Loading...
2023-09-05 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 882 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met September 5, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. in Regular Session in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present: Chair Bill Rivenbark; Vice-Chair LeAnn Pierce; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.; Commissioner Dane Scalise; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney K. Jordan Smith; and Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Pastor Rick Shafer, Port City Community Church, provided the invocation, and Commissioner Scalise led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Rivenbark requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise to approve the 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 August 17, 2023 Agenda Review and the August 21, 2023 Regular Meeting. Approval of July 2023 Tax Collection Reports - Tax The Commissioners approved the July 2023 tax collection reports for New Hanover County, New Hanover County Debt Service, and New Hanover County Fire District. Copies of the tax collection reports are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLIX, Page 16.1. Adoption of a Resolution for Award of Bid for the Purchase of One (1) Rapid DNA Analysis System with Accessories and Software to Thermo Fisher Scientific in the Amount of $159,000.95 - Sheriff The Commissioners adopted a resolution to award the bid to Thermo Fisher Scientific in the amount of $159,000.95 for the purchase of one (1) Rapid DNA Analysis System using federal funding. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLIX, Page 16.2. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Application for the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program-Direct Attributable funds for the North College Road Trail Construction – Parks and Gardens The Commissioners adopted the resolution authorizing the Parks and Gardens Department to apply for the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program – Direct Attributable fund in the amount of $1,840,000. New Hanover County will provide the required local cash match of $460,000 for a total project cost of $2,300,000. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLIX, Page 16.3. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF NATIONAL SENIOR CENTER MONTH PROCLAMATION Chair Rivenbark read the proclamation into the record recognizing September 2023 as National Senior Center Month in New Hanover County. Senior Resource Center (SRC) Director Amber Smith expressed appreciation for the Board’s consideration of the proclamation. She commented on the importance of National Senior Center Month and highlighted this year's theme, "Discover Yours," as representative of the value senior centers bring, not only nationally but particularly in the County. She reported that the County’s SRC is held in high regard and recognized by the North Carolina Division of Aging and Adult Services as a central hub for aging services, connecting older adults to essential programs and services. Approximately 25% of the County's population is 60 years and older, and this demographic group is expected to grow. Ms. Smith stressed the importance of continuing to support and expand services for older adults in the County noting that the SRC is guided by the Master Aging Plan, the New Hanover County Strategic Vision, and the dedication of its team members, volunteers, and community partners. She shared the following statistics from the past fiscal year to illustrate the impact of the SRC programs:  The nutrition program provided over 237,000 meals to 3,225 older adults.  The life enrichment program, including social work services and counseling, served more than 5,000 older adults. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 883  The AmeriCorps Seniors program engaged 650 older adult volunteers who contributed 126,800 community service hours.  Over 311 older adults used transportation services, with over 16,000 trips provided for necessary appointments.  Recreation services, offering physical exercise and social connectedness, saw over 56,000 activities checked into. Ms. Smith stated that the SRC's services go beyond just providing care; they enhance the quality of life for older adults. She also encouraged those interested in the SRC to visit in person, engage via social media, and/or call for more information about services. In response to questions, she stated that the statistic of the 237,000 meals provided over the past year does not include external partnerships such as the Eastern and Central North Carolina Food Bank. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to adopt the proclamation recognizing September 2023 as National Senior Center Month in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLIX, Page 16.4. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A JOINT APPLICATION WITH THE CITY OF WILMINGTON TO THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM FOR 2024 FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,419 FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Chair Rivenbark stated that the JAG program provides states and units of local governments with the funding necessary to support community programs in areas such as law enforcement, corrections, drug treatment, and the courts. The JAG grant process requires a public hearing to be held to discuss the use of funds. New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington are certified as disparate agencies. The 2024 JAG grant funding of $80,419 is eligible as a joint allocation of $13,552 to the county and $66,867 to the city. Submittal of a joint application is required. The New Hanover County portion of the funding would be used to purchase three security cameras for the County Parks. There is no local match requirement. He asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to open the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Lieutenant Lauren Carroll with the Sheriff’s Office stated that the County will use the funding to purchase three cameras to be installed within the County parks. Chair Rivenbark stated that no one signed up to provide public comments on the matter and asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to close the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Rivenbark stated that if approved, the Sheriff’s Office will be authorized to submit a joint application for the 2024 JAG Grant with the City of Wilmington, and the County Manager is authorized to execute the required County/City Memorandum of Understanding. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark requested direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise to authorize the Sheriff's Office to submit a joint application for the 2024 JAG Grant with the City of Wilmington, and authorize the County Manager to execute the required County/City Memorandum of Understanding. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST (Z23-14) BY WES REYNOLDS WITH SB COTTAGES INVESTMENT, LLC, APPLICANT, TO REZONE FOUR PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 7.37 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 7641, 7645, AND 7647 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL TO (CZD) R-5 RESIDENTIAL FOR A MAXIMUM OF 46 ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell presented the request stating that the site was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s. The R-15 zoning ensured housing densities remained lower due to the need for private wells and septic systems. Since then, private water and sewer utility service has become available in the area. The site is bordered by single-family residential development to the north, east, and south, and by a service road and Carolina Beach Road to the west. The proposed conceptual plan includes 46 attached single-family dwelling units in the form of duplexes, triplexes, and quadraplexes. Improvements will be made to the existing easement, and a condition is included to guarantee the option for future connectivity to Seabreeze Road to the north. An additional private loop road will be built to reduce the number of driveway cuts along the road. A condition has been included to preserve several significant trees that do not impact essential site improvements. Twelve stormwater management areas are proposed throughout the site, and an included condition requires the additional basins if approved. The proposed plan also avoids placing any homes in the flood zone. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 884 (Corps) has confirmed the four areas delineated as wetlands are considered waters of the state and are not federally regulated. The determination was made before recent changes to the federal definition of wetlands. A 20-foot-wide spatial buffer is required along the perimeter of performance residential developments. In some areas of the project boundary, it will parallel the existing 20-foot buffers required for neighboring development(s). There is one approved traffic impact analysis (TIA) and three ongoing subdivisions in the vicinity. The proposal offers full access to a dead-end service road paralleling Carolina Beach Road with access to Carolina Beach Road available to the north at a signalized intersection at Seabreeze Road. There is the potential for vehicle conflicts at that intersection. The development is estimated to generate about 18 trips during the morning peak hours and 24 during the evening peak hours and falls below the 100 peak hour threshold required for a TIA under the ordinance. The local roads in the area do not connect to other parts of the network, leading to low daily vehicle counts. The absence of available North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) data suggests that the roads currently do not experience significant traffic volumes to warrant monitoring, and the increase in estimated trips generated by the proposed development is minimal. The project will be subject to the NCDOT driveway permitting process which will include an analysis of the intersections of the service road, Seabreeze Road, and Carolina Beach Road. Based on the current general student generation rate, the potential increase would result in approximately eight additional students than would be generated under current zoning. The generation rate is updated annually using actual student numbers provided by the school system. It provides a countywide picture of the number of students each new residential unit is likely to yield, considering that most new residential units in the County do not provide homes for large numbers of school age children. Due to the property’s size and access onto Carolina Beach Road, it is less likely to be developed with lower density detached single-family housing. The environmental areas identified on the property include state regulated wetlands, the AE Special Flood Hazard Area, pocosin conservation resources, and regulated trees. Conditions have been provided for utility service, tree retention, connectivity, and stormwater. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan) designates the property as Community Mixed Use which is intended to promote a mix of retail, office, and residential development at moderate densities up to 15 units per acre and a building height range of one to three stories. A goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to promote environmentally responsible growth by promoting a mixture of uses, where appropriate, to cluster development and minimize impacts on natural resources. The Planning Board considered this item at its August 3, 2023 meeting and voted (5-2) to recommend approval of the rezoning with five conditions related to utilities finding the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest: 1. The project as shown on the submitted site plan shall be developed with water and sewer connections to a private wastewater system. Private wells and septic systems are not allowed for residential development as contemplated on the site plan. 2. As identified on the site plan, certain existing trees onsite will not be removed. 3. The zoning approval and development contemplated therein shall not impact the current and future lot owners of the following parcels, R08518-001-014-004, R08518-001-015-000, and R08518-001-015- 002, right to use the access easement shown on the concept plan, nor shall the zoning approval and development contemplated therein create any financial burden on those lot owners to contribute to the cost of maintenance for the access road. 4. The northern terminus of the access easement shall be designated for public use to allow potential future connection to and through adjoining parcels to Seabreeze Road. 5. All stormwater management areas shown on the concept plan shall be required. Changes to the general shape of the basins as required by essential site improvements may be accepted administratively by Planning staff. Mr. Farrell reported that the proposed density and housing type align with the recommendations of the Community Mixed Use place type and that the proposed development would function as an appropriate transition between the highway and the existing detached single-family residential development. As a result of the policy guidance of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning considerations, technical review, and the recommended uses and residential densities of the Community Mixed Use place type, staff concurs with the Planning Board’s recommendation including the recommended conditions related to utilities, tree retention, access for adjacent property owners, an option for future connectivity, and stormwater. He concluded the staff presentation stating that the staff has received several additional comments regarding the application which were provided to the Board earlier today. Also, should the rezoning be approved, the development of the site will be subject to additional development review to ensure all land use regulations are met. A brief discussion ensued regarding wetlands designation. Mr. Farrell responded to questions explaining that the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided on the definition of wetlands which reduces the scope of what the federal government and Corps can regulate. Under those regulations, the areas on the subject site would not have fallen under the current or prior definitions of wetlands as regulated by the Corps. The term “wetland” can encompass a variety of different ecosystems. He noted that the applicant will be able to address how the wetlands would be managed and the state would still have to review. Mr. Farrell responded to questions regarding the third condition stating that the existing easement that runs through the center of the site terminates on the northern end onto some adjacent parcels, and the easement is that access for those other parcels. The intention of the condition is to create an opportunity for those other property owners to use the easement for access. It is specifically related to those three parcels to ensure their NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 885 continued access to that easement. There is an additional condition that if, in the future, those adjoining property owners would like to develop their own property that they would be able to connect to the easement, then run through to Seabreeze, thereby creating an additional point of ingress and egress (interconnectivity) for the subject development and the condition will be in the covenants. Planning Board member Cameron Moore responded to questions stating that the two Planning Board members that voted in opposition to the recommendation to approve, did so primarily over the density. Mr. Farrell responded to questions confirming that duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes are considered attached single-family housing units. A brief discussion ensued about the trip generation information for the proposed project. Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization Engineering (WMPO) Associate Jamar Johnson stated in response to questions that the peak hour trip generation is done on an hourly basis. If there are 18 AM peak hour trips, that means there will be 18 trips between 7AM and 8AM and then another 18 trips between 8AM and 9AM as peak AM hours are 7AM to 9AM. Peak PM hours are between 4PM and 6PM. The trip count results mean that roughly 10 parking spots of the homes would not have people leaving specifically between AM peak and PM peak hours. The number of trips is based on the equation provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the foremost experts, and utilized by NCDOT and other transportation departments across the nation. He confirmed that the trip generation number is not from the developer in this instance. Trip generation calculations are specific to the development itself. Mr. Farrell responded to questions confirming that part of Roscoe Freeman Avenue is unimproved and where it connects to Saltspray Lane, it is not a full fledge roadway connection. Mr. Johnson responded to questions stating that the traffic studies from 2020 are still under consideration because of the impacts of how people now drive. It is his office’s understanding from NCDOT that there was not as heavy of an impact on traffic in the subject area due to the pandemic. He does not know if the studies consider people working from home but will find out. Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Farrell for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Sam Franck, attorney with Ward and Smith, representing Wes Reynolds with SB Cottages Investment, LLC, applicant, stated regarding traffic, the ITE codes estimate trip generation based on proposed site plans and do not speak to the time of year or existing road capacity. Smaller homes typically result in fewer cars, which results in fewer trips. A zoning approval has no impact whatsoever on approval to fill wetlands and unregulated wetlands are what are being discussed. The process to utilize the land for building vertical improvements is relatively straightforward. If federal regulations change, his client is obligated to comply and holds the risk. The subject site is an infill site located off a service road off Carolina Beach Road, and its current zoning of R-15 is proposed to be rezoned to R-5 for the development of 46 duplex and quadruplex townhome units, not multifamily. The proposed development promotes housing diversity and will serve as a transition from Carolina Beach Road to nearby single- family homes. It was reduced from 56 townhomes down to 46 based on input from staff, the community, and the Planning Board. A 20-foot buffer, tree preservation, and drainage improvements contribute to the ability of the land to infiltrate and treat stormwater, but also contributes to the aesthetics. The project incorporates an internal loop, which facilitates cleaner traffic patterns throughout the community. The proposed project aligns with the future land use map, providing higher-density housing in line with the Comprehensive Plan. As is known, the County needs additional housing options due to population growth. Rezoning to R-5 is consistent and complementary with the surrounding residential areas and the Comprehensive Plan. For all these reasons and consistent with staff's recommendation the request is that the Board approve the rezoning request. A brief discussion ensued about the site buffers. Mr. Franck responded to questions confirming that the setback in total will be 40-feet due to repositioning some of the homes to provide more space from the boundary. As the request is for a conditional rezoning, his client will be bound by the map as shown to the Board. A Type A buffer is required, and some additional and new vegetation will be installed, but his client does not have control of the existing vegetation in the adjacent buffer area. Mr. Farrell described the different types of Type A buffers and confirmed that the intention is for a visual buffer between the two areas. Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth stated that because the buffers are not specifically included as a condition and if that has a bearing on the Board’s decision, it may be appropriate to articulate that as a specific condition to ensure that no future minor deviations may be more than what the Board understands. Mr. Franck stated that he and his client would agree to installing a Type A buffer even though it would be redundant as they understood it was required to be in place. Mr. Franck responded to questions regarding the comparison of the proposed 3,000 square feet of each unit to an R-15 lot on average. The expectation of home size that would be developed on 18 R-15 full sized lots would be larger homes. He stated that he cannot defend or explain the ITE codes that drive the traffic numbers. He can only acknowledge the philosophy behind the formula in recognizing that attached homes tend to have fewer cars than detached homes. A brief discussion ensued about traffic methodology. Commissioner Barfield expressed appreciation to Mr. Johnson for the work of the WMPO team. Commissioner Scalise stated that there is a methodology that is utilized and relied upon as it is what is available. Mr. Johnson stated that ITE trip generation and the impacts of covid on NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 886 such things as people working from home is still being studied. As such, covid and its impacts are not being considered in the provided trip generation. Chair Rivenbark announced that no one signed up to speak in support and six people signed up to speak in opposition to the request and asked the speakers to provide their remarks. Audra Moore, resident of Hatteras Court, Wilmington, NC, spoke in opposition to the request stating that she is one of the 530 signatures on a petition opposed to the rezoning application as it does not align with the Comprehensive Plan's themes related to a livable environment, harmony with nature, equity, a resilient economy, a healthy community, and regional responsibility. The existing R-15 zoning is what is in character with the established community. The proposed townhomes, at 3,500 square feet and being sold for $550,000, do not fill the void for the needed workforce housing for teachers, firefighters, police officers, and County employees. She expressed concerns about wetlands development and potential impacts on adjoining properties. She asked the Board to consider the significant implications of approving the rezoning application. Kathy Tylee, resident of South Seabreeze Road, Wilmington, NC, spoke in opposition to the request stating that the Seabreeze community asked her to speak about traffic and she expressed appreciation for the Board’s discussion about it. The numbers that the Planning Board allowed in the report are very deceiving. During the community meeting the developer stated that the intention is for the units to be for sale, not rentals. The access to and from the service road is just about 30-feet from the intersection and traffic light, creating the potential for traffic back up on the service road. The Planning Board and the developer pointed to the NCDOT as not being significantly concerned with the intersection. The Seabreeze residents are significantly concerned as they utilize the service road daily. Also, the roads in Seabreeze are narrow streets with no sidewalks, shoulders, or curbs. The ask of the Board is to keep the density low which will keep the number of trips low. With the expected traffic backups, the residents of the proposed community will utilize the nearby private roads which have minimal traffic now due to minimal people living there. The larger picture needs to be looked at with other adjacent future developments as each development project adds to the traffic in the area. She asked that the Board deny the rezoning to R-5 as the developer can still build and make a profit, and in turn the County will have increased tax revenue while keeping the roads safer. Laird Flournoy, resident of Salt Spray Lane, Wilmington, NC, spoke in opposition to the request stating that recently approved projects in southern part of the County typically have minimum setbacks ranging from 35 to 45 feet. In contrast, 6634 Carolina Beach Road has a 70-foot setback. He stated his concerns about overcrowded schools. If approved, his neighborhood, comprised of 21 acres with 31 lots, will abut a high-density development on seven acres with 50 units that are 3,000 square feet, three stories tall, and just 20-feet from his backyard. He expressed concerns about property values being affected, how the project is an example of spot zoning, and his uncertainty about Aqua having the capacity to manage the development and other developments in the area. He contended that the proposed development does not meet the County's needs for affordable housing, is not equitable, will not diversify the Seabreeze community, and does not benefit County taxpayers. He requested the Board deny the request. Jack Wilson, resident of Carolina Beach Road, Wilmington, NC, spoke in opposition to the request stating that he grew up in the County and Seabreeze community and has witnessed the drainage issues with big storms. He understands the current traffic issues in the area and does not believe the Planning Board adequately investigated it. He feels the County continues to change R-15 zoned areas to accommodate money making projects. The R-15 areas that will remain will be in those exclusive and extremely costly areas that people like him cannot afford. He asked that the Board deny the rezoning application. Brad Moore, resident of Hatteras Court, Wilmington, NC, spoke in opposition to the request stating that if the rezoning cannot be prevented then he wants several restrictive measures put on the project. All the residents bought into the area knowing it would be developed but assumed it would be developed under R-15. He and his neighbors’ properties have wetlands at the very back with the subject site being behind them and they are concerned about the retainage ditches. He noted that a Planning Board member expressed concerns with the transition. Another concern is with the homes being 3,000 square feet which equates to a 12,000 square foot building, 20 feet behind people's homes, and directly linear with the property lines. The developer is not thinking about keeping with the aesthetic of the neighborhood. If the residents of the proposed development are not happy with the road intersection, they will probably come through the Saltspray neighborhood. As to the buffer, no one lives on ground level; their first floor is the second floor, and they will be able to see over the fences. He and his neighbors hope the Board hears their concerns. Chair Rivenbark stated that the opposition speaking time was completed and the applicant and opposition would each have five minutes for rebuttal. He invited the applicant to make their rebuttal remarks. Mr. Franck asked that he be allotted time he did not use during the applicant presentation for his rebuttal remarks. Chair Rivenbark allowed for Mr. Franck to have four minutes. In applicant rebuttal, Mr. Franck stated that the land has been essentially vacant for a long time. The zoning code is intended to be dynamic, which is why there is a Comprehensive Plan and a future land use plan to lead landowners to know what is best for the County moving forward. He and his client have not had the opportunity to review any of the materials referenced by the neighbors in relation to the emails and the petition. While a petition that 500 citizens signed is meaningful, it is important to keep that in perspective regarding the total population of NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 887 the County. The Comprehensive Plan and future land use plan are the voice of the County’s other 237,000 citizens. While 500 people may have said that they would prefer for their neighborhood not to change, that represents less than one quarter of 1% of the total number of citizens in the County. As to the homes, they have not been designed yet. During the community meeting, it was explained that the homes would be between 2,600 and 2,800 square feet. The current intention is not to make them 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. For traffic, the dead end service road is designed with a capacity of 4,000 cars per day, and the proposed plan uses a total of about 400 cars per day. Regardless of when the counts were taken, the proposed project is still significantly below capacity on Seabreeze Drive. It is not a significantly utilized thoroughfare and it would be nice for the intersection of the service road and Seabreeze Drive to be moved over a little bit to the east as it would serve all well. Discussion was held with NCDOT about the intersection and the response received was that NCDOT has no concerns about the impact of the proposed development on that intersection. He asked Jimmy Fentress with Stroud Engineering to make remarks regarding stormwater and wetlands. Mr. Fentress stated that most of the land drains away from the constructed site. The proposal will contain the runoff from the constructed site and treat it to the state and county standards before it is discharged into the ground through infiltration. The basins shown on the plan will essentially be easements in relatively undeveloped areas, so that the water can assimilate into the ground in those locations. There may be some dike containment, or some grading associated with it, but it will not be wet ponds. It will be dry depressional areas where the water is directed back into the ground. He developed the plan, and there are many live oaks on the site which were preserved to the greatest extent possible through the utilization of clustered homes. That was the intent, and he feels the plan is a good one. Mr. Franck spoke to the wetlands topic and showed a slide of the unregulated wetlands the day after a three-inch rainstorm, emphasizing the significant presence of the wetlands on the property. The wetlands are described as distinct from typical marsh grass wetlands. As to opposition comments supporting R-15 zoning, he provided an overview of a site plan depicting 18 R-15 lots and how the layout would place homes closer to existing residences. He noted how there would be a lack of meaningful stormwater management facilities, tree preservation conditions, measures to reduce non-jurisdictional wetland filling, and additional buffer provisions. He also provided an overview of the specific trees saved in the proposed site plan which could potentially be lost under an R-15 plan. Mr. Fentress stated in response to drainage questions that there will primarily be natural depressional areas, some of which already exist as areas that receive runoff. Where needed, work will need to be done to contain them with grading or dikes to ensure water can stage up and assimilate back into the ground. While still in the preliminary design stage, he does envision some connections made with subterranean pipes and potentially some swale connections. The soil study reports that about 50% of the soils meet the characteristics necessary to permit them for infiltration with the state. The 25-year storm requirements will be met which is the County standard and exceeds the requirements under state standards through infiltration. In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Moore expressed her concerns about the lack of attention given to the 500 signatures collected in opposition to the proposal. She feels there are discrepancies in the Comprehensive Plan mapping, noting that Seabreeze was often listed as not included in the plan. She questioned the capacity estimate of 4,000 trips on the service road due to its small size. She also commented that the wetlands in the area have functioned effectively, even during a drought, and cautioned against relying on recent data to assess their capabilities. As to the zoning, the R-15 zoning would yield desirable homes with sufficient spacing and noted that the land was not entirely vacant, as two houses were previously torn down. She feels it is important to maintain low- density development due to infrastructure limitations in the area. In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Tylee stated for clarification that the 4,000 vehicles per day, as noted in the report, is not a precise number but rather an estimate marked with an asterisk. Seabreeze Road and the service road lack specific planning capabilities. However, the WMPO and NCDOT typically use a base threshold of 4,000 vehicles per day for such roads when discussing roadway capacity improvements. She asked the Board to consider the cumulative impact of traffic due to ongoing developments such as the 300 new apartments in Carolina Beach. She stressed the impact the ongoing developments could have on the intersection and noted that NCDOT already rates the intersection of South Seabreeze Road and Carolina Beach Road as having a high number of crashes when compared to the higher density areas. In opposition rebuttal, Mr. Flournoy stated he would like to see a front and rear elevation included in the proposal. The townhouses will be 3,000 to 3,500 square feet on pilings, and he would like to see what that will look like in his backyard. In opposition rebuttal, Harry Van Essendelft, resident of Roscoe Freeman Avenue, Wilmington, NC, stated that not as many trees are being saved at the back part of the property as depicted by the developer. There being no further speakers, Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Commissioner Scalise stated for the public record that both sides were given an equal number of minutes. The applicant elected not to use all their minutes in the first half of the presentation and was awarded some percentage of that time on the back end. But the public was certainly given the same amount of time as the applicant to speak about the issues. He acknowledged receiving numerous emails on the matter and that he did try to respond NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 888 to each one as well as thoroughly reviewing all the provided documents. The emails received were well-written, passionate, and raised essential questions that required answers. Regarding the 500 signatures mentioned, for clarity, he is uncertain about the exact count of signatures as some individuals listed their residences in locations such as California, Chicago, and New York City. While he is less concerned about the opinions of individuals who do not reside in the County, he noted that several actual residents did sign or agree to be included in the document. The Board’s task is to determine whether the application aligns with the Comprehensive Plan because the County is governed by laws which he would firmly argue it does. The Comprehensive Plan mandates the consideration of various factors, including traffic, schools, and the impact on wetlands. When objectively assessing these factors without the emotional connection, it is found that the increase in traffic during peak hours and the number of students in the area remains relatively small. Also, the affected schools are not at full capacity and can accommodate the small increase in students that may result from the proposed rezoning. When deciding, he must balance the concerns raised by homeowners with the legal obligations. Under the Comprehensive Plan, the goal is to expand housing options and address the need for increased density in the County. In the grand scheme of things, the project does not create the level of density required when considering the need for 29,000 homes. If the proposal had been for a workforce housing project in the same neighborhood, those in opposition might not have supported it. Commissioner Scalise stated his intention to vote in favor of the application as the proposal aligns reasonably well with the Comprehensive Plan and aims to address the need for housing diversity. Mr. Fentress responded to questions stating that the plan is for the Aqua well to go on the northwest corner of the site, closer to the service road. Aqua has made requests of the developer to make some improvements to the Aqua system. The ongoing discussions have centered on making physical improvements and/or contributions in aid of construction. Mr. Franck stated that if a resolution cannot be met with Aqua then the team has failed on the first condition for approval which compels them to obtain water and sewer service. As such, they will not be able to pull a building permit to build anything and that is at their risk. Commissioner Barfield acknowledged receiving several mails and communications about the proposal. He stated that he previously voted against the community that was developed on Saltspray Lane and Navigator Lane. He grew up in Wilmington and spent much time in Seabreeze, as did his father when he was growing up here. For him, what was built on Saltspray Lane and Navigator Lane was not in harmony with Seabreeze as it was, and the vote was 4 TO 1. Having been a realtor for 25 years, he recognizes that Seabreeze has changed, just like the Wrightsville Sound community where he grew up has changed. Regarding taxes being increased, the County has reduced taxes several times over the past several years, as opposed to increasing taxes. Based on his assumption that residents of Saltspray Lane and Navigator Lane probably did not grow up in Wilmington, they may not understand the rich history of Seabreeze. He grew up with his dad sharing his stories about going to Seabreeze, and he feels it is somewhat disingenuous when people talk about the history of a community that they really do not know about. The Seabreeze community for him has changed with the advent of those new homes, which are three stories. If single-family, one- story homes were built on the subject site, those in the three-story homes would look down on the residents in the one-story homes. As to property values, he has not seen a decrease in property values. When other house types are built that include new amenities, such as the amenities that are in the Saltspray Lane and Navigator Lane community, they elevate values in the Seabreeze community itself. When the County reclassified the zoning for land in that area some years ago, the zoning at the time required a lot more land to do most anything, and Aqua was not looking to provide water and sewer in the area. The reclassification allows for greater density. Based on what is seen now in the area, Commissioner Barfield stated he will support the rezoning application as he does not perceive any impacts to the Seabreeze community due to the subject site fronting Carolina Beach Road. Vice-Chair Pierce stated that she does not like this process and understands the residents’ frustration of not feeling they were given enough time to speak. She always wants to hear from the public and thanked the residents for attending the meeting. She received everyone’s emails but explained that she is cautious about responding. As to the rezoning, regardless of the location, she is looking at the Carolina Beach Road corridor, which, as a funnel, makes things very difficult in the area. She understands the matrix being used but does not necessarily agree with the traffic counts. Her larger concern is the need for more housing, varied housing types, and housing affordability. She does not think that 3,500 square feet or $550,000 is it. She has concerns about going from the R- 15 zoning to the maximum density allowed, and if that were allowed across the County, there would be a lot more issues. The Board has approved several affordable housing complexes, which are regulated, but this project is for- profit, and it has too much density. She thinks the developer could still profit from building 18 units at the current zoning. Vice-Chair Pierce stated she is not in favor of the project. Commissioner Zapple stated that the term "spot zoning" carries significant implications depending on who is making the claim and the state legislature has determined what is permissible and what is not. Essentially, it involves inserting a much higher-density zoning within established neighborhoods with lower-density zoning. There have been mentions of potential legal action regardless of the Board’s decision. Either way, it is crucial to acknowledge that the Board genuinely cares about how it addresses the County’s housing shortage. He agrees with Vice-Chair Pierce’s comments about the number of units and density. However, what also needs to be considered is what can be done by-right, which would not require any approvals and could lead to a clear-cutting of the entire area. The rezoning process allows the Board to establish controls and engage in discussions about items such as drainage. The process offers a level of control over water runoff that might benefit the situation. Introducing diverse housing models into the community is essential, especially in areas with established neighborhoods. While he understands the residents’ concerns, the buffer expansion from 20 to 40-feet and the use of an opaque Type A buffer could potentially be effective in addressing some of the concerns. It is a complex discussion that the Board continues to face as it navigates the challenges of housing needs within established neighborhoods. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 889 Commissioner Scalise expressed his appreciation of the opposition speakers’ recognition and understanding that the property would eventually be developed. By-right, there could be about 18 houses placed on the property. He stated his belief in property rights and that he is not in the business of telling businesses and property owners what to do so long as they follow the rules. It is clear to him that the rules have been followed in this case. To make a profit with fewer houses, the developer would need to charge a substantially higher amount. While $500,000 is undoubtedly a very large amount of money for housing in this community, $1.5 million or $2 million is a significantly larger amount of money for the smaller number of houses that would be on the property. When discussing how to increase density and lower housing prices, this is one example, albeit a challenging one. While he commiserates with those who have brought the concerns forward, the Board has a charge from the Comprehensive Plan, not just for the immediate neighbors but to all residents of the County, to provide housing, including affordable options. Chair Rivenbark stated that before the final planting can be done for a new housing complex, the units are rented or sold. Commissioner Barfield stated that the median sales price of the average single-family home in the community is $465,000, with the average sales price of $563,000. The median sales price for townhomes and condominiums is $350,000 with the average sales price of $459,000. He agrees with Commissioner Scalise that there is a need for a diversity of housing types and price points. Townhome living is a different type of living. He stated that he is in support of the project as presented. Commissioner Zapple stated he would be more supportive of the project with less density, allowing more open space. A brief discussion ensued about the Comprehensive Plan in terms of what is allowed under current zoning and for rezoning requests. Commissioner Barfield stated that the rules cannot be changed midstream. They provide a sense of certainty in terms of following the Comprehensive Plan. He believes that mixed messages are being conveyed to the community by contemplating rule changes mid-process, which he views as disingenuous. If the desire is for lower density, he recommends amending the Comprehensive Plan accordingly rather than altering the rules midway and looks forward to those discussions. Vice-Chair Pierce agreed with the need to change the Comprehensive Plan and understands it is an advisory, not a regulatory plan. Commissioner Zapple stated the Comprehensive Plan is being changed to try to reflect what is happening now and does not see it as a fixed rule nor that it was ever meant to be. Commissioner Scalise stated that this discussion is larger than the rezoning request being presented and was held a week ago. He apparently had a different understanding than other Board members at the conclusion of that meeting. He understood there to be agreement to tweak the Comprehensive Plan, that density was still a necessity, there are traffic ameliorations forthcoming from NCDOT, and that the Board was going to try to emphasize that a bit more moving forward. He also thinks that is how staff understood the discussion. He reiterated that he thought there was Board consensus to continue to build and provide diverse housing options in the community. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked Mr. Franck if, based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, whether he would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Mr. Franck responded that he wanted to proceed with the vote. Ms. Roth stated in response to questions that as it relates to the Board’s discussion on the Comprehensive Plan, it is helpful when staff are on the same page as the Board as to what is expected. Staff does discuss with applicants where there is an expectation to let them know what may be consistent with what the Board wants to see moving forward. The staff does want to ensure that whatever is put in place allows for the Board to make decisions it deems necessary. As such, there will be a bit of latitude to allow county commissioners to be county commissioners. However, a document that can be used to help guide applicants and help respond to citizen concerns is something that staff would be looking for with any update. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Scalise 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 the proposed density and housing type is within the recommendations of the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project provides housing diversity at an appropriate density to act as a transition between the highway and residential development to the east and the proposed additional conditions reduce some impacts on environmental features. The following proposed conditions are included as part of the approval: 1. The project as shown on the submitted site plan shall be developed with water and sewer connections to a private wastewater system. Private wells and septic systems are not allowed for residential development as contemplated on the site plan. 2. As identified on the site plan, certain existing trees onsite will not be removed. 3. The zoning approval and development contemplated therein shall not impact the current and future lot owners of the following parcels, R08518-001-014-004, R08518-001-015-000, and R08518-001-015- 002, right to use the access easement shown on the concept plan, nor shall the zoning approval and development contemplated therein create any additional financial burden on those lot owners to contribute to the cost of maintenance for the access road. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35 SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 890 4. The northern terminus of the access easement shall be designated for public use to allow potential future connection to and through adjoining parcels to Seabreeze Road. 5. All stormwater management areas shown on the concept plan shall be required. Changes to the general shape of the basins as required by essential site improvements may be accepted administratively by Planning staff. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 3 TO 2; Vice-Chair Pierce and Commissioner Zapple dissenting. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 4 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 127. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chair Rivenbark stated that one person signed up to speak under public comment and invited the person to provide remarks. Bernard Williams, resident of Rock Hill Road, Castle Hayne, NC stated he was representing the Rock Hill Community Organization. He expressed appreciation for the County listening to his community’s concerns about the contaminated wells in the Rock Hill area. To date, 12 houses can no longer use the water coming into them. He would like to know the status of the first stage of addressing the water issue. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS County Manager Coudriet stated in response to questions that Ms. Roth and her staff are in the final stages of finalizing the interlocal agreement with CFPUA. A partner(s) has been identified to sponsor the water stations in terms of having it installed on their property and operating it. The hope is to have negotiations finalized this week. Once the agreement is finalized, staff will be ready to communicate with the Rock Hill community. Until the negotiations are in place, he cannot communicate publicly on exactly who is/are the partner(s). A brief discussion ensued about the duration of how long it is taking to have the water stations put in place and operational. Commissioner Barfield noted that the water stations are for drinking water, which is an entirely different issue from someone having to move out due to not having water in their home. Commissioner Scalise wished a happy birthday to his parents, in-laws, and his son Louie, who just turned 5 five years old. County Manager Coudriet reported on the successful closing with Francini, Inc. on their purchase of property in the Blue Clay Business Park. He also reported on the status of the County’s debt issuance being placed on the Local Government Commission’s (LGC) September 12, 2023 agenda for a decision. As of today, and per the LGC staff, the matter has not been calendared. The Board’s staff has asked if the LGC staff review is complete and, if so, if there is an associated recommendation. So far, no response has been received. LGC staff is taking direction from the state treasurer to not calendar the matter for September 12, 2023. He responded to questions confirming that it is correct that an LGC member can bring the issue up for consideration on that day’s agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Rivenbark adjourned the meeting at 6:18 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.