Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-05 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 286 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met August 5, 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 Associate Pastor Tracey Daniel of First Presbyterian Church provided the invocation, and Commissioner Zapple led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Commissioner Barfield commented on the 2024 Summer Olympics and congratulated all the athletes. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Rivenbark requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes – Governing Body The Board approved the minutes of the Agenda Review held on July 18, 2024 and Regular Meeting held on July 22, 2024. First Reading: Approval of Solid Waste Franchise Agreement for Thomas and Son, Inc. – County Attorney The Board authorized the first reading of the franchise award. This matter will be placed on the next agenda for the second approval required for the final franchise award. Upon award, the company will provide certificates of insurance, agree not to bring outside waste into the County and to haul all waste to a County designated facility, if required by law. Approval of Amendments to the New Hanover County Airport Authority Bylaws – Governing Body The Board approved the amendments to the New Hanover County Airport Authority Bylaws. Adoption of Resolution Appointing NHW Healthcare, Inc. Trustees – County Manager The Board adopted the resolution appointing the positions of county manager, county attorney, county chief financial officer, and county Board of Commissioners chair as the NHW Healthcare, Inc. Trustees. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLV, Page 14.1. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF NATIONAL IMMUNIZATION AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION Health and Human Services (HHS) Assistant Health Director Michelle McGrath presented the proclamation for Board consideration and Chair Rivenbark read it into the record. Commissioner Barfield stated his appreciation for the ongoing work of the HHS department in protecting the citizens. He noted that, although some individuals may be reluctant to receive vaccinations, it is the best decision to ensure their safety and long-term protection. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to adopt the National Immunization Awareness Month proclamation. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McGrath, in response to questions, confirmed that it is the citizen’s personal decision whether to get a vaccine. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLV, Page 14.2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER Chief Facilities Officer Sara Warmuth and Reinaldo Correa of Reinaldo Correa Studio presented the public art installation for the Government Center. Due to the hurricane, Mr. Correa joined the meeting remotely. Ms. Warmuth requested approval for the selected artwork, adhering to the County's policy that allocates 1% of construction costs toward public art. The artwork, titled 'Tides of Time,' will be displayed in the outdoor plaza of the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 287 new Government Center. After a call for artists in spring 2023, Reinaldo Correa Studio was selected based on their experience, past work, and vision. The $248,000 project is funded through the capital budgets of both the Government Center and Board of Elections projects. Any overage will be absorbed within the project budget due to savings in other areas. Mr. Correa explained that “Tides of Time” is a spherical artwork that reflects Wilmington's nature, culture, and history. The design, developed through community engagement, features elements like the Cape Fear River, a 400-year-old live oak tree, and Thalian Hall. As one explores the piece, layers of the artwork reveal these stories. Mr. Correa acknowledged the influence of insights from County Manager Coudriet and a Thalian Hall tour given by Commissioner Zapple. His studio partnered with local fabricator Area 51 to keep the economic benefits within Wilmington. He also provided visuals showing how the piece interacts with the surrounding architecture and lighting. Ms. Warmuth responded to questions stating that the funding is not new and is part of the existing budget. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the selected artwork for the Government Center front plaza as presented by Reinaldo Correa Studio. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOLS EMERGENCY REPAIRS Chief Financial Officer Eric Credle and Assistant County Manager Lisa Wurtzbacher presented the following information:  New Hanover County Schools (NHCS) emergency repairs and consideration of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU):  Background:  The County is statutorily required to meet facilities requirements for public schools  In the event of property damage, NHCS pays for repairs and then submits claims to insurance companies and/or federal/state agencies for reimbursement which requires an adequate cash reserve to make payment  NHCS has lower cash reserves than the County  A MOU would provide for the County to pay up-front costs in the event of a disaster and minimize any interruption in education  MOU key provisions:  A disaster event is defined as one that results in over $500,000 in damages  In the case of a disaster event, the County assumes responsibility for managing and paying the costs of repairs to restore facilities to condition prior to the disaster  NHCS personnel will be provided to the County for assistance at no cost  The County is entitled to any insurance and/or state/federal reimbursements related to the costs incurred in carrying out the MOU  Five-year agreement (can be renewed for additional one-year terms)  MOU may be terminated by either party with 30 days written notice  Not to exceed amount is $10 million  Disaster Response Process: 1. Disaster event 2. Estimated repairs to the schools exceed $500,000 3. MOU is triggered 4. The County assumes responsibility for managing repairs with school staff assistance 5. The County expends funds from the General Fund to cover repairs 6. The County Revenue Stabilization Fund potentially reimburses General Fund 7. The County files the claims with insurance companies and/or federal/state agencies 8. The County is reimbursed for repairs  Risks to the County:  Staff resources  Inherent risk of claims being denied Discussion ensued on the matter. Mr. Credle addressed questions, stating that the school system supports the MOU and that it is not intended to limit emergency repair funds. Commissioner Zapple noted that the school district’s funds are taxpayer money and expressed appreciation for its adherence to the Board’s advice to spend down its fund balance, which normalizes the system and clarifies fund management. He also believes the MOU will improve the efficiency of emergency repairs and enable the county manager to act swiftly during emergencies. County Manager Coudriet responded to questions, emphasizing the importance of the MOU due to the school system's limited liquidity, a condition established by this Board's direction and preference. He highlighted the need for the ability to proceed swiftly with repairs, referencing the experience during Hurricane Florence, when the County managed significant cash flow, around $35-$36 million, for emergency repairs, including those for schools used as shelters. He believes this plan will allow for more effective and faster responses in similar urgent situations, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 288 ensuring necessary repairs are made promptly. Mr. Credle added that payments will be prioritized and processed through the normal payment system during emergencies, allowing work to begin immediately. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction on the request. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with New Hanover County Schools for emergency repairs. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: WILLIAM LOUIS DRIVE FOR DETERMINATION OF COSTS, PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE Mr. Credle and County Engineer Tim Lowe presented the following information:  Special assessment of William Louis Drive Road improvements, determination of costs, preliminary assessment roll, and establishment of public hearing date:  Project description:  July 2021 property owner petition for William Louis Drive from Cheryl Lane to Brandy Court as it is an orphan road with about 1,275 linear feet  Bring road up to North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) standards  The NCDOT assumes maintenance once improvements were completed  Petition of at least 75% of property owners and linear feet received  Benefitted properties:  September 2021 Board resolution:  The County agreed to make necessary improvements  100% of project costs to be assessed to benefited property owners  Assessment basis: parcels with addresses and road frontage on William Louis Drive  Assessment can be paid in five installments with a 4% interest rate  Project timeline:  Stormwater issues requiring repair identified  Total cost to County/stormwater fund of $202,000  Delayed completion of project  Project completed in November 2023  Road accepted by NCDOT on December 5, 2023  Estimated project cost:  Assessment amount per property: $2,910.55  Next Steps:  August 5, 2024, adopt resolution  Determination of cost: $75,674.40  Prepare assessment roll  Publish all required notices  Set date of public hearing: September 3, 2024  September 3, 2024:  Hold the public hearing  Confirm assessment roll and amount Discussion ensued about the matter. Commissioner Barfield remarked that in this state, counties do not oversee road maintenance but can partner with NCDOT if 75% of residents on a road agree to be assessed for repairs. This partnership allows the County to address many orphan roads left in disrepair by developers. Once NCDOT approves the repairs, they will assume permanent road maintenance. New subdivisions are now required to have homeowners’ associations (HOAs) with road maintenance agreements to prevent future orphan roads. Commissioner Barfield stated his intention to make a motion to approve the first step in this process. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 289 Mr. Credle responded to questions, stating that he has spoken to the lead person regarding this request and confirmed that some property owners are concerned about the potential financial hardship. He noted that the property owners will have the opportunity to express their concerns during the public hearing. County Manager Coudriet added that the property owners themselves petitioned for the current road repair initiative, with an estimate provided at the time. A majority of the property owners along the road agreed to the terms. He also mentioned that the Board has followed this process before and, if desired, staff are open to discussing and considering changes to the policy on charging interest or other aspects for future cases. Mr. Credle confirmed that a notice of hearing has been sent to the property owners and that the payment plan is set over a five-year period. Commissioner Barfield commented that property owners are responsible for paying for the road repairs they requested, noting that the work has already been completed. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction on the request. MOTION: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise to adopt the resolution determining the total cost of the project to be $75,674.40; direct County staff to prepare a preliminary assessment roll and a project map, to mail each owner a Notice of Hearing, and to prepare and publish all required notices; and to schedule the public hearing to consider the preliminary assessment roll is set for September 3, 2024 at 4:00 p.m., or thereafter, at the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301, in Wilmington, North Carolina, 28401. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLV, Page 14.3. CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING AND LAND USE TO AMEND THE 2016 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO INCORPORATE UPDATED GUIDANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN BANK OF THE CAPE FEAR AND NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVERS Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth presented the proposed amendment to the County’s 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, specifically targeting development on the Western Bank of the Cape Fear River. This area is a key focus due to its proximity to Downtown Wilmington and its historical and environmental significance. The amendment aims to introduce a vision for more limited development, marking a shift from the higher-intensity development outlined in the current plan. The Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2016, serves as the County’s primary land use policy, guiding decisions in the County’s unincorporated areas. It influences land use and development decisions made by property owners, residents, and County staff. Ms. Roth emphasized that this amendment does not change existing zoning permissions or immediately impact ongoing development projects. Instead, it offers a strategic framework for future development on the Western Bank, ensuring that growth in this area aligns with the County's evolving priorities. The Western Bank area under consideration includes riverfront properties directly across from Downtown Wilmington, stretching from the Isabel Holmes Bridge to the north to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge to the south. These properties are within the County’s unincorporated area and are predominantly privately owned, except for the Battleship property. Ms. Roth also noted that this amendment does not include the land west of this area, which falls under Brunswick County’s authority. Historically, many properties on the Western Bank have been used for industrial purposes. While several of these sites are now vacant, some industrial and commercial activities continue, particularly on the northern bank of the river, across from Wilmington's Convention Center, Live Oak Bank Pavilion, and Port City Marina. The Comprehensive Plan currently designates this area for Urban Mixed-Use development, similar to parts of downtown Wilmington, allowing for taller structures and high intensity uses. Since late 2021, when two major development proposals for this area were introduced, significant public concern has emerged regarding the potential environmental and flood risks associated with such high-intensity development. In response, the Board initiated multiple work sessions and meetings to reconsider the vision for the Western Bank. These sessions involved a thorough examination of the current and historical land uses, environmental impacts, flood risks, and regulatory guidelines affecting the area. The Board also reviewed various development scenarios, analyzing their potential positive and negative impacts on the community. As a result of these deliberations, the proposed amendment introduces a new vision for the Western Bank, emphasizing more limited and environmentally sensitive development. This vision includes smaller structures, public recreation spaces, and a prohibition on residential developments. The amendment also aims to clearly communicate to property owners and the community the environmental hazards present in this area and the desire for development that is resilient and in harmony with the area's historical context. The amendment includes an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, providing detailed context for these recommendations and listing specific resiliency features that future development in the area should incorporate. These features aim to ensure that development on the Western Bank is sustainable and protects the area's environmental and cultural heritage. The new place type outlined in the amendment applies to most of the privately owned parcels in this area. Additionally, the Conservation place type, currently applied to some areas, will be extended to include the battleship property and other parcels likely to be classified as 'Areas of Environmental Concern' under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 290 While the proposed amendment does not change the current zoning, it includes recommendations for creating new zoning districts specifically tailored to the Western Bank. These districts will reflect the proposed resiliency features and provide the necessary guidelines for future development. The amendment also recommends exploring opportunities to assist property owners in cleaning up industrial brownfields and establishing greenway and blueway connections. These connections will link the Western Bank to existing or planned trails in Brunswick County and downtown Wilmington, enhancing the area's recreational opportunities and environmental sustainability. The amendment process involves significant public engagement, with drafts reviewed by both the public and the Planning Board in the lead-up to this public hearing. The feedback received shows a strong public desire to conserve the Western Bank properties, though some comments also support development efforts that responsibly address environmental hazards. The Planning Board, during its July 11, 2024, meeting, recommended denial of the amendment, stating that it needs further study and work on potential zoning changes. However, staff recommends the amendment as presented, believing it sets appropriate guidelines for the development of private property and establishes a foundation for future updates to the development code. Ms. Roth noted that this is the final amendment to the Comprehensive Plan identified for consideration before the full update, anticipated by late 2025. Ms. Roth, responding to questions, stated that staff has not extensively explored the possibility of federal or state governments voluntarily purchasing the properties for conservation. Commissioner Scalise expressed his belief that the amendment is premature and stated that he will not vote in favor of it as currently drafted. However, he urged staff to explore the possibility of voluntary purchase by the federal or state governments, considering it valuable information for the Board to have when reviewing the amendment. He also emphasized that not every inch of the County needs to be rezoned, nor is there a need for additional density. He stressed the importance of preserving green space and addressing flooding concerns. Discussion ensued about the request. Commissioner Barfield remarked on the climate pollution reduction grant awarded to the state, urging staff to reach out to the governor’s office to explore how much of these funds can be allocated locally for land conservation. He feels the funds could enable the purchase and preservation of vulnerable properties as conservation land in perpetuity. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, he noted that the current zoning for the Western Bank was established based on a broad radius that included the area, but he does not recall any substantial discussion about actual development when the zoning was applied. During initial meetings, scientists and experts indicated that the area would experience increasingly frequent and deeper flooding over time. Commissioner Barfield pointed out existing issues where high tides already submerge land and roads near the battleship and expressed concerns about the feasibility of developing infrastructure in such a vulnerable area. While developers might install water and sewer systems, once these are turned over to the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), it would become CFPUA’s responsibility to maintain them. He argued that it is unfair to burden CFPUA or any other authority with maintaining infrastructure that could be underwater in 15 to 20 years, leading to higher costs for ratepayers. He also highlighted the risks to first responders who would have to navigate flooded areas to reach residents during storms, posing dangers to both responders and residents. Initially, he was excited about the prospect of development, envisioning something akin to downtown Savannah. However, with growing awareness of potential flooding and sea level rise, he now finds it difficult to support moving forward with development in this area. He doubts the state will invest in maintaining infrastructure under such challenging conditions, especially since counties do not manage roads. Commissioner Zapple added that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maps for the Western Bank show that by 2050, 75 to 80% of the property will be underwater, with depths ranging from six inches to several feet. He also raised concerns about the elevation of roadways, warning that elevating roads could create a series of dams, trapping water and complicating drainage. In his opinion, developing the Western Bank presents significant challenges and is not a good idea. Vice-Chair Pierce emphasized that while the Board has not responded to emails on this matter, they have heard the citizens’ input. Ms. Roth responded to questions by stating that approximately 3,000 public comments have been received, with only about six in favor of the request. County Manager Coudriet noted that during the extensive discussion on the amendment at the August 1, 2024, agenda review, any action the Board takes today, whether acting, not acting, or sending it back, does not fundamentally change the existing zoning. If a development proposal aligns with the current I-2 zoning and meets the ordinance’s technical standards, it can proceed. He emphasized that the discussion has focused on the vision for the area rather than the specific zoning in place. There is by-right zoning, largely I-2, on that side of the river, with a riverfront mixed-use designation for which the site plan has expired. Any development under that designation would require a new hearing before the Board. He reaffirmed that I-2 zoning is strictly commercial and does not allow residential use. Commissioner Zapple added that while the current step will not change the existing zoning on the Western Bank, it will empower the Planning Department to ensure future developments align with the County’s vision. He emphasized that this is a crucial first step in clarifying the community’s and the Board’s expectations for the area. Chair Rivenbark announced that one person signed up to speak in favor, and 12 people signed up to speak in opposition to the request. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 291 In support Logan Secord, a resident of New Town Drive in Wilmington, NC, expressed support for moving away from the current zoning that allows urban, mixed-use, and industrial development on the Western Bank. He emphasized the importance of protecting the land from inappropriate development that could lead to long-term costs and environmental damage. He supports the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as a key first step in restricting residential development and ensuring that developers bear utilities and maintenance costs. He also advocated for further updates to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to account for severe weather events and include security bonds to protect the community in case of developer bankruptcy. He urged the community and developers to prioritize conservation, hoping public support drives responsible decision-making. In opposition Isabelle Shepherd, a resident of Orange Street in Wilmington, NC, represented the Historic Wilmington Foundation and several other organizations, including the Alliance for Cape Fear Trees and Cape Fear River Watch, among others. She addressed the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan concerning the Western Bank of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear rivers, urging the Board to adopt a Conservation place type instead of the proposed low-intensity riverfront development. Ms. Shepherd highlighted the area’s severe flood risks, the threat to historic and cultural sites like the battleship, and the potential financial burden on taxpayers from increased flood damage and infrastructure costs. She argued that conserving the area would protect natural ecosystems, enhance heritage tourism, and ensure long-term sustainability. She also called for further studies, such as a flood risk assessment, to guide decision-making and urged the Board to prioritize the community’s safety and environmental preservation by endorsing the conservation approach. Roger Shew, a resident of Park Avenue in Wilmington, NC, highlighted the severe flood risks on Eagles Island and Point Peter, emphasizing the increasing frequency and severity of tidal flooding due to sea level rise. He presented photos of recent floods, including submerged roads to the battleship and Point Peter, warning that such conditions will likely become daily occurrences within the next decade. Citing NOAA data and statements from the Army Corps of Engineers, he confirmed that flooding is worsening and strongly opposed development in these areas. He recommended designating Eagles Island and Point Peter as conservation zones to protect the environment and preserve the area’s history and culture. Despite higher elevations, Mr. Shew also noted that cities like Savannah and Charleston spend millions annually to combat flooding. He urged the Board to consider future risks and explore alternatives, such as creating a nature park, to benefit both the community and developers. Brayton Willis, a resident of Willow Pond Lane in Leland, NC, and a retired senior project manager for the Army Corps of Engineers, spoke from his experience in flood management. He noted that elevating roads essentially creates levees, which function as dams. When these structures fail, they endanger people and property and disrupt natural floodplains, contradicting the County's UDO regulations. He warned that any development in the area could lead to FEMA involvement during floods, resulting in the use of public funds, which also violates UDO guidelines. He suggested that a park-like setting with minimal infrastructure would be more sustainable, proposing simple solutions like bottled water and organic toilets to eliminate the need for CFPUA. He also highlighted potential tax benefits for landowners who donate property as conservation easements and mentioned that the Army Corps of Engineers' 1135 Program for environmental restoration could address the issues in this area. Additionally, he provided information on federal programs for unlocking brownfields that could benefit the community. Bob Parr, resident of Falcon Pointe Road, Wilmington, NC stated that the Western Bank is the lowest area in the County and will probably be underwater in 25 to 27 years. Chair Rivenbark stated that each side has five minutes for rebuttal and invited speakers to make their rebuttal remarks. In support rebuttal, Mr. Secord acknowledged that everyone agrees on the need to prevent development of the Western Bank, but the debate lies in how to achieve that goal. He expressed confidence that good developers will voluntarily donate land for conservation or recreational purposes. However, he raised concerns about developers who might resist and potentially sue the County if a conservation classification is imposed, arguing it constitutes a taking. Mr. Secord supported conducting a market impact analysis, which could aid in acquiring the land through grants but emphasized that the ultimate goal remains to prevent development. He encouraged developers to contribute to conservation efforts, suggesting that this approach aligns with the opposition's goals but takes a different path to achieve them. In opposition rebuttal, Bob White, a resident of Village Park Drive in Wilmington, NC, emphasized the importance of preserving Wilmington's natural surroundings, contributing to its identity as a 'garden city.' Drawing on his experience in Boulder, Colorado, where the city purchased over 46,000 acres to prevent suburban sprawl, he suggested that Wilmington has a similar opportunity to protect its natural 'lungs' to the west and east. Mr. White proposed that the city consider trading some recently vacated land for development, allowing growth within the city while preserving surrounding natural areas. He highlighted the value of maintaining open land around Wilmington, noting that it enhances the city's character and provides a unique environment for residents and visitors. He urged the Board to preserve Wilmington’s “Garden City” status, which he believes will be cherished by future generations. In opposition rebuttal, Jan Landes, a resident of Delgado Drive in Wilmington, NC, expressed her appreciation for the natural surroundings she encountered upon moving to the area several years ago. She NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 292 emphasized the importance of preserving this environment for future generations. She urged the Board to protect Wilmington's natural beauty so that her grandson and future generations can continue to enjoy these experiences. In opposition rebuttal, Matthew Collogan, a resident of Arlington Drive in Wilmington, NC, and vice-chair of the New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District Board, expressed concerns about the proposed development in a hazardous flood zone. He emphasized the importance of using the best available science, arguing that placing infrastructure and buildings in such an area is a poor choice for both citizens and the County. While respecting property rights, he advocated for alternative development scenarios, specifically proposing a nature park that would highlight the natural and cultural history of the area. He pointed out the economic potential of education, recreation, and ecotourism and stressed the need to preserve wetlands and floodplains that protect downtown Wilmington. He called for an independent market analysis of the parcels to guide potential land acquisition, ensuring Eagles Island remains a protective floodplain rather than an infrastructure liability. Mr. Collogan urged the Board to create a vision plan for Eagles Island and surrounding floodplain areas to be integrated into the County’s revised Comprehensive Plan, offering the Soil and Water Conservation District Board's support and expertise in this effort. In opposition rebuttal, Kenneth Thies, a resident of Breezewood Drive in Wilmington, NC, expressed his desire to see Eagles Island designated as a conservation park, emphasizing the responsibility to manage the land wisely. He warned that developing the area could set a dangerous precedent, leading to increased flooding, higher insurance rates, and escalating costs for the community, including neighborhoods in both New Hanover and Brunswick Counties. He highlighted the broader implications of land use decisions, noting that water management affects not only Wilmington but also Brunswick County, the state port, and the entire state. While acknowledging the importance of property rights, he argued that it is not the County’s responsibility to ensure private investments are profitable, especially when public safety and financial stability are at risk. In opposition rebuttal, Joseph Hill, a resident of Cornus Drive, Wilmington, NC, emphasized the importance of Commissioner Scalise's suggestion to buy back land from developers for conservation. While acknowledging property owners' rights to profit, he highlighted significant funding opportunities for conservation. He pointed out that the recently passed climate pollution reduction grant has released over $4 billion for such initiatives, and the Atlantic Conservation Coalition has access to over $422 million in grant money. He urged the Board to consider these potential funding sources to support conservation in the area. Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Commissioner Zapple stated that he will make a motion to continue this public hearing so staff can draft a revised amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that will create a new conservation place type specifically for this riverfront area, articulating the vision of conserving it in its current state. Additionally, he moved that the revised amendment include a provision that the County will not agree to extending water and sewer utilities into Brunswick County. While no plan amendment would change what is currently allowed under the zoning applied to these properties, he believes it is important for the community to understand the Board’s vision for this area. He also directed staff to increase efforts in seeking federal, state, and nonprofit funding and grants to assist with brownfield mitigation, environmental cleanup, and restoration and preservation of wetlands and estuaries in the Western Bank area. Commissioner Scalise stated he will second the motion. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise to continue this public hearing so staff can draft a revised amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that will create a new conservation place type specifically for this riverfront area, articulating the vision of conserving it in its current state. Additionally, the revised amendment will include a provision that New Hanover County will not agree to extend water and sewer utilities into Brunswick County. While no plan amendment would change what is currently allowed under the zoning applied to these properties, it is important for the community to understand the Board’s vision for this area. Staff is directed to increase efforts in seeking federal, state, and nonprofit funding and grants to assist with the brownfield mitigation, environmental cleanup, and restoration and preservation of wetlands and estuaries in the Western Bank area. Commissioner Barfield clarified that Commissioner Zapple referred to a 'conservation place type,' not a rezoning; it is a place type designation. He expressed concern that labeling an area as 'conservation only' or a 'conservation district' could infringe on private property rights, potentially devaluing property, and costing owners’ resources. Therefore, he supports finding resources to purchase the property and compensate owners fairly. He emphasized that the government should not harm property owners but can buy their property. He suggested that the County could tap into federal funds allocated to the state, believing that property owners may be open to selling their land to the County. Once the County owns the land, it can then be designated as conservation land. He reiterated that this is a place type designation, not a rezoning. County Manager Coudriet confirmed in response to questions that staff can investigate federal and state options for grants and funding with the motion as presented. There being no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BREAK: Chair Rivenbark called for a break from 5:40 p.m. to 5:52 p.m. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 293 PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY ADAM SOSNE WITH BRIGHTWATER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF MHMJ, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 12.68 ACRES ZONED CONDITIONAL RMF-M, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY - MODERATE DENSITY LOCATED AT 5322 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD TO A NEW (CZD) RMF-M DISTRICT FOR A MAXIMUM 133 ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS (Z24-12) Senior Planner Zach Dickerson presented the request to rezone a 12.68-acre site at 5322 Carolina Beach Road. Although the zoning district remains unchanged, the proposed modifications to density, housing type, and site access significantly differ from the previously approved site plan. Initially zoned R-15 in the 1970s, the eastern portion was rezoned to B-2 in 1988 due to its proximity to the Monkey Junction intersection and existing commercial areas. In October 2023, it was rezoned to conditional RMF-M for a 200-unit multifamily development. The site is bordered by a car wash and a multi-tenant commercial development along Carolina Beach Road. To the south are the Grove Park manufactured home park and detached single-family homes, while the adjacent parcel to the north is wooded and designated for the future Townes at Park Place, currently under construction. The approved concept plan includes up to 200 dwelling units with a density of 15.8 units per acre and two access points through the Townes at Park Place to Antoinette Drive. The proposed concept plan features attached single-family units, stormwater ponds, and a recreation area. Site access is proposed from the Carolina Beach service road through an existing shared drive with a neighboring car wash. Additional access points through the neighboring Townes at Park Place are proposed, but the Planning Board recommends gating these unless an access easement is secured. The reduction to a single ingress/egress point requires vehicles traveling west on Carolina Beach Road to either travel approximately 3,500 feet south to U-turn at Rosa Parks Drive or exit the service road onto Carolina Beach Road, cross three lanes of traffic, and make a U-turn at Monkey Junction, increasing vehicle conflicts at the intersection. The proposed development is expected to generate less traffic than the previously approved plan, eliminating the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Nearby, three projects have TIAs, and two State Transportation Improvement Projects (STIPs) at the Monkey Junction intersection are funded, though right-of-way acquisition is not anticipated until 2029. Based on the current student generation rate, there is an estimated decrease of 16 students compared to the current zoning. The student generation rate is updated annually using actual numbers provided by the school system. The site is within a high-growth node identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal reduces overall density, introduces a uniform housing type, and aligns more consistently with the neighboring Townes at Park Place. The proposed CZD RMF-M rezoning supports increasing housing supply, with a target of one residential unit per every two residents. It is designed to minimize impacts on the on-site stream, with no wetlands or floodplain areas identified. The Comprehensive Plan classifies the area as General Residential and Urban Mixed Use place types. The slightly higher project density of 10.5 units per acre aligns with other recently approved developments in the area. On July 11, 2024, the Planning Board voted to recommend approval (5-0) of the rezoning request, finding it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest. It also recommended conditions related to building height, roads, access, and the public access easement along the Carolina Beach Road frontage. However, the applicant has not agreed to the condition requiring gates. If the rezoning is approved, the site will undergo further development review. In response to questions, Mr. Dickerson confirmed that the applicant is currently permitted to build a maximum of 200 units and is now asking for a reduction in the density and number of units to 133. Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Dickerson for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Amy Shaefer with Lee Kaess, PLLC, representing Adam Sosne of Brightwater Development Company, presented proposed revisions to the previously approved project, which was originally discussed about a year ago. After further evaluation, the current design is deemed unfeasible, prompting the request for modifications, including a decrease in density. The project is adjacent to the Townes at Park Place, a townhome development currently under construction to the north. The site is located along a commercial corridor in the Monkey Junction growth node, identified in the County's Comprehensive Plan as an area of strategic growth. The surrounding zoning includes a mix of residential and commercial uses, making this site a critical transition point between these land uses. Her clients seek to reduce the project density from the originally approved 200 units to 133 units, translating to approximately 10.5 units per acre, down from the previous 15.8 units per acre. This decrease reflects a shift from apartment-style housing to single-family attached homes, which are more consistent with the surrounding residential character of the area. The elimination of apartment units significantly reduces the need for extensive parking facilities. The new design includes first-floor garages and driveways for each unit, enhancing the functionality of the homes and reducing the overall impervious surface area on the site. This reduction in impervious surfaces allows for an increase in open space, contributing positively to the site's environmental impact and offering additional recreational opportunities for residents. The proposed single-family attached homes aim to meet the County's identified housing needs, as outlined in its housing study. The project offers a variety of in-demand housing options and is strategically positioned to serve as a transition area between the commercial corridor and existing residential neighborhoods. This revitalization effort is crucial for the Monkey Junction area, which requires balanced development to enhance its appeal and functionality. The proposed development aligns with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for the Monkey Junction NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 294 growth node, which is classified as Urban Mixed Use and General Residential. The proposed density of 10.5 units per acre is consistent with these designations and supports future land use objectives for the area. Additionally, the revised plan aligns with the County’s goals of promoting sustainable growth, enhancing housing diversity, and balancing residential and commercial land uses. Ms. Schaefer requested Board approval of the proposed revisions, emphasizing that the plan remains consistent with the intent and objectives of the initial approval. The changes are designed to enhance the site’s compatibility with its surroundings, address housing needs, and contribute positively to the ongoing development of the Monkey Junction growth node. Ms. Schaefer, in response to questions, explained that a meeting was held with the Townes at Park Place developers about connectivity. Their initial request was about half a million dollars initially to connect which did not include ongoing maintenance, so her clients are still open to those possibilities. Numerous private roads connect to other private roads in the County that might not necessarily have access easements. She further stated that Mr. Sosne is open to that if the Board deems it appropriate. Commissioner Barfield noted that this is the first or second time since he has been on the Board that an applicant has requested a footprint reduction and increased the green space. He supports the request and recognizes the need for this type of housing as well as the growth taking place in the area. Chair Rivenbark announced that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition to the request, closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Mr. Sosne addressed questions regarding access, stating that there is no major sticking point. The proposed access points are consistent with the previous development's secondary access and align with County policy. He noted that about 10 to 15 years ago, many subdivisions were not required to provide stub streets, leading to dead ends and a lack of interconnectivity. This issue has since been addressed by ensuring that projects include stub outs to adjacent properties. When the previous project, a more traditional apartment design, was submitted, the neighboring project had already been approved and required to stub out to this site’s property line. Following this precedent, he includes a stub out in both the previous and current designs. During the prior approval process, no condition required a cross-access easement. However, he and his team engaged with County staff and expressed willingness to establish such an easement. He approached the out- of-town developer of the neighboring property and worked through multiple representatives to reach a decision- maker. The proposal was to formalize the existing stub-out connection with a cross-access easement, but the neighboring developer declined. An offer to purchase the access rights was made, highlighting the benefit for both properties, as each currently has only one way in and out. The neighboring developer responded with a price of half a million dollars, which was deemed untenable. Mr. Sosne reiterated that both projects are required to stub out to the same location as part of their conditional districts. He suggested that if a gate were to be installed, it would require further review since it was not part of the original conditional district approval. While he acknowledges individual property rights, he emphasized the practical benefits of shared access, particularly for emergency services. A gate with a Knox Box could be a solution, but he believes it is an unnecessary complication. He is willing to install a gate if the Board requires, but feels it would contradict the County’s current policy, which has moved away from creating disconnected developments over the past 15 years. He also noted that while the roads in question are private, they are dedicated to the public use of residents within the developments. Mr. Sosne expressed a desire to collaborate with neighbors to increase cross-access but stated that he is not in a position to pay the half-million-dollar fee demanded by the neighboring developer. Mr. Sosne, in response to further questions, confirmed that if neither development installs a gate, there will be free-flow travel through both developments. He also noted that the unit price point is a key factor in returning to the Board with this request. The development is intended for first-time buyers and retirees, but the exact price range is unknown until the site is fully engineered and lot costs are factored in. Elevators have been considered, but a final decision will be made once the plans are sent to the architects for the full scope to be drafted. Commissioner Barfield reflected on how there are about four townhome developments in the $350,000 to $450,000 range. Regarding the gate portion, he would prefer there not be a gate and that it not be part of the conditions which adds a cost to the project. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked Ms. Shaefer 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. Shaefer responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote. Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to approve the proposed rezoning. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provides the type of use and density appropriate for the area given the project’s location in the growth node and surrounding development patterns. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the development would provide an appropriate transition from the commercial node to the single-family residences to the south and west. The following conditions will apply to this approval as follows: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 295 1. Buildings will have a maximum height of three stories. 2. The roadway connections to the Townes at Park Place shall be paved to the property line. 3. A minimum 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage parallel with Carolina Beach Road to accommodate future public bicycle and pedestrian use. Furthermore, 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 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 133. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) REQUEST BY NATHAN CHRISTY WITH FUTURE HOMES, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF TERRILYN AND CELECIA PHILLIPS, PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE USE OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING IN A B-2, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ON A 0.19- ACRE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 1029 SOUTH SEABREEZE ROAD (S24-02) Chair Rivenbark stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and before the hearing is opened, the deputy county attorney will provide an overview of the hearing procedures. Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards stated that, for the public's understanding of the hearing process, it is important to remember that there are four criteria or elements that must be set out as findings of fact in the Board’s decision and clearly stated on the record: 1) Will this project materially endanger public health or safety? 2) Does the project meet all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance? 3) Will this project substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property? and 4) Will the project be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan for New Hanover County? While the staff has compiled information from the applicant that may or may not support these findings of fact, it is up to the Board to make that determination, and it must be reflected in the Board’s decision. Chair Rivenbark opened the public hearing and announced that because the SUP process requires a quasi- judicial hearing, anyone wishing to testify must be sworn in. He asked that all persons who signed in to speak and wish to present competent and material testimony please step forward to be sworn in. Amy Doss Tim Lowe Kenny Vollrath Rebekah Roth Ken Vafier Nathan Christy Robert Farrell Terrilyn Phillips Chair Rivenbark further stated that a presentation will be heard from staff, then the applicant and any opponents will each be allowed fifteen minutes for their presentations and an additional five minutes for rebuttal. He asked Ms. Doss to start the staff presentation. Ms. Doss provided the staff presentation, stating that this is a Special Use Permit (SUP) request for a single- family dwelling in the B-2 Business zoning district. The site, located at 1029 South Seabreeze Road, is currently vacant and surrounded by single-family residential properties and boat storage. Access to the property is via South Seabreeze Road. The site is zoned B-2 Business, as are the surrounding properties, and it has held this zoning designation since 1971. Single-family dwellings are permitted in the B-2 district with SUP approval, and such developments must meet the same standards as multi-family developments. In the B-2 district, dwelling units must be part of a mixed-use development designed to integrate diverse but compatible uses into a unified development characterized by distinguishable design features, amenities, and walkways that enhance pedestrian activity. The UDO specifies that dwellings in a B-2 district must meet certain requirements, including single ownership or a property owners association, inclusion of sidewalks, shared parking, community facilities or common areas, and mixed-use residential components. Additionally, elevations must illustrate the architectural style. Ms. Doss reviewed the concept plan, which shows the driveway location, the proposed house location, and an illustration of the applicant’s proposed single-family dwelling. If approved, the site is expected to generate fewer peak hour trips. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Mixed Use, focusing on small-scale, compact, mixed-use development patterns that accommodate all modes of travel. Appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed-use, recreational, commercial, institutional, and both multi- and single-family residential as part of a mixed-use development. She reminded the Board that during the quasi-judicial hearing, it must determine that the following four conditions are met: (1) The use will not materially endanger public health or safety if located as proposed and approved; (2) The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the UDO; (3) The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or it is a public necessity; and (4) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the submitted and approved plan, will be in harmony with the surrounding area and generally conform to the County's Comprehensive Plan. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 296 Staff have compiled the facts provided in the application and identified through technical review and analysis. These findings are organized according to the applicable conclusions. The findings are preliminary, and additional relevant facts may be presented during the public hearing. The compiled facts may or may not support the Board’s conclusions. For conclusion one, the preliminary findings generally address utilities, fire protection, access, environmental features, and traffic. For conclusion two, the findings address compliance with the variance ordinance requirements for single-family dwellings in the B-2 district, including the type of development, amenities, sidewalks, parking, facilities, uses, concept designs, flood hazard areas, construction in the floodplain, utilities in a floodplain, flood damage, hazardous materials, public utilities, drainage permits, federal and state permits, construction in flood hazard areas, and elevation certificates. For conclusion three, the findings generally address existing site conditions and land uses. For conclusion four, the findings address the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Rivenbark thanked Ms. Doss for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Terrilyn Phillips, the applicant, stated that he and his wife live at 809 Bluebird Lane in Wilmington, NC, and are applying for a SUP. They believe that, given the recent rezoning of a 7.3-acre residential site to allow a large- scale commercial center with road access along Carolina Beach Road, and considering the limited lot size (approximately 0.19 acres) and flood concerns, the best use of the property at 1029 South Seabreeze Road is to build a detached single-family dwelling. The site is currently surrounded by single-family homes designated as or rezoned from B-2. Regarding the four required conclusions for the SUP: 1. The proposed use does not materially endanger public health or safety and ensures low-density housing in Flood Zone AE. Similar structures on neighboring lots have not posed any danger to public health or safety, nor have they adversely affected property values. 2. The proposed use meets all required conditions and specifications of the local government's ordinance. It is subject to approvals from the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and zoning compliance. 3. The proposed use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property, and it addresses the public necessity of alleviating the housing shortage by contributing a single-family home to meet the ongoing demand. 4. The proposed use will be in harmony with the surrounding area and generally conform to the local government's comprehensive plan. Established legal principles hold that listing the use in the ordinance confirms compatibility and harmony. Single-Family Detached Dwellings (SFD-D) are listed in the principal use table (4.2.1) with an S* (Special Use Permit subject to Use-Specific Standards). The Comprehensive Plan under the heading of Community Mixed Use includes single-family residential as an acceptable type, particularly where limitations to mixed-use development exist due to factors like floodplains, wetlands, and other natural or man-made features. Mr. Phillips discussed the inclusion of single-family detached homes as a special use within the UDO, emphasizing that this designation indicates the use is achievable within the current regulatory framework. He referenced specific UDO provisions, noting that while single-family detached homes are permitted, they must adhere to the standards outlined in Section 4.3 and additional conditions associated with SUPs. He explained that dwelling units in this development must be part of a mixed-use project designed to integrate diverse but compatible uses into a unified development, with amenities and walkways to enhance pedestrian activity and create a cohesive community. Mr. Phillips contrasted this requirement with the standards for mixed-use residential developments, which encourage but do not mandate such integration. He elaborated on the Comprehensive Plan and community mixed- use zoning, highlighting that these guidelines generally promote smaller lots and various housing options. The proposal includes single-family residential units, which he believes align with the community's needs. He noted that lower-density single-family residential development is acceptable where limitations exist for mixed-use development, citing the property's location in a flood zone and its challenging dimensions as significant limitations. Mr. Phillips referenced Section 1.6 of the UDO, which addresses conflicts between the ordinance and other laws, including local, state, and federal regulations. He emphasized that in cases of conflict, the more restrictive provisions govern, ensuring the most stringent controls are applied. He also cited relevant North Carolina General Statutes, underscoring that conditions imposed on SUPs must be reasonable and appropriate. He stressed that certain building design regulations can only be enforced if the property owner voluntarily consents during the zoning process. Regarding potential uses within the mixed-use development, Mr. Phillips mentioned instructional services and studios as examples of uses that could be integrated into the project. He clarified that any home occupation conducted on the property would be within the main dwelling, not in an accessory structure, thereby complying with the UDO’s home occupation standards. He assured the Board that such activities would generate minimal traffic, consistent with expectations for a residential neighborhood. Mr. Phillips also discussed Article 8 of the subdivision regulations, which exempts certain land divisions from standard regulatory requirements if they meet specific criteria. He requested an exemption from the requirement to install sidewalks, citing the lack of sidewalks throughout the existing neighborhood and arguing that requiring a sidewalk for their 65-foot frontage would be unreasonable. He noted that the Technical Review Committee (TRC) NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 297 has the authority to grant such exemptions when sidewalks are deemed unnecessary for public safety or welfare due to site-specific conditions. Finally, Mr. Phillips addressed open space requirements, advocating for flexibility in administering these standards due to the unique characteristics of the property. He requested consideration for minor deviations from the standard open space requirements, arguing that strict adherence would be unreasonable given the specific challenges posed by the site’s size, shape, and location. Chair Rivenbark stated that the applicant’s presentation time had ended, that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition to the request, closed the public hearing, and opened the floor to Board discussion. Ms. Doss confirmed, in response to questions, that the applicant intends to build a house in Seabreeze, and the SUP process is required only because of the existing B-2 zoning. Planning staff discussed various options for developing the parcel for residential use, but it was the applicant’s decision to proceed with the SUP application rather than seek rezoning. Commissioner Barfield highlighted that before the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, a property used for boat trailer storage was nearly unusable due to restrictive setbacks, requiring multiple lots to build anything. This significantly reduced the property's value, leading to a lower sale price. The 2016 update allowed for greater density and removed those setbacks, making the land more usable. He also noted that Aqua NC has agreed to provide additional water and sewer services to the Seabreeze area, addressing a previous issue. Commissioner Barfield expressed full support for the application. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for the Board’s direction on the request. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise to approve the permit as the Board finds that this application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the staff report and additional evidence presented at the public hearing. Also, the approval is subject to the applicant signing an agreement acknowledging the applicant’s consent to all of the following conditions agreed to by the applicant: 1. Applicant will maintain existing vegetative buffer next to existing occupied side property. 2. A large live oak found at the back of the lot is not located near the proposed structure site and will not be disturbed. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of an order granting a Special Use Permit and listing the findings of facts is contained in SUP Book IV, Page 99. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chair Rivenbark stated that two people signed up to speak on non-agenda items. Maryann Nunnally, a resident of Blue Heron Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated that she is a retired principal and former New Hanover County Board of Education member. She expressed concerns about the lack of county water in the Scotts Hill/Kirkland community, a small, historically African American area established after the Civil War. She noted that while new developments nearby have received water lines, this community has been appealing for water service for at least four years without success. She highlighted the health risks, particularly for children who consume and bathe in water containing harmful chemicals. She urged the Board to prioritize funding for a water line in this community, bypassing reliance on uncertain grant funding. Crystal Lee, a resident of Ivy Lane, Carolina Beach, NC, expressed concern about the lack of response to efforts to enhance animal welfare. Since October 2023, she has attempted to contact government representatives through various means, including postal mail, a local petition, and emails, but has seen little acknowledgment. She highlighted that North Carolina has the third-highest euthanasia rate for healthy cats and dogs in the country, with this county euthanizing 1,141 animals in 2023 alone. Shelters and nonprofit animal organizations are overwhelmed due to inadequate funding, lack of legislative priority, and outdated county animal ordinances. She urged the Board to establish an animal welfare committee with the mission to enhance animal welfare, advocate for legislative action, enforce county ordinances, support community education and involvement, and ensure compassionate treatment of animals in the county. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS Discussion ensued about the citizens’ public comments. Vice-Chair Pierce expressed her agreement with the citizens' concerns. County Manager Coudriet reminded the Board that it had approved staff to pursue a grant to fund the water line installation. If that funding cannot be secured, the Board has the option to use general fund revenue to address the need, though staff has not yet recommended taking that step. Commissioner Zapple noted that CFPUA is fully aware of the Scotts Hill/Kirkland situation and that multiple communities face similar issues. County Manager Coudriet further stated that the estimated cost to run the water NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 AUGUST 5, 2024 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 298 lines is $4.7 million. He mentioned that CFPUA has been successful in securing state funds to assist communities and emphasized the importance of exploring all available funding opportunities. Commissioner Scalise agreed on the need to explore all funding sources and does not believe there should be a deviation from trying to obtain a grant for the Scotts Hill/Kirkland community project. He also emphasized the importance of holding those responsible for the water contamination accountable. County Manager Coudriet clarified that while he is unsure whether this specific community is a hot spot for PFAS, the water may contain iron and lead. Commissioner Barfield commented that it is not unprecedented for the County to fund such projects, citing a previous instance where the County took out a loan to extend water and sewer services to the Heritage Park and Marquis Hills communities, where septic systems were failing. Vice-Chair Pierce concluded by stating that regardless of the reasons behind the contamination, her priority is ensuring everyone has access to clean water. Vice-Chair Pierce expressed openness to establishing an animal welfare committee and requested more information on what such a committee would entail and what issues it would address. County Manager Coudriet noted that the Sheriff’s Office currently oversees the animal services division. Discussion followed regarding how the community can provide input on animal welfare matters without a dedicated committee. Commissioner Barfield remarked that animal control services were previously under the Public Health department before being transferred to the Sheriff’s Office. The Board expressed a desire for more information to better understand how the community currently provides input on animal welfare issues. At the Board's request, Chief Communications Officer Josh Smith reported how the citizens can stay connected with the County and keep abreast of the forthcoming tropical storm. County Manager Coudriet reported on the upcoming leadership team meeting with the emergency management director the next day. He will report back to the Board after that meeting with an update. Commissioner Zapple recognized Communications and Outreach Specialist Jared Hall for seven years of service to the County as this is his last day with the County. He thanked him for his service and wished him well in his future endeavors. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Rivenbark adjourned the meeting at 7:09 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.