Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-01 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 PAGE 252 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on November 1, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. via in-person and remote 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 (remote); 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 Mike Ashcraft of Port City Community Church provided the invocation and Chair Olson-Boseman led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Olson-Boseman stated that she was pulling Consent Agenda Item #2 Adoption of a Proclamation Remembering the 1898 Massacre and Coup for further discussion and consideration and requested a motion to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Chair Olson-Boseman to approve the remaining Consent Agenda items as presented. Upon roll call vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes – Governing Body The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Agenda Review Meeting held on October 14, 2021 and the Regular Meeting held on October 18, 2021. Adoption of Adoption Awareness Month Proclamation – Health and Human Services The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing November 2021 as “Adoption Awareness Month” in New Hanover County. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 15.2. Adoption of Diabetes Awareness Month Proclamation – Health and Human Services The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing November 2021 as “Diabetes Awareness Month” in New Hanover County. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 15.3. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Repair, Restoration and Rebinding of Register of Deeds Record Books – Register of Deeds The Commissioners adopted a resolution authorizing Tammy T. Piver, New Hanover County Register of Deeds to remove New Hanover County birth record books 124, 154, 158 (1,2,3,4), 159, 160-183, 184 (1,2), 185, 186, 187 (1,2), 188 (1,2), 189 (1,2), 190 (1,2), 191, 198 (1,2,3,4,5), 199 (1,2), 210 (1,2), 211 (1,2), 214 (1,2,3), 215 (1,2,3) and land record books AAA, 53, 54, 67, 87, 211, 232, 280, 353, 403, 606 from the New Hanover County Registry for the purposes of repair, restoration and encapsulation by Kofile Preservation. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 15.4. Adoption of a Resolution to Support N.C. Senator Michael Lee’s Request for State Funding to Repair Five Roads in New Hanover County – County Manager The Commissioners adopted a resolution in support of Senator Lee’s request for state funds to repair Blount Drive, Rogers Drive, Hargrove Drive, Avant Drive and Shaw Drive and inclusion of the roads in the state road system to ensure their maintenance in the future. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 15.5. Approval of September 2021 Tax Collection Reports – Tax The Commissioners accepted the tax collection reports of New Hanover County, New Hanover County Fire District, and New Hanover County Debt Service as of September 2021. Copies of the tax collection reports are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 15.6. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 PAGE 253 Adoption of Budget Amendment – Budget The Commissioners adopted budget amendment 22-018 for the Health Department, amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022. A copy of the budget amendment is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 15.7. Discussion and Adoption of a Proclamation Remembering the 1898 Massacre and Coup – Diversity & Equity Chair Olson-Boseman recognized members of the County and City African American commissions present in support of the 1898 Massacre and Coup D’état Proclamation and thanked them for their work as well as the 1898 Commemoration planning committee. The efforts to help the community learn about the events of 1898 and reflect and honor those who were killed and whose lives were deeply impacted are extremely important. She encouraged all residents to learn about the history of 1898 and participate in the upcoming events. She then asked Chief Diversity and Equity Officer Linda Thompson to read the proclamation. Ms. Thompson read the proclamation and Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve and adopt Consent Agenda Item #2 as presented. Commissioner Barfield thanked both commissions for their work on this matter and expressed appreciation for the efforts being made to acknowledge the history. He never heard about the 1898 Coup D’état growing up here and is amazed it was eliminated from public education in this community. His father was one of the first African Americans elected to this Board. It is important for the community to come together to find ways to heal, find ways to move forward together, and recognize that everyone is in this together. This is a great community that can do great things together if everyone would strive to work together by putting aside differences and recognize that all are the same. Commissioner Zapple expressed appreciation to the community and volunteers who are working on the planning of the upcoming events. He hopes that what happened in 1898 will never be forgotten and the community will continue to move forward with the healing and rebuilding process. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman called for a vote on the motion on the floor. Upon roll call vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 15.1. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS PRESENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2022 FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL RESULTS Chief Financial Officer Lisa Wurtzbacher presented the following highlights of the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2022, which includes financial activity through September 30, 2021:  General Fund Revenues:  Total general fund revenues at 14.2% of budget  $36.7 million in property tax received  39.6% of budgeted other taxes collected  No FY22 sales tax received  First quarter comparisons:  2022: Ad valorem was $36.7 million; Other was $12 million  2021: Ad valorem was $26.4 million; Other was $13.9 million  2020: Ad valorem was $20.7 million; Other was $9.5 million  Debt Service Fund Revenues:  Total revenues at 12.6% of budget  $3.9 million in property tax received  No FY22 sales tax received  First quarter comparisons:  2022: Ad valorem was $3.9 million; Other was $1.6 million  2021: Ad valorem was $3.5 million; Other was $1.3 million  2020: Ad valorem was $2.7 million; Other was $1.2 million  General and Debt Service Expenditures:  Expenditures through the first quarter represent 25.1% of budget  Most functions trending higher than prior year due to an increase in the budget  Fire Services:  Total revenues collected represent 13.4% of budget  Property tax revenues collected 18.5% of budget  Expenditures represent 31.2% of budget  First quarter comparisons: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 PAGE 254  2022: Revenues were $2.5 million; Expenses were $5.8 million  2021: Revenues were $1.7 million; Expenses were $4.5 million  2020: Revenues were $1.2 million; Expenses were $5.1 million  Environmental Management:  Total revenues for Q1 are 14% of budget  Charges for services are 17.6% of budget  Expenses for Q1 represent 9.9% of budget  First quarter comparisons:  2022: Revenues were $3.3 million; Expenses were $2.3 million  2021: Revenues were $3.4 million; Expenses were $4.3 million  2020: Revenues were $3.4 million; Expenses were $2.3 million In response to Board questions, Ms. Wurtzbacher stated that the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds are not part of the general fund and are in a separate fund. The general fund expenditures do not reflect those but do include the expenses from the rental assistance program. She will need to check on the contract regarding the expenses for recycling but knows that at one point there was difficulty marketing those commodities. She confirmed that debt service is recalculated each budget cycle and projected out for the next 20 years so only what is needed to pay for the debt service is collected. Hearing no further comments, Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Ms. Wurtzbacher for the report. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY JAMES YOPP ON BEHALF OF JACK CARLISLE AND ROCKHILL ROAD INVESTMENTS LLC TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 117.58 ACRES FROM R-20 TO R-15 Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation. Senior Planner Nicole Smith presented the request by James Yopp on behalf of Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road Investments LLC to rezone approximately 117.58 acres from R-20 to R-15. The subject property is located west of Walnut Hills and is bisected by NC I-140. There is a variety of zoning in the area, including R-15 and R-20 to the north. There is also I-2 to the west, across the Northeast Cape Fear River, and R-10 to the east. The development pattern in the area has continued to evolve over the last few years; at one point the area was all zoned R-20. Ms. Smith then reviewed aerial slides showing the existing vacant properties that make-up the subject site as well as the adjacent interchange that bisects the property, and a single-family dwelling located north of the request. The site was originally zoned R-20 in 1985 and was applied to allow for larger lot residential uses at a time when utilities were not readily available. The intent of the proposed R-15 zoning district is to provide lands that accommodate very low to low density residential development, which can serve as a transition between very low- density residential development patterns and small lot, more dense residential areas of the County. Ms. Smith then reviewed the dimensional differences between the current R-20 and proposed R-15 districts. The majority of uses are consistent between the two districts with specifics outlined in the staff report provided in the agenda packet. Access will be provided to the subject site, east of NC I-140, by Rockhill Road. Access to the subject site, west of the NC I-140 interchange, will be provided access off Alvernia Drive. While the entire site is currently vacant and generating no traffic, current zoning, paired with the environmental constraints would permit up to 79 dwelling units under the performance residential standards. A development of this scale is estimated to generate between 61 and 81 trips during the peak hours. The proposed rezoning would increase density a maximum of 104 dwelling units under the performance standards. A development of this scale is estimated to generate between 79 and 105 trips during the peak hours, for a net difference of 25 dwelling units and an additional 18-24 trips during peak hours. There is not a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) within one mile of the proposal. There are four active subdivisions in the area with approximately 607 remaining units until full build out. As for schools, based on the current general student generation rate, the increase in homes would result in approximately six additional public school students than would be generated under current zoning. The general student generation rate provides an estimate as different forms of housing at different price points yield different numbers of students. Over the past four years, staff has seen a decline in the number of students generated by new development. In addition, the student population is anticipated to grow by approximately 1,300 students over the next ten years based on recent New Hanover County Schools Facility Needs Study. NC I-140 bisects the subject site, which is built above grade. Higher density residential projects are anticipated for vacant properties along major roadways where they can serve as a transition between the existing roadway and existing single-family neighborhoods. As part of the application materials, the applicant provided a conceptual plan illustrating the envelopes of the site that are developable given the environmental constraints. While this is a general rezoning, and approval cannot be tied to a site-specific plan of development, the conservation resources will limit density and impact product design. The subject site is located in an area the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan) generally envisions as General Residential, though places close to the Cape Fear River, where environmental constraints are likely are designated as Conservation. The intent is to reflect the existing residential development pattern while protecting the natural resources in the area. The proposed R-15 zoning is generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for the types of uses recommended in NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 PAGE 255 the General Residential and Conservation place types and is identified as a typical zoning category in both place types. The Planning Board considered this application at its October 7, 2021 meeting and recommended approval of the application (6-0). If the rezoning is approved, the project will be subject to Technical Review and Zoning Compliance (TRC) review process in order to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Staff did not receive any written comments in advance of this meeting. Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Ms. Smith for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. James Yopp, on behalf of Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road Investments, LLC stated the request is consistent with surrounding properties in the area. It is the mild increase to provide a diversified product type to allow view and use of the natural resources in the area found along the river front property. Sewer and water availability has been provided to make the rezoning request adequate. 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. Smith confirmed that the subject site does abut the River Bluffs subdivision. In response to Board questions, Mr. Yopp stated that Rockhill Road does go underneath NC I-140 and splits the subject site in half, which limits the normal R-20 design and uses of that. However, there is a northern portion of the property as well as the southern portion of the property, which will provide some large increases from the development standpoints. All of the TRC recommendations will be adhered to in order to meet those requirements and the setbacks to keep all of the natural resources intact. A brief discussion was held about a portion of the subject site being wetlands. Ms. Smith reviewed the exhibit provided by the applicant reflecting the areas that would allow for development. She explained that the remainder of the site would be subject to wetlands and special flood hazard areas. Mr. Yopp explained that the upland areas are where the development would occur. The rest of the property is below the mean high water mark, which is why the rezoning has an increase in density from 79 units to 104 units. Although the total acreage of the property is much larger, those areas are not included in what would be developed and the plan is to maintain the wetlands area as conservation. In response to Board questions, Mr. Yopp confirmed that the project is not part of River Bluffs nor an extension of same. There is a parcel in between that development and the subject site that is at the end of Rockhill Road, which does connect directly to River Bluffs. The subject site is directly south of the Sunset Ridge property and prior to getting to NC I-140. The project could not use Rockhill Road to pass under NC I-140 to exit. There are two different access points because of NC I-140 splitting the subject site in half. One side is east, and the other side is west of NC I-140. Rockhill Road does continue to the subject site and always has even before NC I-140 was built. It split the parcel when the construction of the overpass was executed. There is no connection with the parcel and River Bluffs. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Vice-Chair Hays MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield, to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to an R- 15 district. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the General Residential and Conservation place types and would serve as an appropriate transition between the river, interstate, and adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located in an area with a variety of zoning districts and densities and will be restricted due to the environmental constraints. Upon roll call vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF CASTLE HAYNE OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 1, 1985 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section Castle Hayne, Page 30. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY TO AMEND ARTICLES 2, 3, AND 5 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO UPDATE HEIGHT STANDARDS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND NONRESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ALLOWANCES TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGING CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND STRUCTURE TYPES ENVISIONED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, MIXED USE, AND NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation. Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth presented the request to amend Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to update height standards and setback requirements for multi-family and nonresidential structures and provide for additional height allowances to accommodate changing construction standards and structure types envisioned for multi-family, mixed use, and nonresidential zoning districts as follows: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 PAGE 256  Context/Background:  Changing construction standards require more height in feet to achieve same number of stories  Existing standards don’t allow heights needed for structures associated with some permitted uses  Growing need for elevator-served multi-family structures  Timeline- Action/Date:  Initial Concept Presentation to Planning Board: May 2021  Concept Draft Presentation to Planning Board: July 2021  Revised Concept Presentation to Planning Board: August 2021  Draft Amendments Released for Public Comment August 2021  TA 21-03 Planning Board Public Hearing: September 2021  TA 21-03 Planning Board Public Hearing continued: October 2021  TA 21-03 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing: November 2021 Staff reviewed the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan to make sure that height standards were aligned with the development scales recommended for different places shown on the Future Land Use Map. For most of the County, a building scale of up to three stories is typical, though taller office structures (up to 10 stories) are outlined for Employment Center places and up to seven stories for most Urban Mixed Use places. The four-story multi-family structures were not specifically identified as typical in the Comprehensive Plan in most areas. It does guide that zoning regulations may need to be modified if needed to accommodate aging residents, or those with disabilities, and four-story multi-family structures are more commonly used to provide accessible homes as an alternative to one-story patio homes that take up more land area and are generally less affordable: The resulting amendment includes a few key concepts and goes beyond the original adjustment of height. After receiving public comments, staff reviewed existing developments, locally and in other jurisdictions where a change in development intensity is being seen, such as the North Hills areas of Raleigh to learn how potential impacts of taller buildings on existing neighborhoods are mitigated. There were also field visits to measure different ratios of height to setbacks to determine the point when the buffering standards, at the time of planting, would begin to block out taller structures. While existing trees, which are taller, are often used as part of transition buffers, staff wanted to make sure when new plantings were required the impact on existing residents would still be limited. The findings were incorporated into the mitigation standards included in the proposed amendment:  Key Concepts:  Allow four-story buildings, which require elevators, in all multi-family districts  Adjust height standards in nonresidential and mixed use districts to allow for building scales recommended in Comprehensive Plan and structures associated with permitted uses  Offset impacts of taller structures on adjacent residential properties with a variety of mitigation options  Modify setbacks in nonresidential districts to ensure consistency As proposed, maximum height limits have been increased to allow for four-stories in all of the County’s multi-family districts. This has been applied to only a few properties since being added to the ordinance in 2019, primarily through conditional rezonings where building height was specified as part of the original approvals. Five stories are allowed as part of a conditional zoning proposal in the highest density multi-family district, which could be applied to areas designated for more intense development, but has not been applied to any properties yet:  Maximum Height Limits – Residential: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 PAGE 257 Maximum height limits have been removed from two mixed use districts: UMXZ and PD, Planned Development. Instead, the master development plan approved as part of a rezoning to one of the districts would establish maximum height. This is being proposed because the wide variety of places where the districts could be applied makes it difficult to determine appropriate maximum heights across the board. The master development plan would also establish any mitigation requirements beyond the base district setbacks:  Maximum Height Limits – Mixed Use: Maximum height limits have also been increased for nonresidential districts to allow for the building scales recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and to accommodate structures that require buildings than may be typical in a district, such as hotels or hospitals. Mitigation requirements have been outlined to reduce the impact of taller buildings, generally those taller than 50-feet, on existing neighborhoods and to provide for a gradual transition in intensity and scale:  Maximum Height Limits – Nonresidential: The maximum mitigation is required when taller structures are proposed for properties adjacent to existing residential development in one of the general residential districts (Rural Agricultural, Airport Residential, R-20, R- 20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5), where homes are generally built at smaller scales. Less mitigation is required when taller structures are adjacent to multi-family projects built in those residential districts, as they are generally smaller in scale than structures built in multi-family districts, and on properties adjacent to undeveloped residentially zoned property. No mitigation is drafted to be required when taller structures are adjacent to nonresidential uses in any district, to single family neighborhoods when separated by a roadway, and to multi-family districts:  When Mitigation Required – Adjacent Uses:  Largest Mitigation Requirement: Single Family in R District  Smaller Mitigation Requirement:  Undeveloped Land in R District  Multi-Family in R District Ms. Roth then provided an overview of mitigation options for structure setbacks, architectural setbacks, and approvals in conditional zoning districts. The proposed mitigation requirements would limit the applicability of the new standards for many smaller properties near existing neighborhoods. Properties subject to existing master development plans, conditional zoning districts, and special use permits generally have heights established as part of the original approval. The ordinance can allow for a 10% administrative adjustment for height if it is not covered by a specific condition. Additional mitigation might be required and additional approvals from this Board would likely be necessary for these types of projects to take full advantage of this amendment. Impacted properties would be:  ≈ 40% adjacent to residentially zoned land  ≈25% adjacent to residential use (excluding apartments) on residentially zoned land Ms. Roth concluded the presentation stating that the Planning Board heard this request at its October 7, 2021 meeting and recommended approval (6-0), finding the amendment to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board also found the proposed amendment to be reasonable and in the public interest because it incentivizes the types of commercial development desired in the unincorporated county and mitigates potential impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residential neighborhoods. 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. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 PAGE 258 In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that the City of Wilmington allows for more stories in some of the districts that are in city limits. Some of the mitigation requirements being proposed are what is usual in some of the projects as part of a conditional approval process or allowed by-right. She thought the City's new land development code (LDC) allows the commercial districts up to 100-feet in height, so there are similar architectural setback standards for buildings that tall. She confirmed that it would be allowed by-right in commercial districts. In response to additional Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that the requirements for setbacks from roadways has not been adjusted in most of the districts in this amendment. There are a few cases where staff tried to make sure that for the commercial district along Market Street, for example, there are not some districts that push buildings further back than in other districts, so they were made consistent. Her understanding is that the City has a setback, basically a build to line, where a developer cannot push their structures further from the roadway. What is generally seen in the County’s jurisdiction are developments that like to have parking along the road and for the buildings to be set back further. This amendment would not require buildings to be setback in order to accommodate parking along the roadway, but it would also not require that the building be right along the sidewalk. For most of the County’s multi-family district, she thinks the setback requirement is about 35-feet, which is required from the property line before building setbacks start. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for the Board’s direction on the request. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays, to approve the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to increase height in multi-family, mixed use, and commercial and industrial districts. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it supports accessible housing and is in line with the height recommendations of the plan. The Board also finds approval of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it incentivizes the types of commercial development desired in the unincorporated county and mitigates potential impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residential neighborhoods. Upon roll call vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 3, 2020 and is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 15.8. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chair Olson-Boseman stated that no one signed up to speak on non-agenda items. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS Commissioner Barfield congratulated Assistant County Manager Tufanna Bradley for being a recipient of WILMA'S 2021 Women to Watch for public service. Commissioner Zapple congratulated Vice-Chair Hays on the recent addition of a grandson to her family. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Olson-Boseman adjourned the meeting at 4:53 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.