – Environmental Management
The Commissioners approved the submission of a CWRAR grant application for $40,000 to the NCDEQ
Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service for the "Food Waste Composting Program
Enhancement." The funds from this new CWRAR grant will be used to purchase a portable screening plant in support
of the existing food waste composting program and needed parts. This unit will improve the quality of the finished
compost product by reducing the particle size, thus allowing it to be more widely used within the community for
applications requiring a more finely screened material. The total cost of the enhancement is $72,591. Expenses over
and above those provided by the $40,000 grant, including a required match of $8,000 representing 20% of the grant
funding, will be paid from the Environmental Management Enterprise Fund in the FY21-22 budget.
Adoption of Heart Health Awareness Month Proclamation – Health and Human Services
The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing February 2021 as Hearth Health Awareness Month.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book
XLII, Page 24.2.
REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
STATUS BRIEF: COVID-19 VACCINATIONS
Health and Human Services (HHS) Director Donna Fayko provided an update on Covid-19 vaccinations and
stated the total number of positive Covid-19 cases are 13,633 since the beginning of the pandemic with 9,573 having
recovered. There are currently 4,060 active cases. This is a 9.1% positivity rate in community, with 55% being female
and 45% male. There have been a total of 131 Covid-19 related deaths in the County, with 77% being male and 54%
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 759
female; 90% or a total of 118 were over the age of 65; and 59% were Caucasian and 21% were African-American.
HHS has received 27,800 vaccine doses of both Pfizer and Moderna. Of those, 10,190 doses were transferred to
community partners including New Hanover Regional Medical Center (NHRMC), Wilmington Health, Cape Fear Clinic,
and MedNorth. HHS has administered 14,699 doses and is currently administering second doses. The County has
engaged outreach sites including Solomon Towers, Chestnut Street Presbyterian Church, Macedonia Mission Baptist
Church, Martin Luther King Center, and New Beginning Christian Church. The future baseline supply will be 300 doses
of Moderna each week. The County has the capacity to administer 1,000 per day, so the state has sent a supplement
of 700 which will be used for first doses. The call center has been very active and has received 41,324 calls since
March 17, 2020 and 26,877 calls since January 1, 2021. The online registration system was setup today, with 250
online slots filled in nine minutes and 250 slots filled via the call center in 20 minutes.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) created the priority groups with the focus on decreasing death and
serious illness resulting from the virus, preserve functioning of society, and reduce the extra burden of Covid-19. The
priorities changed two weeks ago at the federal level, which is why the groups changed. Groups one and two are
currently being served. The County is working to combine the data with NHRMC to get a total of how many people
in the County have been vaccinated, and Ms. Fayko believes the state is reporting 35,000 people in the County have
been vaccinated. Group three includes front line essential workers, which are defined by eight essential sectors of
society which are government and community services, public safety, transportation, healthcare, education, critical
manufacturing, essential goods, and food and agriculture. Regarding the safety of pregnant and lactating women to
receive the Covid-19 vaccine, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that both groups
receive the vaccine, and if they need to have consultation with their doctor, that is recommended. In response to
Board questions about the total vaccines administered including the partners, it is about 34,000. The County is
operating on the honor system and does not ask for identification or proof of employment when administering the
vaccines. Commissioner Barfield stated the Veterans Administration clinic is vaccinating veterans only and if those
numbers are not being captured the total of vaccines administered in the County might be higher.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Ms. Fayko for the update.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY HAMILTON HICKS, JR. ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS,
DORA LEE E. AND DAVID EARL RAINES HEIRS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 8.28 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF
MARJORAM WAY, NEAR THE 900 BLOCK OF NORTH KERR AVENUE FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO RMF-L,
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY LOW DENSITY DISTRICT (Z20-23)
Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation.
Current Planner Gideon Smith presented the request by Hamilton Hicks, Jr. on behalf of the property
owners, Dora Lee E. and David Earl Raines Heirs to rezone approximately 8.28 acres of land located east of Marjoram
Way, near the 900 block of North Kerr Avenue from R-15, Residential District, to RMF-L, Residential Multi-Family
Low Density District, stating that he would provide an overview of the request and then turn it over to Planning and
Land Use Interim Director Rebekah Roth to provide additional information and responses to the correspondence
that has been received over the past week. This application is to rezone the subject property to the County’s low
density multi-family district. The subject property is located on the southeastern corner of Martin Luther King, Jr.
(MLK) Parkway and North Kerr Avenue, near the Target shopping center. The subject property is made up of four
parcels within a portion of unincorporated land that is surrounded by the City of Wilmington (City). The majority of
the site to the north and east abuts multi-family zoning districts within City jurisdiction and there is also single family
zoning along North Kerr Avenue. The southern portion of the site is wooded and undeveloped with multi-family to
the north, and an electric substation to the south. The subject property is adjacent to Marjoram Way, however, the
land that actually fronts the road is within the City's jurisdiction. Mr. Smith then reviewed the parcels owned by the
property owners, which include the land to the west between Marjoram Way and North Kerr Avenue. When the
department first received this application, the applicant showed staff the area they were considering rezoning to
multi-family. However, City staff was not supportive of the request unless it included a conditional rezoning
application and annexation of the subject site. Due to the recent improvements in North Kerr Avenue, the connection
to Sagedale Drive was closed, which will require people to use New Centre Drive to turn on Marjoram Way to access
the site in the future. As development of the site would require access through the City, County staff will continue
to work with City staff throughout the development and review process, when a site specific plan is provided in order
to ensure all applicable regulations are met.
In regard to traffic, the current zoning would allow a maximum of 21 dwelling units, which is estimated to
generate about 20 peak hour trips. A typical development under the proposed RMF-L district would include either
multi-family or attached housing such as townhomes, with a maximum of 83 units. As there is not a conceptual plan
to consider at this time, what is being provided are trip estimates for these housing types. Generally, this rezoning
is estimated to generate between 10 and 30 additional peak hour trips, when compared to the current zoning. There
are two major NCDOT projects plan for the area, one of which would construct a flyover interchange at the
intersection of North Kerr Avenue and MLK Parkway. Both of these projects are currently scheduled to begin
construction in 2029. The other project is a portion of the Market Street median project within the City. There are
also planned improvements for College Road, but those plans are currently on hold at this time. The only other active
residential subdivision in County jurisdiction that has received approval was The Treehouses on Kerr Avenue, which
is expected to consist of 18 townhomes. Mr. Smith noted that a multi-family project in the City was approved last
year as part of a conditional rezoning, and that is located on the southern side of Market Street near Cinema Drive.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 760
Staff analyzed the available school system data which indicates a minimal impact to the school system. As
a development with maximum density allowed in the requested district, it is estimated to generate roughly 22
students, which is about 16 more than when compared to the current zoning. School staff presented a facility needs
survey to the Board of Education in early January that included updated student growth projections and school
capacity data. Because of the low number of students estimated to be generated with this request, and the
anticipated changes in the student enrollment patterns, it appears that there will be adequate capacity districtwide
over the next five to ten years, if planned facility upgrades are funded.
Mr. Smith then provided an overview of various pictures of the subject site and the area, including examples
of representative developments in the R-15 district. Generally, developments in this district consist of single family
homes on lots between 7,000 and 12,000 square feet, and houses that range from one to three stories. He then
reviewed examples of representative developments in the RMF-L district noting that projects within this district are
typically low density housing developments consisting of multi-family and townhomes. The proposed zoning
designation is compatible with the surrounding area because the maximum density associated with this request is
in line with the densities of the multi-family districts to the north and east, and because the adjacent single family
R-10 zoning in the City is mostly undeveloped, except for land on the south that has power lines overhead. Other
recent roadway improvements to Kerr Avenue in the subject site's proximity to Market Street and commercial
services also make the area appropriate for higher densities. One of the goals of the County’s strategic plan 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 RMF-L district would allow for multi-family and attached
housing options, which would add housing diversity to the County’s housing stock.
The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan) classifies the site as General Residential and
the proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because the RMF-L district allows for
diverse housing options that are consistent with the recommended densities within this place type. It would also
allow for a development pattern similar to nearby communities. The Planning Board considered this application at
its January 7, 2021 meeting, where a representative of the adjacent property owner introduced the transportation
plan adopted by the City in 2009, which recommended the extension of Hunters Trail through the subject site. The
Planning Board noted at that meeting that the proposed straight rezoning would have no impact on the potential
extension of Hunters Trail and recommended approval (5-0) finding it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and that the action was reasonable and in the public interest. Mr. Smith concluded his portion of presentation noting
that Mr. Ernie Olds, Planning Board member, was present for any questions and that Ms. Roth would continue the
presentation.
Ms. Roth stated that per the Board’s request during last Thursday’s agenda review, she would provide a
response to the correspondence the Board received over the past week, in particular from the representatives of
5016 Hunters Trail, LLC. The folders that were disbursed to the Board prior to the start of the meeting contain copies
of all the correspondence related to the extension of Hunters Trail through the subject site that was included in the
2009 amendment to the Gingerwood Collector Street Plan which was adopted by the Wilmington City Council at the
request of State Street, a firm associated with the 5016 Hunters Trail project. At the time, the City had the ability to
assist with the acquisition of the needed right-of-way and construction of the roadway connection. That ability was
lost due to the 2012 change in the annexation law that required all annexations to be voluntary. When the County
changed its land use policies with its 2016 Comprehensive Plan and decided that it was appropriate to allow higher
densities within the unincorporated County, it made some of the voluntary annexation requests less likely. There
were two primary points brought up in the correspondence that will be addressed: First, a brief overview of the staff
review and Planning Board consideration of the request as some questions have been raised about whether the
recommendations that had been made were based on all relevant information, and second, a brief outline on how
the information impacts staff’s recommendations.
In regard to the first point, the staff review of the rezoning request took about a month and a half and in
mid-November, the applicant, Mr. Hicks and the legal representative of the property owners, Mr. Culbreth submitted
an application for rezoning to a straight or general use RMF-L zoning district. At the time, they indicated they were
also submitting a similar rezoning request to the City for the remainder of the subject tracts that were in the City's
jurisdiction. Before formally processing the application, County staff did have conversations with City staff to
coordinate the review and learned that they had decided they would not support a request unless it were for a
conditional district and included the annexation of the property within the County's jurisdiction. County staff
contacted Mr. Hicks who told them that his clients had decided to put the request with the City on hold, but wished
to proceed with the request with the County. At that point in time, County staff had begun gathering information
on the subject site but had not formulated a staff recommendation. Staff also did not have the option to refuse
scheduling the applicant's rezoning request on the next Planning Board meeting per the County code. While staff
had indicated that they would recommend a conditional request so it could be coordinated with the request in the
City during the initial meeting, the applicant had clearly decided they wanted to move forward with the straight
rezoning request. Over the next few weeks, as staff prepared its analysis and report for the Planning Board meeting,
they discussed the request with the City staff on several occasions to determine the implications of the City’s
development regulations on this project. County staff also coordinated with technical partner organizations
including the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) who regularly provide information on plans, projects, and active transportation impact
analyses (TIAs). At no time during this review did a reference to the Gingerwood Collector Street Plan amendment
showing the extension of Hunters Trail across the Raines property or other transportation plans come up.
Unfortunately, most of the information referenced was only available for review if someone already knew it existed
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 761
and none of the County, City, and WMPO staff involved in this case were involved in those plans or planning projects
over a decade ago. The Gingerwood Street Collector Plan was not digitized and readily available, and the TIA that
was referenced was developed in 2009 is no longer valid. As she understood it, due to the transportation network
changes in that area over the past decade, it would have to be redone and resubmitted for a WMPO review and no
new TIA had been submitted. The only County adopted plan that could have been referenced that indicated the
Hunters Trail extension was the Market Street Corridor Study, which did include the one map that showed the
general location of the connection, but had not been referenced in several years, not since 2013 based on staff
review of past rezonings.
As indicated in last week's letter from Jennifer Scott with Shipman and Wright, LLP, the neighboring
property owner did send a 13-page memorandum, which is in the folders provided to the Board, shortly before the
Planning Board meeting in January. Even though the case planner, Mr. Smith, got it late as he was not included on
the distribution list when staff found out about this, staff was able to have time to review the memorandum, discuss
it with WMPO Executive Director Mike Kozlosky, make sure that all of the Planning Board members were aware of
it, that the applicant was aware of it, and discuss it briefly with Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman who also
was not included on the distribution list. County staff was able to at least orient themselves to the information prior
to the public hearing, and while it was not included in the staff report, the information was discussed during the
hearing. A representative from 5016 Hunters Trail, LLC, Mr. David Novotny, provided the Planning Board information
on the planned Hunters Trail extension and the information was considered by the Planning Board, as is all
information that is brought up at a public hearing by adjacent residents or property owners. After considering Mr.
Novotny’s information and rebuttals from the applicant team, the Planning Board ultimately decided to recommend
approval because the County’s development regulations do contain provisions for connections to adjacent
properties and it was felt this could be worked out at the Technical Review Committee (TRC) level.
As to the second primary point on how this information impacts staff's recommendation, Ms. Roth stated
that although it is not normal practice for staff to reconsider their position after the Planning Board has heard and
made a recommendation on an item due to being the official advisory body for this type of decision, she wanted to
make sure that staff’s position was clear. Based on the information in the initial Planning Board staff report, staff
found that the proposed rezoning made sense based on the information they had at the time. After reviewing the
Gingerwood Collector Street Plan, the Market Street Corridor Study, and the correspondence received from 5016
Hunters Trail, LLC representatives and the applicant team, and after discussing it with the WMPO staff, County staff
does think roadway connectivity in this area makes sense because of the type of density being proposed. There is
no way, however, to guarantee the immediate construction as desired by 5016 Hunters Trail, LLC without a private
agreement between the two parties. Even a conditional zoning district would not guarantee immediate construction.
Furthermore, denial of a rezoning request to encourage a conditional zoning application is not guaranteed to result
in that type of conditional rezoning request and could potentially lead the Raines family, or whomever they sold the
property to, to develop under the current low density R-15 zoning, which is not in accordance with what the land
use plans call for. In staff's consideration, rezoning of the subject property to a higher density is both consistent with
the land use goals for this area and provides the greatest likelihood that a future connection would be warranted by
future development on the site. This would still require working with the City and NCDOT, conversations that staff
have already started to determine the mechanism where a road constructed to public standards would be taken
over for public maintenance. Right now, the County subdivision standards do have provisions that would allow the
requirement of some of these connections, but are generally allowed to be private because staff cannot always
guarantee that NCDOT will take them over. However, staff can start these conversations now so they can make sure
it is in place. Depending on how the property is developed, it might not currently be subject to those subdivision
regulations, but that is one of the clean-up items being included in a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
amendment that will be presented to the Board later this spring.
Ms. Roth concluded the presentation stating that based upon a meeting staff held with Mr. Novotny last
week and similar requests included with the letter from Ms. Scott, staff has reached out to Mr. Hicks to let him know
of the interest by 5016 Hunters Trail, LLC in working with them to provide the connection. Staff believes there have
been some discussions and both parties are present in case the Board has questions about those discussions.
In response to Board questions on how extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) fits into this matter, Ms. Roth stated
it is not something that is still worked with here and she believes that the City no longer has any ETJ within the
County. She provided an overview of how the City has annexed in the area over time and how it appears the portion
of the Raines property that is currently within the City's jurisdiction was at one-time part of the City of Wilmington’s
ETJ, but it does not appear that the subject property was ever part of the City's ETJ where they had that level of
zoning regulatory influence. As to the rationale behind having the property owners ask for a voluntary annexation,
other than trying to pull more profit into the City, Ms. Roth explained there are some arguments for an area like this
where the desire is to develop in an urban style, but the City has more tools in their toolbox to help make that
happen. It is not County Planning staff's philosophy to require things that make it harder for people to do something
with their property. That is one of the reasons why staff would not necessarily not be supportive of an application if
it was not conditional. She also thinks there may be a different philosophy at the City in terms of how they would
prefer to see projects come through their process. Commissioner Barfield commented that the people who reached
out to the County staff on the adjacent parcel must have confused the County with the City and that the City does
roads and will purchase a right-of-way to make roads happen, just like NCDOT, but that is truly not a function of
county government. He thinks they probably got their signals crossed in asking the County or asking the applicant to
provide some type of a right-of-way, but again, clearly, counties do not do roads and do not go down that path.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 762
As to if it was correct the Gingerwood Collector Street Plan was out of date and that staff went through the
different items in it, Ms. Roth explained that staff often finds with a plan like this where, even if the ultimate goal
has not changed, sometimes the ability to implement it in the way it was originally intended has changed over time
and it appears that is what has happened with that plan. As to the correspondence from Jennifer Scott that was
direct about it being the County’s duty, if not obligation, to honor the Gingerwood Collector Street Plan and if Ms.
Roth did not hear it with the same urgency being stated in the letter, Ms. Roth stated that she is not sure there is a
clear mechanism for enforcement of that plan, nor is it a policy that was specifically adopted by the Board, so there
is still some latitude with that.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that at this stage in the process, there is nothing the County
could do unless the two property owners worked out an agreement to make the road viable. However, during site
development there is the possibility where staff can help facilitate a roadway connection, under the development
regulations, but that is not necessarily an option with a straight rezoning request at this point in the process. She
further confirmed that if the Board approved the rezoning request it does nothing to hinder the ability to put in the
road, for discussions to continue at a later date, and that in many ways the County is simply not in the picture. She
further confirmed that there would still be the possibility of a private agreement and that the Board, under the
current R-15 zoning, does not have the ability to attach any conditions to the rezoning request. She also confirmed
that the appropriate time to do that would be if the property came back to the County to be rezoned in a different
way. If the property were sold to someone who wanted to use it for a different use than the RMF-L zoning, if that
was approved, then it would have to come back through this process. Also, if it were a conditional rezoning request,
then there would be the opportunity for more conversation about putting that connection in as a recommendation
or a condition.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated she does not know of another situation like this where
there is a property involving the County and City where a road has been proposed under City guidance, but it comes
across County property. She further confirmed it was correct there is no agreement between the County and City
that would attach to the road to make sure it goes through because the County does not build roads. It is also her
understanding that there was not that sort of provision put into place when the connection was approved. There is
a possibility that the Hunters Trail extension could dead end at the subject site and never be connected.
Regarding if it was to community’s benefit to give this some time to possibly have all of the parties try to
come to a resolution or conclusion to help ensure the potential of the road moving forward, Ms. Roth stated it would
probably involve more conversations to work out the connection, either before or after the rezoning request. Staff
is committed to working on it either way. Regarding how to impose on a property owner to build a road, Ms. Roth
stated she thinks that is one of the things that staff would have to work out. It is one of the reasons why allowing a
higher density property on the subject site would make it more likely to help warrant the need for the connectivity.
Under the current low density zoning, where there are only a small number of homes, it would be very unlikely that
the amount of traffic that was caused by the development would provide any sort of mechanism for the County to
require it. As to if the adjacent property owner is wanting to put pressure on the applicant to help their own future
project, Ms. Roth stated there is an indication in the preliminary traffic assessment they provided from 2015, which
is in the folder provided to the Board, that it is an important connection to support their project. She does not know
about their most recent traffic analysis, but thinks they have a different consulting firm working with them now. The
2015 assessment was done prior to the completion of a lot of the North Kerr Avenue improvements, so she does not
know if there are different options available to them today than there were available several years ago.
Commissioner Barfield commented that he would just rather people call it what it is and not play games and trying
to get this done so you can get it done for yourself, but when you send an email or a letter and condemn County
staff, he has a problem with that. Ms. Roth expressed her appreciation for his support.
A brief discussion was held about the Board’s purpose during this meeting is to only consider the straight
rezoning request, which has no development plan. Commissioner Zapple commented that there is no dedicated
easement that has been agreed upon by anybody as to where the road would go that he has seen and he has seen
at least two different options. There are probably several more, but it is not the Board’s job to develop something
that does not have a development plan and as noted earlier, it would come with the next rezoning once whoever
purchases the property decides what they want to do, so at this point it is all speculative. Ms. Roth stated that
generally these types of conversations do not occur during a straight rezoning request.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Kozlosky, as the WMPO Executive Director and as being one of the staff
who was present in 2009 when the amendment request to the Gingerwood Street Collector Plan came forward,
stated he would recommend that there be support for the interconnectivity in order to disperse the traffic in the
Gingerwood area. How that connection is made, would have to be worked out through the TRC if this request is
approved or through some other mechanism.
A brief discussion was held about how it is the City that buys right-of-ways and how often it puts the impetus
on the property owner to run a road through their property. Mr. Kozlosky stated a conversation was held with the
adjacent property owner. The street plan has been adopted by the City Council, so when they go through the TRC
process, there would be a requirement to build the street connection to the property line of the City. In response to
Board questions, Mr. Kozlosky confirmed that the City would have no impact whatsoever on the current request
that is being presented, so there is the possibility that no road extension will be built. The City would not have any
influence over the property that is in the unincorporated area. However, the connection is in the adopted plans and
has been part of the Market Street Corridor Study, which was adopted by the County Commissioners. It is also in the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 763
Gingerwood Collector Street Plan that was adopted by the City Council. From a staff perspective, interconnectivity
would be encouraged, but how that is achieved would need to be worked out between the County, the City, and the
two property owners. As to who would pay for it, Mr. Kozlosky stated he can speak for how it would be paid for if it
were in the City, but because it is in the County he thinks that would have to be worked out, and he would defer to
Ms. Roth. However, if the property develops in the County, then County staff through the TRC could potentially get
the connection on the Raines property. If it were in the City, because it is in the adopted plan, it would be required
of the property owner to build the connection through its TRC; the City would not build it.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Kozlosky stated that he would defer to Ms. Roth on if the existing zoning
was used while the subject property is in the County, the property owner could also be required through the County’s
TRC process for the road or an easement for the road be put in, and then figure out who would pay for it.
Commissioner Zapple stated everything is premised on having a development plan and currently there is not one for
the subject site. Ms. Roth stated staff does have some revisions to the subdivision ordinance, as mentioned earlier,
so if it were to go through a subdivision process, the County does require there be connections to adjacent properties
into adjacent roadways. The actual profile of that roadway and whether or not it was public or private would have
to be worked out.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth confirmed that the Market Street Corridor Study was adopted by
the Board, but not the Gingerwood Collector Street Plan. As to if it would come up during the TRC process since it is
in the Market Street Corridor Study and a developer of the subject site would have to make the connection, Ms.
Roth stated she thinks it would be beneficial and showing the provision for that again, whether or not the type of
development would warrant a roadway built for collector standards especially at the time of construction, that
would be the question. The fact that it is shown as a public collector on this roadway, if a mechanism could be
worked out to have it taken over for public maintenance, then that would make it much more likely.
Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Ms. Roth and Mr. Smith for the presentation and invited the applicant to
make remarks.
Hamilton Hicks, Jr. on behalf of the property owners, Dora Lee E. and David Earl Raines Heirs, stated it was
interesting when the data was revealed that this started in 1987 when he was on the City Council. Little did he think
this would come back some 30-plus years later. The reason for the rezoning is quite simple from an economic
viewpoint. The land is unsuitable for single family development and will never be developed as such and would sit
there not being on the tax base at its best and highest use. This is a straight rezoning request to enhance the sale of
the property which in and of itself is the path, in his opinion, to finalizing how the road would be connected. The TRC
certainly has the power to impose certain requirements on interconnectivity. He and his clients are very much in
favor of the rezoning, the staff has done a tremendous job in analyzing this, being fair to all parties, and he applauds
their work on this matter.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Hicks stated that his clients would not be amenable to putting in the
road to extend Hunters Trail. They do not have the wherewithal to pay for it and it would happen with the developer.
If it was deemed necessary to have the interconnectivity the developer would simply blend the cost of the road
extension into the sale of his properties, whatever he was developing. He confirmed that the intent of his clients is
not to develop this, but to turn right around and sell it. His clients are not developers, have no interest in that, and
quite frankly, it would be in everybody's best interest if they do not get involved. There are examples of
interconnectivity all over the County that have failed. One can go into most residential developments and find a
street stub out that is 150 feet from an additional street, never connected, and there is no power of government to
have it connected. He thinks those days are gone now, but there has been a lot learned from those failures. He then
stated that Stephen Culbreth, the attorney for the Raines family, would speak on the matter.
Stephen Culbreth, attorney representing the Raines family, stated that at one time the property owned by
the Raines family stretched all the way from Old Kerr Avenue (North Kerr Avenue), which was formerly known as the
Winter Park to Wrightsboro Highway, and consisted in excess of 14 acres. Dora Lee Raines, was the grandmother of
st
the present owners and David E. Raines was their uncle. NCDOT came in during the early 21 century and took a
portion of the front edge of the road for the road expansion where it intersected with MLK Parkway. Later, when
the decision was made to expand Kerr Avenue, NCDOT took more and actually took down the family homes of the
present owners and cut the property in half because there is no access from/to Kerr Avenue from the site. The
reason for this is directly across the street is where the connector for the overpass is going to be in the future. His
clients’ predecessor, Mr. Raines, was never consulted about this road. The people with Hunters Trail, LLC were
apparently consulted, but his client was not nor were the predecessors in interest. Due to the actions of NCDOT, the
property has been reduced from a 14-plus acre track to a 2.59-acre tract, which is in the City between Marjoram
Way and Kerr Avenue, and an 8.69-acre tract, which is the subject property of this request. If his clients are lucky
enough to sell subject site, the buyer will have to have a development plan and go to the County to explain how they
are going to do it. His clients are not developers and they are the grandchildren of the original owners.
As to how the plan looks now, there is cornerstone down at the end, which is the adjacent property owner’s
way out to New Centre Drive. Only so many units can be put on the eight-acre tract and the adjacent property owner
is going to come out that way. Hunters Trail, LLC is talking about having a large development and all of the traffic
would come out onto Marjoram Way, which is a two lane road. They also want to put in a roundabout on the Raines
property, not their own property, which would cut the acreage down even further. The 2.54 acres is in the City. The
company wants to make the County, or someone, make the little piece of property that has belonged to his clients’
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 764
family for almost 100 years subservient to their big development. Hunters Trail, LLC, or State Street which is the
parent company, developed all of the condominiums/apartments that can be seen on the right hand side as one
goes towards Highway 132. The path is a long way to get to the Raines’ property. As he stated in his response letter,
Hunters Trail, LLC owns all of the property that gets them to the intersection where New Centre Drive turns from
being a north-south highway into east-west. It runs from behind Target out to North Kerr Avenue. Right now if
someone in that area wants to get the Market Street, they would have to travel to get out on Marjoram Way and
make a right turn to go to North Kerr and then another left turn to go to Market Street, but then a right turn to go
back to the MLK Parkway and then come into the City on the MLK Parkway, which would make more of a difference.
However, they can still do the same if the people that are wanting the little piece of land to further reduce the
acreage of his clients’ property and make it less valuable. They can say it makes it more valuable, but it does not.
One cannot take away property and say it is more valuable.
Mr. Culbreth further stated that the first time he or anyone in the Raines family became aware of the
proposed road was after Mr. Raines turned down an offer from the owners of State Street and had refused to give
them a right of first refusal. The person who called him, he thought it was the owner of State Street, said they
understood he was representing the Raines family because he had represented Mr. Raines from the time Kerr
Avenue was being discussed. He was told they would build the road for the family and his response was that NCDOT
is building the road because they have cut the access on the front of the property. Part of the settlement was that
NCDOT was going to access the property from both the backside that was cutoff and the front side that was cut off
to access Kerr Avenue, which made perfect sense. It is adequate to handle that property and the property at the
cornerstone, which is not adequate to dump all of the big new project plus what is already back there in the
Gingerwood subdivision. They can make it a north-south turn in Hunters Trail through the property that adjoins his
clients’ property. It runs from his clients’ property all the way back to the already developed property, which is in
addition to the 42 acres. The request made of his clients’ was to give Hunters Trail the land for free so they will not
use up as much of their own and develop it. However, that is not what this Board should be doing. If the Board turns
down his clients’ request for a straight rezoning, it is getting awfully close to the problem that NCDOT caused when
it had the Map Act. The Map Act allowed NCDOT to say they were thinking about putting a road through a certain
area, wanted people to be aware of it, tied up people's land due to it, and did not pay them anything. As a result,
people could not develop their land or use it for the highest and best use. In 2016, the courts did not agree and ruled
that when someone’s property was taken for this purpose, they had to be paid for it. To hold up his clients because
of that is not fair and the Board would be making his clients’ property subservient to the big developer that owns all
of the property behind them. He asked the Board to consider that as his clients are not developers and cannot put
in a road. Who they sell the property to may very well say it is a great idea and agree to it. While he is not a traffic
engineer, he does not think it is the Board’s desire to dump the whole of Gingerwood through Marjoram Way. It is
a regular two land road that is not curbed or guttered and allows people to get back to cornerstone spot and allows
his clients to access the property they have.
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. She invited the speakers to step forward to make remarks.
Jennifer Scott with Shipman and Wright, LLP, representing 5016 Hunters Trail, LLC, spoke in opposition to
the request stating that the Board has received a lot of information in recent days about their side of the issue. She
knows there has been subsequent information provided to the Board since her memorandum was sent. She listened
to the Board’s comments last Thursday and during this meeting and does want to offer an apology in regard to the
comments related to criticisms of County staff and the process as that certainly was not her intent. Sometimes as a
lawyer, her advocacy is at times not as elegant as she would like for it to be when transitioning to a board like this
rather than a courtroom. She thinks the point that she and her clients sought to make with their materials was that
the information they thought was critical to the Board’s decision making and zoning decisions, in general, was missed
only because it was really difficult to find, certainly not that staff intentionally did not provide it. She and her clients
knew about it because it was critical to their project. They do believe that had staff known more about all of that
sort of information that was difficult to find, it would have been more fully considered in their report to the Planning
Board in January. That is the critical point and the Board’s decision today is that public safety concerns,
transportation infrastructure, and then planning for the future is all absolutely relevant to the Board’s consideration
when making zoning decisions whether those are conditional zoning district decisions or general district zoning
decisions. She thinks what is clear is that the Raines parcel is really unusual in that it is situated between the County
and City and then Kerr Avenue. The Board has heard Mr. Culbreth go through the history of the roadways there and
the important point for the applicant is that, good or bad, the parcel is in a critical spot for receiving traffic and
transportation infrastructure for the benefit of everyone in that area. The future planning for roadway infrastructure
there is really going to require the City, the County, the applicant, and the adjoining owners to work together when
they are developing it. As stated in the memorandum, the opposition is really only with reference to the timing of
the relative projects that might come through to the Board and the desire to work with the applicant, City, and
County, as she suggested, to make the best possible transportation decision in that area. She and her client feel the
time to do that is now, because the rezoning application presents the opportunity for all to get this right as it is
mutually beneficial. For those reasons, they request the Board consider all of this information and some of it is new.
She stated that Ms. Roth did a fantastic job, very diplomatically, going through all of the relevant information, and
she does not think there is anything that she could add that was missed. However, the hope with all of the
information is that the Board either continues its decision to give everyone time to investigate how to get this right,
or that the request be denied on the basis that, as Mr. Culbreth pointed out, this property is part of the City and part
of the County. The City sent them away saying come back with a conditional use because we need to get all of this
right. There are certainly reasons for that.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 765
Ms. Scott further stated that she wanted to address a couple of comments and is happy to answer
questions, but her client’s traffic engineer, Rynal Stephenson, is present who can provide updates or information
about the connectivity as well as the project foreman, David Novotny. She wants to make sure that the Board
understands that she and her client are in favor of the zoning itself, but the timing of it is critical for them because
they are developing 742 potential units on the property next door. They do need to get the connection right and
that is going to involve coordination, certainly with the applicant. She also wanted to offer that prior to this meeting,
they have reached out to try to start those conversations as alluded to by Ms. Roth, and they have provided a right-
of-way agreement that would allow for them to coordinate a connection in a spot that would be best for the Raines
parcel. It is not terribly necessary that the collector go through exactly where the Gingerwood Collector Street Plan
shows it and they have offered a couple of different ways that could happen. Also, her client as the developer of the
adjoining parcel with the critical need to bring the connection through as a collector street, has offered to pay for
the roadway and maintain it until it is dedicated and taken over by the relevant agency.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Scott stated she had not seen the $135,000 fee to build the road and
will have either Mr. Stephenson or Mr. Novotny address the question as she believes the cost estimates are more
than that for the way is it projected now for 650-feet of road. It is not a horrible expense for her client when
considering in looking at the adjoining parcels, the Hunters Trail extension goes all the way through her client’s parcel
as well and she thinks that the point would be to mobilize and do it at the same time, which is the timing part of this.
Commissioner Zapple expressed appreciation to Ms. Scott for her apology to County staff.
As to whether this conversation should be taking place with the company that will develop the subject site,
Ms. Scott stated it is important to point out that the applicant is not a developer and if they were this would be an
easier discussion, because it would have already been negotiated. The idea is that since the property is just there for
sale, if the City, County, and the applicant want to, as a group, effectuate the collector street plan for the mutual
good then now is the opportunity for that. Her client wants to offer to just install it. They would not need to have
the conversation with a developer later because they can draw the street end in the best way possible and build it
for the applicant, given what they know about the parcel and the zoning request. If that does not happen now while
there is this opportunity, then it may not sell four or five years. As was said at the agenda briefing, the applicant
could decide to not do anything and grow corn out there for 100 more years. Commissioner Zapple commented that
the applicant could also turn it into a park, in which case Ms. Scott’s client would probably look for another way to
create the access and connectivity. However, this Board’s purpose is not to develop and what is before it right now
is simply a request for a rezoning. There is no development plan in front of him. He thinks it would be terrific for
what is being said when the Board has been given a development plan and when Ms. Scott and her client have
somebody to actually talk to, but not ask this Board to be the go-between or the broker to pull together what is only
one idea, that would help with the connectivity to her client’s property. Ms. Scott stated that her response would
be that their goal is to oppose on the limited idea that it is within the Board’s purview as a policy decision to try to
make sure that all get the roadway infrastructure correct, given that the subject site is unusually situated in a critical
spot and is fighting jurisdictional issues.
Commissioner Barfield stated the challenge for him is the developer that Ms. Scott represents, he thinks
the County has worked with him on more than one occasion, such as the Galleria Center project when the ABC Board
found itself in the business of selling its current location to build another one because someone wanted that
particular property and they found a way to make that happen. He did not particularly agree with that. For him, the
method of operation with the people she represents challenges him because he cannot forget several things that he
has seen transpire from this dais. He has been here long enough to have seen a few things happen, so he does not
know how Ms. Scott and her client put the onus on someone else to take on their responsibility and in his opinion,
that is the next step once the current request is resolved. To come in and put pressure on someone to make their
property immutable so they can develop 2,000 homes on it, is not the right way to do things and he is hoping that
with being in a new political season now, those kinds of things will not happen anymore. Ms. Scott responded that
the parcel being discussed with the connectivity is slated for 742 units, it is not 2,000, but the point is the same that
collector roads are critical to transportation. However, to sort of assuage his concerns with his previous experiences
with her client, she thinks she would point to the idea that they are not suggesting that somebody else take on the
obligation. Her clients are offering to build the road through, which is completely in line with the Gingerwood
Collector Street Plan and the adopted Market Street Corridor Study. They are not trying to put the obligation on
someone else. They are just trying to say they will do it. Commissioner Barfield responded that he understood the
point, but for him it is the next step and not at this point in the process. Ms. Scott stated she would say again, that
the timing of this is critical because if the property does not get developed in conjunction with her client’s piece,
they are offering the opportunity to create that connectivity, regardless of what the developer does on the subject
site, and it would be a public road for the entire area. Commissioner Barfield stated that the next person that buys
the property may want the road in a certain spot with what they are trying to build, but finds it is already put in a
different area. That will cause a challenge to the buyer and, in his opinion, it would be the next step for the buyer
and State Street to work out the agreement of where the road should go. Ms. Scott stated that while she understood
that, with State Street building now, the Hunters Trail extension is going to be planned by the City now and it will
abut their property line, wherever it is going to abut. As such, they would like to have the conversation with the
current property owners now, so the best possible plan can be provided for them and the developer. Being
developers themselves and having a developer as a client, they do believe they can help, along with the WMPO, the
County, and the City, to provide for the best connection for them. It matters to them because if they build their road
now and it is not where the developer who buys the applicant’s property would like it and yet the County’s TRC says
they have to connect, that can be a difficult challenge for them. In response to Board questions, Ms. Scott stated
that the road is a 60-foot-wide right-of-way and about 640 feet long.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 766
Rynal Stephenson with Ramey Kemp Associates, traffic engineer for Hunters Trail, LLC, spoke in opposition
to the request, stating that the Board has received correspondence from him concerning this matter and he wanted
to add another layer to it as to why. The main thing that they are trying to advocate for is the connectivity and the
plan for the connectivity. As stated by Mr. Kozlosky, as transportation planners and engineers, they think the
connectivity in this area is very important. One of the things they were looking at is how it provides a parallel route
or a service road type infrastructure to the MLK Parkway, particularly when the interchange is built at Kerr Avenue.
It would be very important just to have this, as the Board has heard others mention, sending traffic in one direction,
which is precisely why it is felt that the connectivity is important, to give people multiple ways to get in and out. The
majority of the people understand that connectivity is critical and will be for the long term success of transportation
in this area, which is another reason why it is important. State Street is in the process of planning and will be
constructing the road along the applicant’s property. They are trying to figure out the best place to leave it, because
wherever it stubs to the subject site, as Ms. Scott mentioned, could be an issue for whoever takes it over. Again,
they are just trying to figure out what is the best place to put it that makes sense for everybody to either increase
the likelihood it gets done or increase the likelihood it gets done sooner. He knows it is a very unusual situation and
it is quite a predicament. Again, all they are really trying to get across is the importance of the connectivity and for
it to be understood why it was so important to have a parallel route to the MLK Parkway and to be able to connect
Kerr Avenue and Market Street. The roads are incredibly busy and he agrees that forcing the traffic out to Market
Street is most certainly the worst situation. He thinks punching it through will provide relief to traffic in the whole
area to really help Market Street a little bit more, which he thinks all know it is critical. He expressed appreciation
for the opportunity to speak.
Chair Olson-Boseman stated that the applicant and opponent would each have five minutes to make
rebuttal remarks, if they desired to do so.
In rebuttal, Mr. Culbreth stated that he and his clients are not saying that the Hunters Trail extension cannot
connect to Marjoram Way. What is being said is that the adjacent property owner has already made up his mind on
where he is going to put the road and he does not want any facts or input from anyone about it. State Street does
not have the right of condemnation. As to the comment about having reached out to his clients and him, what was
sent was a contract document between the heirs as the grantors and 5016 Hunters Trail, LLC, as the grantee, showing
that the grantors shall grant and convey necessary easements over the easement area as generally depicted in
Exhibit C (not included in the document) and that it shall be perpetual. It does not say where the road is going to go,
just that it is going to go over the Raines property wherever State Street decides to build it. It goes on further to say
that “the grantor shall have until the 180th day following receipt of all necessary approvals with the development of
its intended project to determine where they will put the road.” He does not think any of the Commissioners would
sign such a contract.
Mr. Hicks stated that as a realtor he is obligated under a listing to make a potential buyer aware of these
discussions and if it is rezoned it will not die on the vine, so to speak. It is a good cause, but it needs to be handled
in the proper format with the proper experts dealing with it. As to if State Street has made an offer on his clients’
property, Mr. Hicks stated that the property is currently listed on the multiple listings service (MLS) and anyone who
brings an acceptable offer can do so. To his knowledge, State Street has not made an offer at this point.
In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Scott stated that the purpose of Exhibit C for the contract for easement was to
set out a conceptual idea, since it is unknown where the easements are going to go right now. Exhibit C would have
been a depiction of where the connection makes the most sense after all parties had worked it out. It was not an
intention to put a blanket easement on the property. Once the access location can be worked out on where the
applicant would like it, her client can design their project to put the connection on their boundary in the right spot.
Her client would then need a perpetual access, 60 feet in width, so they can install it and maintain it until it is
dedicated and accepted. It was a genuine offer in the spirit of obligating her client to make the connection and the
collector road plan work for them, for the applicant, future developers, the County, the City, and citizens for public
safety and transportation infrastructure concern. She stated that Mr. Novotny is present, but she does not think he
had anything to add.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman closed the public hearing and asked for the Board’s
direction on the request.
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to approve the proposed rezoning to
an RMF-L district as the Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
because the residential uses allowed are in line with the lower density multi-family housing outlined for General
Residential areas and the potential development patterns and density are consistent with the surrounding
neighborhoods. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because proposal would benefit the community by providing diverse housing options, is an appropriate application
of infill development due to its proximity to major roadways, commercial services, and other existing multi-family
developments and zoning, and it is unlikely to be developed as single family because of the recent and future
roadway improvements along North Kerr Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway.
Chair Olson-Boseman opened the floor to Board discussion.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that the County does have provisions in the ordinance that
would apply to this property if it were developed under the County’s subdivision requirements. Again, staff will be
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 767
closing the loop in the coming months with the amendment and there will be a connection that is required between
any roadway that is in place and there will be connections to adjacent properties. What that roadway connection
would look like is a little bit more difficult in the unincorporated County than it is in the City, just because of the
public maintenance piece. There would still be things that would need to be worked out during the TRC process to
guarantee the type of connection that was outlined in the Gingerwood Collector Street Plan. As to whether she
would recommend that the Board continue the matter to provide the opportunity for everyone to discuss and move
through this issue, Ms. Roth stated that she thinks a rezoning to the higher density in most cases is the best bet in
terms of the County to warrant this type of connection. She does think the timing of the construction and the
guarantee of what that would look like depends on the role that the two private parties play in this. At this point,
there are still some questions in the air that would generally be addressed during TRC, which is normally how this
would be handled. If the Board wanted more certainty as to what it would look like before making a decision, staff
would be of course willing to work with whomever to provide that before the Board made its final decision.
Commissioner Barfield stated that the reality is this property could stay on the market for five years. In
regard to the Map Act issue, the WMPO decided to preserve the corridor through the Map Act, and had this Board
ratify that corridor preservation. A client he represented who had land at Military Cutoff and Market Street was
unable to sell their land due to it. NCDOT eventually came in and bought some of the right-of-ways, but his client
did not see the sale of the property before he died and his heirs ended up benefiting from the sale down the road.
Again, through the courts it was ruled that was illegal because basically you are taking someone's property from
them. In this case making a road requirement at this level, outside of TRC, would be just like that to him.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for a vote on the motion on the floor. Upon vote,
the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 5 OF
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 1, 1972 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes
and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 9A, Page 61.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS,
WILLIAM S. AND TARA S. HACKNEY, AND PROCLAIM HOLDINGS, LLC, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A
LIVE/WORK UNIT WITHIN THE (CZD) CB, CONDITIONAL COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, ASSOCIATED WITH
REZONING REQUEST Z20-21, LOCATED AT 813 AND 817 PINER ROAD (S20-04)
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 Spence Hackney
Rebekah Roth Dick Hahne
Cindee Wolf
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 Design Solutions on behalf of property owners,
William S. and Tara S. Hackney, and Proclaim Holdings, LLC, for a special use permit for a live/work unit within the
(CZD) CB, Conditional Community Business District, associated with Rezoning Request Z20-21, located at 813 and
817 Piner Road. The site currently contains an existing single family dwelling that will be used for the live/work unit,
which was constructed on the property prior to the site being rezoned to a commercial zoning district in the 1990s.
The dwelling unit is located in the center of the site and is a two-story building consisting of about 860 square feet.
The site plan does comply with all of the applicable zoning standards, including the allocation of two parking spaces
for the dwelling, and also 1,200 square feet of open space.
As for compatibility with the area, a single family dwelling already exists on the site, and approval of the
special use permit (SUP) would remove the dwelling’s non-conforming status. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan
classifies the site as General Residential, and the use of the house would be consistent with the goals of that
classification. As this is a request for an SUP, the Board must come to the following four conclusions in order to issue
the SUP, which must be based on substantial evidence presented at this hearing:
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 Unified Development Ordinance.
3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a
public necessity.
4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved
will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 768
Staff has presented preliminary findings of fact for each conclusion in the staff report, however, the Board does have
the discretion to modify or add to those findings. The Planning Board considered this application at its November 5,
2020 meeting and recommended approval of the application (4-0).
Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Mr. Schuler for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks.
Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, on behalf of property owners, William S. and Tara S. Hackney, and
Proclaim Holdings, LLC stated she has been working through this project and expressed appreciation for the prior
rezoning approval. As noted by Mr. Schuler, the house was present on the site when it was in the O&I zoning district.
It is somewhat non-conforming because it did have a conditional use and some baggage attached it. However, a
live/work residence was always permitted in the O&I, it just now has to be done via an SUP in the current zoning of
(CZD) CB, Conditional Community Business District. It is believed with the creative reuse of it, still as a residence, it
is well suited for her clients, employees, or his family, if he chose to do that as a live/work situation. As to the findings
of fact, she and her clients do believe that the public health, safety, and welfare is assured by the driveway permit,
by the site plan that they put together, and that it meets all of the conditions and specifications of the ordinance. It
will still go through the review process by the County's TRC. Because the house has been there, and it has been
occupied, although not by an employee or the live/work situation, there is no evidence that in the past there has
been any adverse effect to the property values in the surrounding area. Again, other than the new building that will
be part of the rezoning effort at the back of the property and away from any visibility, the house is there and has not
had any ill effect and the location and character and makes a lot of sense. This is a residential area, it is a home and
the business up front even looks like a home other than the parking situation. She and her clients would agree that
all of the staff findings under those required items have been met.
Chair Olson-Boseman announced that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition to the request,
closed the public hearing, and opened the floor to Board discussion.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf stated as it relates to having the recertification of the septic
system done, as staff pointed out, the final occupancy to build the other building is going to require review by the
County, which will include the Health Department. It will be done regardless of whether the back building has a
bathroom or not, but there is no intention to put any additional fixtures in there, so the house and office will go to
the septic system. Again, those are in place now and will be reviewed at the point that the new building gets
submitted. The new building will be built as soon as possible.
A brief discussion was held about how the septic system is being used rather than connecting the buildings
to the force main. Ms. Wolf reiterated that at the point the new building is submitted for the permit, that is when
the Health Department will review the entire site. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf stated she and her
clients agree with staff findings.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for the Board’s direction on the request.
Motion: Chair Olson-Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to approve the request 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. 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 85.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS, ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER,
CWEST, LLC, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND AND OPERATE A CAMPGROUND AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
(RV) PARK WITHIN THE R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 9515 RIVER ROAD (S20-05)
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.
Ken Vafier Curtis Westbrook
Rebekah Roth Doug Haggett
Cindee Wolf
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 Planning Manager Ken Vafier to start the presentation.
Planning Supervisor Ken Vafier presented the request by Design Solutions, on behalf of the property owner,
CWEST, LLC, for a Special Use Permit to expand and operate a campground and recreational vehicle (RV) park within
the R-15, Residential District, located at 9515 River Road. The site is located in the southern portion of the County,
directly off of River Road and is bordered by similar land uses on two sides. The Snow’s Cut RV Park was approved
via an SUP in 2018 on two parcels east of the subject site, and the parcel to the north has been used as a campground
and RV park since the early 1960s.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 769
The proposed conceptual plan consists of an additional 28 spaces, a bathhouse, and an additional access
point to River Road located on the southern boundary of the parcel. The SUP for the first phase of the park was
issued for 44 spaces on 3.6 acres, again, directly east of the park. Mr. Vafier then provided an overview of the
proposed phase of the park. Currently, the existing phase developed with the approximately 19 spaces in the
remainder of those spaces are expected to transition from the previously existing mobile home park to RV sites by
the end of this year. Campgrounds and RV parks are subject to supplemental standards in the UDO that generally
address dimensional standards such as setbacks, minimum space area, and roadway dimensions. In addition, there
are provisions that govern access requirements, sanitation and utilities, open space, fire safety and registration, and
the proposed plan is in compliance with those standards. The intent of the park is to provide for a transient
recreational lodging, and these will be readily mobile units as opposed to permanent units. The park is to be serviced
by Aqua Water and a community septic system, subject to applicable Health Department approvals.
Transitional buffers are required by the UDO when a non-residential use abuts undeveloped residentially
zoned property, thus buffers meeting the design standards will be required on the parcels to the west and south.
Again, access is provided directly to River Road, which is an NCDOT maintained arterial street. Mr. Vafier then
reviewed the access points in both phases of the park, the internal drive network, noting that the parcel to the west
is the new proposed phase. It will extend the internal drive through with the additional access points to River Road,
which will be subject to an NCDOT approved driveway permit.
In regard to traffic, the new phase of the park is anticipated to have a low trip generation on the order of
nine AM and 13 PM peak hour trips as it is for recreational transient lodging. While the trip generation does not
surpass the County's threshold to require a TIA, the layout and dimensions will be subject to TRC review. There have
been no TIAs recently conducted in the vicinity of the unincorporated area or Carolina Beach. Similarly, there are no
major subdivisions under development in the area. Mr. Vafier then reviewed site layout photos. As for compatibility
with the surrounding area, again the site is bordered on two sides by similar land uses and the proposal would be an
expansion of a previously approved SUP. The remaining boundaries are adjacent to currently undeveloped property
which will require transitional buffers and the location is in close proximity to coastal recreational areas nearby.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies the property within the General Residential place type, and the
staff analysis finds that the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As reviewed by Mr. Schuler
in the previous SUP matter, the Board must come to the following four conclusions in order to issue the SUP:
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 Unified Development Ordinance.
3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a
public necessity.
4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved
will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County.
The Planning Board considered this application at its December 3, 2020 meeting and recommended
approval (6-0) with the suggested condition that was applicable to the first phase as well, which has some restrictions
on camping and other activity in the required bufferyards, as well as in the 15-foot access easement along the
northern boundary line. If approved, project would be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review procedures to
ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Vafier stated that he believed there were some mobile homes on some
of the property in the past. Currently there are a couple of additional structures, with one to be repurposed for the
bathhouse and the other a single family dwelling that is proposed to remain, potentially, for the park manager or as
a long-term rental. He does not believe there any mobile homes on it now, but Ms. Wolf or Mr. Westbrook will be
able to confirm it.
In response to additional Board questions, Mr. Vafier stated that there are code differences that make a
mobile home a mobile home. There is no specific prescribed duration in the ordinance that states how long an RV
can be present on a site. That is typically left up to the individual business practices. By definition, an RV has to be
mobile ready to be removed from a site. To clarify, there are still mobile homes in a portion of the first phase of the
site. Earlier in the presentation, he mentioned that the first phase of the development was developed with 19 RV
units and he thinks that can be called phase 1a, which is the southern/southeastern portion of that first phase. The
subject parcel being discussed does not have them. In previous conversations, the applicant indicated that the
remaining units are going to be transitioned to the RV park, as approved in 2018, during this calendar year. He does
not know of any other RV parks aside from the immediate ones he mentioned in the presentation.
Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Mr. Vafier for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks.
Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, CWEST, LLC, stated that she has worked
with the applicant from 2018 when the first part of this property was created. Snow’s Cut RV Park has opened up in
the past two years and it now has 20 lots. Each lot has water and sewer via a septic system, power, and internet
service. Phase one has 20 lots, phase two had 15 mobile homes on it which were remaining back in 2018, and nobody
wanted to displace those people. Part of the approval and part of the plan was as those mobile homes were vacated,
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 770
the spaces were turned into RV spots which is what has happened. There are three remaining, and as Mr. Vafier
pointed out, her client expects for those to all transition before the end of this year. On those, the water system has
been tied into the Aqua Utility program and the septic systems have been upgraded as necessary as each mobile
home moves out and an RV space is replaced with it. That is what is in place right now in the old 2018 portion. What
is being discussed this evening is the track immediately to the west, which was a mobile home park but was vacated
in 2014 and is now totally vacant.
In review of the site plan, Ms. Wolf explained that the main drive is stabilized with gravel to ensure the ease
of maneuvering for large vehicles, but also the accessibility of emergency vehicles. The phase three design takes
advantage of a lot of earlier lessons learned in the layout and composition of the current camping pads, how to
orient the actual larger vehicle, and there must always be space for an extra vehicle in any one of the pads. Each one
has timber bordered and stabilized for both recreational vehicle and the other personal vehicle. Based on the
pervious design, the total added impervious surface coverage for this expansion is only 6,200 +/- square feet and as
such, there is not much impervious surface being added. It is considered low impact as far as good conservation
practices. Hookups are provided at each site for the water, sewer, electric, and internet. The septic fields are around
the track and several of the RV pads will share certain septic system areas. Each of those septic system areas are
based on 120 gallons per day, which is the equivalent of a one-bedroom home, and is the criteria used to design
those. There is the existing residential structure that will continue to be a housing option either for rent or to be
occupied by an onsite manager, which is thought to be a great opportunity for a caretaker and someone to be right
in the thick of things, management wise. All proposed improvements are in compliance with current regulations and
technical standards, and the convenience safety and aesthetics are all paramount to a successful park. Buffers are
provided along the residential properties to the west, which are the Slaughter and Weaver properties. No buffer is
necessary along the northern boundary which was the Carolina Beach campground, and she believes it has been
vacated. She thinks a similar type of use will be made of that property, which she feels is advantageous to this part
of the County. Ms. Wolf then provided an overview of how all the RV spots would be laid out.
Areas in the general vicinity have been used for mobile home residences and transient camping for many
years, and the area was included in the 1988 Seabreeze Small Area Plan which defines the historic and unique nature
of this section of the County. The plan was intended as a policy guide for future development and revitalization of
the Seabreeze community. Overall, enhancement of that unique environment and promoting the character of this
section of the County is strongly encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcels are adjacent to Snow’s Cut Park
and across the waterway from the Carolina Beach State Park and nearby ocean front beaches. This particular location
makes perfect sense from a recreational use to upgrade the area.
Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan for the future promotes a focus on increasing public access to water
and natural resources, and this area is popular as a vacation destination so tourism is absolutely a huge benefit to
the local economy. Ms. Wolf concluded her presentation stating that the development of this parcel for expansion
of the existing RV park and the travel trailer park is an excellent opportunity to address those goals. The findings for
the SUP, again, she and her client graciously accept what the staff has prepared as far as each of their findings. There
is access to River Road, which is an arterial roadway, and the safety of our traffic is in place with those access points
and the health, safety, and welfare of the septic system and the public water system, although it is Aqua Utilities,
has also been met. The use and layouts have been and will be even more keenly reviewed by the different
departments, prior to the certificate of occupancy. These RV parks have been here already and again, there has been
no adverse effect that can be evidenced in the land values and the General Residential place type is intended to
support lower density housing and recreational opportunities. The proposed use is consistent with that definition
and will promote the objectives and goals to keep the County a vibrant, prosperous, and diverse coastal community.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf stated that the primary septic fields have already been inspected
by the Health Department and Doug Haggett with Haggett Engineering Associates has done all of the testing. Each
area includes the main field and a repair field with capacity for each being identified, which is why the layout is very
specific for the roadway and the RV spots. The waterline will run under the gravel driveway.
Chair Olson-Boseman announced that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition to the request,
closed the public hearing, and opened the floor to Board discussion.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for the Board’s direction on the request.
Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays 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 condition:
1. Consistent with the Special Use Permit approval for the previous phase of Snows Cut RV Park, no
camping activity of any kind can occur in any required bufferyard or in the 15-foot access easement
that runs along the northern property line of the subject site.
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 86.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 771
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Diana Hill, resident of Klein Road, stated that several people in the community are concerned about Project
Grace and what will occur with moving the Cape Fear Museum and selling the library. There is a lot of history in this
community including, but not limited to, the United States Colored Troops’ significant role in 1865 where the
Cameron Arts Center now stands, the oldest Jewish community in this state is here with the Temple of Israel being
built in 1876 and the associated cemetery was dedicated in 1855, the events of 1898, and the history of the
Seabreeze community, all of which should be highlighted in the new larger museum. She and others hope that the
Board will not make the Cape Fear Museum smaller and value what has occurred historically in this community.
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPOINTING DIRECTORS OF THE WIND DOWN CORPORATION THAT WAS NEW
HANOVER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (NHRMC), THE 501(c)(3)
County Manager Coudriet stated that what is being presented for the Board’s consideration is a resolution
that he made the Board aware of last week, which appoints the board chair, county attorney, county manager, and
chief financial officer to the wind down corporation. The directors will oversee all of the associated wind down
functions, now that the County has officially closed the sale of the New Hanover Regional Medical Center (NHRMC).
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board.
MOTION: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays to adopt the resolution making the
recommended director appointments for the wind down corporation. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLII,
Page 24.3.
Chair Olson-Boseman congratulated County Manager Coudriet, County Attorney Copley, and the entire
team for their work on this matter. The day is finally here and the partnership agreement is done, which makes today
a really special day for southeastern North Carolina. She is proud to be a part of it and does not think anyone realizes
the actual impact the community endowment is going to have on the County. As far as healthcare is concerned for
southeastern North Carolina, the partnership with Novant and UNC School of Medicine is exciting for this
community. She knows County Attorney Copley has lived and breathed the hospital for what seems like years since
she has known her as has County Manager Coudriet, and thanked Commissioner Barfield. She also thanked former
Commissioners Patricia Kusek and Woody White for standing strong and having the absolute courage to do the right
thing for all of New Hanover County even when people called them all kinds of names.
DISCUSSION ON ROADWAY LITTER
County Manager Coudriet stated that Environmental Management Director Joe Suleyman and an NCDOT
representative are present to discuss the roadway litter issue.
Mr. Suleyman stated that NCDOT representative Daniel Jones is with the roadside environmental unit,
which among other things, is responsible for litter pickup and vegetative debris removal from the roadside. Roadside
litter has been an ongoing issue for some time. NCDOT road crews do come through to cleanup and then the next
day it looks like nothing was done. There are a lot of sources of roadside litter with one being the main artery going
to the County landfill. He believes one of the root causes of the issue is the tremendous amount of waste vehicles
traveling to and from the landfill. For example, due to a state administrative code change that occurred in 2017,
trucks no longer have to be leak-proof, they only have to be leak-resistant. In his opinion, without an adequate
enforcement mechanism in place, this problem and the other problems will never go away. The County fine for
littering is $100 on public roadways. The County ordinances on litter were written some years ago and it might be
time to review the ordinances again, particularly the enforcement mechanism. The Sheriff's Department spends a
tremendous amount of time prosecuting people for illegal dumping for very little gain, in that it is done only to
secure the $100 fine. In addition to enforcement, the County has a great community of volunteers, probably one of
the best that he is aware of as far as the number of people that will step up and volunteer, along with all of the non-
profits in the area. One of those non-profits is Keeping New Hanover County Beautiful, who has had a presence here
for many years and really turn out the volunteers. He thinks leveraging in some way that organization to help deal
with this problem in targeted areas would also be, at the very least, worthwhile to look into.
A brief discussion was held about roadside litter being an issue in many areas of the state. Mr. Suleyman
stated the residential rear load and commercial front load trucks are not the problem as they have sealed bodies
that prevent litter from blowing out. The roll off trucks from the construction sites with the open top containers are
probably the biggest contributor to the litter issues as the rollaway tarps on them have holes so the entire purpose
of the tarps is defeated. Again, it is also the leak resistant versus leak proof that is a significant issue.
Commissioner Barfield departed the meeting at 6:29 p.m.
NCDOT Division Roadside Environmental Engineer Daniel Jones stated that litter is a statewide problem and
he knows there has been an increase in public visual attention since early 2020 when the media reported that NCDOT
was encountering budgetary shortcomings. One of the items that was reduced within the maintenance division of
NCDOT was litter removal. For his division, they had stopped early in the year and prior to the mowing cycles,
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 1, 2021 PAGE 772
contractors would go out to pick up litter. However, not all of the routes in his division would receive litter pick up
under those contracts. Primary routes are chosen by either volume, traffic, or gateways to municipalities.
The encouraging news, although it has not gone through the final approvals yet, is that there is discussion
about supplemental funding that will come into his division to help his unit with starting to pick up litter on a more
regimented basis. The last time litter was picked up via a contractor was in October 2020. The three programs NCDOT
uses to promote opportunities for cleanup by volunteers are Adopt a Highway, Sponsor Highway program, and Swat
a Litter Bug program. There has also been positive movement with the division’s contractor who started today on a
combined contract to pick up litter for New Hanover County and Brunswick County. Work also started on January
th
14 at the Sampson-Johnston county line and will move eastward. Mr. Jones expressed appreciation to the Board
for the opportunity to speak on this matter.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Jones stated that the public can call 910-259-4919 if they want to speak
with someone in the division about this issue. Also, the local legislators can be contacted to encourage that funding
continue and be increased to address this issue.
Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Messrs. Suleyman and Jones for the information.
Commissioner Zapple stated he wanted to piggy-back on the good words that Chair Olson-Boseman stated
about it being a wonderful day in the County. County Manager Coudriet informed the Board before this meeting
that the County received $1.24 billion that is going into the community endowment. He thinks this is absolutely
terrific and thinks it will pay tremendous dividends for generations to come. He also wanted to commend the good
work of NC Attorney General Josh Stein who made critical improvements, he thinks, to the community foundation
that has helped it to be a public-facing organization so that the public will know what, where, and how their money
is being spent and on what projects. Again, he thinks that is wonderful and with those improvements, he thinks we
have got the makings of a fantastic future.
Chair Olson-Boseman stated the County had an absolutely amazing thing happen without the two things
that the attorney general said and she wants to make that clear to everyone listening. Her personal opinion is that
it was so perfect that the only thing the attorney general could do was to require the addition of a couple more
people for diversity. She thinks he had to throw something in for political purposes, and again, it was so well done.
County Attorney Copley, County Manager Coudriet, New Hanover Regional Medical Center (NHRMC) Chief Legal
Officer and General Counsel Lynn Gordon, and NHRMC President and CEO John Gizdic did a phenomenal job, and
she really does not think the attorney general did anything; she is not going to debate with Commissioner Zapple on
something that he voted against. She wants to talk about what a good day it is has been. It has been a great day for
the County and southeastern North Carolina. She welcomed Novant and UNC School of Medicine to the community.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Olson-Boseman adjourned the meeting at 6:37 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 online at www.nhcgov.com.