Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-01 Special Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 MAY 1, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 492 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Special Meeting with the New Hanover County Planning Board on Thursday, May 1, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present: Chair Bill Rivenbark; Commissioner Dane Scalise; Commissioner Stephanie A.C. Walker; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Members absent: Vice-Chair LeAnn Pierce. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell; and County Attorney K. Jordan Smith. New Hanover County Planning Board members present: Chair Colin J. Tarrant; Vice-Chair Cameron Moore; and members Pete Avery, Kevin Hine, Clark Hipp, and Kaitlyn Rhonehouse. Members absent: Hansen Matthews. Planning staff present: Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth; Planning and Land Use Supervisor Katia Boykin; and Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell. Chair Rivenbark and Chair Tarrant called their respective Boards to order for the Joint Special Meeting, reporting that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss updates to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN UPDATE Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth thanked the Commissioners and Planning Board members for convening to discuss Destination 2050, the ongoing update to the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which outlines land-use policies and future development in unincorporated areas. This joint meeting aims to share findings from recent public engagement and technical analysis and receive feedback to guide next steps. Presentations will cover community input, alignment with priorities identified at last fall’s joint work session, and early results from the consulting team’s analysis. She emphasized the importance of ensuring the plan’s goals and strategies reflect the Board’s vision, as these elements will directly inform the future land use map and a five-year action plan guiding the staff projects, resource allocation, and potential regulatory changes. The project is midway through its full update and phase two of the process, which involves identifying and analyzing strategies. This meeting is the second of three joint sessions planned before finalizing policies and preparing the draft plan for public comment and adoption. Planning and Land Use Supervisor Katia Boykin provided an overview of community feedback received to date:  Destination 2050: Joint Work Session 2:  Public engagement data collection:  How data was collected:  Public opinion survey – SERL Report (Complete): Phone survey  Virtual Open House (Engage NHC website): Online questionnaire  Quality of place surveys (Engage NHC website): Online survey  Festivals and pop-ups at the parks: Worksheet questionnaire  Public engagement data collection results overview:  Environment, infrastructure, and housing:  Protecting and supporting native plants and trees  Preserve and protect open space and sensitive environmental areas, including wetlands and marshes  Protecting environmental quality: air and water  Improve sewage systems in residential areas  Potable or drinking water connections to residential areas  Ensuring attainable housing for residents  Preserve existing sense of place  Traffic safety and alternative modes of transportation  Need for responsible development  Technical Advisory Committee focus group interviews:  Quality of life and community services: Parks and Gardens, Soil and Water, Emergency Management, and New Hanover County Schools (NHCS)  Infrastructure and technical services: Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO), Engineering, Public Health, and Fire Rescue  Regional Planning: City of Wilmington (City), Pender County, Brunswick County, and New Hanover County Planning Board  County Organization: Information Technology (IT), GIS, Management, Diversity and Equity, Strategy, and Communications  Focus Group interviews:  Local business groups: Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, Business Alliance for a Sound Economy (BASE), Wilmington Association of Home Builders  New Hanover County departments: Environmental Health Services, Building Safety Electrical Trades  Environmental advocacy and management agencies: Alliance for Cape Fear Trees, Cape Fear River Watch, NC Coastal Federation, Soil and Water Board, Sierra Club NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 MAY 1, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 493  Committees and Associations: Community Relations Advisory Committee, Commission for Women, NAACP  Focus group’s primary themes: environmental protections, intensive development, deterioration of older neighborhoods, housing affordability, housing accessibility and suitability, modernization of water and sewer services, improve public engagement and communication, improvement and expansion in employment base, population growth/ in- migration, transportation resiliency, and unsheltered population Ms. Roth continued the presentation:  Board of Commissioners priority areas:  Seven priorities: Master planning in coordination with the owners of large parcels, more guidance on residential densities, tree canopy preservation, increasing and maintaining open space, stormwater management, flooding, transportation improvements, and coordination with partners  Other plan focus areas:  Community character: Refined recommendations for major roadway corridors, communities where land use recommendations may need to be refined, and mitigating the impacts of new development on adjacent parcels  Environment and natural resources: Green infrastructure/open space corridors, reducing residential risk in flood-prone areas, long-term sustainability, and a framework for assessing cumulative impacts  Partnership and engagement: Public education on the planning process and regional coordination with adjacent communities  Infrastructure: Water and sewer (specifically in southern New Hanover County), and mitigating the impacts of upcoming transportation projects  Housing affordability: Developing affordable housing land use strategies and coordination with others in the region Mollie Fitzpatrick, Managing Director of Root Policy Research, presented the housing needs assessment:  Housing needs assessment (HNA) key findings:  Project background:  The HNA is a component of Destination 2050: New Hanover County’s Comprehensive Plan update, designed to:  Present demographic trends;  Identify changes in the supply of and demand for housing; and  Identify current and future housing gaps in New Hanover County.  Socioeconomic trends:  Growing and aging population  Rising income and homeownership rate (driven by wage growth and migration trends—people moving in and out of the county)  Strong job growth and rising wages, though income gains still lag housing cost growth  Increases in working from home and in-commuting from other counties  Housing stock and market trends:  Housing production (and growing multifamily inventory) starts to keep pace with demand (measured by job and household growth)  Rising renter incomes lag market rent increases  Price growth and higher interest rates cause a dramatic loss in purchase affordability  Second homes and STRs may limit supply and raise prices in select areas  Rental units have shifted into higher price points: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 MAY 1, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 494  The share of home sales affordable to the median buyer (100% AMI) dropped from 50% in 2020 to 5% in 2023, compressing affordability for the critical workforce:  Example industries by AMI:   Rental and purchase affordability:  Median gross rent, which accounts for vouchers and Affordable units, remains unaffordable to median-income renters in New Hanover County:  Home prices in New Hanover County rose faster than incomes as affordability declined due to higher interest rates:  Housing needs:  Rising renter cost burden and rising homelessness;  Mismatches in supply and demand impacting renters earning <50% AMI most severely (“catch-up” need of 7,400 units or vouchers for < 50% AMI);  Access to homeownership is a challenge for households with incomes <120% AMI (and disproportionate barriers for African American buyers)  To “keep up” with projected growth, the county needs to create an additional 21,200 units in the next 10 years, including:  About 4,700 priced below 50% AMI  About 3,300 priced 50% - 80%AMI  About 6,000 priced 80% - 150% AMI  Summary of Affordability Changes, 2018-2023:  Renter incomes lag market rent increases.  The income required to afford a typical priced home more than doubled.  Renter cost burden increased at each income level. (Similar trends in owner cost burden) NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 MAY 1, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 495  “Catch Up” needs: Affordability needs for current households are concentrated below 50% AMI in the rental market and below 120% AMI in the for-sale market (though for- sale needs persist up to 150% AMI)  Current rental affordability gaps:  Current for-sale affordability gaps:  Current affordability gaps can be addressed through the new production of housing units at the needed price points and/or through subsidies of existing units.  Future housing needs: “Keep Up” needs: Ms. Fitzpatrick responded to questions about area median income (AMI), noting that AMI represents household income rather than individual earnings, with 100% AMI serving as the midpoint, meaning that half of all households earn above, and half earn below this figure. She emphasized that AMI figures differ based on household size and type. Ms. Roth added that there are approximately 106,000 households in the County. While the AMI data suggests a 50/50 split, the numbers are statistically derived and do not translate exactly to that ratio. The conversation highlighted the complexity of interpreting AMI data practically, especially when estimating the scale of the housing affordability issue. Concerns arose regarding affected groups' actual size and income levels, underscoring the importance of clarity when discussing a reported deficit of 13,000 housing units. Ms. Fitzpatrick clarified that the estimated need, such as the 7,337 catch-up rental units, specifically pertains to households earning less than $36,000 annually, not higher-income households. Regarding changes in affordability, particularly the variations in income, rent, and home prices between 2018 and 2023, Ms. Fitzpatrick explained that the slide illustrates the percentage change over five years in median renter incomes compared to rental and homeownership costs. The intent is to assess whether income growth is keeping pace with rising housing costs. She pointed out that while median renter income increased by 45%, typical asking rents rose by 57%, indicating a growing affordability gap as rent prices are climbing faster than incomes. Concerning whether the projections on slide 23 account for population increases or migration, Ms. Fitzpatrick confirmed that they do. She explained that "catch-up" needs reflect current residents while "keep-up" needs encompass expected growth, including in-migration, natural population increases, and household formation. The projections are based on data from the State Demographer, who considers trends such as age, household size, and socioeconomic factors. They do not represent extensions of historical trends. Concerning the industry examples on slide 21, Ms. Fitzpatrick clarified that they are illustrative and intended to show how various job types align with AMI categories. The full report contains detailed breakdowns for all industries. Ms. Roth added that while most data in the report is based on two-person households, the income figures on the slide reflect single earners and noted that household size refers to total household members, not just earners. For instance, a single teacher with a child would fall into a lower AMI bracket than two teachers living together. In response to whether the County can realistically accommodate over 20,000 new housing units in the next 10 years, Ms. Roth responded that this type of analysis is part of the next steps. She noted that there are plans to explore how varying residential densities and land use alternatives in the County would affect unit generation and overall housing capacity, with more details to be shared later in the presentation. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 MAY 1, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 496 In response to a question about whether the report accounted for rising costs of materials, infrastructure, and land, which have significantly impacted housing affordability since 2020, Ms. Fitzpatrick explained that the report reflects these impacts indirectly through trends in the existing housing stock but does not include a development pro forma or a detailed analysis of construction feasibility. She noted that the report focuses on broader housing trends and needs rather than the financial mechanics of delivering new development. Ms. Fitzpatrick acknowledged that escalating construction costs, coupled with stagnant or slow income growth, have widened the affordability gap and may increase the need for subsidies, particularly for households earning up to 60% of AMI. She also confirmed that market-driven solutions are generally not viable for housing below 50% AMI without subsidies, and that tools such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) qualify as subsidies. Kathleen Rose with Rose Associates presented the market analysis highlights:  Comprehensive Plan update, Market Analysis highlights:  Demographic and economic profile:  North Carolina is projected to become the 7th most populous state in the U.S. by 2030, according to the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management  New Hanover County is classified as an urban county based on population projections from 2020 vs. 2060, with the overall population estimated to increase by 6.7% by 2030  The City of Wilmington, the county seat, sits on the edge of New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, one of the most rapidly growing counties in the state. Wilmington grew by 6.44% from 2020 (the last decennial census) to 2023.   Key attributes:  Expanding Interstate and Highway connections, including the in-progress U.S. 17 Hampstead Bypass (Section B. 48% complete as of October 2024)  Port of Wilmington, a major US port, which ranked #1 for container terminal efficiency in 2023  Wilmington International Airport, which was ranked the fastest growing airport in NC, and third for the entire U.S. in 2023  The University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW) and Cape Fear Community College are prominent regional educational institutions. UNCW is the fastest growing in the UNC system.  Highly ranked natural resource qualities, including land and air quality, along with significant coastal ecosystems  Economic development profile:  Employment and economy: th  New Hanover County ranked 8 in North Carolina for visitor spending in 2023:  Lodging: $288.57 million  Food and beverage: $349.04 million  Recreation: $136.73 million NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 MAY 1, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 497  Density and employment:  The density of both population and employment can be seen along primary corridors throughout the County, including US Highway 17, US Highway 421, Market Street Corridor, and the College Road Corridor  New Hanover County is a regional employment center, as more workers travel to or live and work within the county  Current Urban Mixed-Use growth areas:  The currently adopted comprehensive plan considered three primary growth nodes for urban mixed-use development. While these areas have experienced some growth, we revisited these land use designations to determine the most appropriate areas for both urban and community mixed-use. However, first we must consider these designations and the various types of mixed-use development.  Urban mixed-use contemplates the highest intensity of development regarding density, while community mixed-use contemplates less intense development with lower density allowances. Mixed-use can either be vertical, with multiple uses within one structure, or horizontal, with multiple uses in one development among multiple buildings. Mixed-Use developments are generally anchored by 1) employment (e.g., office space); 2) lifestyle (e.g., multifamily apartments); or 3) entertainment (e.g., retail), or often a combination of two or more.  Future Mixed-Use growth areas potential product types: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 MAY 1, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 498  Findings:  The expansive growth in New Hanover County has created development pressures in all directions, which are limited by physical constraints. The push northward to undeveloped areas begs the question of community vision. What areas should support more intensive growth and what areas should be preserved?  Economic Development goals for industrial development and job creation must be reconciled with pressures to provide additional housing that ensures future affordability for all generations and income levels.  The market dynamics are supportive of all types of development; however, each must consider the traffic impacts for each product type to maintain quality of life. In response to questions about whether the economic development profile adequately reflects the film and television industry’s importance to the local community, Ms. Rose explained that the analysis includes this sector under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) category 711 for performing arts. Although this category has a location quotient of 0.74, below the national average, it remains relevant. She added that some industry components may also fall under NAICS 713, which covers amusement and recreation industries and has a higher location quotient of 1.27. Regarding government labor, Ms. Rose clarified that it is classified under public administration, which contributes to employment figures but not to the location quotient, as government services are not considered exportable. She also addressed warehousing and cold storage, including the impact of the new Amazon facility, noting that related employment is spread across wholesale trade, transportation, and manufacturing sectors. She highlighted a notable concentration in non-metallic mineral production (NAICS 327), which accounts for 3.78% of the employment share. In response to questions about the terms “lifestyle dynamic” and “quality of life” mentioned in her presentation, Ms. Rose explained that these factors have become increasingly important in economic development, especially for attracting talent. She cited Amazon’s request for information during its search for a second headquarters, which included traditional metrics such as labor force and education, but also placed significant weight on quality of life and cultural fit. Ms. Rose noted that younger generations often choose where to live based on lifestyle preferences before selecting a job, a trend amplified by the rise of remote work. Elements like recreational opportunities, cultural amenities, and family-friendly services influence a community’s appeal. When asked whether public school quality falls into this category, she confirmed that it does, emphasizing that both primary and higher education are essential to workforce development and economic growth. She also pointed out that 47% of New Hanover County residents hold a bachelor’s or professional degree, a figure that supports industry recruitment and strengthens economic potential. Regarding the local concept of a “beach discount,” the idea that coastal businesses offer lower wages assuming employees accept less to live near the beach, Ms. Rose stated she had not heard of the term. In response to questions, Ms. Rose confirmed that the data presented reflects the entire County. Ms. Roth added that they intentionally included Wilmington due to its significant level of mixed-use development and are evaluating how this trend may influence future development in the County’s unincorporated areas. Addressing a statistic showing a 60% homeownership and 40% rental rate in New Hanover County, Ms. Rose explained that Wilmington’s data likely skews the ratio and noted that it roughly aligns with national averages of about 70% homeownership and 30% rental. Ms. Roth confirmed that the 60/40 split accurately represents the County’s overall housing landscape. Ms. Roth continued the presentation:  New Hanover County Vision:  New Hanover County is a vibrant, prosperous, diverse coastal community committed to building a sustainable future for future generations.  Proposed goal structure: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 MAY 1, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 499  Goal statement example:  Goals: general statements that reflect the desired outcomes or achievements  Objectives example:  Objectives: specific and measurable targets that support the goals  Objective A: Increase in Communication and Education on Planning Concepts and Processes  Objective B: Develop Inclusive and Transparent Ongoing Outreach Strategies  Policy examples:  Policies: the principles used to guide the public and private actions needed to achieve the plan’s goals and objectives  Community engagement should be structured to support informed participation, recognizing that effective input depends on residents’ understanding of the planning process, decision points, and relevant information  Prioritize transparency and clear, accessible language and materials to support decisions about land use and development so residents understand the implications of proposed actions.  Communication strategies should be inclusive of residents with different languages, abilities, digital access, and levels of civic experience.  Implementation Actions example:  Actions: A task list of specific actions needed to satisfy the goals and objectives (the basis for the action plan)  Maintain and regularly update a user-friendly webpage or planning portal that explains key planning concepts, ongoing initiatives, and how to be involved.  Develop and promote educational materials that explain local governance, zoning, development review processes, and how to participate effectively at different stages.  Update public planning document templates with plain language and visual aids to help explain complex planning terms and processes.  Develop a program for regularly evaluating public engagement methods for clarity, accessibility, and effectiveness.  Staff-identified goal themes:  Sense of place through design and placemaking, housing affordability and availability, environmental stewardship, hazard mitigation and resiliency, economic development, transportation, coordinated development patterns, regional coordination, community engagement, and proactive planning for community services  Sample goal statements:  Foster community identity through placemaking and design  Support the availability and attainability of housing that meets residents’ income and needs  Promote environmental stewardship and ecosystem health  Mitigate hazard risks and strengthen climate resiliency  Support economic development strategies that strengthen the local economy  Enhance residents’ connectivity and mobility  Foster development patterns that support long-term community benefits and public investment  Strengthening regional collaboration and partnerships  Deepen community engagement to support resident participation in the planning process  Consider long-term community needs when providing public services  Facilitated discussion:  Initial Board of Commissioners thoughts  Planning Board feedback and recommendations  Commissioner direction on goal theme alignment and potential goal statements Commissioner Zapple emphasized that the County cannot build its way out of the housing affordability crisis and called for creative solutions, including subsidies and collaboration with organizations like the Cape Fear- Wilmington Home Builders Association. He acknowledged a disconnect between public perception and the data showing a need for thousands of additional apartment units. Other commissioners shared similar concerns, noting public resistance to new apartment complexes and a shift in bank lending practices that now favor single-family and townhome developments, trends that may indicate changing market dynamics. Chair Rivenbark added that not all development pressures should fall solely on New Hanover County and suggested that regional partnerships could help, citing Amazon’s hiring of workers from neighboring counties as an example. Commissioner Scalise underscored NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 MAY 1, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 500 the need to pair necessary development with smart, sustainable practices, including environmental stewardship and climate resiliency. Commissioner Zapple agreed, highlighting community feedback that supports preserving green space and strengthening tree protection policies. Chair Rivenbark also noted that New Hanover County’s high rankings in national quality-of-life metrics continue to attract new residents, further intensifying housing challenges. Commissioner Walker emphasized the need for stronger regional cooperation, particularly with Pender and Brunswick counties, considering growing storm threats and infrastructure vulnerabilities. She also stressed the importance of expanding the local workforce as a key part of economic development, calling for better support of public education and more coordinated cross-sector planning. She advocated for higher wages and urged the County to leverage the existing school system to help residents afford housing. Commissioner Zapple concluded by encouraging a shift in how the County views education, treating it not as a separate category but as essential infrastructure, and emphasized its role from early childhood through community college in attracting families and businesses. Planning Board members shared feedback on the proposed themes and recommendations, emphasizing the need to connect the ten planning themes, particularly linking transportation with environmental stewardship, education, and green space. Mr. Hipp noted that transportation dominates public feedback and called for creative solutions like public transit and greenways. Ms. Rhonehouse supported stronger regional collaboration and better public education in the planning process. Mr. Hine discussed the trade-off between using remaining undeveloped land for high-paying jobs or affordable housing and noted that flooding concerns often stem from outdated infrastructure, not current standards. He also recommended expanding the multi-use trail system to enhance quality of life and attract higher-paying industries. Mr. Avery stressed the need for flexible regulations to support better design and more affordable housing, described transportation as a lifestyle issue requiring cultural change, and called for more meaningful community engagement. Mr. Moore advocated for more urbanized codes to enable compact, connected development, supported implementing multimodal plans, and encouraged a proactive, regional approach to infrastructure coordination. Mr. Tarrant recommended narrowing the plan’s focus to a few key goals, suggesting that prioritizing placemaking could help address related themes like transportation and environmental resilience. Overall, members agreed on the importance of connectivity, public education, and a unified regional voice. Commissioners expressed support for the direction of the planning process and discussed whether any adjustments were needed based on recent public feedback. The Board recommended consolidating the ten existing goals into a smaller number, possibly four, to improve public understanding and better reflect the interconnected nature of the issues. Also, grouping goals into broader thematic categories could enhance clarity without sacrificing nuance. For example, combining goals related to hazard mitigation and resiliency under the umbrella of environmental stewardship could simplify the message while maintaining focus. Ms. Roth confirmed that staff would incorporate the feedback and return with updates at a future joint or interim meeting. Commissioners also expressed appreciation for the Planning Board’s critical role, acknowledged the challenges it faces, and reaffirmed the importance of its contributions to the community. Leigh Anne King, consultant with Clarion, reviewed the next steps:  Overview of next steps:  Identification and vetting of implementation:  Targeted public engagement  Identifying and vetting potential objectives, policies, and implementation actions  Purpose of land use alternatives:  Land use alternatives are not:  Formal recommendations for new policies:  They are hypothetical land use policy options to evaluate through mapping analysis and discussion as part of community engagement activities. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 MAY 1, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 501  A recommended new future land use map (FLUM):  They are policy options to evaluate and inform the development of the new 2050 Comprehensive Plan’s FLUM. The new FLUM will likely be a hybrid of different aspects of the alternatives.  How land use alternatives will be used:  Context for defining land use alternatives:  General timeline of update: A brief discussion ensued about special use permits (SUPs). Commissioner Zapple asked Planning Board members what their thoughts were on doing away with SUPs. Mr. Avery supported the idea, stating that the current SUP process favors well-resourced applicants and puts residents at a disadvantage due to their limited legal and technical expertise. He raised concerns about the vague findings of fact required for approval and suggested that conditional use permits, while not perfect, offer a better alternative. Mr. Hipp agreed, emphasizing that SUPs limit public input and reduce community influence over development. Mr. Tarrant acknowledged the procedural challenges of SUPs but maintained that they still serve a valuable role for projects that fall outside of by-right uses. He stressed the importance of a structured process for presenting and weighing legal evidence. Mr. Hine agreed that the system may not need to be eliminated entirely but noted that it often produces suboptimal outcomes. Mr. Moore cautioned against fully removing SUPs, describing them as a necessary planning tool. He warned that relying solely on other approaches, like conditional zoning, could increase politicization and reduce the flexibility needed to manage complex development proposals. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark and Chair Petroff adjourned the meeting at 4:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kymberleigh G. Crowell Clerk to the Board Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the Special Meeting of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. The entire proceedings are available online at www.nhcgov.com.