Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-02 Agenda Review NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 2, 2025 AGENDA REVIEW MEETING PAGE 390 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met on January 2, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. for Agenda Review in Conference Rooms 138-139 at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present: Vice-Chair LeAnn Pierce; Commissioner Dane Scalise; Commissioner Stephanie A.C. Walker; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Members absent: Chair Bill Rivenbark. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell; and County Attorney K. Jordan Smith. Vice-Chair Pierce called the Agenda Review meeting to order, stating that the purpose was to review and discuss agenda items for the January 6, 2025 Regular Meeting. However, the Board would first hear a staff update. STAFF UPDATE Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth and Long Range Planner Virginia Norris updated the Board on the student yield analysis:  Student yield analysis:  Overview:  Internal analysis to inform decision-making associated with rezonings and special use permits  Published annually since 2020 and based on fall student counts, school capacity information, and residential unit estimates  2024-2025 analysis update:  Month two student counts  Review of student counts at different times during the school year  Spatial analysis to determine if rates differ across the County  Student generation rate (SGR):  Student generation rate calculator:  Provides an estimate of anticipated student yield as different forms of housing at different price points yield different numbers of students  Created using the month two student membership numbers*, the student programmatic capacity for each school*, and the number of housing units in new developments  *Provided by New Hanover County Schools  The estimates capture the complete public school student population  Student membership:  Should we use a month other than month two?  Student membership for each school fluctuates over the course of the school year  After reviewing membership for three consecutive school years, there is no month more or less suitable to use in SGR calculations than using month two  Five-year trend in SGRs:  All three levels have shown a mild drop over the past five years  The most noticeable change in elementary school student generation rates from school year 2020-2021 to school year 2021-2022 from .11 to .09  School membership data recorded from school year 2020-2021 was 11,630 students, while school year 2021-2022 was 9,925 students  This is a change of 1,705 students  Mapping generation rates:  Highest generation rates: Masonboro, Ogden, Murrayville, Anderson, and Castle Hayne NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 2, 2025 AGENDA REVIEW MEETING PAGE 391  Unit count by Elementary district:  Unincorporated New Hanover County:  Highest new unit count:  Porters Neck – 391 units  Williams – 274 units  Castle Hayne – 150 units  Murrayville – 105 units  Elementary school district unit by type:  Staff report: Enrollment zone information:  Staff report: Overview of data:  Staff report: Potential project impact:  Next steps The Board briefly discussed the process for quasi-judicial hearings, focusing on special use permits (SUPs). Ms. Roth explained that the Planning Board holds a preliminary forum the month before the actual public hearing. The forum allows the public and interested stakeholders to learn more about the project, ask questions, and understand how to take part effectively in the quasi-judicial hearing. During the forum, the Planning Board can ask questions and identify areas needing more information before the project moves to the Commissioners for the public hearing. The Planning Board does not make recommendations or take a vote at the preliminary forum. A brief discussion ensued about the analysis. In response to questions, Ms. Roth confirmed that within the Wrightsboro and Carolina districts there are large numbers of new units. She also confirmed that the catchment areas for each district appear on the slide showing the mapping generation rates. Commissioner Zapple noted decreases in student membership at Laney and Ashley during months 5 and 6, while Hoggard and New Hanover showed increases. Ms. Roth explained that the assessment considered whether another point in the year might provide more accurate student counts than month two. She added that the school system would need to address further questions about specific school counts. The Board discussed the impact of housing types on the SGR. Ms. Roth explained that in 2020, staff collaborated with the school district on a more detailed analysis to identify the generation rate associated with each housing type. Discrepancies in student numbers during the pandemic affected the analysis but generally, multifamily NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 2, 2025 AGENDA REVIEW MEETING PAGE 392 housing yields fewer students than single-family homes. However, the trend depends on location and affordability. When single-family homes are too expensive for families, multifamily housing tends to accommodate more families. Limited data on this topic prevents its inclusion in the current analysis, and providing more accurate information would require extensive coordination with the schools. Ms. Roth noted a slight decrease in students per residential unit over the past three years, despite the challenges of gathering data during the pandemic. The SGR calculation is based on certificates of occupancy rather than permits. She clarified that the SGR data is not predictive, and that staff provides the best estimates for each specific project. One significant factor not yet captured in the analysis is the shift in student populations within school districts. The shifts are influenced more by people moving into existing units and changing area demographics than by new construction units. The school system accounts for some of the trends in its demographic studies. Regarding Porters Neck, staff have observed, through conversations with local builders, that many new buyers come from the same zip code. There being no further discussion, Vice-Chair Pierce thanked Ms. Roth for the presentation. Consent Agenda Item #3: First Reading: Approval of Solid Waste Franchise Agreement for Valor Waste Services, LLC. Recycling and Solid Waste Director Joe Suleyman addressed questions, explaining that, although the company is based in Pender County, he is not concerned about waste coming from outside the County. He noted that many new startups operate outside the County. A full-time staff member conducts inspections of waste loads. If a determination is made that out-of-county waste is being brought in, the tip fee doubles. The first offense results in a warning, the second offense leads to a 30-day ban, and the third offense results in a lifetime ban. Consent Agenda Item #4: Approval of Conveyance of County property interest to City of Wilmington for public sale. Deputy County Attorney Kemp Burpeau explained that the County and City of Wilmington (City) jointly owned parcels were obtained via tax foreclosures, one in 1949 and the other in 1986. The properties are located on an unimproved section of road likely to appeal only to an adjacent property owner. As the properties are within the city limits, the City is taking the lead on the matter. The properties are true surplus, and if the sale does not proceed, the City will return them to the County. The Board briefly discussed the possibility of waiting until the revaluation is complete. The consensus was to not wait as the estimated 2025 values show little increase from 2021 values. Consent Agenda Item #6: Adoption of Last Frontier and Blue Clay Business Park State Budget Grants Resolutions and Budget Amendment. Chief Financial Officer Eric Credle explained that the proposal would eliminate the need to borrow the planned $13 million for the projects and allow the transfer of excess funds to Project Grace. The Board briefly discussed inflation and how cost estimates have changed over time. Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) Deputy Executive Director Kevin Morris noted that both projects came in about 35% below the engineer’s estimate, with the highest bid aligning closely with that estimate. He added that the lowest two bids were within a few hundred thousand dollars of the highest bid, providing staff with confidence in the bidding process. Regular Agenda Item #7: Consideration of Resolution supporting a High Hazard Classification for Lot Clearing Burns in New Hanover County. Fire Rescue Chief Donnie Hall reported that numerous complaints about burning during early summer revealed several simultaneous burns occurring at one time. In response, staff researched statutes and proposed designating New Hanover County as a high hazard county. The County’s inorganic soils meet the state requirements for this designation. If approved, land-clearing operations of five acres or more will require a specific permit through the North Carolina Forest Service. This process will include a burn plan and a site inspection by a state forestry ranger, which is not currently required. Brunswick and Onslow counties, the nearest high hazard counties, already have this designation. In response to questions, Chief Hall clarified that the designation will not apply to residential burning in the County's unincorporated areas. The Board briefly discussed air quality ordinances. Chief Hall noted that the County would be responsible for enforcing those ordinances if the Board wanted to move in that direction. He also clarified that burn permits apply only to vegetative debris and are valid from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on the date issued. Regular Agenda Item #8: Consideration of Two Construction Contract Awards Related to the Last Frontier Infrastructure Project. Mr. Morris responded to questions about construction administration costs, noting that the same firm will oversee both the Holly Shelter and North College Road projects, providing competitive rates. Approximately 40% of the construction services are lump sum, while 60% are time and materials, allowing for potential cost savings if all resources are not used. There is an inspection rate of $140/hour, which aligns with industry standards ($120–$150/hour). As for the $371,000 in construction administrative costs, Mr. Credle noted that the County covers those costs, but it was not included in the bid as it is paid to the design firm. Commissioner Zapple requested for future projects that specific cost be reflected separately from the administration costs total, so the County’s responsibility is clearly shown on the documents. Regular Agenda Item #9: Rezoning Request (Z24-21) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Catherine Scanlon, Steven and Katherine Tylee, and Raimond and Kelly Struble, property owners, to rezone approximately 0.28 acres located at 1040 and 1050 S. Seabreeze Road from the B-2, Regional Business District to a general use R-5, Residential Moderate-High Density District and to rezone approximately 0.10 acres located at 1054, 1056, and 1068 S. Seabreeze Road from B-2 to a general use R-15, Residential District. Senior Planner Zach Dickerson responded to questions stating there has been no opposition to the project. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 2, 2025 AGENDA REVIEW MEETING PAGE 393 Regular Agenda Item #10: Rezoning Request (Z24-14) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Polly Cribb and Shirly Norris, property owners, to rezone approximately 2.67 acres located at 6208, 6216, and 6218 Carolina Beach Road from the R-15, Residential and the B-2, Regional Business districts to (CZD) B-2 for the use of Retail Sales, General for a grocery store, and other limited uses. Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell responded to questions stating there is no opposition to the project. One or two comments were received and are in the Board packet, but those were in opposition to development and not for this specific project. Regular Agenda Item #11: Rezoning Request (Z24-11) – Request by Douglas Brandon Paluck with P&P Enterprises, applicant and property owner, to rezone approximately 0.41 acres of a 0.82-acre parcel located at 5406 Castle Hayne Road from the R-15, Residential District to the (CZD) B-2, Regional Business District for the use of Bar / Nightclub, Retail Sales, General and Outdoor Recreation Establishment. Mr. Dickerson responded to questions stating that one person opposed the project, but after conditions were added, they are no longer opposed to it. Regular Agenda Item #12: Text Amendment Request (TA24-05) - Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend Table 5.1.2.A, Section 5.4.5, Section 5.4.6, Section 2.3, Section 4.3.2, and Table 4.2.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) related to Accessory Dwelling Units, parking ratios for warehouses, parking lot landscaping, street-yard requirements, and mixed-use residential development. Mr. Farrell addressed questions about accessory dwelling units (ADUs), explaining that state statutes restrict the County’s ability to regulate building materials for ADUs, as they must follow residential building codes. He noted that at the Planning Board’s request, staff is researching ADU size requirements. Regarding mixed-use residential development in commercial districts, Mr. Farrell clarified that there are no changes to the ordinance wording; instead, the text is being reorganized for clarity. A special use permit (SUP) is required for each mixed-use project unless allowed by the zoning district, such as in the plan development (PD) district. Ms. Roth added that mixed-use projects in existing commercial districts have no maximum residential density. Mixed-use residential projects can proceed through conditional rezoning (CZD), though no provisions allow specific uses in a district solely through conditional approval. The Board briefly discussed a public comment about extending the mixed-use residential component to industrial and mini warehouse uses. Mr. Farrell clarified that the maintenance amendment aims to refine the UDO without introducing changes. He stated that such a request would require a Board policy decision, and staff would investigate an amendment if directed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Rivenbark adjourned the meeting at 5:09 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.