Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-06 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 452 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on June 6, 2022, 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 Gayle Tabor of Church on Tap provided the invocation and Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr. led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Olson-Boseman requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Zapple requested to pull Consent Agenda Items #3 - #8 for further discussion and consideration. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Chair Olson-Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the remaining items on 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 May 12, 2022 and Regular Meeting held on May 16, 2022. Approval to Request Grant Funds from the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency – Sheriff The Commissioners approved the submission of the application for the 2022 Port Security Grant. Consideration and Adoption of National Safe Boating Week Proclamation – County Manager Commissioner Zapple read the proclamation into the record. Commissioner Barfield commented on the importance of taking a safe boating class before utilizing watercraft. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays to adopt the proclamation recognizing May 21-27, 2022 as National Safe Boating Week and the start of the year-round effort to promote safe boating. Upon 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 28.1. Consideration and Adoption of Resilient and Thriving Communities Week Proclamation – County Manager Vice-Chair Hays read the proclamation into the record. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Vice-Chair Hays MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to adopt the proclamation recognizing June 6-12, 2022 as Resilient and Thriving Communities Week in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. New Hanover County Resiliency Task Force Director Tina L. C. Pearson expressed appreciation to the Board for adopting the proclamation. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 28.2. Adoption of National Men's Health Month Proclamation – Health and Human Services Commissioner Zapple read the proclamation into the record. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 453 Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays to adopt the proclamation recognizing June 2022 as National Men’s Health Month in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Health Director David Howard thanked the Board for adopting the proclamation and encouraged all men to seek out preventative care. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 28.3. Consideration and Adoption of Pride Month Proclamation – Diversity and Equity Vice-Chair Hays read the proclamation into the record. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to adopt the proclamation proclaiming June 2022 as Pride Month in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The proclamation was presented to Chief Equity and Diversity Officer Linda Thompson. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 28.4. Discussion and Award of Bid for Pre-Cast Concrete Structures for the William Louis Drive Culvert Replacement in the Amount of $102,276.68 - Engineering Commissioner Zapple stated his questions were answered by County Engineer Jim Iannucci during the June 2, 2022 agenda review meeting. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays to approve the award of the bid for purchase of pre-cast concrete structures for the William Louis Drive culvert replacement to Core & Main. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Discussion and Adoption of a Resolution to Dispose of Surplus Property According to Procedures Outlined in North Carolina General Statute Chapter 160A-Article 12 – Finance Commissioner Zapple stated he wanted to make the press and public aware that this opportunity comes up twice a year and the surplus items are made available to non-profits prior to being sold at auction to the public. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays to adopt the resolution authorizing the sale of the surplus property electronically using GovDeals or disposal by any other method authorized by NC General Statutes including discarding. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 28.5. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR FUTURE GORDON ROAD FIRE STATION Fire Chief Donnie Hall presented the request to purchase property for the future Gordon Road fire station. Due diligence has been completed for the parcel at 6102 Gordon Road, which is located across from the intersection of Gordon Road and Indian Wells Way. The agreed upon price for the 1.02 acres is $225,000. The property is adjacent to 6068 Gordon Road. Both parcels will be combined for a site to build a fire rescue station to service the Gordon Road area of the County. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Vice-Chair Hays MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the purchase of the property at 6102 Gordon Road and grant authority for the county manager and county attorney to execute all necessary documents for closing on the property. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 Chair Olson-Boseman asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to open the public hearing on the economic development and economic incentive appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2023. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 454 Chair Olson-Boseman opened the public hearing to receive comments on appropriations and expenditures for economic development. The source of funding for these appropriations and expenditures will be from the General Fund. The purposes of economic development and economic incentive agreements are to increase the population, taxable property, agricultural industries, employment, industrial output, or business prospects for New Hanover County. The economic development expenditures that follow have been recommended for appropriation in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 (FY22-23) budget and are under consideration for adoption. The public is invited to comment on the following appropriations and expenditures: Organization Amount Description of Activities/Expense Support arts-driven economic development activities to Arts Council of Wilmington & New Hanover $45,000 increase attendance and encourage increased spending in County the local economy Assess drainage for stormwater systems and watersheds to Cape Fear Resource Conservation and $4,500 implement projects that support communities, businesses, Development and natural resources An alliance of service providers, local government agencies Cape Fear Council of Governments Continuum of $27,300 and other public interests whose common goal is the Care for Homelessness reduction and ultimate elimination of homelessness Support seasonal staff for the Cucalorus Film Festival (Film, Stage, Connect) events which encourage visitor/tourist Cucalorus Film Foundation $25,000 attendance and encourage increased spending in the local economy Uses its members’ expertise to assist New Hanover County Foreign Trade Promotion Council $2,500 small, midsize, and large corporations to expand global sales and thereby offer sustainable good paying jobs Support programs, lectures, reenactments, and activities for Friends of Fort Fisher $4,550 local, regional, state, and national visitors at the Fort Fisher State Historical site Assist with funding New Hanover County businesses Genesis Block Labs, LLC $25,000 participating in their accelerator program Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce $197,652 Business retention, expansion, and recruitment Work regularly with the NC General Assembly, the Board of Highway 17 Transportation Association in NC, $3,250 Transportation and NC DOT leadership to make prioritization Inc. and funding for rural, eastern projects more equitable Assist with project development necessary for the Southeastern Economic Development $20,313 solicitation of grant funding from the Economic Development Commission Administration Provide the regional and targeted industry specific marketing The Southeastern Partnership, Inc. $20,000 and conduct familiarization events Provide recruitment/assistance for business expansion Wilmington Business Development $282,391 and/or relocation efforts Provide activities to increase the number of businesses, jobs, Wilmington Downtown, Inc. $98,280 and tax base in Wilmington’s Urban Core Promote/assist TV and film production activities to drive local Wilmington Regional Film Commission $145,992 entertainment business growth, support local production infrastructure and businesses Provide symphonic music and music education programs Wilmington Symphony Orchestra $5,000 through performance opportunities for regional musicians and for the community’s youth Wilmington International Airport $350,000 Provide jobs and investments through new airlines Previously Approved Contractual Incentive Payments The following is a list of incentive payments that were previously board approved as outlined in incentive agreement contracts to be paid upon the company meeting specified investment/job requirements: National Gypsum, up to $70,000, and Vantaca, up to $24,000. The source of funding for these incentive payment appropriations and expenditures will be from the General Fund of the county. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that two people signed up to speak on the public hearing and invited them to make their remarks. Liz Scanlon, resident of South Live Oak Parkway, stated she is the Executive Director for the Wilmington Symphony Orchestra (WSO). She thanked the Board for the $5,000 appropriation to fund the initiative to start a symphony pops concert for the community. She requested that the Board reconsider providing the original funding request of $25,000. It is important for the WSO to be able to provide the concerts for free so that anyone who wants to attend can do so. The WSO is dedicated to making sure that children and parents who cannot afford tuition and tickets, are able to participate in its programs, especially the new pops initiative. Natalie English, Wilmington Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) President and CEO, expressed her appreciation for the investments the Board has made in economic development efforts in the community and in the creation of the initiative, in partnership with the County, for small business recruitment, expansion, and retention. The Chamber is working closely with Wilmington Business Development and Wilmington Downtown, Inc. to help existing businesses who are facing challenges with a growth opportunity have someone advocating for them. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 455 Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board to close the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to close the public hearing on the economic development and economic incentive appropriations for FY 2022-2023. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 RECOMMENDED BUDGET AND ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET ORDINANCE Chair Olson-Boseman stated that pursuant to NCGS 159-12(b), before adopting the budget ordinance, the Board shall hold a public hearing at which time any persons who wish to be heard on the budget may appear. This public hearing on the FY 2022-2023 Recommended Budget meets these requirements. She then asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to open the public hearing on the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Recommended Budget. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that the Board would now hear public comments and the floor was open for Board discussion. She asked County Manager Coudriet to present the updated information concerning the FY 2022- 2023 Recommended Budget. County Manager Coudriet presented the following updated information concerning the FY 2022-2023 Recommended Budget:  Overview of Proposed Adjustments to the FY 22-23 Recommended Budget:  Post-recommendation Adjustments:  Non-County Agency Contributions:  Human Services:  Economic Development:  Other General Fund Modifications:  Reallocation of Existing Expenses and Revenue Adjustments:  Reduce existing medical insurance funds ($277,521) for increased Non-County Agency contributions  Reduce existing medical insurance funds ($21,866) and Administrative Reserve ($43,134) for Economic Development Agency contributions  Appropriate Fund Balance ($134,500) and Revenue Stabilization Fund Principal ($468,875) for General Fund adjustments  Increase loan proceeds ($250,000) for Fire Rescue Gordon Road land acquisition and design  New Hanover County Schools (NHCS):  Current expense: $3,434 per pupil  $91 million total (1% decrease from FY22)  Pre-K: $974,844 for six Pre-K classes (same as prior year)  Capital: $4.7 million (27% increase)  Debt: $23,280,484 (6.7% decrease)  ARPA: Pre-K Expansion $975,000 planned for additional classrooms (additional $580,726 needed to fund all 6 classrooms, per NHCS) NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 456 In response to Board questions, County Manager Coudriet confirmed that the increase of loan proceeds for the Fire Rescue Gordon Road land acquisition and design was in addition to what was approved by the Board earlier in the meeting. As to the additional prosecutor, the impression that was received from the City of Wilmington (City) manager was that the City feels it is more of a county responsibility as it relates to the judicial system. Brief discussion ensued regarding the increased cost of capital. County Manager Coudriet confirmed that the County has seen as much as a 30% increase in capital costs for projects. The additional funding for the Pre-K classroom expansion adds six classrooms which will provide for a total of 12 classrooms. Commissioner Barfield stated that public education is one of the larger parts of the County budget. The County has funded more than 600 positions beyond what the NC Department of Public Instruction (DPI) mandates and recommends. Based on student population, the state says a school district should have “X” number of positions. During the 2009 budget process, he was told that the County truly funded approximately 630 positions beyond the state mandate. The County’s funding history shows its commitment to public education and to the students. He also thinks the average daily membership (ADM) per pupil at that time was $1,850 and this year it is $3,434 per student. A couple of years ago, the Board decided to give public educators and people working in the school system a bonus and took $2.5 million from the County budget to do so. The following year, the Board again decided that it wanted to make sure that NHCS teachers have the highest salary of any supplement within the state to attract and retain the best and highest quality educators within this community. The County has shown a true commitment to public education over the years. He, Chair Olson-Boseman, and Commissioner Rivenbark are products of the NHCS system. The County cares about the school district. He commended Superintendent Dr. Foust for his wisdom and knowledge on how to navigate the budget and put things together and encouraged others to follow his lead and direction as he feels Dr. Foust is giving great counsel and pulling out the right resources from the County as well. He thanked all those involved for their commitment to the students, school district, and for working in public education. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that the Board would now receive public comments. New Hanover County Schools Dr. Charles Foust, Superintendent of NHCS, stated that he and Interim Finance Director Ashley Sutton were present to answer any questions. In response to Board questions, Ms. Sutton confirmed that the Brogden Hall gym floor is fully funded and will be functional for the next school year. The status of the balance of the renovations will depend on if funding can be found. Regarding the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds discrepancy between the DPI site and what NHCS is reporting as of April 30, 2022, the NHCS number was a projection through the end of the year. It is dependent on projects NHCS was able to finish and that there would not be any additional vacancies as several are being paid for out of the ESSER funds. The ESSER funding for positions will run out in three years. She does not know exactly where the school will end up at the end of the year but the $57 million is a low number. Dr. Foust stated that an assessment would have to be done of the unspent funds to determine where to reallocate. Also, ESSER funds are not being used to provide raises and services such as the AIG program are not being taken away. Commissioner Barfield stated that he does not want people to confuse the word “we” which has been used because the Board of Commissioners does not make decisions for the Board of Education (BOE). The BOE is an elected body charged with making decisions on how it is going to allocate positions and spend money. The Board of Commissioners allocate the resources and has extremely limited input into how the BOE uses those dollars. It is a BOE decision because the members have been elected by the public to make those calls. When it is heard positions are being cut, it is not the Board of Commissioners cutting anyone. In fact, it is the BOE who again, are elected officials, making policy decisions as they set the policy to either add or take away positions or to increase or decrease salaries. Again, it is the BOE’s decision, not the Board of Commissioners decision. In 2011 he looked to his fellow Commissioners at that time to pass a local bill that would have given the Board of Commissioners more say over the money allocated to have the ability to drill down into the weeds. The decision was made to not pursue that path. The Board of Commissioners has almost zero say in how those dollars are spent. When increases happen outside of bonuses, even with the bonus money that the County gave, the BOE could not be forced to give those bonuses and there is no way to guarantee that would happen. The BOE, which again is elected by the citizens, makes policy decisions that affect those who work within the school system regarding staffing levels and where resources go, not the Board of County Commissioners. Vice-Chair Hays also stated that it is up to the Board of Commissioners on where to apply the resources. Commissioner Zapple reiterated Commissioner Barfield’s comments and stated that the 654 positions that are funded locally are substantially higher than in other NC school systems by approximately 50% in some cases. The BOE can take that money and spend it as they will. Over the years, well before the current board and even into the last few years, the BOE has found priorities to take the per pupil supplemental funding and put it into hiring what now adds up to 654 positions. The BOE could in the same way, through priority, focus that money on teaching assistants pay raises. Over time the school system has gotten an outsized number of local positions for a lot of good reasons. However, some of those decisions about how to use the money could also be made to prioritize getting, in this case, teacher's assistants up to $17 an hour, as well as all non-certified positions. Again, that is a decision made by the BOE not the Board of Commissioners. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 457 In response to Board questions, Dr. Foust stated that by state law students must take a test to get into the AIG program and the school district must provide the services such as the AIG program. As far as the one-to-one devices, students in kindergarten through grade 2 are provided iPads, and students in grades 3 through 12 are provided laptops. Other Agencies/Individuals Comments Rebecca Anderson, Executive Director of 514 Revolution, stated the organization is a nonprofit in New Hanover County that provides direct services to women that have been victims of sexual exploitation and human trafficking. In 2022, 514 has provided direct services to 37 women. For FY 23, the funding recommendation was zero and she would like the Board to reconsider that recommendation. The request submitted was for $25,000 for the executive director’s salary which was denied because salaries cannot be funded. While it is understood that salaries were not an allowed expense, the salaries for 514’s executive director and assistant director are directly tied to service delivery as both work directly in the field engaging with and delivering direct service to clients. They serve as onsite case managers helping women to rebuild their lives following exploitation and victimization. She requested the Board to reconsider the recommended funding amount for 514 to continue to provide support and services to some of the most vulnerable women in the community. Cynthia Silva, President-Elect for the New Hanover County Association of Educators (NHCAE), requested that the Board support the budget the BOE passed in May as it includes a wage increase to classified staff to a minimum of $17 per hour. Increasing the wage to $17 per hour for classified staff provides a living wage to teacher assistants, front office staff, custodial staff, cafeteria staff, plumbers, electricians, and mechanics as each is essential in the link to the students’ success in life. She wants the school system to be able to retain these invaluable classified staff with a minimum of $17 per hour starting this July without any delay or through a multi-year rollout. David Cantwell, NHCAE member and special education teacher assistant at Winter Park Elementary, spoke in support of the BOE’s funding request to create permanent raises and step increases for all classified school staff. NHCS classified staff do not get supplemental pay as in many other counties. Teacher assistants need to be paid a fair living wage for the important and challenging work they do. Rebecca Beitel, NHCAE member, stated that she has been a teacher assistant for 16 years and asked that the Board support the BOE’s funding request of $17 per hour for all classified employees, along with step increases for years of service. The salary consultants that the school district hired clearly showed that classified employee salaries have been behind for years, and the current salary is unsustainable. With the rate of inflation and the cost of living in New Hanover County, many classified employees are having to work two or more jobs to make ends meet. Teacher assistant salaries are not in line with the level of responsibilities which include, but are not limited to, instructing small groups of students, teaching the whole class when the teacher is testing or needs to be working with a child, and covering classes on a moment's notice. New Hanover County classified staff did not receive a supplement like those in other counties. George Vlasits, First Vice-President of the New Hanover County NAACP, stated he is a retired public-school teacher and urged the Board to fully fund the BOE budget request as it is much lower than what is needed, but a step in the right direction. It is the minimum to maintain the quality education in this County. Public education is in a crisis, both here and nationwide. What is being seen are school systems hemorrhaging staff, as schools are asked to do more with less. While the crisis has multiple causes, the continuing failure to adequately fund schools and to pay staff who have been the heroes and educating children during the pandemic is chief among them. When school staff need to work two or three jobs to support their own families, they have a difficult balancing act to meet the needs of the young people they work with in school. While they are devoted to the crucial work they do, it becomes harder and harder to rationalize remaining in education at the cost to them and their families. These workers need what amounts to a cost of living raise just to stay afloat. Christina Ferris, Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity (CFHH) Development Director, thanked the Board for considering CFHH’s full funding request. Housing is at the core of everything from education to the well-being of this community. Affordable housing is a crisis here in this community. Affordable housing should be a reality, not a luxury, for those who want to live and work here in New Hanover County. Affordable housing is at the very building block of this community and at the core of almost everything CFHH does. Most of the homeowners that go through the CFHH program, which is an empowerment program because it changes their lives forever, have a permanent and complete change in their lives and it builds community at the same time. CFHH serves educators, first responders, and healthcare workers. She expressed appreciation for the Board’s consideration of CFHH’s funding request. Whitney Skelly, representing Coastal Horizons Transitional Living program, thanked the Board for its continued support to serve young adults ages 16 to 21 in the community who are either experiencing homelessness or at the risk of experiencing homelessness, and who are transitioning from adolescence into adulthood. The support allows the program to continue to teach the necessary life skills and working to end the cycle of homelessness in the community. Jason Spencer, NC Symphony Education Director, stated that the NC Symphony has been performing in New Hanover County since 1946 and serves an average of 1,510 fourth graders each year through its music education programs. Access to the arts plays a critical role in quality education, with research showing students actively involved in the arts are more likely to succeed in all subjects. The North Carolina Symphony provides both in person and online curriculum-based music education programs to students in New Hanover County. The NC Symphony will NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 458 also offer its music discovery program, an interactive early childhood music and literacy program to preschoolers in New Hanover County. The total cost of presenting these education programs in New Hanover County is approximately $59,000 annually. He thanked the Board for its consideration and support of the symphony’s music education programs. Kevin Chandler, Cape Fear Pickleball Club member, stated it is believed there are over 1,000 pickleball players in the County. Currently, there are only six permanent pickleball courts in the County, at the Northern Regional Park. However, with it being at the northern end of the County it is out of geographic reach of many of the players. To rectify that situation, the proposal is to convert two underutilized courts at Arrowhead Park to provide six pickleball courts. He encouraged the Board to approve the proposal to address the needs of the players who live at the southern end of the County and cannot get to the Northern Regional Park. Holly Manning, Cape Fear Pickleball Club President, stated that the club also has an outreach program and collaborates with the school system to teach lessons to younger students. The club also provides summer camps. The club provides the nets for the courts and keeps them locked up at the different facilities. If the proposed courts are created there would be more access to the pickleball community. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked a motion to close the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays to close the public hearing on the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Recommended Budget. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BREAK: Chair Olson-Boseman called for a break from 5:30 p.m. until 5:44 p.m. Chair Olson-Boseman asked Assistant County Manager Lisa Wurtzbacher to provide an overview of the FY22-23 voting Procedures. Assistant County Manager Wurtzbacher provided the overview as follows:  FY22-23 Voting Procedures:  Session Law 2021-191 (SB 473): Recusal vote required to ensure no conflict of interest between governing board members of New Hanover County and non-county, economic development, and social impact agencies  Revenue Stabilization and Mental Health Funds: Separate ordinances to satisfy the 4/5 super- majority votes  FY22-23 Budget: Vote as usual Chair Olson-Boseman stated that pursuant to Session Law 2021-191 (S.B. 473), specifically, Section 14- 234.3, prohibits public officials who also serve as directors, officers, or governing board members for non-profits from participating in making or administering any contracts with those non-profits. When a governing board considers a contract with a non-profit, including any award of money, board members involved with that non-profit must recuse themselves from any deliberation and record their recusal with the clerk. This recusal process for the 2022-2023 Recommended Budget meets the governing board members’ duty to vote and recusal procedure requirements. The recusal vote will excuse each board member from deliberation and voting on appropriations and expenditures for the non-county, economic development, and social impact agencies due to a conflict of interest. It specifically excuses Vice-Chair Deb Hays from Genesis Block Labs, LLC, Southeastern Economic Development Commission, The Southeastern Partnership, Inc., and Wilmington Downtown, Inc.; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr. from Blue Ribbon Commission (VOYAGE) and Greater Wilmington Youth Initiative, Inc. (First Tee); Commissioner Bill Rivenbark from Wilmington Business Development; Commissioner Rob Zapple from Leading into New Communities, Inc.; and Chair Julia Olson-Boseman, from Wilmington Regional Film Commission and Cape Fear Council of Governments. Hearing no further discussion. Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. MOTION: Vice-Chair Hays MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to recuse each board member from deliberation and voting on appropriations and expenditures for the non-county, economic development, and social impact agencies due to a conflict of interest as listed by the chair. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that a vote is needed to appropriate and administer a contract for individual non-county, economic development (based on the finding that the appropriations and expenditures will increase the population, taxable property, agricultural industries, employment, industrial output, or business prospects of the County) and social impact agencies. There will be separate votes for each agency by board members who are not already recused from voting on a specific agency. Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction on the following agencies:  Genesis Block Labs, LLC (excludes Vice-Chair Hays):  MOTION: Chair Olson-Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the appropriation, and administer a contract for Genesis Block Labs, LLC. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.  Southeastern Economic Development Commission (excludes Vice-Chair Hays): NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 459  MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Rivenbark to approve the appropriation, and administer a contract for Southeastern Economic Development Commission. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.  The Southeastern Partnership, Inc. (excludes Vice-Chair Hays):  MOTION: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the appropriation, and administer a contract for The Southeastern Partnership, Inc. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.  Wilmington Downtown, Inc. (excludes Vice-Chair Deb Hays):  MOTION: Chair Olson-Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the appropriation, and administer a contract for Wilmington Downtown, Inc. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.  Blue Ribbon Commission (VOYAGE) (excludes Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.):  MOTION: Chair Olson-Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the appropriation, and administer a contract for Blue Ribbon Commission (VOYAGE). Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.  Greater Wilmington Youth Initiative, Inc. (First Tee) (excludes Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.):  MOTION: Vice-Chair Hays MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the appropriation, and administer a contract for Greater Wilmington Youth Initiative, Inc. (First Tee). Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.  Wilmington Business Development (excludes Commissioner Bill Rivenbark):  MOTION: Vice-Chair Hays MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the appropriation, and administer a contract for Wilmington Business Development. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.  Leading into New Communities, Inc. (excludes Commissioner Rob Zapple):  MOTION: Chair Olson-Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays to approve the appropriation, and administer a contract for Leading into New Communities, Inc. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.  Wilmington Regional Film Commission (excludes Chair Julia Olson-Boseman):  MOTION: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the appropriation, and administer a contract for Wilmington Regional Film Commission. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0.  Cape Fear Council of Governments (excludes Chair Julia Olson-Boseman):  MOTION: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Hays to approve the appropriation, and administer a contract for Wilmington Regional Film Commission. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. Chair Olson-Boseman asked for a motion and a second to adopt the revenue stabilization fund expenditures as revised in the FY 2022-2023 Budget Ordinance. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Rivenbark to adopt the revenue stabilization fund expenditures as revised in the FY 2022-2023 Budget Ordinance. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Olson-Boseman asked for a motion and a second to adopt the FY 2022-2023 Budget Ordinance, exclusive of the appropriations voted on for non-county, economic development and social impact agencies recusing Commissioners with conflicts of interest. MOTION: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to adopt the FY 2022-2023 Budget Ordinance, exclusive of the appropriations voted on for non-county, economic development and social impact agencies recusing Commissioners with conflicts of interest. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Olson-Boseman opened the floor to Board discussion. Commissioner Zapple stated that in the last 12 to 18 months, there has been a tremendous amount of money that has come specifically into this County and specifically into the school system. Those funds came from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding which the school district received in addition to the ESSER funding of over $100 million, as well as bonuses from the Board of Commissioners to the school system. Last year’s increase in the County’s per pupil funding brought it up to $3,434, which represents a $500 increase of where the County was from the year before, representing forever $22 to $24 million in increased funding to the school system. In putting all that together, there is more money in the NHCS system today than there has ever been in the history of New Hanover County. He asked Dr. Foust if he was correct on that front. Dr. Foust confirmed he was correct. Commissioner Zapple further stated that it is the prioritization of those duly elected school board members of where that money is spent and he knows there are some controls and rules around that, but there is a huge amount of money that has flowed not only through the County with the Board of Commissioners’ permission as well as all the other entities he just stated to make sure that the 235,000 people in New Hanover County can rest assured that their children and in some cases adults are getting the best education possible. He asked Dr. Foust if he stated anything that was not true. Dr. Foust responded that he did not. Commissioner Zapple concluded his comments expressing appreciation to Dr. Foust for responding to his questions and the great job he is doing. Furthermore, he is uncomfortable with the narrative that was being put out there and wanted to make sure that the citizens NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 460 understand just how passionate the Board of Commissioners is in ensuring the school system has the money they need to educate students. Vice Chair Hays thanked Dr. Foust and stated that the Board of Commissioners want this to be a working relationship. All the Commissioners are parents and all care very deeply about the school system. She hopes Dr. Foust and the BOE understands that but at the same time the County is providing school funding this year in the amount of $121,511,484. In addition to those funds, NHCS received over $120 million in ESSER and ARPA funds to be spent over three to four years. As such there is an enormous amount of funding going into the NHCS system. The Board of Commissioners is not holding back and cares beyond measure. It is now in Dr. Foust’s and the BOE’s hands to figure out how best to appropriate and manage that money and give teacher assistants raises. County Manager Coudriet recognized the finance and budget teams for their work to put together the FY 2022-2023 Budget. On behalf of the Board, Chair Olson-Boseman thanked County staff for their work on the budget and Dr. Foust for his work and commended him for enduring for all that he has since taking the NHCS superintendent position. A copy of the budget ordinance is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIII, Page 28.6. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY JAMES FENTRESS WITH STROUD ENGINEERING, PA, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF DALLAS HARRIS LAND COMPANY, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.1 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 7491 MARKET STREET FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO (CZD) CB, COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR A BANK/FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICE AND CLINIC, AND OFFICES FOR PRIVATE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES (Z22-09) Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth presented the request by James Fentress of Stroud Engineering, PA, on behalf of the property owner, Dallas Harris Land Company, LLC, to rezone 1.1 acres of land located at 7491 Market Street from R-15 to (CZD) CB to develop a bank/financial institution. The proposed development consists of a 2,400 square foot structure with a covered drive-thru ATM area with three service lanes. In addition to the proposed bank/financial institution use, the applicant is also proposing that a medical and dental office and clinic and offices for private business and professional activities be included to allow for future flexibility in land uses. The subject site is located on the corner of Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard. The R-15 district in this area was established in 1972 when zoning was first applied to this portion of the County. At this time, the purpose of the R-15 district was to ensure that housing served by private septic and well would be developed at low densities. Over the past 50 years, this portion of the County and the Market Street corridor have experienced a shift from the original R-15 zoning to more commercial districts and uses, which is expected to continue. Typical R-15 development in the area includes smaller patio homes, which is not what has been common along the Market Street corridor in recent years. The proposed Community Business district would allow for a smaller scale bank or office use. The subject site is bordered to the northwest by the West Bay Estates single-family neighborhoods and is adjacent to commercial and institutional uses to the south and east and is currently undeveloped. The conceptual plan provided by the applicant includes preliminary design for required setbacks, parking, landscaping and buffering, and stormwater detention. Existing regulated trees in the buffer area on the western boundary of the lot will be retained, and the area will be supplemented as needed to achieve 100% opacity within one year of planting per ordinance requirements. Staff is also collaborating with the applicant to try to save a significant oak tree with about a 21-inch diameter at breast height that falls just outside the buffer area. It is possible that shifts to the site plan that fall within the minor deviations that can be approved administratively will allow the tree to be saved. Access will be provided by two driveways: one on Torchwood Boulevard and one on Market Street. The access points are subject to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) driveway permitting regulations, and NCDOT has preliminarily commented that both driveways will be limited to right-in/right-out movements. There were some questions asked during the Planning Board meeting regarding how Market Street traffic would enter the two access points. For south-bound traffic, drivers would just make a right turn into the site. North-bound traffic would make a U-turn at the light, which would be accommodated by a slight bulb-out included in the design for the roadway improvements. To leave the site, drivers would make a right turn out of the access on Torchwood Boulevard to get into the left turn lane to make a left onto Market to continue travelling north. As currently zoned, it is estimated the site could generate about three trips during the peak hours if developed at the permitted by-right density of 2.5 units per acre. The estimated peak hour trips for the proposed development vary based on the potential use, with the bank anticipated to generate approximately 26 additional AM peak hour trips and 55 PM peak hour trips. The estimated trips for the proposed rezoning do not trigger the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), but any roadway improvement, such as deceleration lanes, necessitated by the project, if approved, would be determined by NCDOT during the driveway permitting process. There have been four recent approved TIAs for projects within a one-mile radius of the subject site, the details of which are included in the staff report. There are two Technical Review Committee (TRC) approved residential developments in the vicinity, one of which is almost built-out and the other, the Canopy Pointe senior living project, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 461 which has not started development yet. In general, development along the Market Street corridor has become primarily commercial and higher intensity over the past 50 years, and new low-density residential development like that allowed by the existing R-15 district is not something likely to be seen moving forward. In a transitional area like this one between higher intensity areas to the southwest and northeast, uses such as offices and institutions are more common and can be appropriate as they generally rely on existing drive-by traffic. While bank and office uses are generally lower impact on adjacent residential properties because of the traditional buffer function of the property, site design and features such as lighting are important considerations with the proposal and are reflected in the recommendations made by the Planning Board. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan) classifies the property within the Community Mixed Use place type, where office and institutional uses near residential areas are appropriate. Development of the site with these lower intensity commercial uses can serve as a transition between the Urban Mixed-Use areas of Porters Neck to the northeast and Middle Sound/Ogden to the southwest. The proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it would allow for lower impact, transitional uses in line with what is recommended for the Community Mixed Use place type. The Planning Board considered the application at the April 7, 2022 meeting and recommended approval of the petition (6-0) with four conditions:  The height of exterior light fixtures shall not exceed 25-feet and all exterior luminaries, including security lighting, shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward.  An additional row of vegetation beyond the UDO requirements shall be provided in the buffer area along the northwestern property line.  The location of the dumpster shall be shifted south and screened with vegetation.  Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Per state statute, only conditions that are mutually acceptable to both the Board and applicant can be enforced. Since this item was continued at last month’s Commissioners meeting, staff has collaborated with the applicant to clarify the term “hours of operation” in condition four to specify hours when the business is open to the public and does not include ATM use or private business operations, such as staff meetings. Based on the recommended uses for Community Mixed Use places as well as the context and compatibility with the immediate surrounding area, staff concurs with the Planning Board recommendation. Staff did receive one comment marked neutral as well as four comments in opposition to the request which are included in the agenda packet. Should the rezoning be approved, development of the site will be subject to full technical review to ensure all land use regulations are met. In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that only one structure will be built, and the intention is to only be used as a bank. However, if in the future, the applicant wants to change it to a different use if the bank relocates the desire is for there to be some potential uses that were still allowed that the bank structure could be converted to so that it is only one use proposed for the site at a time. Also, information was received that indicated the property owner was Dallas Harris and Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman has found the information to be sufficient for the request to move forward. Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Ms. Roth for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. James Fentress with Stroud Engineering, PA, on behalf of the property owner, Dallas Harris Land Company, LLC, stated that the staff report is concise and substantiates the proposal with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The property owner understands the conditions that were approved by the Planning Board and then further negotiated with staff and is agreeable to them. Chair Olson-Boseman announced that no one signed up to speak in opposition or in favor to the request, closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Olson-Boseman asked Mr. Fentress if based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, whether he would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with a vote. Mr. Fentress replied that he would like to proceed with the vote. Chair Olson-Boseman asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Vice-Chair Hays MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield, to approve the proposed rezoning. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for the types of uses that are appropriate in the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is in line with the intent of the CB district and can provide transitional uses from single-family residential homes to the west and the Market Street corridor. The following conditions will apply to the rezoning: 1. The height of exterior light fixtures shall not exceed 25-feet and all exterior luminaries, including security lighting, shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward. 2. An additional row of vegetation beyond the UDO requirements shall be provided in the buffer area along the northwestern property line. 3. The location of the dumpster shall be shifted south and screened with vegetation. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 462 4. Public hours of operation, excluding ATM machines or similar automated financial machines, shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 7, 1972 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8B, Page 86. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUANCE OF A REZONING REQUEST BY MARTIE MURPHY WITH SHJ CONSTRUCTION GROUP, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF WAVERLY INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.75 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 8005 AND 8015 MARKET ST FROM O&I, OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL, TO (CZD) B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS FOR A CARWASH (Z22-11) Current Planner Zach Dickerson presented the request by Martie Murphy with SHJ Construction Group, on behalf of Waverly Investments, property owner, to rezone approximately 1.75 acres of land located at 8005 and 8015 Market Street from O&I, Office and Institutional, to (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business for a carwash. The subject property is located on the northern side of Market Street. The surrounding area along Market Street is primarily commercial, namely the Porters Neck Walmart is directly to the north; however, there is some residential development to the northwest of the property. There is also a Special Highway Overlay District, which entails additional setback requirements. The property is bounded to the south by Market Street and is currently undeveloped. The subject site is adjacent to two residential properties and across from a commercial property on Sweetwater Drive. The proposed conceptual site plan outlines the drive-thru carwash with 30 vacuum stalls in the central and northern parts of the site. Fenced buffering is proposed between the development and the adjacent R-15 properties. Access to the property will be full access in/out on Sweetwater Drive. Sweetwater Drive is only accessible through right-turn traffic traveling south on Market Street. The proposed carwash development would generate approximately 78 PM peak trips and 41 Saturday peak trips. This is a 27 PM peak trip increase from potential O&I development with the same acreage. The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide peak AM trips for this use but does provide peak PM trips and Saturday trips. There are several projects in the vicinity with approved TIAs, the details of which are in the staff report included in the agenda packet. The residential developments in the nearby area, which are currently approved by Technical Review Committee (TRC), have 390 lots remaining to be built. Mr. Dickerson then provided an overview of what the site may look like when developed as proposed noting that if the subject site was developed under the current zoning, a lower intensity office use on the site might be seen. The proposed site is located inside the Porters Neck Growth Node, an area of the County that is poised for growth. This is the type of commercial use that is likely to be seen in this area. Once the Military Cutoff Road extension is complete in 2023, the Porters Neck area will become more of a destination for nearby residents rather than a pass-through area for traffic traveling to and from Pender County. The Comprehensive Plan classifies this area as Urban Mixed Use, which promotes development of a mix of residential, office, and retail uses at higher densities. This project is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it recommends commercial use and is intended to support more density near major roads. Because this proposal is in line with the commercial uses encouraged by the Urban Mixed Use Place type and is generally consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. The Planning Board considered this application at the May 5, 2022 meeting and moved to recommend approval (5-0) of the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-1 district. The Planning Board recommended the following conditions: 1. A fence shall be included as part of the required vegetative buffer along the northern property line. 2. Any landscaping provided in the submitted landscape plan exceeding the minimum standards of the Unified Development Ordinance shall be retained as part of the development. 3. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 4. Architectural features such as stacked stone and brick exterior shall be included in the façade of the project facing Market Street. Mr. Dickerson concluded the staff presentation stating that if approved, the project would be subject to TRC and Zoning Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that she thinks the hours of operations were limited to address concerns due to the proximity to adjacent residential uses. The Board may see hours of operation come up as conditions for several projects. It is generally related to making sure that there is not noise at certain hours. There were conversations with the applicants over the course of the meeting as to what would make sense from a business perspective, but at the same time, ensure that the nearby residents would not necessarily be hearing a lot of loud noises at hours where they would not expect to hear otherwise. In response to Board questions, Mr. Dickerson stated there would not be a required buffer setback on the site plan. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 463 Chair Olson-Boseman thanked Mr. Dickerson for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Martie Murphy with SHJ Construction Group, on behalf of Waverly Investments, property owner, stated he was representing Tidal Wave Auto Spa. The carwash will be parallel to Market Street with the carwash on the front edge of the property. Because of the zoning district where the property is located, there is a requirement to have a larger than normal setback from the highway, which has been met. The requirement puts the carwash itself at approximately 100-feet from the property line to the west. There will also be a vacuum canopy behind the carwash that has a covered surface that customers can use to vacuum their cars. The canopy is roughly 50-feet from the property line. Tidal Wave Auto Spa has been in business since 2004 with 102 carwashes open. The initial submittal included installing a fence to help reduce the noise, along with the vegetation, which is beyond the County requirements. At the end of the vacuum structure is an enclosure that significantly reduces the noise level to approximately 57 decibels which is lower than the normal 65 decibels that most municipalities require meeting at the property line. Great strides have been made to reduce the noise and the impact on the neighbors to the rear of subject site. The carwash is not the typical plain generic structure, it is more an upscale design. The company wanted to build a facility that the County can be proud of and show future developments what can be done with effort. In response to Board questions, Mr. Murphy confirmed that 30 vacuum stations are proposed. When taking into consideration the population density on Market Street and living in a society of convenience, the express carwash is another step toward a convenient lifestyle. There are approximately 40,000 cars a day that will pass in front of the carwash and a small portion of those vehicles will come through the facility to be washed in less than a minute once the vehicle is on the conveyor. The desire is to not inconvenience customers with not having enough vacuum spaces. This facility is centered on the customer experience and goes beyond to provide more than probably what would be needed. On average a customer can be done with washing and vacuuming their vehicle in seven to ten minutes. Chair Olson-Boseman announced that one person signed up to speak in opposition and no one signed up to speak in favor to the request. She invited the speaker to make remarks. Aaron Jolly, resident of Stag Park Road, Burgaw, NC, and owner of the property adjacent to the subject site, spoke in opposition to the request stating he was also speaking for two other property owners that surround the property, Arnold Jolly and Judy Canady of Canady and Son Exterminating. He would like to know why Sweetwater Drive, which is a private road, is being used as the driveway when the address of the subject site has a Market Street address. When the proposal of this project was floated around the area, the expectation was that the entrance and exit would be on Market Street. There are already traffic issues with getting in and out. because of the backup from the stoplights between Walmart and Marsh Oaks subdivision. It is in an area there that is really congested and what is being discussed is having 30 vacuum spaces being utilized. The carwash itself is a great idea, but there are approximately 11 carwashes between Market Street and Hampstead. Chair Olson-Boseman stated that applicant and opposition would each have five minutes for rebuttal. In applicant rebuttal, Mr. Murphy stated the subject site has access to Sweetwater Drive even though it is a private road. The access for the two houses at the rear of the lot is provided via an access easement, which will be left in place, and a fence will be installed along the access easement. The applicant has rights, as legally recorded, to the property. The applicant wants to be a good neighbor to all its neighbors which is why in the very beginning a fence was offered as a way reduce the effect the operation will have on the adjacent residents. While there are other carwashes in the area, market saturation cannot be used as a reason to deny an applicant. Tidal Wave Auto Spa is a family run business and is a wonderful opportunity for the County to have a wonderful looking carwash built in the area. There are also plans to build more locations. In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that generally, if there is someone proposing access to a private road, they would have to have a legal right to be able to use that access. That is what would be looked for during the review process. If there is a legal right to use the road, then what is being proposed could happen. If there is not, access would have to be provided via Market Street or the subject site could not be used for what is being proposed. Deputy County Attorney Huffman added that the issue being raised is new and until now, nothing had been received about access issues. Her assumption would be that as the site exists currently, the applicant has the legal right to use Sweetwater Drive because the site is adjacent to it as it is one of the properties that is on that road. In response to further Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that currently there is not an entrance, or an exit proposed on Market Street for the project. The only access point that is currently proposed is via Sweetwater Drive. Due to not proposing an access onto Market Street, the project was not reviewed in the same way as NCDOT generally reviews plans and a NCDOT driveway permit would be required to having access onto Market Street. In opposition rebuttal, Mr. Jolly stated he does not have an issue with the project, rather it is about the Sweetwater Drive access. What he and the other residents would like is for something to be in writing that Sweetwater Drive is not going to be destroyed. The existing residents have paid to have it paved and he is trying to protect his family’s and other property owners’ properties. If the road is protected and the owners maintain their portion of the road to the front, then he has no issue with the project. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 464 In response to Board questions, Mr. Jolly stated that he does not live on Sweetwater Drive, but owns rental property and his parents live on the road. The road is approximately 2.5 blocks in length and the carwash would only be using approximately 100-feet of it. He does not need the applicant to take care of the entire road, only the part that involves their property to Market Street. There is not currently a maintenance agreement as it was always family that owned the lots for generations until recently and everyone chipped in to have it paved. The Canady’s own most of the left side of Sweetwater Drive for their business and there is also a dog day spa at the front of the property. Those two businesses contributed to having the road paved. In response to Board questions, Mr. Murphy stated that notifications were sent out via certified mail to all the neighboring landowners and a public meeting was held. There was an opportunity for the community that was directly adjacent to the subject site to attend as well as the Planning Board meeting. He reconfirmed there is currently an access easement in place, and it has been recorded at the Register of Deeds. The road maintenance agreement is not currently recorded but the applicant as the business owner would be willing to pave that portion of the road. Commissioner Barfield stated he would propose that to eliminate any undue issues on Sweetwater Road that the developer create the ingress and egress on Market Street. He would not want to put the onus of maintenance on people that are already maintaining their road that they put in due to a business that will bring in high traffic. A brief discussion ensued about the ability to add a condition that the road maintenance agreement must be provided before development begins on the subject site. Deputy County Attorney Huffman stated that she knows the Board prefers not to continue the matter, but it would be better to do so until the agreements are in place. In making it a condition of approval, she does not know that staff could enforce the paving of the road. It is not a situation where staff can hold off issuing a certificate of occupancy (CO) or something similar until the road is paved. Ms. Roth stated that potentially, there could be a condition that could be worded that a private maintenance agreement of Sweetwater Drive shall be required prior to submittal of site plan approval. Staff would need to make sure that there was a timeline trigger to ensure that staff would be able to enforce it. If that agreement were to be a requirement before it could go to TRC, then that might be the most appropriate place for it. Also, it would have to be mutually agreed to by the applicant now. Commissioner Barfield stated that he would support continuing the matter to allow the applicant/property owner and the neighbors the opportunity to discuss and make sure that everyone agrees rather than conditioning it and then the next step never gets done. There have been many conversations about maintenance of private roads, and he does not want to add to that problem without something firmly in place. Chair Olson-Boseman departed the meeting at 6:46 p.m. Mr. Murphy provided an overview of the conceptual site plan noting that the rear of the subject property has a recorded shared access easement with the two parcels to the rear via a driveway. The proposal is to place a fence along the edge of the current driveway and open another driveway to separate the two residential lots from the proposed development. He has offered to pay for the driveway to be resurfaced, up to the property line to the west of the subject site. He would be in favor of a maintenance agreement, because currently the business to the rear has dump trucks and large trucks using the road, which has a larger and more significant impact on a driveway than the common pedestrian car. As far as conditions, he is in favor of a maintenance agreement, but the other parcel owners are not present to speak on their own behalf. What he is offering is to repave the portion that is from the western boundary all the way up to Market Street, a separate the driveway from the two neighboring property owners, and to create a fence to screen and buffer those residential properties. Again, he and his team are happy to do their part for the road, but the Board is asking him and other people who have not come forward to commit to something before allowing the development to proceed. Currently by law, he and his team have the rights to what is currently there. As far as access of Market Street, the proximity of the southern entrance to the Walmart is going to be difficult for NCDOT to allow a driveway on Market Street when they are simply going to look at the property and the associated easement and state that access is already allowed off Sweetwater Drive. In response to Board questions, Deputy County Attorney Huffman stated she has not seen the documents that applicant says are recorded. Her hunch is that the piece of property the applicant wants to buy has legal access down the private road. However, that is a different issue then it being a private road and it needing to be maintained by all persons who have a right to use it. She thinks that is reasonable to be part of the Board’s consideration of approving or denying the application. In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated that if the matter were continued it would need to be the July 11, 2022 meeting to allow time for advertising. Commissioner Zapple stated he would support Commissioner Barfield’s motion to continue the matter. Hearing no further discussion, Vice-Chair Hays asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to close the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 465 Vice-Chair Hays asked for direction from the Board on the rezoning request. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to continue the matter until the July 11, 2022 meeting to give the applicant and the adjacent neighbors that have paid for the road to be put in the opportunity to work out a road maintenance agreement that will be included with the application when it is brought back to the Board for consideration. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 3 TO 1. Vice-Chair Hays dissenting. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF CATHERINE E. BURNEY HEIRS, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 8.02 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 5000 NORTH COLLEGE ROAD FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL, TO (CZD) CB, COMMUNITY BUSINESS FOR AN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITY (Z22-12) Current Planner Amy Doss presented the request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Catherine E. Burney Heirs, property owner, to rezone approximately 8.02 acres of land located at 5000 North College Road from R-15, Residential, to (CZD) CB, Community Business for an indoor and outdoor recreation facility. The site was initially zoned R-15, Residential in 1972 and remains R-15, Residential today. As currently zoned, the site would permit up to 20 single-family dwelling units at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed conditional zoning would allow for 23 pickleball courts and an 8,000-square foot restaurant/clubhouse. There is a mix of B-2, Industrial, R-20, and R-15 in the vicinity of the site. Ms. Doss provided an overview of aerials showing that the subject site is vacant, highlighting the utility easement that the applicant will not be able to build in, and what an R-15 district and CB representative developments would look like. The applicant is proposing to develop a pickleball facility with 23 courts and a restaurant/clubhouse, which would serve the recreational needs of the surrounding community. The proposed conditional rezoning would allow for an appropriate transition between the industrial site across North College Road and the R-15, Residential to the north, east, and south. Access to the site is provided from an entrance off North College Road. When compared to estimated trips of the current zoning, the expected number of peak hour trips would increase by approximately 25 trips with the proposed development. There are no TIAs within a one-mile radius of the project. The subject site is in an area that the Comprehensive Plan envisions as General Residential and Community Mixed Use, an area that focuses on low density housing and associated civic and commercial services. The proposed recreational use of the subject property is appropriate and encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan place type. Because the proposed district is in line with the County’s vision of development, staff recommends approval of the application. Two conditions are recommended as follows: 1. The hours of operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 2. The restaurant and clubhouse may only operate as an accessory use to an operational outdoor recreational facility. The Planning Board considered this application at the May 5, 2022 meeting and recommended approval (5-0) of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) CB district with first condition. The second condition was since been added due to conversations that ensued during the Planning Board meeting. Ms. Doss concluded the staff presentation stating that if approved, the project would be subject to TRC and Zoning Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Vice-Chair Hays thanked Ms. Doss for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Catherine E. Burney heirs, property owner, stated that a lot has been heard lately about pickleball. It evolved from three dads in Seattle because their kids were bored at summertime. Pickleball is the buzzword and she thinks it is important to the community. It was pointed out during the staff presentation where it is in this community and certainly in the northern portion of the County, there is the expectation for a great deal of new residential development with the provision of public utilities that seems imminent up there. This type of facility in addition to the County's public recreation will certainly be a big use. Indoor recreation facilities in general are considered appropriate in residential and permitted by special use. However, due to this being an all-encompassing project, with the courts, a restaurant, and a pro shop, it was felt to be more appropriate for a commercial district. However, the conditional district also provides that surety and control over what will be there and how it will be managed. Ms. Wolf provided an overview of the plan for the Tidewater Pickleball Park noting the ditch that runs through the property just to the northwest of the pond and behind the adjacent residential area. She does not believe there will be any type of impacts on adjacent properties. She then provided an overview of the architect renderings. She concluded the applicant presentation stating that she and her client appreciate the Planning Board and staff review of consistency with the future land use policies, their recommendations for approval, and that she and her client accept the proposed conditions. Vice-Chair Hays announced that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition and asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Rivenbark to close the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 466 Hearing no further discussion, Vice-Chair Hays asked Ms. Wolf if based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, whether she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with a vote. Ms. Wolf replied that she would like to proceed with the vote. Vice-Chair Hays asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Rivenbark, to approve the proposed rezoning. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district would allow uses more in line with those recommended for Community Mixed Use and General Residential areas. The Board also finds recommending approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed district would provide a recreational service for nearby residents, includes relatively low traffic generators, and is located on an arterial road. The following conditions will apply to the rezoning: 1. The hours of operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 2. The restaurant and clubhouse may only operate as an accessory use to an operational outdoor recreational facility. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JUNE 19, 1972 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8A, Page 45. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY NORTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 2501 N. COLLEGE ROAD FROM (CZD) B-2, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO CZD PD, GENERAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A SCHOOL (Z22-13) Vice-Chair Hays asked for a motion to open the public hearing for a rezoning request by Northside Baptist Church, property owner, to rezone approximately 21 acres of land located at 2501 North College Road from (CZD) B-2, Regional Business to CZD PD, General Planned Development for a school. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Rivenbark to open the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. Current Planner Zach Dickerson gave the staff presentation stating that the subject property is located on the western side of North College Road. The surrounding area on the western side of North College Road is primarily residential with a few commercial developments. To the east, across North College Road is primarily commercial development. It is bounded to the east by North College Road and to the south by Bavarian Lane and is currently developed and used as a church campus. The subject property is adjacent to several residential properties and a few commercial properties. The proposed conceptual site plan outlines the first phase of the project which is covered by the PD rezoning. There is no construction proposed for the development of the school; the school will be served by existing buildings on-site. Future phases of the project are noted on the site plan but are not under consideration as part of this rezoning request. The only part of the project under consideration for this request is retaining the church and adding the school. Access to the subject property will be full-access ingress from Bavarian Lane to Red Hawk Road. Egress will be provided by a right-turn only onto southbound North College Road. Currently, the NCDOT performs a TIA for new schools. Costs for required improvements are upfronted by the school then the school is then reimbursed by NCDOT. The NCDOT TIA for this proposal was finalized on February 8, 2022 and requires roadway improvements prior to the full school threshold of 400 students or five years of operation as outlined in the TIA. One of the required improvements involves extending the southbound left turn lane on North College Road to at least 450 feet long. The other improvement involves adjusting signal timing at the intersection to compensate for the additional school traffic. The proposed school would generate approximately 90 AM and 68 PM peak trips at initial build-out with approximately 70 students. At maximum school capacity of 400 students, the peak trips would be 498 AM and 364 PM. The existing church use generates 404 Sunday peak trips. At full build-out, the weekly traffic would be comparable to what one would see on a Sunday. There is one project in the vicinity with an approved TIA and the details of that TIA are in the staff report within the agenda packet. Mr. Dickerson provided an overview of the nearby area residential developments noting that one project is currently under the TRC process and construction has not started. The subject property is in an area with other similar uses and will be utilizing existing buildings. The Comprehensive Plan classifies the area as Community Mixed Use. The proposed project is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for the type of use that is recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type. Staff has proposed the following conditions for approval: 1. Prior to the approval of any future phase of this project or expansion of school beyond 400 students, required NCDOT road improvements, as included in the TIA, must be completed. 2. The Terms & Conditions document shall be revised to clarify the process for approval of future development. Section 1A shall be revised as follows: “Phase 1 on Master Plan to be completed upon approval of rezoning to Planned Development. Phases 2 thru 4 are listed as future development and cannot be started without an approved modification to the Planned Development District.” NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 467 As the proposed project is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and provides for the type of use that is recommended in this place type, staff recommends approval of this application. The Planning Board considered this application at the May 5, 2022 meeting and recommended approval (5-0) of the proposed rezoning to a Conditional Planned Development district, with staff-recommended conditions. Mr. Dickerson concluded the staff presentation stating that if approved, the proposed project would be subject to Zoning Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Vice-Chair Hays thanked Mr. Dickerson for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Clyde Holley with Northside Baptist Church stated he could not be more appreciative of Planning staff’s assistance with this request. Northside Baptist Church has been in existence since 1958. The church strives to be a good community partner in everything it does. Over the years, the organization has provided facilities usage for many of the high schools, elementary, and middle schools in the area for tournaments, award banquets, and different things like that. The reason for the request is because there were people in the community and in the church discussing the overcrowding of the schools and what the school system was doing to address the issue. The church has a lot of facilities that sit empty through the week and has existing classrooms that can be utilized immediately, once up and running. It was felt that the community at this time, could benefit from the facilities that the church has already built to help possibly alleviate some of the overcrowding that some of the schools are experiencing. He is happy to answer any questions. Vice-Chair Hays announced that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition and asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Rivenbark to close the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. Hearing no further discussion, Vice-Chair Hays asked Mr. Holley if based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, whether he would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with a vote. Mr. Holley replied that he would like to proceed with the vote. Vice-Chair Hays asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Rivenbark, to approve the proposed rezoning. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it is located near a commercial node and along a major corridor. It also provides for the uses intended by the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal provides uses that will serve the needs of the surrounding community. The following conditions will apply to the rezoning: 1. Prior to the approval of any future phase of this project or expansion of school beyond 400 students, required NCDOT road improvements, as included in the TIA, must be completed. 2. The Terms & Conditions document shall be revised to clarify the process for approval of future development. Section 1A shall be revised as follows: “Phase 1 on Master Plan to be completed upon approval of rezoning to Planned Development. Phases 2 thru 4 are listed as future development and cannot be started without an approved modification to the Planned Development District.” Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 7, 1972 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8B, Page 87. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF ABA SELF STORAGE, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.23 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 4631 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD FROM (CZD) B-2, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO (CZD) R-5, RESIDENTIAL FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (Z22-14) Current Planner Julian Griffee presented the request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of ABA Self Storage, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.23 acres of land located at 4631 Carolina Beach Road from (CZD) B-2, Regional Business to (CZD) R-5, Residential for a single-family residential unit with accessory structure. The property is one of the two parcels associated with Z21-20, which approved the concept of Carolina Dog Sports in February 2022. The site is bordered by the other parcel associated with Carolina Dog Sports to the west and north and a multi-family development exists to the south and east. Institutional and commercial services exist across Carolina Beach Road from the subject site. Under the current zoning conditions approved within Z21-20, the subject site accommodates some of the parking as well as a portion of the proposed buffering for the Carolina Dog Sports concept plan. While it is possible that the adjacent development may be built to what was approved within Z21-20, additional buffering is required, and other requirements may result following technical review if the subject site is rezoned as proposed. The subject site is only accessible by Carolina Beach Road, a heavily traveled corridor, and contains a vacant, single-family dwelling. There exists a shared access with the parcel to the north and west, however, access will not be used by the subject site. A new access is proposed to connect to Carolina Beach Road. The subject site abuts the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 468 vacant parcel tied to Z21-20 on the western and northern boundaries and is bordered to the east by a multi-family development that is located within Wilmington’s municipal limits. Across Carolina Beach Road are office and civic uses. There is a mix of commercial and residential uses within the greater area. The proposal is located between the Monkey Junction intersection and the proposed Fairfield Park mixed-use development where transitional service uses would be more appropriate than a single-family dwelling. Mr. Griffee provided an overview of the concept plan noting that the proposed 30-foot x 50-foot accessory structure is to be located behind the existing vacant single-family dwelling. Again, the applicant has indicated that there will be a new access, separate from the access for whatever development would take place on the abutting parcel to the west/north. The subject site fronts to Carolina Beach Road, and as depicted within the applicant materials, a residential drive with right-in, right-out only is proposed to serve the parcel. Mr. Griffee then provided an overview of the estimated trip generation for the site under the existing zoning as well as under the proposed zoning. Development under the proposed (CZD) R-5 zoning is estimated to be an increase of one trip during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. There is one approved TIA within the general vicinity of the subject property for Fairfield Park. Information on that TIA is included in the staff report within the agenda packet. There are three subdivisions within the general vicinity of the subject site with about half of the residential units constructed. The proposal is estimated to have no impact on the school system. The subject site is located within the Community Mixed Use Place Type, which focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and function as an attractor for residents and visitors. Typical zoning associated with this place type includes moderate density residential, commercial, office and institutional, and mixed-use. The proposed (CZD) R-5 rezoning is less consistent with the uses and intensity recommended in the Comprehensive Plan than the development allowed within the existing (CZD) B-2 zoning district. The Planning Board considered this application at the May 5, 2022 meeting and moved to recommend denial (5-0) of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5. The application was found it to be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provides a type of use not recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type and the residential densities are not in-line with those recommended for the place type. It was found that recommending denial of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is located within an area that possesses a mixture of uses and higher intensities. The proposal is not similar in form and density to other nearby projects and would not serve as a benefit as it does not provide an appropriate transition between adjacent land uses. Staff concurs with the Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Griffee concluded the staff presentation stating the proposal is a low-density, single-family dwelling and is located along a heavily traveled corridor between two developing nodes and reiterated that the proposal has been determined to not be in line with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area. Staff did not receive comments regarding the request. Should the rezoning be approved, development of the site will be subject to zoning compliance review to ensure all land use regulations met. In response to Board questions, Mr. Griffee stated that back in February the subject site was approved for Carolina Dog Sports to the (CZD) B-2, Regional Business for an indoor recreational facility. He reconfirmed that this request is to transition that rezoning to the (CZD) R-5, Residential for a single family dwelling rehabilitative construction onsite with an accessory structure to be located behind it. Prior to the February rezoning request, the subject property was tied to the Belle Meade mixed use project that was done in the early to mid-2000s. That project never exactly came to fruition. The original intent of these parcels was to serve as parking for that development for a movie theater and other uses like Mayfaire. Prior to that rezoning, there were two single-family structures on the site where one is still currently located. In response to further Board questions, Mr. Griffee stated that based off the submitted documents the 30- foot x 50-foot accessory structure is supposed to be an accessory structure. The applicant’s representative will be able to provide further clarification as to why the original site plan has it noted as a home expansion. Hearing no further discussion, Vice-Chair Hays thanked Mr. Griffee for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of ABA Self Storage, LLC, property owner, stated that the labeling the garage expansion as a home expansion was an error on her part. She acknowledged that this is an unusual situation and request. The subject property is a small lot and that is because the land was part of a larger conditional zoning case a few months back. Unfortunately, every now and again, deals just fall through and proposed projects do not occur, which is the situation with the subject property. It was a composite project involving two parcels with the developer potentially buying two pieces of land. When that development fell away, there are still have two pieces of land with two different owners. Unfortunately, the larger parcel owner is not interested in buying the smaller parcel. She was the agent for both owners and has worked with the larger tract owner to show that the use previously approved can easily stand as its own development. The exhibit basically shows how the small lot being discussed does not affect that plan at all and it could still be retail and indoor recreation. It will not be Carolina Dog Sports, but there is still the ability to develop less the 10 parking spaces which would all be fleshed out at TRC. The versatility is not possible for commercial development on the smaller lot as the subject property is approximately 50-feet wide x 200-feet long. Any of the commercial districts when applying the setbacks and the buffers because it is still beside the Belle Meade apartment complex, leaves basically nothing to work with in a commercial scenario. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 469 Also, there is no desire to have an individual commercial driveway into the site. What her client is seeking to do is fix up the existing house and add a garage. She then asked Gene Kunselman to elaborate on the proposed project. Mr. Kunselman stated that he and his wife live about a half-mile from the property. It is their desire to restore the house and to build a garage and workshop for his longtime passion of owning and driving vintage automobiles. The subject property is perfect for this project. They feel the proposal is a solution where everyone benefits as the property is currently an eyesore. He provided an overview of the type of vehicles that will be stored in the garage expansion. He expressed appreciation to the Board for considering the request. Ms. Wolf continued the applicant presentation stating that the staff recommendation is for denial, and the Planning Board agreed with staff. This request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, this is a specific situation and she and her clients do believe that approval is reasonable and in the public interest. Even though it is not consistent there are benefits to the public good and certainly for Mr. and Ms. Kunselman. It would be appreciated if the Board would make a motion that despite finding that the conditional district is inconsistent with the relevant policies, approval would be reasonable and in the public interest because the project will improve the status of an underutilized parcel of land and build tax base. The plan will enhance the streetscape aesthetics and the public safety through rehabilitation of existing structure and new construction in accordance with current regulations and building standards. Commissioner Barfield stated that while not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is consistent with what is happening in the area. He is very familiar with the surrounding area where the subject property is located and would be in support of the request. In response to Board questions, Planning Board member Paul Boney stated that when the Planning Board heard the request Mr. Kunselman was unable to attend due to a family obligation. He feels that if Mr. Kunselman had been able to attend and share his passion and vision for the property, he would not have supported staff’s recommendation. He respects the Planning staff and tries to be very consistent with staff recommendations. He would say that Mr. and Mrs. Kunselman should be given the chance to move forward with the project. He also emphasized that the Planning Board did not take staff’s recommendation of denial as an insignificant thing, because that recommendation does not happen very often. He thinks the proposed plan just does not fit into anything specific in that area. Again, he would suggest letting the request move forward with approval. Vice-Chair Hays announced that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition and asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to close the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. Hearing no further discussion, Vice-Chair Hays asked Ms. Wolf if based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, whether she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with a vote. Ms. Wolf replied that she would like to proceed with the vote. Vice-Chair Hays asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Rivenbark, to approve of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. While the Board finds it to be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type and the residential densities are in-line with those recommended for the property, the Board finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal allows for the use of an existing residential structure and is low-intensity. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED APRIL 7, 1971 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 4, Page 120. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF OCEANSIDE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.55 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 49 LENNON DRIVE FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL TO R-5, RESIDENTIAL (Z22-15) Current Planner Julian Griffee presented the request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Oceanside Property Management, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.55 acres of land located at 49 Lennon Drive from R-15, Residential to R-5, Residential. The property was originally designated as an R-15, Residential District in the early 1970s and remains as such today. Under the current zoning conditions, the parcel could accommodate one single-family dwelling. Under the proposed zoning, the parcel could accommodate a maximum of six residential units in the form of three duplex structures. The site is surrounded by a variety of uses of residential and O&I zoned parcels. The parcel to the north is located within the unincorporated New Hanover County and is zoned R-15 with one single-family dwelling. The site, along with the parcel to the north, are surrounded by the City of Wilmington (City) municipal limits. The parcels that are located within the city limits are zoned O&I to the east, containing a post office, duplex and single-family dwellings on R-5 and R-10 properties to the north, wooded land, and a multi-family building located on MD-17 (multi-family residential district) to the west and south. Given these facts, the site is less likely to be appropriate for low density, single-family development than when the R-15 zoning was originally applied. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 470 Mr. Griffee provided an overview of representative developments in the R-15 and R-5 zoning districts. The subject site fronts and has access to Lennon Drive. Mr. Griffee then provided an overview of the estimated trip generation for the site under the existing use, estimated trip generation figures under a typical R-15 development on a parcel of this size, as well as the estimated trip generation for a development at the maximum density allowed under the proposed R-5 district. He noted that the net change from the estimated generated trips of the current use to the estimated generated trips of the maximum number of units possible under the proposed district is a net increase of two AM peak hour and two PM peak hour trips. There is not a TIA located within the general vicinity of the subject site and there are several State Transportation Improvement Projects (STIP) located within a one-mile radius of the site. Information related to the projects have been provided in the staff report within the agenda packet. There are two subdivisions under development within the general vicinity of the subject property that have been approved by the TRC. Based off the student generation rate, there would be minimal impact on the school system. The site is located within the General Residential place type, which promotes low to moderate density. Types of residential uses promoted within this place type include single-family and duplexes. The site is surrounded by incorporated areas of the City and is located within the high-density transition area shown within their Comprehensive Plan. City Staff found this proposal consistent with their Comprehensive Plan. Because of the level of development within this portion of the County, the consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the types of development recommended within the General Residential place type, and how a residential development possible within the proposed zoning district could serve as an appropriate transition between the adjacent land uses, staff recommended approval of this application. The Planning Board considered this application at the May 5, 2022 meeting and recommended approval (5-0) of the proposed rezoning to an R-5 district. Staff received one comment in opposition to the request, which has been provided to the Board. Mr. Griffee concluded the staff presentation stating that should the rezoning be approved the development of the site will be subject to additional development review to ensure all land use regulations met. Vice-Chair Hays thanked Mr. Griffee for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Oceanside Property Management, LLC, property owner, stated that her clients purchased the subject property as a foreclosure towards the end of last year. The property was the site of a crack house and the new owners have undertaken the eviction of the tenants, worked with the County Sheriff's Office, removed asbestos materials, are close to full demolition, and ready to get rid of the building to start fresh. The subject property is under County jurisdiction but surrounded by the City municipal limits. State statute prohibits involuntary annexation, and the owners preferred not to pay extra municipal taxes. Regardless of the jurisdiction, the appropriate zoning for the land leans towards a more transitional density based on the surrounding land uses and districts being multi-family and the post office across the way. The County's Comprehensive Plan promotes infill development where lots are existing, and services are available. Housing is in demand. One of the most key features with the proposal is its location with integrating residential development near to existing commercial areas. Adding residents near a multitude of shopping, eating and service establishments promotes walkability and transient use, and helps reduce vehicular traffic. There is sidewalk along the entire southern border of Ringo Drive all the way out to Market Street, which then gets to all the commercial entities. The purpose of the R-5 district is for this type of moderate density. As to the concerns expressed by a neighbor during the Planning Board meeting about potential drainage concerns, Ms. Wolf reviewed a topography map of the area along the boundary of Lennon Drive noting that the drainage from the subject property on Lennon Drive traversed across the front yards of the properties before the curbing was installed. With the curbing all the way from Ringo Drive to Fox Court leading to a public drop inlet at the intersection of Lennon Drive and Fox Court, there is no longer a drainage issue. Ms. Wolf explained the direction of the remaining drainage, how it is the natural drainage pattern and stated that she does not feel there will be an issue. Although this is a straight rezoning request, due to the drainage questions she prepared and provided an overview of how the property could be potentially developed. The R-5 district could support three lots with a private access easement. She expressed appreciation for the support of the Planning Board and staff. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf confirmed that the property directly to the south of the subject property was an apartment complex. A brief discussion ensued about the drainage on the property. Ms. Wolf explained that any project with a private access easement generally would be reviewed by the County. Drainage cannot be blocked, and the neighbors cannot block it. That is one of the purposes of setbacks on a property so that runoff from a rooftop lands on its own property to traverse. The natural drainage pattern is across the back of both of lots. She further confirmed that the undeveloped property to the west is wetlands and she believes it is wet. Vice-Chair Hays announced that one person signed up to speak in opposition and no one signed up to speak in favor to the request. She invited the speaker to make remarks. Cassandra Lopez, resident of 51 Lennon Drive, spoke in opposition to the request stating she and her family live next door to the subject property and that her mother-in-law owns the property. Her concerns are with the drainage from the subject property coming onto her property. The subject property slopes towards her property because her property is at the lowest point. She has met with the County’s stormwater engineers on the issue. While anything other than a drug house would be amazing, the concern is with the drainage issues and she feels that R-5 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 471 is too dense of a zoning for the subject property and would prefer it to be zoned R-10. If it is zoned to R-5 and three duplexes are placed on the subject site, there will then be multiple properties contributing to the issue. Due to being surrounded by the City, she has also been working the City Stormwater Services about the curbing. She has contacted County Soil and Water Conservation staff about the potential to collect or mitigate the water. It has been an ongoing process for 2.5 years and there are still issues. With the recent flooding that occurred from the heavy rainstorms it was found that water is still coming from the subject property onto her property. She would prefer the R-10 zoning so there would be less development and more greenspace provided to help address the drainage issue. However, since no conditions can be placed on this request due to it being a straight rezoning, she would like to know how to obtain the assurance that her property is not going to continue to get flooded with proposed development. Her other concern relates to the already established community. There are currently over 1,000 apartments with 400 more apartments in progress to be built. As such, she feels there is adequate housing in the subject area. The neighborhood is currently made up of R-15, R-10, and three conditional R-5 lots. For the conditional lots, she learned from the City that the lots are only allowed one duplex per lot and the lots are .3 acres. She does not see how placing three duplexes on a little over a half-acre with the existing flooding problems will be good for her property. The community is doing its share in providing housing and she is concerned about why there is a need to max out subject property when there is flooding already going on there. She would also like to know whose problem the drainage issue becomes if what is proposed does not work out and the flooding increases. There is no guarantee of anything that is going to happen since this is just a straight rezoning. In response to Board questions, County Engineer Jim Iannucci stated that the property is unique in that it is surrounded by the City. If approved, the subject site can be developed up to 10,000 square feet of impervious surface as allowed by ordinance. With the new stormwater ordinance, part of it contains a provision for a drainage plan, which helps with infill properties such as the subject property. Even if they do not exceed the 10,000 square feet of impervious surface where they would have to control pre- and post-runoff, they would have to provide a plan that demonstrates how they intended to drain that property in a way that will not impact adjacent properties. That would be a requirement when the proposal was to come in for a building permit and is outside any of the other rules that would exist. As far as downstream, the water must go in the direction that it previously went. The directional flow cannot be directed onto an adjacent property. His department does work with City staff and from a road perspective there would have to be a review of the plan to make sure that the subject property would drain down to the west away from the road. Coordination would take place with City staff when the development plans are submitted so a review could be done to make sure that the problem will not be made worse. All the property outside of the subject parcel and 51 Lennon Drive is within the City limits maintained by City stormwater. In response to Board questions, Ms. Roth stated it has been seen in the general vicinity that when the City annexed the properties, if the property owner did not want to be annexed, then the City went around them. There is a situation like this in an area on the other side of the Target store closer to Kerr Avenue. While rare, it is a pattern that has been seen in the past. In these situations, to provide service to the County residents, there are protocols in place that are service dependent. There are agreements in place for such things as emergency services and Mr. Iannucci’s department works closely with the City stormwater department to coordinate efforts. The City can no longer annex a person’s property without permission. She confirmed that the existing apartment complexes are in the City limits. As this is a straight rezoning, no conditions can be placed on the property and the only item up for consideration is the R-5 district. A brief discussion ensued about the drainage. Mr. Iannucci reconfirmed that the drainage plan would be the most effective in this situation. The County does not have jurisdiction with the City as far as stormwater. Once the water leaves the two properties it is within the City’s stormwater system. He reiterated that there would have to be stormwater controls in place if the development of the site exceeded 10,000 square feet of impervious service. If the development is below that threshold, the developer would have to provide a drainage plan showing the direction of the water, but it still must leave the site and do so in the direction is it currently leaving. It must be controlled as part of the building plan. He reiterated that water cannot be directed in another direction nor onto someone else’s property. Vice-Chair Hays stated that applicant and opposition would each have five minutes for rebuttal. In applicant rebuttal, Ms. Wolf stated that she does not know if the opposition speaker is having issues with water. There is no evidence to show that the subject parcel is the cause of the problems that are occurring at 51 Lennon Drive. The surety for mitigation of any potential impacts is the County stormwater ordinance. If the development were for three units it would be three lots on a private access easement. Also, there is a tree and topography survey existing so she and her clients are ready to prove when any permits are submitted that the drainage plan can be taken care of and the driveway circulation can be improved to add to the public safety. The stormwater ordinance is that hammer that guarantees that there are no impacts. While she understands there may be impacts now, she does not see where they are, and it is hard to say anything definitive until the exact problem is known. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf provided an overview of the topographic survey noting that the survey shows the topographic lines of how water flows downhill. In topographic surveys, waterflow is perpendicular to the topography. In this case, the water that was on Lennon Drive now goes down the curb, and to a stormwater drainage system. As such, it is not the water from the post office or from Lennon Drive that is entering the neighbor’s yard as far as she can tell. There are no impervious surfaces in the front yard on the subject parcel. She is not denying that the neighbor has potential water problems, but she does not believe that it is from the subject property. Further, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 6, 2022 PAGE 472 she can assure that because of the stormwater ordinance, any future development after the existing house is demolished will be mitigated because the stormwater ordinance mandates it. Mr. Iannucci confirmed that what Ms. Wolf explained is correct and that based on the topography map, water flows away from both properties. In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Lopez stated that the southwest corner of her property is the lowest point and if one is going by the direction the water is flowing, it is all onto her property. Her mother-in-law contacted Fred Royal at the City and it took a year for him to perform the curbing work to fix one aspect of the water flow. It took so long because it kept going through hoops because of the issue of the area being surrounded by the City. She and her husband have dug trenches at the back of the property to help mitigate some of the water. Again, where the two properties meet is where the flooding issues exist and is where the garage is located. Any natural water flow is going in the direction of her property. While she understands the request is for a straight rezoning, she would ask the Board to consider asking the applicant to return with a plan that includes conditions to address the water flow issues. In response to Board questions, Mr. Iannucci reconfirmed that the developers cannot add additional water and cannot impose it onto the neighbor’s property. If there is a drainage problem at the back corner it is a matter of solving that and getting the drainage off both properties. The natural flow is going on an angle off the back corner of the subject parcel and the water is going to flow in that direction. What needs to be determined, again, is where the water transitions, where from, and if there is an existing problem that needs to be solved. Again, it may be that both properties have a drainage issue as far as getting it off the back of both lots. He also confirmed that everything is dependent on what is developed on the property. When the building permit is submitted, County Engineering will review it and determine if the development exceeds 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. If the development is below that threshold, a drainage plan is provided showing the direction of the water. Hearing no further discussion, Vice-Chair Hays asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Rivenbark to close the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0. Hearing no further discussion, Vice-Chair Hays asked Ms. Wolf if based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, whether she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with a vote. Ms. Wolf replied that she would like to proceed with the vote. Vice-Chair Hays asked for direction from the Board. Hearing no further discussion, Vice-Chair Hays asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield, to approve the proposed rezoning to an R-5 district. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for the types of residential uses encouraged in the General Residential Place Type 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 the proposal would benefit the community by providing diverse housing options, is an appropriate application of infill development due to its proximity to major roadways, a transit hub, commercial services, and other existing multi-family developments and zoning. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 3 TO 1. Commissioner Rivenbark dissenting. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA AR 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 62. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Vice-Chair Hays stated that no one signed up to speak on non-agenda items. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS There were no additional agenda items of business. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice-Chair Hays asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Rivenbark to adjourn the meeting. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 0 and the meeting was adjourned at 8:29 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.