Loading...
2024-01-08 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 76 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met January 8, 2024, 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; Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell; and County Attorney K. Jordan Smith. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Pastor John Haynes with Greater Love Chapel Church provided the invocation and Vice-Chair Pierce 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 Agenda Review and Closed Session held on December 7, 2023 and the Regular Meeting held on December 11, 2023. Approval of New Hanover County Monthly Collection Report for November 2023 – Tax The Commissioners approved the November 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 XLV, Page 1.1. Second Reading: Approval of Solid Waste Franchise Agreement for Luuver LLC DBA MobileDumps – County Attorney The Commissioners approved the second reading to authorize the issuance of a solid waste franchise agreement to Luuver LLC DBA MobileDumps. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing PFAS Litigation – County Attorney The Commissioners adopted the resolution authorizing per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) litigation. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLV, Page 1.2. Approval of Request from Town of Kure Beach to enter into an Interlocal Agreement for Expanded Inspection Services – Building Safety This matter was removed from the January 8, 2024 agenda at the request of Town of Kure Beach during the January 4, 2024 Board of Commissioners Agenda Review meeting due to the extended inspection services agreement being no longer needed. Approval of Colby & Mincey PLLC, Request for Refund of Deed Excise Tax – Register of Deeds The Commissioners approved the request from Brandon Colby on behalf of Colby & Mincey PLC, for a refund of $200 for overpaid excise tax as allowed by North Carolina General Statute 150-228.37. Approval of Appointments of County Commissioners to Various Boards and Committees for 2024 – Governing Body The Commissioners approved the appointments of County Commissioners to various Boards and Committees for 2024. A copy of the approved appointments list is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLV, Page 1.3. This matter was moved to the Consent Agenda of the January 8, 2024 agenda based on the general consensus of the Board of Commissioners during the January 4, 2024 agenda review meeting. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS PRESENTATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023 Chief Financial Officer Eric Credle provided a brief overview of the annual process to bring the presentation of the audit report for the fiscal year to fruition for the Board’s consideration. April Adams, partner with Cherry Bekaert, LLP, presented the following information of the New Hanover County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2023: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 77  New Hanover County Audit Executive Summary:  Client service team:  Role of the external auditor:  Planned scope, timing of the audit, significant risks, and other:  Internal controls testing:  Results of the audit:  The financial statements of New Hanover County, North Carolina (the “County”) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023 have been audited, and the report was issued thereon dated December 1, 2023  An unmodified opinion on the financial statements has been issued  A report on internal controls over financial reporting and compliance and other matters was also issued  Single audit:  Internal controls communication:  In planning and performing the audit, the firm considered internal control over financial reporting (“internal control”) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing the audit firm’s opinion on the financial statements and compliance with Uniform Grant Guidance and the NC State Single Audit Implementation Act, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the County’s internal control. Accordingly, no opinion was expressed on the effectiveness of the County’s internal control.  The consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and, therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that are unidentified. In addition, because of inherent limitations in internal control, including the possibility of management override of controls, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected by such controls.  A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis  Corrected and uncorrected misstatements: None noted  Qualitative aspects of accounting practices:  Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the County are as described in Note I to the financial statements. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 78  The County adopted GASB 96, Subscription-based Information Technology Agreements, effective July 1, 2022. Most prominent among the changes in the standard is the recognition of subscription-based information technology agreements as assets and liabilities for the obligated future payments.  No inappropriate accounting policies or practices noted  Related party relationships and transactions:  As part of the audit, the firm completed an evaluation of the County’s identification of, accounting for, and disclosure of the County’s relationships and transactions with related parties as required by professional standards. The firm noted none of the following:  Related parties or related party relationships or transactions that were previously undisclosed to the audit firm  Significant related party transactions not approved in accordance with the County’s policies or procedures or for which exceptions to the County’s policies or procedures were granted  Significant related party transactions that appeared to lack a business purpose  Noncompliance with applicable laws or regulations prohibiting or restricting specific types of related party transactions  Difficulties in identifying the party that ultimately controls the entity  Significant unusual transactions:  There were no noted transactions entered into by the County during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.  For the purposes of the letter, professional standards define significant unusual transactions as transactions that are outside the normal course of business for the County or that otherwise appear to be unusual due to their timing, size, or nature  There were no noted significant unusual transactions during the year  Significant estimates:  Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were:  Allowance for doubtful accounts  Depreciation and amortization expense  Fair value of investments  Pension liabilities  Other Post Employment Benefits liability  Accrued compensated absences  Self-insurance claim liabilities that have been incurred but not reported.  Liability for closure and post closure (Landfill)  Imputed interest rate on leases and IT subscriptions  Financial statement disclosures:  The estimates are based on an analysis of historical collection trends, current and anticipated economic conditions, the category of individual capital assets and their useful lives, actuarial calculations, and estimated future costs. The key factors and assumptions used were evaluated to develop the estimates in determining that they were reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.  The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear  Independence considerations:  Non-attest services:  The audit firm prepares the data collection form  For all non-attest services performed, the County is responsible for designating a competent employee to oversee the services, make any management decisions, perform any management functions related to the services, evaluate the adequacy of the services, and accept overall responsibility for the results of the services  Independence conclusion:  The audit firm is not aware of any other circumstances or relationships that create threats to auditor independence  The audit firm is independent of New Hanover County and has met their other ethical responsibilities in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audits  Other required communications:  Difficulties encountered: No significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit were encountered  Disagreements with management: Includes disagreements on a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether resolved to our satisfaction, which could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. The audit firm is pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the audit. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 79  Auditor consultations: No matters noted that are difficult or contentious for which the auditor consulted outside the engagement team  Management representations: The audit firm has requested certain representations from management that as included in the management representation letter dated December 1, 2023  Management consultations: In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, like obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. There were no such consultations with other accountants that the audit firm is aware of.  Other findings or issues: The audit firm generally discusses a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year. These discussions occurred in the normal course of the professional relationship and the responses were not a condition of the firm’s retention.  Fraud and illegal acts: As of the date of this presentation no fraud, illegal acts, or violations of laws and regulations were noted  Going concern: No events or conditions noted indicate substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern  Other matters:  Upcoming financial reporting changes:  These standards will be effective for the County in the upcoming years and may have a significant impact on the County’s financial reporting  The audit firm would be happy to discuss with management the potential impacts on the County’s financial statements and how it may be able to assist in the implementation efforts Ms. Adams, in response to questions, stated that the Local Government Commission (LGC) did not provide any comments on the submitted audit. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark thanked Ms. Adams for the report and requested Board direction. Motion: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to approve the New Hanover County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PRESENTATION OF THE NEW HANOVER COMMUNITY ENDOWMENT UPDATE New Hanover Community Endowment (NHCE) Vice-Chair Shannon Winslow stated that NHCE will deploy more than $53 million in philanthropic support in the County over the next three years. In 2023, NHCE deployed $25 million which is three times more than what it deployed in 2022. The largest grant is a collaborative effort aimed at addressing the gaps in the healthcare workforce pipeline. NHCE plans to continue to invest in collaborations like this across sectors because only together can a community be built where all can thrive. It is important to remember the grants are not solutions, but the first steps in the partnership to find solutions. NHCE is just starting and is excited to partner with the community and work shoulder to shoulder on this journey. After seeing more than 200 applications in 2023, she is optimistic. This community is doing splendid work that NHCE can build on to meet the challenges. Commissioner Barfield stated he understands that the NHCE Board sets policy and decides which organizations are allocated funds. He noted that, as the sole Commissioner on the current Board who voted for the hospital sale, he expected the proceeds to be significant. The Board was initially informed that NHCE could disburse $45 to $60 million on an annual basis. Despite delays in forming the NHCE board and developing an investment strategy, his intention was for more financial support to go to more grassroots organizations. The County annually funds outside agencies, aiming to build their capacity. In the past two years, approximately $2 million was allocated through the United Way to depoliticize the process and increase capacity in some of the nonprofits in addition to the County’s Non-County Funding Agency Committee. He emphasized the need for fair resource distribution to all nonprofits that level the playing field for all community members, rather than government entities like state universities. The state funds UNCW and the County funds the care for the community college and helps with the school system. He highlighted the County's commitment to housing affordability, with a $15 million investment over five years, and his expectation was that the NHCE Board would adopt a similar approach to have the same cadence as its local governments. He expressed surprise that LINC, a key partner in efforts such as aiding re-entry for the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 80 incarcerated, did not receive funding. He expressed his hope that future distributions will better reflect the efforts of those aiding the work of the local governments. He reiterated his understanding of the need to increase nursing capacity and his concerns about the large institutions receiving a disproportionate amount of funding compared to only a small portion going into the grassroots organizations. He asked Ms. Winslow to share her thoughts. Ms. Winslow responded that she appreciates Commissioner Barfield’s comments and understands his concerns. From the NHCE Board perspective, the intent is clear to support capacity building in the referenced areas. The initial strategic rounding was $25 million, and there will be a build up to, at some point, push more money out into the community, as he stated, $50 to $60 million. The NHCE staff has grown exponentially this year, as one of the concerns is how to address capacity building. NHCE has hired impact officers to work directly with the grassroots and the nonprofit organizations to build into that. It is NHCE’s intent moving forward to look at responsive grants and strategic grants to partner with those organizations in the future. NHCE CEO William Buster continued the update as follows:  2022 grant cycle mid-year report update: Approximately $9 million in funding went to 111 partners in the 2022 grant cycle. To date, NHCE’s partners have spent an estimated 65% ($5,815,366.70) of the total granted in 2022: Mr. Buster stated that the deadline for the annual reports was the end of December. Reports are in review, but the grant was successful in providing operating funds to nonprofits. One clear win was the collaboration between NHCE, Wilmington Housing Authority, Catholic Charities, and the New Hanover Disaster Coalition. The collaboration provided more than $300,000 to obtain household items and furniture for over 90 families whose homes (managed by the Wilmington Housing Authority) had damage from mold issues.  Breakfast with Buster Event Series 2023:  Quarterly events with each quarter having a different topic:  March 2023: social and health equity  June 2023: education  September 2023: community development, specifically related to housing  November 2023: community safety  Provides space for community and non-profit leaders in the County to have small group discussions with Mr. Buster, ask questions, and network  Met with +120 County partners, community, and non-profit leaders in 2023  2023:  $25 million awarded in 2023  +200 grant applications requesting $336 million  14 responsive grants at $1.4 million:  The grants align with the focus areas, but NHCE does not necessarily tell the organizations what to do with the resources  19 strategic grants at $53.5 million over three years:  The grants focus on the issues and efforts that the NHCE board set forth that it wanted NHCE to achieve in the areas of workforce, education, early childhood development, and health  Overview of 2023 strategic grant requests:  Emphasis on nursing collaboration  Received +200 grant applications requesting $336 million  Majority were one-year, non-renewable grants  Multi-year, strategic ideas focused on: enhancing the healthcare workforce pipeline and improving access to early childhood education  2024 vision:  Meetings like Breakfast with Buster helped frame the 2024 strategy  Be more intentional in NHCE’s investments by moving to a rolling grant cycle. This will allow NHCE to convene partners and collaborate to remove duplicity and align around a common goal.  Exploring the following investments:  Pay It Forward Fund (PIFF): NHCE is talking with Meaghan Dennison about the PIFF and plans to make an investment early in 2024  Housing Fund: Preliminary conversations held with the County and City to set up a fund  Investment Northside Grocery: Collaborating with the County to continue the work to bring a grocery to the Northside NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 81  Also, plan to continue to hold meetings and seek input from the community because to find solutions, there is a need to seek out the input of those closest to the problem Mr. Buster concluded the presentation stating that NHCE will continue to listen to those organizations that have great ideas and will continue to report back to the Board and the County to let the community know what NHCE is doing. He wants to be able to tell this community that NHCE is going to achieve “X” issues over the next several years. The NHCE board will be working on those issues to identify specific indicators that will provide the ability to state what its focus over the next several years will be as well as the outcomes. The goal is to clearly articulate it, put it on the website, and tell partners what the focus of the work in addition to the responsive grants to be awarded over the next several years. Discussion ensued about NHCE’s processes and operations. Mr. Buster, in response to questions, said that he has spoken with many groups, including every Rotary in the community, has held community-based conversations not necessarily sponsored by a nonprofit, and many times has discussions in stores with people who engage with him. NHCE will continue to be responsive to requests to meet with individuals or groups and he agreed that town halls would be a good opportunity to hear from the people directly impacted rather than from certain groups. From the NHCE perspective, capacity building means applying the opportunity for organizations to build their technical and staff abilities/experience and capacity to carry-out their missions. The effort is to help the organizations build capacity to manage larger amounts of funds. He has seen nonprofits that receive substantial amounts of resources get into trouble due to not knowing how to manage those large resources. The reason UNCW and the community college received the largest amount of funds is because they have the capacity to deploy the funds toward the intended purpose of training and retaining nurses in the community. As to application scoring, the grants committee ranked the answers, and then reviewed capacity, timeliness, and alignment with what NHCE felt it could do right now to make decisions on which organizations to recommend for funding. The committee puts forth the best proposals to the full NHCE board for consideration and approval. Mr. Buster, in response to questions, expressed his commitment to assist organizations in preparing funding proposals, emphasizing that a rejection does not mean permanent denial. The focus is on building capacity and relationships for future support. Grant allocation funding focuses on needs not covered by state or county funds, such as childcare subsidies or rental assistance to avoid duplicating funding efforts. He acknowledged the larger funding requests for UNCW and the community college and reiterated his earlier responses for funding going to those institutions. He expressed his understanding of the concerns raised about providing support to grassroots organizations. He views the nonprofit sector as a collective industry and stated his belief on the importance of not leaving any organization behind and envisions strengthening relationships with the grassroots groups as NHCE grows and learns. NHCE will hold the next public meeting in the first quarter of 2024. Information will be sent out about the public meetings as well as the new rolling grant cycle. The rolling grant cycle will help alleviate the number of applications received for one or two cycles and help support more organizations by having more cycles throughout the year. A brief discussion ensued about sending out the notifications to the community. Vice-Chair Pierce recommended sending the notifications out via the County’s Communications and Outreach department as it has a very robust list of citizens who receive the County notifications. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark thanked Ms. Winslow and Mr. Buster for the update. APPROVAL OF REQUEST FROM BLUE RIDGE ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE BETTER HOMES FOR NORTH CAROLINA THE PAYEE FOR THEIR WORKFORCE HOUSING SERVICES PROGRAM AWARD FY 2023 - 2024 Planning and Land Use Housing Program Manager Theo McClammy explained that Blue Ridge Atlantic Development, one of the four workforce housing award recipients, is requesting the $600,000 payment be sent to Better Homes for North Carolina, its nonprofit partner, for the Residence at Canopy Pointe project. He presented the following overview of the request:  Workforce Housing Services Program – Request from Blue Ridge Atlantic Development:  Original award:  Timeline: Mr. McClammy noted that the organization stated its justification for the payee change request is to avoid a taxable income event that would financially impact the project. Better Homes for North Carolina proposes that it will transfer the payment as a loan through the project partnership for the Residence at Canopy Pointe.  Residence at Canopy Pointe: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 82  The project is a 72-unit senior housing development that has received low income housing tax credits from the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency  Development is currently under construction and scheduled to open within several months  The $600,000 award will replace depleted contingency funds used to correct unsuitable soil conditions, keep the project in line with the tax credit financing requirements, and pay for facility improvements to provide more durability and resilience  Better Homes for North Carolina, Inc.:  501(c)(3) nonprofit and fiduciary partner  Purpose is to develop, acquire, construct, and operate affordable housing  Co-developer through a joint venture agreement  Proposing to receive the County award and make a loan to Residence at Canopy Pointe development partnership  Recipient’s Request: allocate funding to Better Homes for North Carolina. Presented for consideration since the original funding allocation specified Blue Ridge Atlantic Development as the recipient. Mr. McClammy concluded the presentation stating that if approved, staff will work with the applicant to finalize the funding terms and agreements. A brief discussion ensued about the request. Commissioner Scalise stated that he views the request as a technical correction and stressed the importance of thorough preparation by future applicants to consider all variables and technicalities to avoid similar situations. He stated his support for the request. Chris Eisenzimmer, CPA for Blue Ridge Atlantic, responded to questions stating that the delta between the savings if the request receives approval versus not receiving approval is $200,000. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. Motion: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the reallocation of funding for the Residence at Canopy Pointe to Better Homes for North Carolina. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING AND WITHDRAWAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY RONALD CARLOCK WITH CIP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPLICANT, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 33.54 ACRES ZONED R-15, RESIDENTIAL, B-2, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, AND I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATED AT 8138 MARKET STREET TO (CZD) RMF-M, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY MODERATE HIGH DENSITY FOR A MAXIMUM 348 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS (Z23-21) Senior Planner Zach Dickerson presented the rezoning request for 8138 Market Street, noting that it was from the December 11, 2023 meeting. The site, originally zoned R-15, and then I-1 in the 1970s, was partially rezoned in 1985 to B-2 for a now defunct auto parts store. The R-15 district was originally for lower housing densities due to reliance on private wells and septic systems, but public water and sewer are now available in the area. The I-1 portion of the request is approximately 0.15 acres, including providing access between the B-2 and R-15 portions of the site. The site borders commercial development along the Market Street corridor such as a self-storage facility and further to the north, the Harris Teeter shopping center. The interior of the site borders single-family detached housing. The proposed development includes 348 residential units in 30 rows of attached dwellings, varying from five to 25 units each. These units are mostly three stories with garages, with end units at two stories, arranged to reduce the impact on existing residences and orients new units towards open spaces. Additionally, the concept plan includes a pond, a stormwater management pond, and an amenity area along Market Street to provide a transition from the highway to the actual site. Due to the historical flooding in the generalized area, the County Engineering department is requiring a condition to supply overland drainage between the existing pond and proposed stormwater facility. Access to the site is primarily right-in, right-out from Market Street, with secondary access through Brays Drive in Porters Pointe Subdivision. Brays Drive is a publicly dedicated road but maintained by the homeowners’ association (HOA). The applicant proposes gating this access for emergency use only, while staff recommends full access for better interconnectivity. There are four traffic impact analyses (TIA) in the vicinity and a State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) on Market Street nearing completion. The recently opened Military Cutoff Road extension is expected to alleviate congestion in the Porters Neck area. The proposed development is estimated to generate about 131 AM and 170 PM peak hour trips, an increase of 24 AM trips and a decrease of 50 PM trips from the current zoning, respectively. The TIA was approved by the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in January 2023, with an expected build out of later this year. It includes information from nearby TIAs and accounts for a one percent growth rate for additional development. The TIA suggests significant improvements such as a new traffic light, a right turn lane on Market Street, and a stop sign for exiting vehicles, considering both full and emergency-only access plans. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 83 Required improvements include the installation of a traffic light at Cypress Pond Way with signal coordination, construction of a right turn lane along Market Street from the ABC Store to the site access, and installing a stop sign for vehicles exiting onto Market Street with an internal protected stem of 150-feet. The staff recommends full access to Brays Drive for better connectivity rather than the applicant's proposal for emergency-only access. If the Board supports the applicant's plan, an updated TIA approval letter will be needed. Based on the current general student generation rate the expectation is the development will result in approximately 57 additional students. Porters Neck Elementary and Laney High School are already over capacity. The generation rate, updated annually with actual student data from the school system, reflects the average number of students expected per new residential unit in the County, where most units accommodate few school-age children. This area, identified as a growth node, is set to experience more commercial and residential development, supported by public utilities. This project aligns with the County's strategic plan, aiming to increase the housing supply by one residential unit per every two residents and preserve existing natural features under the (CDZ) RMF-M rezoning. The existing pond will remain and provide almost double the required open space. The project fits within the recommended densities for the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use (Comprehensive Plan) classifications of Urban Mixed Use and General Residential place types. The overall project density is 10.94 dwelling units per acre sitting between the recommended densities of General Residential at eight du/acre and Urban Mixed Use, which recommends higher densities. The Planning Board's review during the November 2, 2023 meeting resulted in an approval recommendation (4 to 2). Public opposition cited concerns regarding density and traffic, with some Porters Pointe residents supporting the project but opposing the staff recommendation of full access onto Brays Drive and bicycle/pedestrian pathways. Staff's recommendation, based on the Comprehensive Plan, technical review, and zoning considerations, supports the conditional RMF-M district's consistency with the plan. Staff also support additional connectivity, including bicycle and pedestrian pathways, to promote safe, walkable communities. The proposed development, subject to conditions related to connectivity, buffers, stormwater management, and building height, will undergo a Technical Review Committee (TRC) and zoning compliance reviews for full ordinance compliance. Additional public comments received were provided to the Board. Mr. Dickerson, in response to questions, stated the Porters Pointe roads were designed to NCDOT standards but not constructed to those standards. Also, he cannot speak to if the units will be for sale or rent. A brief discussion ensued about private roads. Commissioner Barfield expressed concerns about having orphan road situations where road maintenance responsibility falls on one party, but damage is caused by another party. He recalled a meeting with the Porters Pointe residents and NCDOT representatives about the community struggling with the roads not being accepted into the NCDOT system due to improperly constructed drainage systems. The cost for the necessary upgrades is significant, and while supportive of connectivity, he is concerned about neighborhoods with deteriorating roads, where residents or HOAs are financially responsible for repairs. He emphasized the need to avoid double billing someone with infrastructure maintenance and advocated for a workaround to create a mutually beneficial solution. Mr. Dickerson responded that throughout the process for this project, there has been discussion about the issue of publicly dedicated roads that are privately maintained. The County has several such roads. In situations where a development might use or connect to the roads, options include establishing a road maintenance agreement or participating in the County street assessment program. Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Dickerson for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Craig Carlock with CIP Construction Company, introduced the development team and provided an overview of the project, highlighting the area's retail options, commercial activity, housing, and golf courses. The project started with the acquisition of the three-acre parcel on Market Street for commercial use, followed by the opportunity to purchase and develop an additional 30 acres behind said parcel for residential use. The team's research identified a market gap in transitional housing between entry-level apartments and single-family homes. They found a demand for the minimal maintenance lifestyle of townhouses and recognized the quality and community pride in surrounding neighborhoods. Consequently, they decided on an upscale, coastal-themed townhouse development with an attractive amenity package. The townhouse development will have fewer units compared to a similar apartment project, as the intent is to have a mindful balance of unit density and impact. The original three-acre commercial site is now part of the residential development, providing access to Market Street and reducing traffic impact on neighboring areas, particularly Porters Neck Road. This unique layout aims to redirect traffic from Brays Drive to Market Street. The community engagement efforts included well-attended community meetings, follow-up discussions with individuals who raised questions or concerns, and constructive meetings with neighbors and HOAs. The interactions led to adjustments in the unit placements and buffer vegetation. He commented that the project concept is for upscale townhomes that address a housing need with traffic improvements and solutions to mitigate the impacts. He then asked the development team to provide their portions of the presentation. Brad Hunter, Market and Real Estate Consultant with Coldwell Banker Sea Coast, stated that the product could be for-lease or for-sale units. He conducted a general market assessment which showed a significant need for townhomes. Currently, for-sale products range between $300,000 to $600,000, and there are only 45 for-sale units available in this range, with 24 pending and 93 new constructions closed, resulting in an average of 7.75 sales per month. This low absorption rate reflects an overall shortage, with the County's new home month's supply of inventory at 2.4 units and resales at 1.7 units, leading to a total of 1.9 months of inventory, which is much lower than the typical 5-6 months absorption rate. Townhomes constitute only 15% of the housing market, underscoring NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 84 the ongoing demand for this type of product, whether for lease or sale. He thinks there is a great demand for this type of housing product and encouraged the Board to approve the project. John Davenport, CEO with Davenport Engineering, reported that his firm conducted the TIA for the project. Beginning in December 2022, the team worked with the WMPO and NCDOT to define the scope and parameters for a project study. The goal was to ensure that the project's development was not solely based on the team's input but also involved expert guidance. The study was completed and approved in a letter dated January 31, 2023. Two different scenarios were considered: one with Brays Drive access fully open and another with it restricted to emergency-access only. The preference is for the emergency-only access scenario and its associated improvements have received WMPO and NCDOT approvals. He provided an overview of the technical aspects of the proposed improvements along the corridor, specifically Market Street, and the impact of the improvements on traffic capacity. The improvements include the installation of a right turn lane starting near the ABC store, extending northward, and connecting with an existing right turn lane further north, providing 1,000 feet of storage. Additionally, the installation of a traffic signal at Cypress Pond will facilitate southbound traffic flow without needing to go up to Porters Neck Road. The expectation is that the modifications will significantly improve traffic flow and efficiency in the area. He confirmed, in response to questions, the estimated daily trips with the project are 2,306. Al Kennedy, representing the Porters Point HOA as President, acknowledged that the Board’s decision on the request will be crucial to the project’s effect on his neighborhood. The Porters Pointe HOA board unanimously voted to support the request with the Planning Board's condition that Brays Drive access is limited to emergency- use only. It is a stance supported by many of the Porters Pointe residents. The developer, having previously purchased commercial property fronting Market Street with plans for nonresidential use, is now offering to include that property as part of this project to ensure the impacts to his community are minimal. Without rezoning, the current R-15 zoning would lead to increased traffic through the neighborhood, including construction vehicles and equipment, posing safety risks to residents, children, and pets, as well as financial burdens due to road maintenance. The influx of traffic is expected to negatively affect property values in the community. He concluded his comments by reiterating that the Porters Point HOA board fully supports the rezoning, recognizing it as a critical opportunity to mitigate significant impacts from the development of the parcel. Any alternative development would heavily rely on Brays Drive and Porters Neck Road for ingress and egress. Allison Engebretson, Land Planner with Paramounte Engineering, stated that along with her colleague Robert Balland, multiple options were explored to bring forward the project including the options of a special use permit (SUP) with 405 maximum units plus commercial or a by-right request with commercial up front and 75 units in the back. The decision was made to bring forward a project that protects the edges of the property as much as possible based on conversations with neighboring communities. There are no small buffer areas, they are football field sized with the goal to provide as much buffer and open space as possible. Chair Rivenbark announced that no one signed up to speak in support and eight people signed up to speak in opposition to the request and asked the speakers to provide their remarks. Kevin Foley, a resident of Bonaventure Drive and representing the Marsh Oaks HOA, spoke in opposition citing several concerns regarding the rezoning request. He noted the student generation rate discrepancy from the Planning Board meeting to what is being presented during this meeting which indicates a significant increase in children in the Porter's Neck/Ogden area, signifying a higher student generation rate and further overcrowding in area schools. Based on the total dwelling units of new developments, he estimated 132 additional students, leading to a 143% capacity at Porter’s Neck Elementary. The data is supported by a recent school system study projecting Porter's Neck Elementary at 144% capacity in three years. The study indicates that redistricting alone will not solve overcrowding issues, and capital construction is necessary at all levels. He urged the Board to vote against the rezoning due to the use of questionable generation rates and data, the potential to exacerbate school overcrowding, and the absence of current and accurate data being available to the Board for decision-making. He also suggested an option of delaying the rezoning decision until a comprehensive data review and planning is done that accommodates future growth. Courtney Corriher, resident of Folly Island Court and representing Marsh Oaks HOA and the greater Porters Neck area, spoke in opposition to the proposed development, noting her concerns with pedestrian safety, traffic flow, environmental impact, and community amenities. The roadwork projects in the Porters Neck area have historically neglected pedestrian access, failing to align with the Comprehensive Plan's objectives for sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike paths. The lack of safe pedestrian infrastructure forces residents to take risky routes through woods or along busy streets. The design of the new development exacerbates the issue by requiring residents to navigate dangerous traffic maneuvers, including a U-turn on Market Street, and navigating the congested Porters Neck Road intersection. The proposed gated community entrance will potentially cause backups onto Market Street. She noted various environmental issues, including Paige’s Creek being possibly further damaged due to the project’s high impervious surface coverage, creating runoff issues and flooding for the creek and surrounding neighborhoods. Also, the project lacks a habitat conservation plan to protect local wildlife. With 1,494 units of housing already approved or proposed in the Porters Neck area, the project's high density and lack of affordable housing options are concerning to her. The developer’s indecision over whether the townhomes will be for sale or rent could impact school enrollment planning. The project offers limited recreational facilities, including only a pool. The lack of amenities, such as playgrounds, dog parks, and nature trails, contrasts sharply with existing Porters Neck neighborhoods. Residents would need to travel elsewhere for recreational activities, increasing local traffic and contributing to a transient environment. She concluded by stating that the project's design is an island of concrete NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 85 and asphalt, lacking green spaces and essential community facilities. The developer's vague responses regarding additional amenities underscore a lack of thorough planning. She urged the Board to deny the request as the project fails to meet the County's strategic goals for sustainable land use, environmental stewardship, safe traffic flow, and school capacity. She feels there needs to be smart, sustainable development that aligns with the community's needs and the Board’s strategic vision. Steven Hamburger, resident of Emerald Dunes Road, representing the Porters Neck HOA, spoke in opposition stating he is the community relations manager for the Porters Neck HOA and supports the opposition speakers’ comments. The Porters Neck HOA urges the Board to deny the request as it is not well thought out. Steve Miller, resident of Wade Hampton Court, spoke in opposition, citing the escalation of traffic issues in the Porters Neck area due to recent development projects, including the area rezoned a few years ago for the Logan Homes project and feels the amount of traffic was underestimated in the traffic assessment. There are significant issues with turning onto Market Street from Porters Neck Road. The current rezoning request results in a fivefold increase in density in the area with a single entry and exit point onto Market Street. The project design will compel drivers to make challenging maneuvers, such as turning right and then making a U-turn at Cypress Pond Way, in an area not designed for easy U-turns due to the narrowness of Market Street. He noted that incremental impacts do add up over time whether it is with traffic, school capacity, or stormwater. He urged the Board to deny the request. Chair Rivenbark stated that the applicant and opposition speakers would each have five minutes to provide rebuttal remarks. In applicant rebuttal, Mr. Carlock stated the development team has been working on the project for two years and believes the project is exceptionally well thought out. In applicant rebuttal, Robert Balland with Paramounte Engineering stated that as to the concerns expressed about stormwater, all state and county requirements for water quality and flood control will be met. As to the additional pond in the back right corner, the team has asked County staff to provide a means for the outfall of it as there is currently not one. The condition to address the issue was agreed upon by all parties. The site is not in the flood zone and any flooding is localized ponding that will be addressed once the site is developed. If approved, it will take approximately 12 to 18 months to obtain all the approvals with construction to be complete in 2027. In applicant rebuttal, Mr. Davenport stated that U-turns are common in the County due to the traffic patterns NCDOT has adopted and proposed roadway improvements are based on NCDOT requirements. Part of making the U-turn safer is to install a traffic signal for the southbound movement to allow gaps in the traffic flow to not add to the load at the Porters Neck intersection. As to the right turn lane, drivers cannot currently get to Porters Neck Road with the queue, and it will allow drivers to reach the traffic signal and reduce the queue. The study’s purpose is for a developer to accommodate the impact of the project. The team has worked with the WMPO and NCDOT to incorporate the recommended improvements into the project. While it does not fix everything on Market Street, it will accommodate the project. In applicant rebuttal, Ms. Engebretson stated the current traffic issues in the Porters Neck area are not a perpetual problem. The site is one of the last large, dry tracts available in this part of the County. The proposed development could alleviate traffic on Porters Neck Road by redirecting it to Market Street. As to the lack of recreational space in the development, she provided assurance that the project will be highly amenitized. While not all the amenities are specified or allocated in the plan, typical features in such developments include pet parks, playgrounds, picnic areas, fire pits, and a resort-style pool at the amenity center. She further noted that 39% of the proposed open space, exclusive of the amenity center, is to be for recreational activities like picnics or playgrounds, exceeding County requirements. The open space equates to almost seven acres dedicated to community amenities. In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Corriher stated that during the community discussion about the amenities, attendees were informed that if it is not shown on the plan then it is not guaranteed. Also, the amenity center is the leasing center and would only provide a pool to the residents. In opposition rebuttal, Elizabeth Sites, resident of Lost Tree Road, stated that she agrees with the opposition comments heard earlier. The community will not fail if the Board says no to overdevelopment, but it will fail if the Board continues to put developers’ interests ahead of residents. She looks forward to seeing the beautification plan for Market Street come to fruition as the decisions of the local government have turned the corridor into a commercial flea market rather than preserving the natural beauty that attracts people to the area. She asked that the Board listen to the residents and urged a denial of the request. In opposition rebuttal, Mike Rose, resident of Hughes Circle, expressed concerns about school capacity. He noted that the Porter's Neck Elementary principal lacks an office due to space shortages, and the school is already accommodating eight second-grade classes, five first-grade classes, five kindergarten classes, and one first- grade/kindergarten combination class. The situation indicates that local schools are already struggling to manage the existing student population. The surrounding neighborhoods, including Marsh Oaks, Porters Pointe, and Porters Crossing have R-15 zoning, equating to approximately three units per acre. The project’s density levels are proposed to be four times that density. He does not object to townhomes but does feel the density level is not consistent with transitional development as laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 86 In opposition rebuttal, Stephanie Walker, resident of Lido Drive, stated she has the same concerns as she and her fellow residents in the Ogden area raised about a previous development constructed despite ongoing issues. The concerns include significant impacts on flooding, which is a notable problem as the area is situated between three watersheds, one of which is contaminated. As a school board member, she noted the challenges faced with school capacity and that Porters Neck Elementary will be using four trailers for additional classroom space. Another forthcoming development in the Ogden area will add 288 units and add to school capacity issues. She emphasized the need for smart development. She does not oppose development in general, but it must be considered carefully before being executed. It is important to learn from past experiences, especially considering potential natural disasters, which could reveal further issues with development in the already low-lying area. She urged the Board to take the issues into consideration to ensure responsible and sustainable development that does not exacerbate existing problems. In opposition rebuttal, Daniel Yadlosky, resident of Bayfield Drive, expressed his concerns about the open space including the retention pond as part of the recreational space. He agreed with previous opposition comments and stated that in 10 to 15 years from now when the buildings are aging, they will be cut off from the surrounding communities with no green space. The community desires construction built for generations. There being no further speakers, Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Commissioner Zapple expressed his understanding of the concerns about the proposal to increase housing from the current zoning allowance of 75 homes to 348 townhomes, a 365% increase. He acknowledged neighbors’ concerns about schools and traffic noting his surprise to learn that the retention pond counts in the open space calculation. In his review of the plan, he sees a lot of cement and impervious area over the entire site as well as high density. He feels the density is excessive for the approximately 30 acres and two acres upfront. He expressed concerns about a form letter sent to the Board by various citizens that basically states there will be a forced opening of Brays Drive if the Board denies the project. He suggested that there are multiple ways to open other areas to Market Street and as developers are incredibly good at their job, in this case, there could potentially be other ways to get to the site other than Brays Drive. He reiterated his concerns about perceived pressure on residents in the area, particularly in the Porters Pointe area, feeling leveraged to support the request. He reiterated that he does not see that access point as the only option. Commissioner Scalise inquired of Commissioner Zapple what alternate forms of access would be available to the site as he understands there are no alternatives other than Brays Drive. As to the rezoning type, one alternative for the developer is to apply for a SUP which would allow for a larger number of units than the proposed request. The other alternative is a by-right application which has some issues related to impervious surface and buffers although it would not allow for as many houses. He does not believe there has been coercion of, nor leveraging of, the Porters Pointe residents and the residents are genuinely advocating for the project’s approval as the best option. While recognizing the difficulty of the decision and the many people invested in the outcome, he highlighted the importance of the Porters Pointe residents’ point of view. Commissioner Zapple, in response, explained that he feels the residents are concerned, and the letter’s language is concerning to him as he found it misleading, and that he would use the term “leveraged” rather than “coerced.” He reiterated that there are other possible access points beside Brays Drive, such as the parcel directly south of the area fronting Market Street but would not suggest the developers buy the parcel. Ms. Engbretson responded to questions stating that the maximum units allowed under a SUP is 405, and if developed by-right, it would be commercial plus 75 units under performance residential. Chair Rivenbark commented that the school system has been contemplating integrating the junior high school that is next to Laney High School into it and then building a middle school. Commissioner Barfield stated there is a delicate balance between what the Board can and cannot do and that decisions need to be based on what state statutes allow. Vice-Chair Pierce expressed concerns with the student numbers and reported that the Board will be having th a joint meeting on January 17 with the Board of Education. She acknowledged the issues in the area and noted how the staff summary of the different developments coming online provides the Board with the full picture. She has concerns with the higher density and the open space as she does not think wetlands nor stormwater should be part of the calculation. While understanding there are housing needs and believing in private property rights, she has concerns and stated that the Board must look at everything. Planning Board member Colin Tarrant, in response to questions, reported that during the Planning Board’s consideration of the request, with six members present, the vote was 4 - 2 to recommend approval. The two dissenting members voiced concerns about density and pedestrian bike access. Although he voted in favor of the request, he expressed concerns about the density and traffic levels during the meeting. This is the only vote during his tenure on the Planning Board that he wishes he could take back. He believes the density is excessive and suggested the developer should consider modifications, as there are no changes based on presentation at both the Planning Board to this meeting. He reiterated that his concerns are specifically about the density, not townhomes or the plan in general. Other Planning Board members who voted in favor believed that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the County’s criteria for housing diversity. The applicant rightfully argued that the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 87 project addresses a gap in housing diversity by adding townhomes to fill the void. Although the points were considered and factored into the Planning Board’s approval, he feels changes could be made. Mr. Carlock, in response to questions, explained that the issue of whether there can be a density reduction is that there are two parcels of land involved that are expensive. There is a certain number of units needed to spread the development and amenities costs around. There would have to be a reassessment by the development team, and he cannot say it would work much differently than the 348 units. However, he would like to go back to the drawing board to look at it. Chair Rivenbark stated that he told all the people who have contacted him that 348 townhomes are too much, and he would suggest looking at fewer. Commissioner Zapple stated that when appropriate he would make a motion to deny the application. Vice- Chair Pierce voiced her support for the motion. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to deny the proposed rezoning. While the Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densities that are appropriate for properties located in both the Urban Mixed Use and General Residential place types, the Board finds denial of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the existing B-2 zoning is more appropriate along the Market Street corridor and the proposal funnels to only one access point. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 1; Commissioner Scalise dissenting. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark stated he made an error and asked Mr. Carlock 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. Carlock asked if a withdrawal is a continuance. County Attorney Smith responded that a withdrawal does not operate as a continuance and the applicant can submit other project requests that would start the process over. He asked Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth to provide any additional information. Ms. Roth stated that if a project is withdrawn, to submit something else, it will be treated as a completely new application. If denied, there is a one-year waiting period before the applicant can submit a substantially similar project. With a withdrawal, the applicant can go back to the drawing board and potentially submit something similar within the one year period. A brief discussion ensued about the public hearing procedure. Mr. Carlock, in response to questions, reaffirmed his request to withdraw the application so that he and his team could go back to the drawing board and consider the plans. Commissioner Zapple stated that as the applicant has requested to withdraw the request, he would retract his motion. County Attorney Smith confirmed in response to questions that there was no need for a motion to approve the withdrawal of the application. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark thanked all present for the matter. BREAK: Chair Rivenbark called for a break from 6:29 p.m. until 6:49 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS, APPLICANT, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 2.0 ACRES OF A 7.8 ACRE PARCEL ZONED R-20, RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED AT 4224 CASTLE HAYNE ROAD TO (CZD) B-2, REGIONAL BUSINESS FOR A CONTRACTOR OFFICE (Z23-22) Development Review Planner Wendell Biddle presented the rezoning request for an adaptive reuse of a 5,000 square foot structure on a 7.8-acre lot at 4224 Castle Hayne Road, currently zoned Residential R-20. The focus is on rezoning the front two acres, accessible from Castle Hayne Road, with the remaining 5.8 acres to stay R-20 with no immediate development plans. Historically, the area's zoning aimed for low-density housing due to the use of private septic and wells. However, recent light industrial and commercial rezonings in the vicinity have created a shift in land use. Located about half a mile southeast of the I-140 interchange and the G.E. campus, the lot lacks CFPUA water or sewer support but has an existing well and a newly installed commercial septic system with the latter positioned in the R-20 portion, about 400-feet south of the building. The existing structure meets the 15-foot interior side setback of the R-20 district. There is an approved conditional variance granted for the B-2 district's additional requirements, allowing 15-feet between the structure and the northeastern property line. The proposed rezoning will accommodate a contractor office, defined as an establishment for administrative and clerical services of contracted businesses requiring outside and/or fleet storage. The use may include some on- site repair and material preparation work. It includes a 45-foot private driveway easement from Castle Hayne Road, with a potential stormwater pond and aeration system. There is a required 30-foot opaque buffer yard due to the parcel's adjacency to residential lots, with an enhanced buffer proposed along the northeastern lot line. The lot has full access to Castle Hayne Road and is near the River Bluffs community and a STIP. It would generate an estimated 8 AM and 11 PM peak hour trips, below the threshold for a TIA but requiring a NCDOT driveway permit. The intended use as a contractor office is in line with nearby commercial developments, including adaptive reuses of residences for a dental office and a spay and neuter clinic. The rezoning aligns with the 2024-2028 strategic plan objectives for sustainable land use and environmental stewardship and workforce and economic development, promoting community support and new business growth. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Community Mixed Use and Employment Center, encouraging commercial infill and light industrial uses. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval on December 7, 2023. After the meeting, staff and the applicant amended condition two, focusing on exterior lighting to align with the Unified Development Ordinance’s (UDO) guidance. The NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 88 proposed conditions include an enhanced buffer yard, lighting restrictions, stormwater aeration, and use limitations, such as prohibiting storage of yard debris and general retail sales. If approved, the site development will undergo further review to ensure compliance with land use regulations. Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Biddle for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, on behalf of property owner Stephen Lisiecki with Outdoor Experts, stated that the Castle Hayne Road corridor is ideal for small contracting companies requiring office and crew staging spaces, benefiting from efficient access to all portions of the County via the I-140 interchange just to the south. The existing structure, previously a home garage and workshop, is vacant and suits office space needs, with planned additions of street yard and foundation plantings. Landscape design, NCDOT driveway permitting, and the County stormwater management assessment are handled in coordination by the TRC to prepare the site for the intended business, Outdoor Experts, a landscape contracting company. Employees arrive in the 6AM/7AM timeframe, using the site for vehicle parking and office administration, with limited public interaction. There is no proposal for new buildings. Bill and Michelle Mullens, adjacent neighbors to the northeast, are rehabilitating a second home behind the existing building, with a focus on flood mitigation and enhanced buffering, including a fence for added screening. Ms. Wolf spoke on a common ditch maintained by the Mullens and noted the opposite side properties downstream lack maintenance, causing blockages. Assistance is being sought from the County’s stormwater program to coordinate with NCDOT to evaluate the drainage pipes to ensure proper operation. The proposal aligns with goals for a vibrant community, attracting and retaining businesses in the subject area. The conditional district process and variance aim to ensure compatibility and minimize impacts. The request is reasonable, consistent, and in the public interest, with positive recommendations from staff and the Planning Board. Chair Rivenbark stated that no one signed up to speak in favor nor in opposition to the request and closed the public hearing. He 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 the vote. Ms. Wolf responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote. Ms. Wolf confirmed, in response to questions, that the septic system is not crossing the property lines; it is for the existing building and could not be cut off. If the owner sells the larger parcel, the matter will have to be remedied. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise, to approve the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-2 district. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the rezoning provides for the types of uses recommended in both Community Mixed Use and Employment Center place types. The Board also finds recommending approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the application limits use to those which are more appropriate for the area and additional conditions reduce the impact on adjacent residential areas. The existing conditions will remain in effect: 1. The non-conforming side setback of the existing structure to the northeastern boundary will be mitigated with enhanced buffering to include alternate planting of evergreen trees to enhance the opaque buffer yard. No activities shall occur in that area. 2. All exterior luminaries, including security lighting, for nonresidential, multi-family, and mixed-use developments adjacent to single family residential subdivisions shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward in compliance with Figure 5.5.4.C Full Cut-off Fixtures of the Unified Development Ordinance. In no case shall lighting be directed at or above a horizontal plane through the lighting fixture. 3. If a stormwater pond is required during technical review, an aeration system will be installed in the stormwater pond for mitigation against insect infestation. 4. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to Contractor Office, prohibiting the outdoor storage of yard debris, retail sales, and fleet vehicle maintenance on site. Approval is subject to the applicant signing an agreement acknowledging the applicant’s consent to all listed conditions. If the applicant does not provide a signed agreement within seven (7) business days from the date of approval, then the rezoning application approval is null and void. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA CASTLE HAYNE OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED July 1, 1985 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section Castle Hayne, Page 35. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING AND LAND USE TO AMEND SECTION 5.4 AND APPENDIX 1 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE RELATED TO LANDSCAPE BONDS AND PLAT CERTIFICATES (TA23-05) Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell presented the staff-led text amendment to the UDO, initially presented to the Planning Board in September 2023, opened for public comment in October, and considered by the Planning Board in November. The first amendment addresses landscaping bond requirements, historically managed by County staff under delegated authority from the Board of Commissioners. The second set of amendments updates the UDO appendix, a guide for disclosures and certificates required on a final plat map for recording with the Register of Deeds. These include provisions for private roads in new developments, offering developers the choice between public or private road dedication. Private roads must meet NCDOT standards but allow for design flexibility. The NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 89 amendments introduce a Certificate of Disclosure for Private Roads, ensuring developers acknowledge maintenance responsibility until HOA takeover and a Private Roads Certification by an engineer confirming NCDOT standards compliance. Private roads, however, are ineligible for NCDOT adoption due to their design. The final amendment adds a certificate for County Engineering regarding stormwater disclosures. The Planning Board recommended approval (6-0) at its November 2, 2023, meeting, with no public opposition or support expressed, and no public comments have been received to date. If approved during this meeting, the UDO will be updated on the County website later this week. Chair Rivenbark announced that no one signed up to speak in support or in opposition to the request and hearing no further discussion, closed the public hearing, and asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to approve the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to reflect staff’s assigned role in the landscape bond review process, a technical change to final plat certificates for private roads, and the inclusion of an existing certificate used by New Hanover County Engineering related to stormwater. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides up-to-date zoning tools. The Board also finds approval of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it provides for clear and effective ordinance standards. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 3, 2020, is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes, and contained in Exhibit Book XLV, Page 1.4. PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLING OF A TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING AND LAND USE TO AMEND ARTICLES 2 AND 5 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO INCORPORATE STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS (TA23-03) Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth and Mr. Dickerson presented the staff-led text amendment to the UDO. The request is based on a management directive to the Planning Department in 2022 due to recent federal and state legislation about electric vehicle (EV) goals and aligns with the County's initiative-taking approach to future growth and development. A graph was presented illustrating the County's EV registrations in the past year and estimated numbers for 2024-2026 based on current trends. The rise in EVs is expected to shift demand towards parking facilities with charging capabilities. A Department of Energy map was presented that reflects current charging station locations. Staff considered a range of factors when drafting the amendment, such as common charging locations, distribution of charging stations, site design impact, and installation costs for developers. The amendment aims to facilitate easy and cost-effective infrastructure development for property owners, ensuring flexibility for future installation of charging equipment. It focuses on three key areas: expanding definitions, setting minimum off-street parking standards for EV spaces, and ensuring future EV parking accessibility. A table will be included in section 5.1.2 specifying that lots with 25 or more spaces must allocate 20% for EV ready spaces, excluding single-family residential developments. Apartments, hotels, and parking decks must allocate 30%. EV ready spaces count towards overall parking requirements. The amendment introduces a cap of 15 spaces, as recommended by the Planning Board. No other jurisdictions with EV requirements were found to have such caps. Ms. Roth and Mr. Dickerson provided an overview of design requirements for EV parking spaces, including size, equipment protection, signage, and usage fees. The amendment also incorporates the recommended minimum Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant accessible parking spaces. The Planning Board reviewed and recommended approval (5-1) of the proposed amendment at the November 2, 2023 meeting, citing consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, support for business success, and environmental responsibility. It also found recommending approval of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it provides for clear and effective ordinance standards. If approved during this meeting, the item will be adopted into the UDO. Ms. Roth concluded the presentation reporting on the evolution of the amendment over the past year and a half, noting the modifications made to remove requirements for wiring to be installed in relation to the percentage of EV ready spaces and to design requirements for those spaces. She noted that public comments were received questioning the amendment concept and suggesting potential incentives. Staff have looked into the suggested incentives related to allowing these charging stations and setbacks, buffers, and street yards. Based on staff analysis, and as discussed at the Planning Board meeting, they are already allowed in setbacks. Staff found that allowing them in buffers that were intended to reduce impacts on adjacent property owners or in street yards that were to allow for a certain aesthetic appeal from the roadway was not only counterproductive to the intent of those provisions but could also potentially cause some safety issues for the end station users. As such, staff would not suggest moving forward with those incentives. Ms. Roth, in response to questions, confirmed there are some businesses that are already providing EV spaces. The private sector is investing in EV charging infrastructure primarily when it makes business sense. However, that approach does not always cater to the evolving needs of the community of EV owners and potential buyers. The data shows that the private market is meeting the demand for fast charging stations, especially those where EV companies have taken the initiative to install and retrofit them. Some individuals have voluntarily introduced charging stations in specific developments. Staff concerns lie in ensuring that the development projects undertaken today, considering the anticipated growth in the next five to ten years, can easily accommodate these charging stations in convenient locations for all residents. Staff did explore discussions with gas station developers, and it appears that they are not inclined to adopt EV charging infrastructure soon. The reluctance stems from the fact that EV charging typically requires longer station occupancy for adequate charging, making it less feasible for gas stations. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 90 The objective is to provide accessible charging facilities for employees and residents in a way that addresses these unique needs. Mr. Dickerson stated the numbers were gathered from metropolitan areas and communities that have the standards. Commissioner Scalise stated that proposed text amendments need to make business sense for everyone in the County, not just for the people who have EVs. Currently, EVs are .6% of the total car population in the County with a growth projection of possibly threefold after the next several years. He feels the text amendment is premature and will vote against it as it is a matter best left to the private sector and not something the County should be weighing in as proposed at this time. Discussion ensued about the proposed text amendment. Ms. Roth, in response to questions, stated that in terms of retail pricing the amount of conduit, not including wiring and charging equipment, per foot is approximately $1.5 to $3 just for the materials. Commissioner Zapple stated he will support the request as this is only for the conduit and he feels there will be a demand for the charging stations soon. In response to further questions, Ms. Roth stated that EV charging stations have not been installed at the government center. Moving forward, EV ready spaces will be part of projects. County Manager Coudriet stated that EV charging stations were not included in the vision for the government center when the project was started in 2019. Since 2021, there has been a noticeable increase in EV initiatives, including executive orders and projects. Going forward, if included in estimated budgets, projects will incorporate EV stations in alignment with County policy as well as the City of Wilmington (City) policy. Chief Facilities Officer Sara Warmuth, in response to questions, stated conduit was not run under the existing parking lot for the government center, but the lot was resurfaced. Cape Fear Development planned for EV charging stations on its side of the parking lot so there will be availability in the overall parking lot. She does not have an estimated cost but running conduit is less expensive when the ground is already open. Commissioner Barfield provided an overview of an email he received from the Clean Transportation workgroup, expressing gratitude to its participants, including representatives from NCDOT and the Governor's Office, for their dedication to developing the North Carolina Clean Transportation Plan. Many knowledgeable individuals from across the state have been part of this process, contributing valuable insights. Discussions have revolved around addressing the increase in EVs and the decline in gas tax revenue. To bridge this gap, mechanisms are being explored to assess EVs based on miles traveled, thereby generating additional resources for NCDOT infrastructure projects. He thinks the County is trying to transition its fleet to more EVs and feels that any contribution the County can make, no matter how small, contributes to protecting the overall environment. He hopes the County continues to work towards the effort. Chair Rivenbark commented that General Motors (GM) is shifting away from EVs due to being unable to sell them. He is not excited about EVs like other people. Chair Rivenbark announced that no one signed up to speak in support and three people signed up to speak in opposition to the request and asked the speakers to provide their remarks. Brad Schuler, representing Paramounte Engineering, spoke in opposition to the request, stating that Paramounte Engineering believes that the number of EV charging stations and parking spaces should be determined by the private market and not mandated by zoning regulations. Their perspective is that zoning regulations should be tied to the impact generated by the intended land use, and charging an EV should be considered a separate activity not related to the safe operation of a business. The ordinance does not address an impact generated by the land uses it applies to. There are concerns about the broad application of the amendment and the percentage of required EV spaces and the need for numerous charging stations in these locations, given that most people charge their EVs at home. EV technology is evolving, with ranges substantially increasing over the years, and are likely to continue improving. The private market is currently meeting the demand for EVs. Businesses such as Lowes Foods and Smithfield BBQ in Murrayville have installed charging stations. Paramount Engineering's clients are already considering including EV stations in their designs, and property owners should have the choice to install charging stations on their land. While opposing the ordinance as written, Paramount Engineering is supportive of incentivizing the installation of EV stations which is something the County can do to promote them. Mr. Schuler suggested that the County could lead by example by installing EV stations on County-owned properties, such as parks, to encourage their use in the community. Tyler Newman, representing Business Alliance for a Sound Economy (BASE), spoke in opposition to the request, stating that BASE submitted comments last week on this matter. He reported that BASE has received mixed feedback from its builder and developer members regarding the EV charging station mandate. Some developers have already voluntarily included EV charging stations in their developments, while others expressed concerns about evolving technology and associated costs. There is also a general apprehension about government mandates and setting the mandate at 20% poses practical challenges. The City’s Planning Commission is discussing a two percent mandate for EV charging stations, and even at that percentage, there has been resistance from affordable housing projects and businesses struggling to install the required number of spaces for various reasons. A brief discussion ensued about the City’s EV requirement. Ms. Roth, in response to questions, stated that her understanding is the City requires two percent for EV ready plus an additional two percent for the actual charging stations. She reiterated her understanding that requiring only conduit is less of a concern and it is when there is a charging station requirement there is pushback. She further confirmed that it is the City Planning Commission that will hear a proposed amendment to the City’s EV requirements. rd John Hinnant, resident of 219 North 23 Street, spoke in opposition to the request stating the Board needs to table the matter due to several concerns and points of confusion expressed about the request. He expressed NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 91 concerns about the calculation of required EV spaces being correct, comparing Apex, NC with the County in this matter, and how there is a need for a fair comparison when considering such mandates. He suggested incentives instead of strict regulations might be more effective, like the City. The City offers density bonuses to multifamily developers who set aside units for workforce housing. Also, the County should collaborate with the City and beach towns to identify publicly owned properties suitable for EV station installations. He reiterated the need for a collaborative and flexible approach to achieve more effective outcomes for EV charging infrastructure. Chair Rivenbark stated that the applicant and opposition speakers would each have five minutes to provide rebuttal remarks. Hearing none, Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Ms. Roth, in response to questions, stated although she does not know the percentages of EVs in Apex versus here, the County does tend to be in line with the rest of the state in terms of per capita EV use. Vice-Chair Pierce stated she felt this is a great idea and thinks developers need encouragement to do it as it is probably the way of the future. However, she does not think the County should require it nor should the government put the requirement on developers at this time. She feels the better route to take is to highly encourage developers and that a smart developer will do it. Commissioner Zapple reiterated that he does not see this as onerous and makes sense as the parts that could make the installation expensive were removed from the language. He stated that when appropriate, he would like to make a motion to approve the text amendment. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction on the request. Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED to approve the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to provide for new standards for EV Charging Stations and parking. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provides up-to-date tools that promote business success and promote environmentally responsible growth. The Board also finds approval of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it provides for clear and effective ordinance standards. THE MOTION FAILED FOR A LACK OF A SECOND. Motion: Commissioners Scalise MOVED to deny the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to provide for new standards for EV Parking and Stations. Substitute Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to table the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to provide for new standards for EV Parking and Stations. Discussion ensued about what, if any, direction to give staff on the matter. County Manager Coudriet explained that if the decision is to table the matter staff will not do anything about it until the Board has defined that it should. After further discussion, Commissioner Barfield stated he would add to his motion that staff is to bring the matter back to the Board during the June 17, 2024 meeting and that staff is to present the text amendment with modifications to incorporate collaborative input from the business community and other stakeholders to obtain a better outcome. Amended Substitute Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to table the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to provide for new standards for elective vehicle parking and stations and direct staff to present the text amendment during the June 17, 2024 meeting with modifications to incorporate collaborative input from the business community and other stakeholders to obtain a better outcome specific to electric vehicle stations. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 3 TO 2; Vice-Chair Pierce and Commissioner Scalise dissenting. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chair Rivenbark stated that no one signed up to speak under public comment. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS Commissioner Barfield reported on the various forthcoming events leading into the Martin Luther King Jr. National Day of Service on January 15, 2024. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Rivenbark adjourned the meeting at 7:52 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.