2022-03-31 Special Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 31, 2022 PAGE 374
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Special Meeting on Thursday, March 31, 2022 at
2:00 p.m. in the Harrell Conference Room at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center
Drive, 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 Copley; and Clerk to the Board
Kymberleigh G. Crowell.
Chair Olson-Boseman welcomed those in attendance and stated that the purpose of this meeting is to
discuss the County’s vision for the western bank of the Cape Fear River (western bank).
STAFF OVERVIEW PRESENTATION
Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth presented information concerning the western bank of the
Cape Fear River noting that the focus of the work session is only a portion of the County property that touches the
Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers, between the Cape Fear Memorial and Isabel Holmes bridges:
Aerial – Western Bank:
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that there is not a local historic district, and the area is part
of National Register Historic District for downtown Wilmington as well as part of the County’s unincorporated area.
She believes that the Historic Wilmington Foundation considers the area part of its purview because of the
designation, the battleship, and there being a separate designation for some of the archaeological sites for sunken
ships associated with the former shipping industry and uses in the area. Those items are not mapped due to being
protected resources, but there are several sunken ships within the vicinity.
In terms of area history, both Eagles Island and the northern bank are associated with rice plantations, and
some early industrial uses in the area that came later. Some of the comments received by the County over the past
several months refer to the Gullah Geechee heritage. In general, the Gullah Geechee corridor applies to areas where
there were a lot of the old plantation sites because of the enslaved people who were working there as forced labor.
There has been little in the way of formal archaeological investigations in the region. Staff did have Cape Fear
Museum Historian Jan Davidson review the history and some of the area is associated with the Point Peter plantation
and some of the Eagles Island information refers to the same history.
In terms of the County's policies for the area in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, most of the area was
designated as urban mixed use (UMX). UMX is the most intensive place type designation within the Comprehensive
Plan and reflects some of the conversations that have been taking place over the past several decades at the County
level. The zoning that is in place reflects the original zoning pattern when it was first defined in the early 1970s. At
that time, much of the area was heavy industrial. Back in the 1990s, the portion on Eagles Island was rezoned to
commercial and there has been some recent activity just south of the Isabel Holmes bridge over the past few
decades. Currently a portion of that retains the riverfront mixed use (RFMU) district that the County currently has
on the books. Over time, the County's policies have gone more from an industrial type of designation for the area to
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 31, 2022 PAGE 375
more mixed use but still relatively high intensity in terms of what is proposed for the area and for what is envisioned.
There have been some efforts, especially for the Eagles Island area, by local environmental groups, the County’s
local soil and water conservation group, and others that are focused on the conservation of Eagles Island. This is
more in line with some of the early 1980s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) land use plan policies which the
County has evolved away from over the past couple of decades.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that she believes that the designation was applied because
of the efforts around 2006 regarding the RFMU district due to extensive public conversations by both the County
and the City of Wilmington (City). The RFMU district allows for some taller heights especially on the northern bank
area and for a mix of uses. It is just not one of the zoning districts that is applied to the ground, it is one that can be
applied for, but it is not one where the County has the permissions already in place. When staff reviewed the
ordinance for the RFMU district during the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) process, there were some things
that made it less usable if the County wanted people to rezone to that district. At the time, because it was still in line
with what staff understood to be the policy, a change to that was not determined to necessarily be within the scope
of an ordinance project. The County did add two new districts, the planned development (PD) district and the UMX
district that were anticipated to be useful in the area. There were limited conversations during the comprehensive
planning process regarding the western side of the Cape Fear River.
Ownership:
Many of the parcels are currently vacant
Notable exceptions include the U.S.S. North Carolina site on Eagles Island and holdover river-based
businesses south of the Isabel Holmes Bridge
Future Land Use – Western Bank:
Zoning – Western Bank:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 31, 2022 PAGE 376
Prior plans and policies:
Ms. Roth provided an overview of the maps showing some of the primary nursery areas along with wetland
areas which are more fully described in the briefing materials. She noted that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
representatives were present to discuss wetlands regulations and that the maps are based on the natural conditions
and characteristics of the area. In terms of them being a protected wetlands, there would have to be field work to
delineate what those look like:
There are also some environmental constraints when it comes to flooding and all the properties are within the AE
flood zone, which is commonly known as the 100-year flood zone where there is at least a 1% chance of flooding in
any year. This applies to almost all properties on the western bank, as well as some of the properties that line
downtown Wilmington across the river:
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that she believes a portion of the buildings around Water
Street are covered by the flood zone across the river. The height limits in the City are based on downtown locations.
The convention center area right along the river is up to about 150-feet, where Embassy Suites is located. River Place
is allowed to be about the same amount which is around 132-feet. She could not recall the height limit in the moment
but confirmed that it is under 200-feet. The height of the Point Peter project has changed a little bit over time. When
it was brought to the Board in January, there was a height maximum of 240-feet which aligned with the height
maximum by-right if it was a RFMU district project that was proposed. Ms. Roth confirmed that what has been
proposed does align with what is allowed in the City.
Ms. Roth continued the presentation stating that along with the areas across the river in downtown
Wilmington, the base flood height elevation on the western bank is also nine feet with the flood standards which
means that the base of a structure would need to be at a height of 11 feet at the lowest floor. There is low land in
the area not seeing heights of up to nine feet in topography until west of Highway 421. There is a gauge that
measures it just south of the area along the Cape Fear River and flooding is increasing. These are floods that are not
necessarily associated with storm events, just regular weather. There is some information that has been brought to
light in terms of what the County can expect as storms become worse and as the coastline changes that show some
of the areas are also going to be more frequently underwater on a more regular basis because of the changing shores
in the area. She then provided an overview of a map below showing some of the projections for 2050 noting that
the shaded areas are what is projected to be underwater:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 31, 2022 PAGE 377
The map below shows another projection on water levels by year 2100:
Ms. Roth stated that the use of a living shoreline technique has been discussed, in addition to construction
techniques, to address some of the concerns. In downtown Wilmington there are some hardened structures that
help to limit flooding. The idea that staff has discussed for the western bank is to have more of a living shoreline.
There has been some information provided as far as the recent application that staff has received. It is a requirement
in the district that was tabled back in January, but there have been some concerns raised about whether this type
of technique would be as beneficial as hoped for a river of this type with the fast-flowing waters.
In looking at transportation in the area, the properties are all east of Highway 421 and are accessed by
minor local North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) streets which do currently experience flooding.
They will also be affected by some potential infrastructure projects. Ms. Roth provided an overview of the NCDOT
State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) for the Isabel Holmes Bridget interchange. Project U-5731 would
convert the existing signalized Isabel Holmes Bridge/Highway 421 intersection to a flyover and free-flow ramp
interchange. The project is scheduled to begin in 2024 with right of way acquisition and construction to start in 2028
and will affect primarily the northern bank. For both the more recent project and a project that was approved for
RFMU just south of Isabel Holmes bridge, the traffic impact analyses (TIA) indicated that what would need to happen
is controlled access along Highway 421 where there would be a right-in, go underneath Highway 421, come back up
to the west of it for another right-in, right-out turning movement. That was noted in the 2007 RFMU and the most
recent TIA. The City’s rail realignment project could also impact the area, though indirectly as the preferred
alternative at this point would be west of the properties and Highway 421.
In terms of stormwater, what would be in those areas is different than the types of treatment that would
normally be seen. Ms. Roth provided an overview of the engineering for a proposed project on Eagles Island to allow
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 31, 2022 PAGE 378
for an infiltration system underneath the structure. By the time the water comes through the infiltration system, it
has been cleaned and meets state standards:
Other regulations would also apply to the areas such as the requirement to have a CAMA major permit. She
stated that information about that process is included in Board’s briefing materials and representatives from the NC
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Coastal Management could answer questions about the
CAMA permitting process. The Planning and Land Use Department would also apply the flood management
regulations as part of its Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program and requires that structures be
elevated above base flood level and have the additional two-foot freeboard. Ms. Roth then provided an overview of
the following regulatory permits that would generally be required:
Regulatory Permits:
CAMA Major Permit:
US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Marine Fisheries,
Division of Water Resources, Division of Water Quality, Division of Land Resources, Division of
Environmental Health, NCDOT, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, and
Department of Cultural Resources
Jurisdictional Wetlands:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New Hanover County Technical Review Committee (TRC):
Planning & Land Use, Fire Services, CFPUA, Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization
(WMPO), Environmental Health, NCDOT, and Engineering/Stormwater
Ms. Roth stated that over the past several months staff has received several opposition comments to
development on the western bank of the river and a few comments in support. Those in opposition were concerned
about the environment and the impact on downtown Wilmington. Other concerns were in terms of whether it was
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 31, 2022 PAGE 379
something viable long term, and how the County could ensure the protection of cultural and historical resources.
Many comments received were geared towards the need to do something in the area as what is currently on the
property is not necessarily the highest and best use. Comments were also received regarding the importance of
encouraging better development of things that are desired and things that will make the Wilmington area a better
place to live. Ms. Roth further stated that she does not believe the recent proposed project is moving forward as
quickly as staff had thought when the briefing materials were released and that an application was submitted to the
Town of Leland for voluntary annexation by the owners of the Point Peter property. She concluded the presentation
stating that several experts were present and available to answer Board questions.
In response to Board questions, Tara MacPherson, District Manager and Express Permitting Coordinator
with the DEQ Division of Coastal Management, stated that FEMA flood and zoning is always handled on the local
level, and every municipality can be a little different. When her office issues a permit authorization, a review is done
to ensure what is being issued is consistent with a local land use plan. The field representative that covers New
Hanover County did receive a technical review proposal for the project south of the battleship just to look at it and
comment. The office had some comments about jurisdictions and the location of high water and what that would
mean for what falls under CAMA jurisdiction. The comments were sent back, and nothing further has been received.
There was an onsite visit to Point Peter to look at how to remove the existing debris from the site. The applicant
wanted to figure out if that was development, which in fact it was in CAMA jurisdiction, and wanted to remove old
water dependent structures on the site. The applicant was then issued a minor CAMA permit through the County
for high ground debris removal, within CAMA jurisdiction, which is 75-feet from high water. The removal requires
excavation and similar work and was covered under the minor development permit solely for debris removal.
In response to Board questions, Ms. MacPherson stated that the minor CAMA permit is good for three
years. Robb Mairs, Local Permit Officer and Minor Permit Coordinator with the DEQ Division of Coastal Management,
added that some of the work done in the past two weeks has involved different developers interested in the property
south of the battleship. The office has also delineated the coastal wetlands and normal high-water boundary and
has been out numerous times to do jurisdictional determinations, but those determinations are only valid for a year.
As such the determinations would have to reassess the wetlands and where the normal high-water boundary is
coming into play with the project and that will determine the setback. The work was last done in 2015 and as part
of the TRC process the office submitted a comment about the reassessments needing to be done, but there has not
been a request to update the assessments.
In response to Board questions about the stormwater filtration system, Mr. Mairs stated that it would be
the DEQ Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources that would be involved in the stormwater portion and
would have its own separate stormwater permit. Ms. MacPherson added that even if it falls under CAMA jurisdiction,
DEQ acts as an umbrella agency and would be part of the review and comment process. Both confirmed that they
have not seen a hydraulic engineering study for any of the developments. Ms. MacPherson stated that if that study
is included in an applicant’s proposal it is good information to have. The Coastal Management office evaluates what
is proposed and all information and research that goes into a presented proposal and is distributed to all the state
and federal agencies for review. Under that process one of the divisions may ask for it but it would not be specifically
the Coastal Management office and it could even be on the local level.
In response to Board questions about what concerns the Coastal Management office may have about the
proposed project, Ms. MacPherson stated that there is no proposal in hand and all comments are usually site specific.
The rules and regulations are there but as to how they apply to different projects, staff really needs to see what is
being proposed, where it is, if there are potential wetland impacts, and how much impervious surface there is. To
address specific comments, staff really needs to see a site plan and evaluate the site. In the past there have been
proposals and Ms. MacPherson stated that Mr. Mairs used to be the field representative and dealt with those, but
again there is nothing currently on hand that is site specific. Mr. Mairs added that there was a preliminary review
for what is being proposed and some existing site conditions. Staff will go through the process when there is a
proposal submitted and there will be an opportunity for a pre-application meeting to make sure an application is
deemed complete before it is circulated to all the interested agencies. In this case, a scoping meeting would be highly
recommended. It would all the agencies involved at the state, federal and local level to scope out the proposal before
the application is received by Coastal Management for distribution. It is a good way to get an idea of what the state
and other federal agencies are thinking about the project and can help guide the design of a project to address
current regulations that are coming into play. Ms. MacPherson reiterated that the Coastal Management office only
looks at whether the project is in CAMA jurisdiction, whether it needs a CAMA permit, and what type of CAMA
permit would be required. As to whether the office would recommend a project that is known will be underwater in
the future, that is when the office looks to the local level as well as FEMA flood and zoning. There is not a specific
regulation that applies to future water levels and that is why the local level is so important.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that Planning Manager Ken Vafier would be the person at
the local level to answer questions about the floodplain management program and County Engineer Jim Iannucci
would be the person to ask about stormwater.
Ms. Roth introduced Dr. Robert S. Young, Program Director for the Study of Developed Shorelines at
Western Carolina University, who participated remotely. Dr. Young stated that he is a coastal marine geologist and
a licensed professional geologist in the state of North Carolina. He directs the Program for the Study of Developed
Shorelines (PSDS) which was founded at Duke University in the mid-1980s and is now a joint program between Duke
University and Western Carolina University (WCU). PSDS performs basic scientific research on coastal processes,
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 31, 2022 PAGE 380
storm impact, coastal restoration, and sea level rise. It is charged with communicating the research to decision
makers at all levels, public and private. It is also responsible for looking at site mobility for the National Park Service.
In response to Board questions, Dr. Young stated that it is not his job to support or oppose any project.
What he does find most concerning is the number of nuisance flood days at the subject site, and the curve on those
flood rates is going up at an accelerated rate. The subject site is experiencing flooding almost 25% of the year. Some
things can be done to raise the level and provide some protection, but that does not make the subject site completely
buildable. Someone building a structure cannot just think about the elevation of the first finished floor of a particular
building. A development must be thought of as a system, so people and utilities are still able to get in and out of the
site. A site is only as workable as the lowest point on any road that is used to get in and out. It is a little bit more
complicated than simply thinking about putting a building on a site and raising it above the baseline elevation. It is
also important to remember, especially when talking about potential projects in multiple locations, that there are
cumulative impacts to any of the activities that go on in a particular development site. If the site is made safer to
build on by excluding water, whether that is through green infrastructure or by raising the site, then that water must
go somewhere else. If this is allowed to happen in one place then another, over time the potential flood level rises
in other places, whether it be the battleship or downtown Wilmington. The subject site is an incredibly exposed site.
He has no doubt that if nothing is done with Point Peter by 2050, the entire site is going to be wetlands. He added
that any wetland maps that are more than a few years old are already out of date. Dr. Young explained the issues
that arise from rising sea levels and how that may affect this area. He anticipates that by 2050, the sea level will rise
by one foot.
In response to Board questions on complications from having two main sections of the Cape Fear River
come together, Dr. Young stated that this is an area that can be put underwater by precipitation driven flooding that
went into the river miles away from the site before coming down the river, even if there is not flooding out in the
Atlantic. The worst-case scenario is when there is storm surge pushing up the river at the same time as a significant
rain. When that happens the river just cannot get out because the storm surge is raising the level of the ocean at the
mouth of the Cape Fear River in a way that is blocking the flooding that is coming down the river. On the other end
of the spectrum, there can be simple storm surge driven flooding when there is a storm pushing water up the river.
These kinds of locations are particularly exposed to flooding because it is not just coming from one place but multiple
places at once. It also makes it exceedingly difficult to model. He also does not believe that the flood map projections
Ms. Roth presented were over estimated. He suggested taking the current FEMA maps and comparing them with
what happened during recent storms such as Hurricane Florence.
In response to Board questions, WMPO Executive Director Mike Kozlosky stated that the trumpet
interchange project was selected based on an NCDOT analysis. The WMPO looked at various solutions at that
location and based on the traffic volumes, the trumpet interchange was selected as the preferred alternative. He is
unsure of the road height and there are not currently any plans to raise Highway 421 or any of the other secondary
roads on the west bank.
In response to Board questions, CFPUA Executive Director Ken Waldroup stated he has seen some plans
from as late as 2019 to extend infrastructure, which would have to come from the Highway 421 corridor in terms of
capacity. He provided a brief history of the retrofit program of wastewater pump stations in and around the western
part of the County. CFPUA has had to bring up vulnerable items well outside of base flood elevation and the two-
foot freeboard and will have to have those same hardening considerations at the subject site for any plans that are
submitted. If the property remains within the County's land use planning jurisdiction, CFPUA has a plan to serve it.
CFPUA currently has the same wastewater pump stations in some of the sound side service areas as there are on
the western side of the County where the pump station submersible components are sealed, and the vulnerable
electrical and maintenance components are in high elevated pedestals. CFPUA staff would have to review the site
with the same engineering considerations applied to other vulnerable areas currently being served.
In response to Board questions, Roger Shew, Lecturer on Earth and Ocean Sciences at the UNCW, shared
his opinion of development on the western bank, what he thought was best and wisest use of the subject site, and
on sea level rise and wetlands. He thinks the Vision 2020 plan had it right as it looked at Eagles Island being a
conservation recreation area. The plan also said that the Point Peter area would be sensitively developed. The
important thing is to build something that works with water, not against it. Risk and elevation are inextricably linked.
He would never use hardened structures and the developers of the subject site are not proposing a bulkhead. What
is not being stated is that if the water is rising, it will still move to that structure. If there is stuff underneath the
structure, even though it is 11-feet above base flood and the two-foot freeboard, there is still going to be stuff on
the ground and there will need to be access to the ground level to get up into the parking deck. He thinks it is bad
idea to have fill material placed in a floodplain.
In response to Board questions, County Engineer Jim Iannucci stated that stormwater goes to the river
and the developer would have to meet the County's regulations and other things put in place. There have been
discussions with the developer who had contacted him about what could be done. A lot has been discussed during
this meeting about gray and green infrastructure as well as looking at it from a standpoint of what can be done and
what is available through stormwater services. Looking at how to address this from an entire watershed perspective
is what is now being looked at. Stormwater service fees that are collected are for things such as funding for County
staff, consultants, and engineering. County staff is also looking at engineering studies down at the southern end of
the County and working within the budget that the Board set as well as UNCW and USDA grant funds. He is not
aware of a study of Point Peter. Some of the FEMA maps discussed today are based on limited delineation and some
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 31, 2022 PAGE 381
are based on older data as well as other items such as sea level rise. However, to really be able to quantify that and
tell NCDOT to raise a road, there must be some factual data behind it. He believes that individual sites are going to
be designed based on individual sites. Regarding compound flooding, County Engineering staff looks at it from a
tailwater perspective if it is known what the increase is over time, how the systems are designed to perform, and
the systems must demonstrate the ability to control rainfall. Anything can be built on any site, but it is going to be a
matter of access. To be able to access emergency services and get people out who are in harm's way, there needs
to be a plan in place to safely move people.
Commissioner Barfield stated that his concerns are about projected sea level rise and the landfill capacity.
Landfill capacity took a hit during Hurricane Florence. It is hard to predict the future and finding ways to be more
predictable is what is needed but he is not sure how to do that.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that it is staff’s understanding that compaction soil testing
requirements are not something that have been put in place. There may have been some work on specific sites as
part of their engineering but there is nothing that she is aware of that the County has in place. Soil and Water
Conservation Director Dru Harrison explained that wetland soils tend to act like a sponge, when weight is put on,
there is nowhere for the water to go. Water then either sits on top or is pushed out to other properties. She added
that a soil engineer or soil scientist would need to calculate the weight that can be placed on the subject site.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that what the area being discussed will look like depends
on Board direction. She does not believe that the County has any zoning districts currently on the books that match
what the Board would like to see in the area, but there are a few different options. There is the possibility of creating
a base zoning district that the County could go through the process of applying to the area that would determine
the types of uses as the Board determines appropriate either by-right or with additional review through something
like a special use permit process. There are also overlay districts that can be applied where they do not necessarily
determine the uses but could have additional standards that are applied to particular areas that require potentially
more information for staff review and more stringent standards. It depends on the direction that the Board wants
to take in terms of the spectrum of uses and the types of development standards that are put in place for the area.
In response to Board questions about zoning all the property on the western bank as conservation and
preservation land, Ms. Roth stated that the Board has broad authority to make zoning determinations. There are
considerations in terms of where the County gets to the point of not allowing reasonable use of property. There is
not a hard line as to where that falls, but that is one of the things that would need to be considered. There are uses
that need to be allowed in a particular area to meet that legal requirement unless the property were going be
purchased and put in some sort of conservation state. There are some Supreme Court precedents for development
cases where there are some parameters that have taken place. Ms. Roth did not research anything like that and
stated that she is not an attorney. In general, it is the type of thing where the Board does something, gets sued, and
then that is when the determination is made on whether that line has been crossed. Deputy County Attorney Sharon
Huffman agreed that there are not any hard lines, but if the Board decides to change it all to conservation, it should
expect to be challenged. Ms. Roth confirmed that the zoning can be changed but the Board cannot disallow any
reasonable use of the properties. There is currently a proposed text amendment for the UMX that has wide
parameters that could be narrowed to tailor it to what the Board thinks is a more reasonable use.
Ms. Roth further explained that there are some different uses that are possible based on the standards that
need to be met. In the RFMU district for example, if there is parking underneath and to limit the amount of
impervious, there is the possibility of having some incentives as well on top of whatever is the baseline. In general,
staff can develop a tool from a zoning standpoint for the Board to use, but staff will need to have some idea as to if
the Board still wants to see urban mixed-use development, if it meets standards, or is there a different policy
direction that the Board may want to go in.
BOARD DISCUSSION
A brief discussion was held about what the Board wanted to give staff in terms of direction. Commissioner
Barfield stated he thinks there is a need to have time to process the information that was presented. Commissioner
Zapple agreed and stated that his takeaway is that the area sounds like it is incredibly problematic to develop on
and that in the long term, whatever happens is going to include a lot of water. It may not be sustainable and what is
built today may come down in a short amount of time or be completely inaccessible.
A brief discussion was held by the Board regarding permitting and movement of water based on the location
of structures and sea level rise predictions. Ms. Roth stated that traditionally in a floodplain when there have been
concerns about impacts on adjacent properties, there are potentially some engineering requirements in addition to
what other developments could come into play. Again, there is a potential option where instead of having more
stringent standards applied as a base district, the Board can apply them as an overlay to the area.
Chair Olson-Boseman asked the Board about scheduling another meeting to get options presented for the
area. Commissioner Zapple stated that he would be in favor of another meeting. He would like to look at both ends
of the spectrum as options such as what it would look like as a conservation preservation, what it would look like
with the concept of a base zoning that can then be added onto whether that is through the special use permit process
or through a more stringent filter that the Board can look at as to a developer wanting to put larger or broader
structures on. Commissioner Barfield added that the Board needs to think about the unintended consequences on
adjacent properties. To him it is something that is outside of the County’s purview as it is unknown what the impacts
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
SPECIAL MEETING, MARCH 31, 2022 PAGE 382
will be until the first project is underway. Citizens blame the Board for downstream water problems when their
properties receive water from someone else's property due to development that has been approved by the Board.
As such, the Board needs to move cautiously as there are known water intrusion problems on the subject site.
NEXT STEPS
In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that as part of staff’s next presentation, they can provide
information on potential studies that might be necessary as the County moves in a particular direction, because they
would require more time and more expertise than what is available from staff. Planning staff will work with the Clerk
to the Board to schedule a good timeframe for the next meeting based on direction from the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Olson-Boseman thanked staff for the presentation and adjourned
the meeting at 3:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kymberleigh G. Crowell
Clerk to the Board
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners meeting.