2023-07-13 Agenda Review
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
JULY 13, 2023 AGENDA REVIEW MEETING PAGE 818
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met July 13, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. for Agenda Review in
Conference Rooms 138-139 via in person and remote at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230
Government Center Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members present: Chair Bill Rivenbark; Vice-Chair LeAnn Pierce; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.;
Commissioner Dane Scalise; and Commissioner Rob Zapple (remote).
Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney K. Jordan Smith; and Clerk to the Board
Kymberleigh G. Crowell.
Chair Rivenbark called the Agenda Review meeting to order and announced that the purpose of the meeting
is to review and discuss the agenda items for the July 17, 2023 Regular Meeting with discussions as noted:
Consent Agenda Item #2: Adoption of Budget Amendments. Commissioner Zapple commented on budget
amendment (B/A) 24-003. He thanked Chief Financial Officer Eric Credle for his narrative in the B/A, noting that it
was a concise and clear explanation of the rollover financial items.
Consent Agenda Item #3: New Hanover County Schools Budget Amendment. Mr. Credle explained In
response to Board questions that the renovation at Mary C. Williams Elementary was completed under budget. The
request is for approval to move the remaining $24,551.45 to the bond contingency making $89,468 available in that
account. Any funds left after all projects are complete will transfer back to the County’s debt service fund.
Consent Agenda Item #4: Approval of May 2023 Tax Collection Reports. Commissioner Barfield
commended the Tax Department team on the collection rate and their great job every year.
Consent Agenda Item #8: Amendment to the Town of Carolina Beach Inspection Agreement. Building
Safety - Inspections Director Hans Schult explained in response to concerns that personnel are being evaluated in
terms of their additional workload. As to the benefit this brings to the County, all permit fees will be paid to the
th
County, bringing in an additional $1 million in revenue. Mr. Schult stated that since February 9, the County has had
an additional 602 building inspections for Carolina Beach. During the same time frame, County permitting staff also
took in 170 permit applications and conducted 230 plan reviews. The Town of Carolina Beach will still be managing
its own engineering, zoning, and health while the County will manage the permitting, building, and trade inspections.
Regarding the Town of Kure Beach, the town manages its own permitting and inspections, but the Kure Beach
inspector’s brother is building a house, and the County will manage the project inspections due to the conflict of
interest.
Regular Agenda Item #14: The 2022 Child Fatality Prevention Team (CFPT) Report. Case Management
Social Worker and CFPT Co-Chair Jennifer Grundy explained in response to questions that the CFPT addressed one
fatality in the report about a family that had to access inpatient acute services in South Carolina because that was
the only facility available at the time. The CFPT wanted to bring awareness to the need for more local inpatient acute
care. In terms of possible improvements to the situation, she believes more brick and mortar would be a good place
to start. The inpatient hospitals that the team has access to are Cherry Hospital, Brynn Marr, and a hospital in South
Carolina. Of the 17 deaths in the report, two were from suicide. County Manager Coudriet stated that staff can offer
the Board several ways forward, some of which are included in the mental health and substance use strategy.
Regular Agenda Item #15: Consideration for Adoption the New Hanover County Strategic Plan Fiscal Year
2024-2028. Chief Strategy Officer Jennifer Rigby explained in response to questions regarding sustainable land use
and environmental stewardship that open space was not a target listed in the plan. One target is to reduce the
development in the special flood hazard areas annually and reduce the bacterial contaminants in the County’s
creeks. As for public transportation, the plan does not specifically call out public transportation, but the County is
trying to get to the next level of complete communities from the previous plan. Included is a goal that 95% of the
County’s residential units be within a 10-minute drive of healthcare, childcare, grocery stores, and pharmacies. The
10-minute drive does not include public transportation. A brief discussion ensued regarding public transportation,
the improvements that have been made with WAVE, and what is still needed, including the desire for passenger rail
service in the County.
Regular Agenda Item #16: Text Amendment Request (TA23-04) – Request by Michael Faulkner with Castle
Hayne Farm Park, LLC, applicant, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance requirements pertaining to
Campground / Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parks. County Manager Coudriet explained in response to questions that
the prompt for the text amendment request came from the applicant who is in Castle Hayne, but if the amendment
is approved, it would apply countywide. It was initiated by the applicant, not by staff. The Planning staff does support
the Planning Board’s recommendation, but the County Manager’s office does not. He further stated that he believes
that there are issues about highest and best use as well as public safety issues. The question becomes, is the Board
interested in creating more RV parks by allowing fewer numbers to be the qualifying metric, which is why he has
recommended against the request. However, if the Board does support the request, Planning staff has outlined the
right mechanism to get there, but the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (the plan) is silent on this matter. Also,
the request does not appear to be in keeping with the Board’s vision as it relates to general development strategy.
While it may be a way to create more housing options, the request was conceived as more of an in-and-out tourist
destination.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
JULY 13, 2023 AGENDA REVIEW MEETING PAGE 819
A brief discussion ensued regarding comments that have been received from the public. Planning and Land
Use Director Rebekah Roth stated that there may be an RV application coming forward as a special use permit (SUP)
request in a couple of months. The department has received some concerns about that possibility, and she believes
there may be some confusion from the public between this request and that potential future request. Ms. Roth
stated that she is unaware of any public comments being received for the text amendment. As the ordinance
currently reads, applications for RV parks must be for parks with 25 or more spaces. If this request were to be
approved it would be countywide, not just for the potential future application from one person and people would
need to apply for a conditional rezoning and come before the Board for approval. Regarding bathroom facilities and
whether those would need to be in the form of a permanent structure, the Planning Board felt that it was important
that actual bathroom facilities be required for any campground or RV campground. Regarding setbacks and buffers,
those would be discussed during a hearing for a conditional rezoning and would be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
There would also be a requirement for a sewage disposal system. If approved, the text amendment that would allow
RV parks with eight -24 spaces, with zoning applications still required, and the parks would not be allowed by-right
on a site.
Regular Agenda Item #17: Rezoning Request (Z23-11) – Request by Jarrod Covington with Hermitage
Property Holdings, LLC, applicant and property owner, to rezone approximately 17.9 acres of land located at 4012
Castle Hayne Road from R-20, Residential to (CZD) CS, Commercial Services for a commercial business park
consisting of 95,500 maximum square feet of industrial flex space for offices, business services and other limited
uses. Ms. Roth explained in response to questions that she did not believe workforce housing was a consideration
for the subject site during the review process. The place type assigned to the area is more for Mixed Use and
Employment Center. Those types of districts do allow for residential uses, but they are also intended for the type of
commercial services being proposed. During the Planning Board meeting, discussion was held about the proximity
of the homes on Hermitage Road, with it being noted that some homes are not used for residential purposes. A
community meeting was held. Regarding the allowed uses, Ms. Roth stated that adult entertainment would not be
allowed on the site as it is not allowed in the Commercial Services District.
Regular Agenda Item #18: Special Use Permit Request (S23-03) - Request by Chris Baker, applicant, on
behalf of the Sanctuary Church of Wilmington, property owner, for the use of Child Care Center at the
approximately 7.47-acre parcel located at 6687 Carolina Beach Road, zoned R-15, Residential. Planning Manager
Ken Vafier stated in response to questions that the existing structure is being used and changes would be on the
interior of the structure. A brief discussion ensued regarding the reason childcare facilities are required to go through
the SUP process. County Manager Coudriet explained that there may be some instances the Board would want an
applicant to apply for a SUP, especially when a childcare facility is in an area that is not customarily suited for it. The
Board could remove the requirement for childcare facilities to have a SUP in certain districts, but that policy change
cannot be done in one sitting. Further discussion ensued regarding the need for childcare facilities to help support
the County’s workforce as well as the need for neighbors to be able to weigh in on the impact such a facility would
have on the neighborhood.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
Chair Rivenbark reported on his discussions with staff about a no-wake zone in Bradley Creek. He explained
that when the no-wake zone was approved at channel marker 4 last year, boats belonging to residents along that
area of the creek were getting tossed around. He wants the no-wake zone moved approximately 500-feet back to
channel marker 6. He asked staff to explain the process to make the change. Planning Manager Ken Vafier stated
that staff has started the discussion with the Wildlife Resources Commissioner (WRC) about the issue. If the will of
the Board is for staff to move forward, WRC will be asked to perform a reassessment. Regardless of the results of
the reassessment, the County can still request a rulemaking. The February 2022 assessment found several
navigational and safety hazards, but what is unknown is the difference between the two channel markers. The
County will have to go through the full process again, which takes six to eight months from the date of the request
and a public hearing would be required. The Board is unable to adjust the original decision without going through
the process to request the change. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Board is for staff to move forward
with the process.
STAFF UPDATE
Special Use Permits (SUP) Discussion - Additional Dwelling Allowance. County Manager Coudriet stated
that he sent the Board a memo earlier in the week on revising the SUP process for density allowances based on what
staff has heard in Board discussions. The memo was framed as wanting to proceed unless the will of the Board is not
to do so. Historically, the SUP process was the old method for getting density and was left in the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO). It is very limiting on what the Board is allowed to do. He expressed appreciation for the Board
allowing staff the latitude to listen and present recommendations to the Board. The goal of the discussion is to
provide options that would provide the Board with more influence and discretion over density allocation. He stated
that Ms. Roth and Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards will provide the historical overview and the options
available to the Board if it desires to move forward.
Ms. Roth and Ms. Richards presented the following information:
Additional dwelling allowance use:
Known as “high density development” use between 1982 and 2020
Replaced a SUP requirement for all multi-family and townhouses that was established with the
first County zoning ordinance in the early 1970s
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
JULY 13, 2023 AGENDA REVIEW MEETING PAGE 820
Allows additional density in R-20, R-15, R-10, and O&I zoning districts with an SUP
22 applications between 1982 and 2020
Homes/acre allowed prior to 2018:
Homes/acre allowed with 2018 amendment:
Requirements for additional dwelling allowance uses:
Must be within a certain distance of an Employment Center, Urban Mixed Use, or Community
Mixed Use place type
Additional requirements related to open space, impervious sidewalks, and curb and gutter
Performance standards for use requiring SUP:
Density within AE or VE flood hazard areas or CAMA Estuarine areas of environmental concern is
limited to a maximum of 2.5 units per acre
Discussion ensued regarding the difference between legislative and quasi-judicial public hearings. Ms. Roth
stated in response to questions that legislative is not quasi-judicial and the Board has broad authority to make
decisions. Quasi-judicial is a much more constrained decision making process and SUPs are always quasi-judicial.
County Attorney Smith further explained that legislative public hearings are for text amendment requests and
rezonings, whereas quasi-judicial public hearings must meet the standards in the UDO and findings of fact. Ms.
Richards stated that staff is requesting a discussion on SUPs in residential areas for high density. An applicant knows
that the four findings of fact must be met to obtain an SUP, and if they are, it is an almost guaranteed approval.
Whereas with a legislative process, the Board can designate maximum density, minimum of open space, curb and
gutter, maximum impervious surface, and other conditions. Ms. Richards further explained that the Board can only
consider testimony given by subject matter experts for an SUP, not the testimony of neighbors or community
members. Community members in opposition to a SUP can hire an attorney and subject matter experts to contest
it, but they usually do not know that.
Further discussion ensued about the ramifications of removing the SUP as an option for property owners.
Ms. Richards confirmed that by making this change, it will remove a legal avenue for a property owner. Commissioner
Scalise shared his concerns about his hesitation to remove a right of a property owner and give more power to the
government and stated that he is not supportive of the proposal. Vice-Chair Pierce shared her support of the request
as she feels it is important to allow citizens and applicants to be on the same playing field, noting that citizens cannot
always afford to hire a subject matter expert to speak on their behalf. Commissioner Zapple stated that he does not
think the proposal is taking away an avenue for property owners. He shares Vice-Chair Pierce’s point of view, it
provides clarification in the UDO, and expressed his support for it. Commissioner Barfield believes there needs to be
some level of predictability for developers coming into the community. For businesses that want to come here, they
do look at housing affordability and how much housing is available for their employees. The County is at least 10,000
units behind in the need for affordable housing and he believes that if this process is changed, it could, in turn, affect
economic development. He further stated that he cannot support the proposal. Ms. Richards responded to the Board
discussion stating that for clarification purposes, staff is not asking the Board to do away with all SUPs. Rather, the
goal was to provide the Board an option to have greater control in the decision making process when it comes to
higher density allowances. Regarding what might be coming forward to warrant this change, County Manager
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
JULY 13, 2023 AGENDA REVIEW MEETING PAGE 821
Coudriet stated that there is not a specific project that is driving this but noted that the current process does tie the
hands of the Board in some instances. A brief discussion ensued regarding the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Chair Rivenbark stated that he is unsure of his position on the proposal at this time. County Manager
Coudriet stated that this could be a discussion topic for the August joint meeting with the Planning Board. Based on
today’s discussion, staff will not proceed with changes as there is not full Board consensus. A brief discussion ensued
regarding the changes to North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 160D and how that has affected the SUP process.
The Board also discussed the Planning Board’s role in hearing SUPs. Staff explained that the Planning Board holds
what is essentially a facilitated community meeting so that the public learns what the process is and what to expect
at the quasi-judicial hearing before the Board. After further discussion about additional steps that could be taken to
educate the citizens on the SUP process, the Board expressed appreciation to County Manager Coudriet for bringing
the matter forward for discussion.
There being no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark thanked staff for the presentation.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Rivenbark adjourned the meeting at 5:47 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.