Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-02 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 532 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met on June 2, 2025, 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 Dane Scalise; Commissioner Stephanie A.C. Walker; 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 Student Minister Charquise Smith-Stultz, Cape Fear Christian Church, provided the invocation, and Commissioner Zapple led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Rivenbark requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to approve the Consent Agenda items as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes – Governing Body The Board approved the minutes of the May 15, 2025 Agenda Review and the May 19, 2025 Regular Meeting. Approval of April 2025 Tax Collection Reports – Tax The Board approved the April 2025 tax collection reports for New Hanover County, New Hanover County Debt Service, and the New Hanover County Fire District. Copies of the tax collection reports are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 11.1. Adoption of Budget Amendments – Budget The Board adopted budget amendment 25-026 for the library, amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025. A copy of the budget amendment is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 11.2. Adoption of Resolution to Direct the Expenditure of Opioid Settlement Funds for Fiscal Year 2025-26 – Strategy The Board adopted the resolution authorizing the expenditure of opioid settlement funds for fiscal year 2025-26 in the amount of $16,351,507. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 11.3. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 RECOMMENDED BUDGET, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVES APPROPRIATIONS Chair Rivenbark stated the Board is divided on the proposed tax rate. While some support 29.2 cents, others support 33.9 cents, which is a significant gap. He then stated he would provide an overview of the impact a 29.2- cent tax rate would have on the County budget:  Forgo hiring staff and purchasing books for the new Northchase Library, effectively keeping it closed.  Cancel planned hiring and supply purchases to open and operate Project Grace.  Forgo requested funding for public schools, including eliminating cost-of-living adjustments for teachers and cutting planned school safety improvements.  Provide no capital funding for school facilities and no increase in funding for Cape Fear Community College.  Reduce debt capacity by using borrowing for routine equipment purchases.  Eliminate funding for workforce housing (previously supported by American Rescue Plan \[ARP\] funds in FY24–25).  Cancel the planned investment in the 911 system upgrade.  Cut all county agency funding.  Eliminate cost-of-living adjustments for public safety officers, as well as for all County employees, including merit pay.  Deny the Board of Elections requested increase in funding.  Eliminate half of the County’s Pre-K classes (formerly funded by ARP in FY25). NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 533  Forgo the purchase of critical courtroom equipment.  Eliminate contingency funds for unplanned expenses.  Cancel hiring for planned park expansions and cut funding for pool and park repairs.  Reduce or eliminate planned services for veterans.  Forgo purchasing in-car cameras and other equipment requested by the Sheriff’s Office.  Cancel the hiring of additional courtroom security staff.  Eliminate funding for Legal Aid and Second Chance programs.  Use up mental health and substance abuse funds just to retain school nurses.  Cancel hiring of planned cybersecurity specialists.  Maintain department budgets at last year’s reduced levels.  Cut countywide training and travel budgets by 50%.  Reduce operational supplies across all departments by 25%. He further stated this is the reality of a 29.2 cent rate and noted that he has heard from many people urging the Board to fund only what the state mandates. For instance, because the County is only technically obligated to fund a sheriff and two deputies, there would be no county-funded fire departments, leaving fire protection entirely to volunteer support. He also stated that he will not be voting on the budget tonight as he wants additional time to speak with staff and further assess the options. He then asked Chief Financial Officer Eric Credle to provide the updated information on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026 Recommended Budget. th Mr. Credle stated that at the May 19 meeting, County Manager Coudriet presented the staff- recommended budget for FY 2025–2026. The proposal followed an extensive process that included Board work sessions and periodic updates throughout development. This is a property tax revaluation year. The County’s total tax base has increased by approximately 58% compared to last year, driven largely by a 67% increase in the average home value over the past four years. Given this significant rise in property values, a reduction in the tax rate was expected. Accordingly, the county manager recommended a property tax rate of 35 cents per $100 of assessed value, which reflects a 22% decrease from the current rate. However, this rate remains nearly 20% higher than the revenue- neutral rate of 29.2 cents, meaning most residents would still see an increase in their property taxes. It was noted that additional revenue is necessary to address inflation-related cost increases and to maintain or expand County services. At the Board’s request, staff also prepared a revised budget based on a 33.9-cent tax rate, 1.1 cents lower than the initial proposal. This revision reduces projected property tax revenue by approximately $8.9 million. Despite this reduction, New Hanover County would still rank as having the fourth lowest tax rate in North Carolina. While the direction was to reduce the tax rate, staff incorporated additional priorities identified by Board members through individual discussions as follows:  FY 2025-2026 Budget overview – modified:  Total spending plan of $581.8 million:  33.9 cents per $100 of assessed value property tax rate  No change in Fire Service District property tax rate – 7.25 cents per $100 of assessed value  Supports two new fire stations and increased staff pilot program  No principal use of the Revenue Stabilization Fund  Mental Health / Substance Use Disorder Fund  School Nurses, School Therapists, Family Support Specialists (NHCS), Mental Health/Substance Use Disorder Strategies  Commitment to school funding:  $3.90 million of additional operating funds for New Hanover County Schools  $103.5 million in total operating funds and $2.6 million in capital funds  $2.0 million for continued Pre-K funding  County providing six (6) additional school mental health therapists and four (4) Family Support Specialists  No change in the Stormwater fee – $6.14 ERU/month  No change in Recycling and Solid Waste fee - $52/ton  Changes from recommended: Revised Tax Rate of 33.9 cents (vs. 35.0 cents):  Tax rate impact:  Non-County Agency: Changes from committee recommendations: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 534  Economic Development Contributions: Changes from recommended budget: Mr. Credle stated that the other statutory aspect of the public hearing relates to funds provided for economic development purposes. The purpose of these appropriations is to support efforts to increase the population, tax base, or business prospects of the County. The information listed below reflects those entities and the proposed amounts, including the adjustments previously noted. The list of companies at the bottom of the slide has incentive agreements with the County that provide potential payments up to the amounts shown. The payouts depend on specific criteria that relate to new jobs and/or direct investments in property that are paid out only if the companies achieve the stated metrics. The public hearings related to the budget and economic development appropriations were properly noticed to the public on May 23, 2025, a public hearing to receive comments on either of those matters may now be in order.  Economic Development and Economic Incentive Agreements: Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Credle for the overview and stated that what has been added since the May th 19 presentation is not the county manager’s fault. It was the fault of himself and other Commissioners. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark stated that pursuant to NCGS 159-12(b), before adopting the budget ordinance, the Board shall hold a public hearing at which time any person who wishes to be heard on the budget may appear. This public hearing for the FY 2025-2026 Recommended Budget meets these requirements. He asked for a motion to open the public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to open the public hearing on the FY 2025- 2026 Recommended Budget. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Rivenbark stated that the Board would now hear public comments: New Hanover County Schools (NHCS) NHCS Superintendent Dr. Chris Barnes stated that the County’s support for the schools extends beyond the operating budget, with critical investments in school nurses, mental health therapists, School Resource Officers (SROs), and family support specialists. He acknowledged that accountability is a reasonable expectation and noted that NHCS has worked hard to build a transparent, community-focused budget that cuts overhead while protecting student-facing positions. NHCS eliminated 53 central office roles last year and several more this year in response. The County is contributing $103 million in operating funds, $2 million for pre-K, and $2.6 million in capital support, resources prioritized based on impact and return. NHCS moved the request for school specialists to the Endowment, not because it believes local funds should cover a state mandate, but to generate the data needed to push for changes in the state’s allotment formulas. Dr. Barnes commented on NHCS’s strong partnerships with the County, the Chamber, the Endowment, and the broader community. As the County’s second-largest employer, NHCS remains committed to responsibly managing public funds while clearly communicating the real needs of its students, staff, and facilities. Failing to do so, he said, would mislead the public and undercut those served by NHCS. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 535 Other Agencies/Individuals Comments Jill Hopman, a resident of South 6th Street, Wilmington, NC, and representing the Democratic Party, stated that the beauty of this budget lies in its nonpartisan nature; it is a model of good governance. It reflects broad interests: Republicans gain the tax cuts they want, even though New Hanover County already saw the lowest per capita property tax increase in the state from 2022 to 2024, while Democrats see meaningful investments in services they value, such as senior care, firefighters, election staff, and public schools. She argued that the Board of Elections cannot be criticized for underperformance in 2024 without being given the resources to improve. Likewise, the County should not build new fire stations without committing to staff them. Ms. Hopman described the budget as a blueprint for a thriving County, benefiting residents, supporting each commissioner’s goals, and displaying bipartisan compromise. In politics, she noted, no one scores a 100-yard touchdown; progress comes through steady gains, and this budget moves the County forward. She commended the Board for prioritizing the community’s interests over party lines, special interests, or electoral ambitions, and urged them to approve the budget with bipartisan support. Pat Bradford, a resident of Mallard Crossing Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated that she was speaking not as a member of the NHCS Board of Education but as a citizen, parent, and advocate for children. She emphasized that NHCS lacks its own funding source. Unlike cities or towns, the school district cannot generate revenue and must rely entirely on outside support. When it comes to critical building needs such as fixing roofs, replacing outdated HVAC systems, or addressing torn carpets, the County serves as the sole source of funding. She expressed appreciation for the County’s continued support of the NHCS operating budget and for the collaborative work through the finance committee over the past 10 months. While the County has offered 10% of the NHCS $20 million capital request, she stressed that fully addressing the district’s facility needs will require action and investment from the County. Genna Wirth, a resident of McRae Street, Wilmington, NC, and representing the Blue Ribbon Commission (Voyage), urged the Board to reconsider the Non-County Agency Funding Committee’s recommendation and restore at least partial funding for the organization’s three proposals. She described Voyage as a workforce readiness program serving youth from low-income families, offering job training, mentorship, and summer employment opportunities. She disputed a recent claim that the program is “not a good use of residents’ money,” highlighting that many local leaders began through similar initiatives and are now job creators. Of the 20 graduating seniors served annually, most pursue college or trade programs, generating long-term economic value through higher taxable income and reduced reliance on public services. She also noted Voyage’s impact on reducing school discipline issues and preventing future justice involvement, stating that early intervention saves money and lives. Emphasizing that Voyage is not asking for charity but for partnership, she urged the Board to reinstate funding to help build contributors to the community, not future caseloads. Alicia Scanlan, a resident of Orange Street, Wilmington, NC, and representative of the Children’s Museum of Wilmington, spoke about the museum’s vital role in supporting families and early childhood development throughout the region. She noted the museum has served the community for nearly 28 years and that, with County and private support, it welcomed over 67,000 guests last year. Each visit fosters learning, curiosity, and play. She shared a testimonial about a mother of four who views the museum as the only safe and supportive space to take her children on her own. She also highlighted accessibility initiatives, including free community memberships, reduced admission through the “Museums for All” program for SNAP/EBT families, and discounted memberships for teachers, veterans, and civil servants. She urged the Board to continue and consider expanding non-county agency funding, emphasizing the measurable impact and long-term benefits of investing in education, inclusion, and community well-being. Sheila Wilson, a resident of Red Cross Street, Wilmington, NC, emphasized the need for greater transparency and accountability in public funding. She expressed concern that some counties continue to operate as if ARP funds are still available and questioned the lack of public oversight surrounding the $1.5 billion from the 2021 sale of New Hanover Regional Medical Center, particularly the $1.2 billion placed in a nonpublic endowment. She noted that over 2,200 nonprofits in the County collectively hold more than $3.3 billion in assets and stressed the importance of vetting these organizations. She urged the Board to adopt a more transparent, coordinated approach to funding decisions involving taxpayer dollars and nonprofit entities. Tom Morgan, a resident of Walnut Street, Wilmington, NC, expressed concern about the proposed FY26 budget, highlighting its $40 million increase over the previous year. While the 33.9-cent property tax rate is a decrease, he noted it is still roughly 16% above the revenue-neutral rate of 29.2 cents. As a retiree on a fixed income, he said his 2.5% Social Security increase does not keep pace with the rising tax burden. Mr. Morgan urged the Board to limit any increase to between 2.5% and 5% above the revenue-neutral rate and warned that higher property taxes would worsen housing affordability. He encouraged the Board to revise the proposed budget. Tim Merrick, a resident of South 2nd Street, Wilmington, NC, thanked the Board for its work and acknowledged the difficulty of the evening’s decisions. He commended the bipartisan nature of the proposed budget and encouraged the Board to stay on the course. While the plan may not meet every need, he emphasized its broad value. Mr. Merrick urged the Board to take a long-term view on education funding, noting that while schools are largely a state responsibility, counties often bear the burden. He praised local public schools for strong performance despite limited resources and stressed the economic and community importance of continued investment in public education. Nick Craig, a resident of Gordon Woods Road, Wilmington, NC, voiced opposition to the proposed FY26 budget, particularly the property tax increase. He described the process as frustrating and argued that the budget NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 536 prioritizes government projects over the financial realities of residents, especially seniors and young families. He criticized the nearly $40 million year-over-year increase as excessive and called the approach “lazy governance.” He urged the Board to reject the budget, identify savings, and demonstrate greater fiscal responsibility. John Hinnant, a resident of North 23rd Street, Wilmington, NC, and representing the Republican Party, urged the Board to reject the proposed FY26 budget, citing a $40 million increase, which is equivalent to 16% growth in government spending. He expressed concern about nonprofit funding for direct cash payments and warned that the tax increase would drive up rents and costs for small businesses, undermining affordable housing goals. For example, a business on Carolina Beach Road will see an impact of a 36.5% tax hike, resulting in $633 more per month. He called for staff to revise the budget and bring it closer to the revenue-neutral rate. Tracey Newkirk, a resident of North Front Street, Wilmington, NC, and representing Genesis Block, requested that the Board reconsider funding for the proposed Food Innovation campus. She highlighted its alignment with County goals and its potential to support food entrepreneurs, especially in underserved communities. She noted a partnership with Cape Fear Community College to launch a shared incubator kitchen and develop a “Business of Food” curriculum, with 20 entrepreneurs currently on a waitlist. She also referenced collaborations with the Truist Foundation, New Hanover Community Endowment, and NC Network of Incubator Kitchens, and invited the County to participate in an upcoming convening. Rhonda Bellamy, a resident of North Front Street, Wilmington, NC, and representing the Arts Council of Wilmington, thanked the Board for its continued support and recognition of the organization as a key economic development partner. She cited the nonprofit arts sector’s $75 million annual impact in the County, supporting over 1,200 full-time jobs and generating significant tax revenue. Since 2012, the organization has invested over $2 million into the local creative economy. As the County’s official partner to the NC Arts Council, it coordinates events and public art that boost tourism and quality of life. She emphasized that County investment in the arts drives economic growth and urged continued support. Natalie English, representing the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, thanked the Board, county manager, and staff for supporting the Chamber’s small business economic development efforts. Since 2021, the Chamber has engaged 316 local businesses, helping them overcome growth barriers and fostering $34.4 million in taxable investment and 469 new jobs. She highlighted support for projects like iFLY, Aperture, and FedUp Foods. She expressed confidence in the Board’s decisions, even if that includes higher property taxes, and thanked the Commissioners for their service. Amy Feath, a resident of Remington Drive, Wilmington, NC, and representing the Carousel Child Advocacy Center, thanked the Board for its longstanding partnership and urged continued funding. She emphasized the center’s collaboration with DSS, law enforcement, and the District Attorney’s Office to hold child abuse perpetrators accountable. In 2025, the Carousel Center will mark 25 years of service, with 40% of its clients from New Hanover County. Ms. Feath highlighted the importance of trauma treatment in helping children heal and grow into contributing community members and thanked the Board for its service and support. There being no further public comments, Chair Rivenbark asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION: Vice-Chair Pierce MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to close the public hearing on the FY 2025- 2026 Recommended Budget. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Rivenbark opened the floor to Board discussion. Commissioner Zapple acknowledged Chair Rivenbark’s earlier comments about not wanting to proceed with a vote but noted that the Board has now heard from the public and staff and had engaged in internal discussions over an extended period. He asked whether the chair would accept a motion to move forward and vote on the budget. Chair Rivenbark responded that a vote would not pass at this time, and proceeding would be a waste of time. He emphasized the significance of the upcoming decision, noting its impact on every resident of the County. He stated that he had additional questions and was not ready to move forward with a vote. Commissioner Zapple responded that he understood. Commissioner Scalise urged the Board to reconsider key aspects of the proposed budget. He recalled that when the recommended budget was first presented and Commissioner Zapple proposed reducing the tax rate to 33.9 or 35 cents, it was a fair assumption, both on his part and likely among many citizens, that such a reduction would result from removing items from the budget. Instead, the current proposal increases spending by $3.5 million and offsets it by borrowing $8 million and drawing $4.3 million from the County’s mental health fund. He reminded the Board that the mental health reserve was originally intended to remain intact to yield long-term benefits and not be used for programmatic expenses. He acknowledged that his objections to the budget have been well documented in both prior meetings and written statements. However, he emphasized strong opposition to the strategy of borrowing money to create the appearance of a rate reduction, stating that the proposed 33.9-cent rate is “in name only.” He described the approach as fiscally unsound and cautioned that borrowing today to cover operational expenses only defers the cost, with interest, to future budgets. He encouraged the Board to either make the necessary cuts to align spending with the lower rate or maintain the current tax rate and be transparent about what the County can afford to fund. He concluded by stating that he is unlikely to support the budget unless significant changes are made and will offer additional comments when it is time for a vote. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 537 Commissioner Walker stated she takes exception to the suggestion that some Commissioners had not been engaged in the budget process, stating she had worked diligently and participated in many conversations, even if not with every individual. She addressed the argument for a revenue-neutral tax rate, stating she does not support it, as it would require cutting essential services. She explained that a revenue-neutral rate simply maintains the previous year’s revenue level, despite rising costs, and would limit the County’s ability to expand services. She acknowledged that some on the Board have supported initiatives such as opening a new library and purchasing land, commitments that carry future costs. As a lifelong County resident, she is proud of the County’s growth and improvement, noting that many valuable services did not exist when she was younger. She voiced strong support for nonprofits, emphasizing that they provide services the County cannot and deliver clear value to the community. She underscored that inflation and ongoing investments in public safety, education, and infrastructure require sustainable funding. She believes the proposed 33.9-cent rate strikes a responsible balance, allowing continued support for essential services while remaining one of the lowest tax rates in the state. She concluded by stating that the County has both the capacity and responsibility to make thoughtful decisions that sustain and improve the quality of life and affirmed her support for the proposed tax rate. Vice-Chair Pierce stated she was not in favor of the budget, but for some different reasons than Commissioner Scalise. She expressed concern about the impact of the proposed tax increase, especially considering rising interest rates and repeated insurance hikes. She emphasized that these costs are ultimately passed on to homeowners, renters, and consumers, as landlords raise rents and businesses increase prices to offset expenses. Beyond those concerns, she criticized the lack of a comprehensive review of last year’s budget, noting that while the Board has focused on $39 million in new enhancements, it has not discussed potential reductions to existing spending. She questioned how the County would have funded these enhancements had this not been a property revaluation year. She stated her preference for a budget based on the revenue-neutral tax rate but noted that such an option has not been presented. She expressed frustration that the current proposal includes numerous new positions, 22 to 23 in the library system alone, which will require permanent funding and will grow over time with cost-of-living adjustments. She concluded by reaffirming her opposition to the budget and expressing uncertainty about how the Board will reach consensus, but indicated she is open to continued discussion. Commissioner Zapple asked Vice-Chair Pierce questions regarding her earlier comments about rising insurance costs. He noted that the County’s own insurance premiums have increased by $2.3 million and pointed out that this cost was not factored into the calculation of the revenue-neutral tax rate. He emphasized that the County cannot operate without insurance and that such expenses must be considered when evaluating overall budget needs. Vice-Chair Pierce responded that while the County can absorb rising costs more easily, many residents, particularly seniors and middle-class households, cannot. She reiterated that households are facing the combined pressures of increased taxes, insurance rates, and overall cost of living, and said the County must be mindful of those burdens. Commissioner Zapple agreed with her concern for residents but clarified that when calculating the revenue-neutral rate, insurance cost increases were not included, creating additional financial strain on the County's budget. Vice-Chair Pierce stated she had never seen a revenue-neutral budget presented and questioned whether department heads had been challenged to reduce spending. She noted that despite the talk of cost-cutting, no actual departmental reductions were reflected in the proposed budget, and the County ultimately increased taxes. Commissioner Zapple responded that in the previous year, the county manager had directed departments to reduce their budgets, which they did. This year, those reductions were expected to be revisited following the revaluation process. Vice-Chair Pierce argued that if departments were able to make cuts last year, those funds should not automatically be restored this year. She questioned the logic of restoring positions or expenses that had gone unfilled, especially if those responsibilities had been managed without additional resources. She emphasized her focus on fiscal common sense and accountability to taxpayers. Commissioner Zapple noted that th New Hanover County continues to maintain one of the lowest property tax rates in the state, 16 lowest overall, which he considers a sign of responsible governance. Commissioner Scalise addressed Vice-Chair Pierce, stating that she had commented earlier that they do not agree, followed by remarks that closely aligned with his own publicly stated positions. He asked for clarification on where their views differ, noting that he has been clear and consistent about his stance, which includes agreement with many of the points she raised. He expressed concern that the public may be confused about his position and requested that any specific disagreements be clarified. Vice-Chair Pierce apologized, stating she would move off the topic. County Manager Coudriet asked the Board whether staff should take any direction from the Board as a whole to help prepare for the next steps in the budget process. He noted that while the budget must be adopted by June 30, staff stand ready to support the Board in reaching consensus at any time. He asked whether an additional work session might be considered and reiterated that on May 1, staff provided the Board with a range of budget options based on tax rates, ranging from 35 cents to 29 cents. He emphasized that any of those options remain available, depending on where a majority of the Board reaches agreement. He also clarified that the 35-cent proposal reflected the general guidance previously provided by the Board. When the Board later directed staff to adjust the rate to 33.9 cents, that version was developed based on additions made by elected officials, not staff. He concluded by asking how staff can assist in preparing a version of the budget that reflects the majority consensus and is clearly known to the full Board. Discussion ensued about the next steps in the budget process. In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet cautiously expressed concern about repeating the situation from the past two weeks. He explained that he had been instructed to make changes to the budget, but those changes were not as agreed upon as he initially NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 538 believed, something he acknowledged as his responsibility. He emphasized that the more clarity the Board can provide in an open session, the better staff can serve the Board’s needs. He reiterated that the staff’s only objective th is to help the Board reach where it wants and needs to be before the June 30 deadline. Commissioner Zapple stated that the Board began the budget process in January, requesting that staff present a lean budget reflecting the cost of maintaining current operations and commitments. He recalled that the original staff recommendation proposed a 36.9-cent tax rate, which was intended to fund existing obligations without expansion. County Manager Coudriet clarified that the 36.9-cent figure came from the staff’s initial internal assessment and was not a formal recommendation. He stated that staff do not lead with a number but instead work to remove costs where possible. Based on Board feedback and adopted policy priorities, staff ultimately th recommended a 35-cent rate, which County Manager Coudriet stated he reaffirmed on May 19 as consistent with Board direction. Commissioner Zapple acquiesced and rephrased his comment to note that 36.9 cents was an early figure that evolved following further discussion and work sessions. He emphasized that the budget was never built around "wants" but around needs tied to Board priorities. The final 35-cent proposal reflected that, and additional adjustments, made at the direction of elected officials, brought the figure to 33.9 cents. Commissioner Zapple suggested that what some are referring to as a revenue-neutral budget may be closer to a rate that still supports current policies and priorities, which could be higher than the stated 29.2-cent revenue-neutral rate. He encouraged revisiting what that number truly means when tied to current service levels. County Manager Coudriet responded that staff have presented options ranging from 35.5 cents to 29 cents. He explained that with each penny equating to approximately $8 million, meaningful budget adjustments would require policy-level decisions, not line-item changes. For example, the current proposal reflects $4.8 million in reductions, equating to just half a cent in tax rate impact. To reduce the budget further, the Board would need to revisit major policy decisions, such as funding levels for K–12 education and public safety. County Manager Coudriet emphasized that staff would not unilaterally choose which priorities to cut but would instead follow Board direction. Commissioner Zapple agreed and referenced Chair Rivenbark’s earlier remarks, stating that there appears to be consensus among commissioners to preserve key services, including public education and public safety. He specifically mentioned that no Commissioner has expressed a desire to cut $2.9 million from teacher funding or $5.6 million from fire and emergency services personnel. He suggested that, by removing those major policy items from the discussion, the Board could better focus on remaining areas to reach a balanced, consensus-driven budget. County Manager Coudriet also acknowledged the criticism surrounding the proposed $40 million budget increase but clarified that it is not a straightforward, apples-to-apples comparison. He explained that while the proposed FY26 budget reflects a $40 million increase over the FY25 budget adopted last June, the current year's actual budget will end approximately $40 million higher than originally approved due to midyear adjustments authorized by the Board. These include added revenues and expenses, some of which are recurring. He emphasized that comparing the originally adopted budget from last year to the proposed budget for this year does not fully reflect the ongoing financial decisions made by the Board throughout the fiscal year. He noted that, unless the Board chooses to treat the budget as static, meaning no mid-year revenue or expenditure adjustments, the $40 million increase figure lacks full context. He concluded by stating that he offered this clarification to help provide additional perspective on the budget process. Commissioner Walker stated that, although she is new to the Board, she has worked diligently on the budget and has spent considerable time on it. She noted that she had even written an opinion piece on the topic and felt she had already shared her views with Chair Rivenbark and other commissioners who were open to discussion. She added that she had nothing further to contribute beyond what she had already communicated. A brief discussion ensued about the proposed borrowing of funds. Commissioner Zapple commented on the concerns raised about the $8 million in borrowed funds. He explained that some budgeted items covered by this borrowing are one-time expenses. By not incorporating those costs directly into the tax rate, the County avoids carrying them forward into future budgets. He noted that using this approach helps keep the tax rate lower, which benefits all citizens. He acknowledged that the funding structure may be confusing but emphasized that, in his view, it represents a responsible financial strategy. As a result, the tax rate is held at 33.9 cents instead of rising to 34 or 35 cents, and the borrowed funds are scheduled to be repaid within one year. In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet clarified that if the County borrows funds, it does not service the debt in a single year. Instead, repayment typically occurs over a period of 3 to 10 years, depending on the asset and collateral involved. He noted that although he did not recommend borrowing for one-time capital outlay this year, the County has used borrowing in prior years to help balance the budget and preserve a preferred tax rate. Commissioner Scalise stated that, in his opinion, borrowing money to balance the budget is not good practice. He compared it to federal deficit spending and described it as a poor fiscal approach that the County should avoid except when necessary. Discussion ensued about the revenue-neutral rate. Commissioner Scalise stated that revenue-neutral is not a vague or subjective term but one that is defined by statute. It refers to the amount of revenue collected in the previous year, adjusted slightly for inflation. Whether to adopt a revenue-neutral rate is a policy decision for the Board, but the definition itself is clear. He noted that the Board has consistently referred to 29.1 cents as the revenue-neutral rate throughout the budget process and asked for confirmation on whether that figure had changed to 29.2 cents. County Manager Coudriet and Mr. Credle responded that the revenue-neutral rate is 29.2 as reflected in documents for the first work session and apologized for the issues created by having it listed at 29.1 for a subsequent work session. Commissioner Scalise commented on the importance of having the exact amounts, as they do matter, and noted that $1 million does have an impact in terms of what the County can do. Regarding the question of meeting to continue working towards a resolution, he is willing to meet at any time, and he would like to see a NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 539 majority of commissioners support greater fiscal restraint. He reiterated that his goal is to reduce spending and that doing so aligns with why he was elected. Ultimately, how the Board proceeds will likely come down to securing three votes. Vice-Chair Pierce stated that the county manager likely needs clearer direction from the Board to determine how to proceed with potential changes to the budget. She noted that while Chair Rivenbark mentioned he had questions for staff, those may be more appropriate to address separately to help guide staff on the next steps. Chair Rivenbark responded that although some commissioners, including himself and Commissioner Scalise, have suggested there is excess spending, or “fat,” in the budget, no one has identified specific areas. He emphasized that it is the Board’s responsibility to provide that direction to the staff. Vice Chair Pierce agreed, adding that while Board members may not know where all the excess spending lies, there are individuals within departments who likely do. She suggested that better information-sharing may help identify areas for potential cuts. County Manager Coudriet stated that the proposed budget aligns with existing Board policy and includes reductions in spending. He acknowledged that some may view certain policy decisions as excessive but emphasized that staff work within the framework of current policy, regardless of which individuals serve on the Board at any given time. Policy remains in effect until formally changed by a majority of the Board. He noted that while there are ways to reduce spending, he does not believe those changes can be made effectively at the line-item level. The County operates with thin margins while providing a wide range of services, and the broader question is whether the County is doing too much or too little. County Manager Coudriet stressed that such decisions are not for staff to make, but for elected officials. He reiterated that, in his view, there is no unnecessary “fat” in the budget, but acknowledged that the Board could make policy changes that result in real or incremental savings. Ultimately, those decisions are political in nature, as it is the role of elected officials to determine how resources are allocated. He concluded by saying that, based on current policy, the budget is structured to meet the Board’s expectations and maintain the desired level of service to the community. Vice-Chair Pierce acknowledged his explanation and stated that while she hears frequent references to “Board policy” and existing commitments, many of those policies were established before several current members, herself included, were elected. She emphasized that some policies and commitments being referenced predate the current Board majority and suggested that this context is important when evaluating ongoing obligations. County Manager Coudriet acknowledged Vice-Chair Pierce’s comments and emphasized that while Board membership changes, Board policy remains in effect until formally changed by a majority. Staff, he said, do not have the authority to determine which policies to follow or remove; that is the Board’s role. He cited the example of the Board’s commitment to allocate $3 million annually for five years toward affordable housing. Unless the current Board votes to change that commitment, staff will continue to include it in the budget. Removing such funding without direction would, in his view, substitute staff discretion for Board policy. He added that if the Board requests a policy review due to changing conditions, staff will respond accordingly but cannot act unilaterally. Commissioner Scalise acknowledged that the affordable housing example is one he previously raised, which has not received majority support from the Board for removal. He noted that, given the absence of direction from a Board majority, it is appropriate for staff to leave such items in the budget. He remarked that the discussion had been productive, helping to clarify differing philosophical views on the size and scope of government. He concluded that his key takeaway from this discussion is that certain policy decisions, both past and present, require specific funding levels, and staff are obligated to uphold those unless the Board decides to revise them. He asked if it was fair to say that the tax rate recommendation is ultimately tied to whether the Board is willing to reconsider and reverse those policies. County Manager Coudriet confirmed it is a fair statement. Commissioner Zapple stated his support for the workforce housing initiative, describing the five-year commitment of $3 million annually as one of the most successful policy decisions in his 11 years on the Board. He noted that the $9 million invested so far has leveraged over $100 million in private-sector funding to address a serious community need. He added that he will be hard-pressed to step away from such effective progress. He also revisited the discussion around the revenue-neutral tax rate. He noted that while revenue-neutral is defined by statute, it allows for factoring in inflation, rising insurance costs, and commitments like the County’s partnership with Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) to provide safe drinking water in Scotts Hill. He believes fulfilling public health obligations like this should be factored into the conversation and suggested that the true revenue- neutral rate may be higher than the 29.1 or 29.2 cents. Commissioner Scalise responded that the revenue-neutral tax rate is not subjective but is objectively defined by state statute. The statute uses a set formula, which includes an inflation adjustment, and does not allow for interpretation. He stressed the need to recognize that the facts matter when talking about the budget. Commissioner Zapple responded that he agrees, and it is the inflationary pressure that he feels has not been really looked at by the Board. Commissioner Scalise contended that portion is separate and apart from the statute. County Manager Coudriet stated in response to the discussion the importance of clarity around the statutory definition of the revenue-neutral tax rate. He explained that the calculation is not based on the average increase in property values but rather on the average growth in the tax base due to new taxable investment over a four-year period. In this case, although property values increased by an average of 67%, the average annual increase in new taxable investment was only 2%, and that 2% is the figure used in the formula to calculate the revenue- neutral rate. He noted that while market values may fluctuate, the statutory formula relies solely on changes to the tax base as recorded on the tax rolls. Commissioner Scalise commented that the 2% figure used in the revenue- neutral calculation was not arbitrarily chosen but rather provided as the appropriate measure. County Manager Coudriet confirmed that the 2% average was based on the actual annual expansion of the tax base through new NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 540 taxable investment. The matter concluded with a brief discussion about scheduling a budget work session based on Board comments. County Manager Coudriet reminded the Board that the deadline to have an adopted budget in place is 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2025. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF A REQUEST BY SAMUEL POTTER WITH EQUITAS LAW PARTNERS, LLP, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HOOSIER DADDY, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING ALLOWANCE FOR ADDITIONAL DENSITY UP TO 10.2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IN A R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 43.50 ACRES LOCATED AT 5741 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD (S25-02) 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 there are four criteria that must be addressed as findings of fact and clearly stated on the record in order to determine the Board’s decision in a quasi-judicial hearing: 1. Will this project materially endanger the public health or safety? 2. Does this project meet all required conditions and specifications in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)? 3. Will this project substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property? 4. Will this project be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general conformity with the comprehensive land use plan for New Hanover County? Staff have compiled information from the applicant that may or may not support these required findings of fact. Please take that as part of the evidence, but not as a recommendation. The Board must state on the record the reasons why the application does or does not meet each of the four criteria. The Board may determine that an application does not meet a finding of fact based on the evidence presented, and that alone may be a sufficient basis for denial. In other words, the applicant must meet all four criteria in order for the permit to be approved; failure to meet any one of them is grounds for denial. At this time, anyone who plans to speak must be sworn in by the clerk. Court decisions have provided guidance regarding what may be considered competent evidence to support these findings. This includes expert testimony, the standing of those providing testimony, and any other testimony you deem credible. The Board will determine standing, and the evidence presented tonight is what the Board must rely on to evaluate whether the findings of fact are met. Chair Rivenbark asked Ms. Richards to confirm that no one can speak unless sworn in by the clerk to the board. Ms. Richards replied that it was correct. Chair Rivenbark asked that all people who signed in to speak to please step forward to be sworn in. The following people were sworn in by the clerk to the board: Robert Farrell Caitlin Cerza Chase Smith Howard Resnik Samantha Bunge Michelle O’Brien Rebekah Roth Cal Morgan James Yopp Michael McCulley Brenda McCombie Tim Lowe Samuel Potter David Syster Vivian Radeczky Gayle Tabor Chair Rivenbark recognized Planning and Land Use Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell to provide the staff presentation. Mr. Farrell presented the staff report, stating this is a special use permit (SUP) for an additional dwelling allowance in a R-15 district. The properties are located north of the existing Tarin Woods subdivision between the Carolina Beach Road corridor to the west, and single-family development to the east and south. He provided an overview of the site with images of the property from different angles which includes some existing curb infrastructure installed last year. The parcels were originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s. At the time, the purpose of the district was to provide lower density due to the need for private wells and septic systems. Since then, public water and sewer have become available in the area. The project proposes 444 dwelling units at a maximum density of 10.2 dwelling units per acre. The site is accessed through Ironwood Drive to the south and proposes three new road stubs for future interconnectivity. The concept plan includes detached single-family development adjacent to the Tarin Woods subdivision. Multi-family apartments on the western side of the site are closest to Carolina Beach Road, which transitions through open space to attached single-family homes. The project also includes a multi-family building and amenities towards the center of the site. As noted in the staff report, the amenity center has a proposed height of 50 feet, which is above the maximum height allowed in the R-15 district. There are three new areas for stormwater management throughout. Additional Dwelling Allowances (ADA) can increase the density of certain zoning districts with the approval of a SUP. The ordinance contains supplementary standards for ADA that are different from a typical performance residential subdivision. With an ADA the base density may be increased up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre, the minimum open space requirement is 35%, and there is an impervious surface limit of 40%. The proposed project includes the maximum of 40% impervious with approximately 7% pervious pavement. There is a perimeter setback of 25 feet, which is slightly higher than the setback for performance residential and structures over 25 feet tall. Structures up to the maximum of 40 feet allowed in the R-15 district are required to meet additional setbacks. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 541 The site is currently accessed by Manassas Drive through the Tarin Woods subdivision. As mentioned earlier, the project proposes three new road stubs. The first provides a connection to the Coastal Christian property to the north. Another provides a connection to Rosa Parks Lane, an unimproved dirt road. Any unimproved road serving more than three homes or lots must be brought up to current road standards or show evidence that the roadway pre-dates October 1, 1969. Additional evidence would be required to show that Rosa Parks Lane could be used for future access. The final stub extends towards Carolina Beach Road and dead ends into other property that was not included in this request. The developer currently owns those parcels, but no conditions have been included that guarantee a future connection to Carolina Beach Road. The project is estimated to generate over 100 AM and PM peak hour trips, which triggers the ordinance requirement for a traffic impact analysis (TIA). The application included a TIA approval letter for a TIA that analyzed a lower unit count and different land use types than the project under consideration. Staff do not currently have evidence that indicates the submitted TIA would be sufficient to address the traffic impacts of the proposed development. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan) designates this property as General Residential and Urban Mixed Use. The majority of the property is General Residential, which encourages single family and duplex residential development at a maximum density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. The Urban Mixed Use place type promotes multi-family and higher density single-family development to provide a range of housing types. The Urban Mixed Use place type does not recommend a maximum density. Because of the general nature of place type borders, sites located in proximity to the boundaries between place types could be appropriately developed with either place type, allowing site-specific features and evolving development patterns in the surrounding area to be considered. As a reminder, when the Board of Commissioners evaluates the request for approval during quasi- judicial hearings, they must determine that the following four conditions are met: 1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved; 2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance; 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or the use is a public necessity; and 4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. Mr. Farrell concluded the presentation by stating that staff have compiled a set of facts provided in the application and identified through technical review and organized them according to the applicable conclusion. These 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 conclusion:  Conclusion 1 addresses utilities, emergency service, access, traffic, parks, and conservation resources:  Conclusion 2 addresses building height, base site acreage, the maximum density, floodplain, proximity to higher density place types, access to North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) maintained streets, emergency vehicle access, minimum open space, impervious surface limits, setbacks, landscaping, parking, signs, sewage disposal, covenants and maintenance, repairs, review standards, wetlands, stormwater management, revisions to the plan, and pervious surface maintenance: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 542 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 543  Conclusion 3 addresses nearby land uses:  Conclusion 4 addresses existing site conditions and the Comprehensive Plan: Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Farrell for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Samuel Potter of Equitas Law Partners, LLP, representing Hoosier Daddy, LLC, property owner, stated the proposal, as Mr. Farrell pointed out, is for what his client calls the proposed Ironwood development, consisting of 440 total housing units, 146 townhomes, eight (8) single family lots, and 290 apartments. He provided an overview of where the property is located with respect to the existing Tarin Woods properties to the south, Carolina Beach Road to the west, and Monkey Junction, Home Depot, Coastal Christian, etc., to the north. The current site conditions reflect that the property is already mostly clear. He believes this is what the county manager referred to as a base growing project, meaning it is a new development that would add tax value. He and his client went through the four general criteria for an SUP, noting there are additional specific criteria. Once the criteria are met, the burden would shift to anyone with standing and who is qualified to make the conclusions that they are putting forth in front of the Board. He shared an overview of the site with the future land use map showing the urban mixed use and asked that Mr. Farrell’s presentation be admitted in evidence. He also stated that the project is within 250 feet of the Urban Mixed Use type as required. He then asked the site engineer, Howard Resnick, to present his portion of the request. Howard Resnick with CSD Engineering stated he is a licensed professional engineer, and the company is in Wilmington, NC. His company is currently assisting Hoosier Daddy LLC with an SUP application. In support of this application, he briefly described how the project design satisfies the technical and design criteria required for NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 544 increased density under a SUP. Due to time constraints, he prepared a letter that itemizes and fully explains how the Ironwood project meets those criteria. He entered that letter into evidence and provided copies to the clerk to the board. He stated that in the interest of time, he would focus on a few key items. First, in preparing the design, it was their responsibility to ensure the project meets all required conditions and specifications of the ordinance, and the plan before the Board does exactly that. One of the critical aspects of the design is how to meet the open space requirements. In cases like this, a SUP can result in more open space than a by-right development. He presented a slide that provides a breakdown of the open space amounts and percentages compared to other development options, such as by-right or performance residential. With the SUP and increased density, they are providing approximately 30–35% open space. Keep in mind that the project is also limited to a maximum of 40% impervious surface. Without a SUP, the impervious surface could potentially reach up to 100% if feasible. This limitation to 40% is significant, especially when combined with the open space and stormwater management requirements. Stormwater is another key component. The design meets the County’s standard requirements for pre- and post- attenuation for the 2-, 10-, and 25-year storms. They have gone a step further and designed control measures to manage the 100-year storm event as well, which exceeds minimum requirements. Again, with the SUP, they are limited to 40% impervious surface, much less than would be allowed by right. Another important element is utilities. Sewage disposal is covered by a previously designed and installed pump station with adequate capacity to serve the entire development, and then some. Key infrastructure has already been installed in advance to make future connections easier. Regarding water, both domestic and fire flow water systems have adequate pressure and volume to meet requirements. The infrastructure and appurtenances have been stubbed out in preparation for this development. From discussions with CFPUA, it is his understanding they are very supportive of the project because it will help improve fire flow capacity and enhance the existing system. Mr. Potter stated that all the applicants’ witnesses are available for questions and then asked Chase Smith with RFK Engineers PLLC to continue the presentation. Chase Smith with RFK Engineers, PLLC, stated he is a licensed traffic engineer in the state of North Carolina, as well as in numerous other states throughout the Southeast. He stated he is speaking on the topic of traffic and how it relates to the safety and health of the traveling public. As Mr. Resnick mentioned earlier, due to the limited time, he also prepared a letter outlining some of the findings from the TIA that was completed, as well as updates related to changes in the project plan and how those affect approved traffic patterns and volumes. He submitted that letter into evidence. He then reviewed a larger-scale version of the plan Mr. Resnick referenced. The map is oriented with south on the right-hand side of the page and north on the left. The proposed project area is shown in the upper left-hand corner. It also reflects the proposed internal connectivity as well as the broader connections within the existing Tarin Woods neighborhood. The layout includes new points of access to Carolina Beach Road, creating several outlet points to major thoroughfares. Carolina Beach Road is the most significant, but there are also connections to the north and south via Manassas Drive, as well as the Nixon connection, located on the left-hand side of the page. Additionally, there is connectivity to Myrtle Grove Road through the rear of the development. A TIA has already been submitted and approved for this project based on the previously proposed unit density. The table shown at the top of the page represents the trip generation that was approved through that process, which involved review by the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO). Beneath that, there is updated information showing the new unit mix and the associated projected trip generation based on those changes. th All calculations were made using the 11 Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, which is the most current industry standard. As the data shows, with the revised unit mix, there is an anticipated reduction in overall traffic volume compared to the original approval. This reduction is primarily due to the different mix of housing types, each of which has different traffic generation characteristics. For example, multifamily units tend to generate fewer single-occupant vehicle trips and more multimodal usage, such as buses or shared transportation. As part of the updated process, his team also revisited several intersections included in the original TIA, such as the U-turn south of the Nixon connection, Manassas Drive, one of the existing access points to the site, and Sanders Road. They also reviewed current traffic counts and new trip generation projections. Based on their findings, including those updated counts and trip projections, the previously approved traffic study remains valid. This includes consideration of the road improvements already completed along Carolina Beach Road, particularly at Manassas Drive and in front of the Harris Teeter. Mr. Smith concluded by stating he is available to answer any questions. Cal Morgan, MAI and AI-GRS, stated that he is licensed in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida and was recently engaged by the applicant to perform research and analysis that would enable him to conclude an opinion as to item three of the applicant’s SUP application. Item three states that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is of public necessity. To develop an opinion for this requirement, he researched several comparable attached and multi-family properties in the local market, as well as the properties that adjoin them. His analysis included reviewing the sales history and prices of properties that were adjacent to the attached and multi-family projects. Then, comparing that data to the sales history and prices of similar properties that were close by but not adjacent to those same projects, based on the data that that he reviewed, there is no indication that the proposed project would have a negative impact on the adjoining or abutting properties. Mr. Potter asked that the letters and correspondence handed to the Board during this matter be admitted into the record. The final element of the SUP is that the use, if developed in conformity with the plan presented, must conform with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. He highlighted a few specific goals from the land use plan. First, the plan promotes environmentally responsible growth by directing development toward existing communities NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 545 through infill development. That is exactly what this project does, it takes a large, undeveloped tract of land immediately adjacent to a significant commercial node in New Hanover County and places density where it belongs. Second, the plan encourages infill development on vacant parcels within existing communities by offering incentives such as grants, density bonuses, or reductions in parking requirements. This project aligns with that policy, it promotes density near a commercial node, which is exactly what the land use plan envisions. He also understands that the Board has either continued or is considering later today, a proposed ordinance amendment that would eliminate the ability to request this ADA through a SUP. But even if someone were to argue that this project does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has clearly stated that the fact that a SUP is available, without the need for a rezoning, is itself prima facie evidence that the use conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. So even if the Board is thinking, ‘We have single-family residences to the south,’ or ‘There’s a lot of concern about adding density near existing neighborhoods,’ the courts have said that if the ordinance allows the use through a SUP, then it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. He cited the relevant case law via the PowerPoint presentation for reference. There are also two conditions proposed for the permit: 1. The Nixon connection, the northernmost connection leading to Carolina Beach Road, will be built to a collector road standard under New Hanover County’s ordinance prior to issuance of the first vertical building permit. 2. All buildings shall be limited to a maximum height of 40 feet. Mr. Potter stated that, as mentioned earlier by Mr. Farrell, one of the buildings was shown to be 50 feet in height, and he provided clarity that the final design will comply with the maximum height limit. Chair Rivenbark announced that no one signed up to speak in favor, and six people signed up to speak in opposition to the request. He stated that the opposition speakers would have a total of 15 minutes to speak. Michael McCulley, a resident of Lydden Road, Wilmington, NC, spoke in opposition, stating that he is an attorney with almost 30 years of experience practicing in the areas of environmental law and land use. He has also served on the Zoning Board in Craven County and on the Zoning Board of Adjustment here in New Hanover County from 2001 to 2014, including serving as vice-chair. He is here on behalf of a group of residents living along Lydden Road and in Sentry Oaks, including himself and his wife, whose properties would be directly and substantially impacted by the proposed high-density development by Hoosier Daddy LLC, adjacent to the Tarin Woods neighborhood. He is sure the Board knows better than he does that this applicant has been proposing high-density development in this area for years and has consistently been denied. While the proposals have varied, the problematic aspects have always been related to high density. Most recently, in the spring of 2023, this applicant applied for a rezoning to convert the property from R-15 to R-5 and was denied by this Board by a vote of 4 to 1. Now, Hoosier Daddy is back with a new application for a SUP. The sought use is high-density development, more than four times the currently zoned density, and it looks, in practical effect, very similar to the denied R-15 to R-5 rezoning. At the Planning Board preliminary hearing, Mr. Tarrant, the vice-chair, advised the applicant as follows, quoting from a Port City Daily article: 'You’re going to have to convince them that what you’re proposing now addresses the concerns they had previously during the time they considered your conditional rezoning. And if you go up there with the same application and make the same arguments, I wouldn’t expect a different result. And I can’t say that what we’re hearing tonight is a lot different from what I’ve heard at different times.' He thinks Mr. Tarrant had it framed precisely right. There is nothing in this application that addresses the significant concerns underlying the many previous denials of high-density development at this site from this applicant. Those previous denials are a matter of public record, and the concerns they were based on were the result of an impartial evaluation. The history of denials at this site is relevant evidence for this application. Any other approach would defy common sense and be extremely inefficient. Now, turning to the criteria for a SUP, one of the key criteria is that the proposed use must be in harmony with the area. How can the Board possibly find that this proposal is in harmony with the area where high density has been repeatedly and consistently denied? It is unsuitable and inconsistent. On a more specific note, another criterion is that the application must meet all requirements in the UDO. However, the building height proposed for the largest and most dense apartment building is 10 feet over the maximum allowed under the UDO. He noted that he understands the applicant is probably prepared to change that, if necessary. He closed with what he considers a public policy argument that is very relevant. Several recent newspaper articles have described SUPs as controversial because the process overly favors developers. One of those articles, which references this very case, states that both the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County are considering eliminating SUPs altogether. What a sad and absurd end to the story it would be if, after years of hearings and consistent denials, Hoosier Daddy somehow got a high density approval via a controversial type of permit, one that might be invalidated in the foreseeable future. He then provided the newspaper articles to the clerk for inclusion as evidence. Vivian Radeczky, a resident of Appomattox Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated her address is at the head of Manassas Drive, and she is here as a person of standing under North Carolina General Statute 160D-1402(c) to speak firmly in opposition to the SUP. She lives at ground zero for what this development would impact. From her front window, she watches traffic flow through this area all day, cars, bikes, pedestrians, and a steady stream of construction trucks. This is not speculation; it is her reality, and it is only getting worse. The roads in this area were NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 546 not built to support high-density traffic. They are already seeing wear and tear, backups, and dangerous conditions, especially at her intersection. Layering a large-scale project on top of that is not only reckless but also unsafe. Equally concerning is the loss of peace and quality of life. With the current level of traffic, there is constant noise and disruption throughout the day. Her home, which once offered a sense of quiet and security, now sits feet away from an increasingly busy throughway. A project of this scale would only intensify those issues and fundamentally alter the character of our neighborhood. This permit does not serve the existing community; it burdens it. For the safety of the residents, the preservation of the neighborhood infrastructure, and the well-being of those who call this place home, she respectfully urged the Board to deny the SUP. She also reminded the Board that the burden is on the developer, not on the opposition. The developer must provide competent, material, and substantial evidence that this project will not harm public safety, infrastructure, or the harmony of the neighborhood. So far, they have not. In fact, even the staff report acknowledges that the developer is relying on a TIA that was not designed to support this level of density. That alone should be disqualifying. She asked the Board to please listen to those who live this every day. The facts presented do not support approval of this application. Samantha Bunge, a resident of Tarin Road, Wilmington, NC, spoke in opposition stating that her home is in Tarin Woods and she is present to speak as a homeowner, a member of the Homeowners’ (HOA) Bylaws and Covenants Committee, and the creator of a community petition opposing the SUP. She comes before the Board as a person of standing. Her home is adjacent to the proposed new development, and she will be uniquely and negatively impacted by the increased traffic, safety risks, loss of neighborhood character, visual discordance, and diminished enjoyment of the property. In 2023, this developer requested rezoning to R-5 for eight units per acre. This Board, which at the time included all except Commissioner Walker, voted 4–1 to deny that application, finding it inconsistent with the community’s character. The decision cited negative impacts on visual aesthetics, housing compatibility, and neighborhood traffic flow. Now, exactly one year after withdrawing that application, they are again attempting to circumvent rezoning denials by abusing the SUP, this time asking for the maximum allowable density of 10.2 units per acre. That is even higher than what was previously denied. If eight units per acre were deemed incompatible, then 10.2 is undeniably worse. This project is fundamentally out of step with the special use standards, which require harmony with the surrounding area. Her community has made that clear via petition. To support this, she submitted what she stated was a copy of the verified petition signed by over 800 residents in the last month, residents who will live with this project’s consequences. These are not anonymous voices; these are her neighbors and the Board’s constituents. Furthermore, the recorded subdivision covenants explicitly protect the single-family character, natural amenities, peace and tranquility, and property values. She submitted a certified copy of the covenants for consideration. This development undermines nearly every stated objective. In addition, she also submitted the covenants from the neighboring communities, Battle Park, Covington, Congleton Farms, and Sentry Oaks. These neighborhoods are immediately adjacent to Tarin Woods. Each contains similar language emphasizing their identity as single-family home communities, reinforcing that apartments and multifamily developments are completely out of place in this area. More concerningly, certain covenant provisions appear to violate North Carolina’s rule against perpetuities. For example, Article 10, Section 10 of the covenants grants the developer property rights essentially forever, not limited to the 90 years specified in NC General Statute 41-15. Article 3, Section 1 lets the developer annex additional land for multifamily housing without any homeowner approval, giving them perpetual unilateral control over community expansion and land use. The importance of these provisions is that they are often cited to justify the developer’s attempts to insert multifamily housing into the single-family subdivision. They are likely illegal clauses due to violating state law. But even if enforceable, they contradict modern expectations for neighborhood governance and community input. In summary:  This project was already denied at a lower density.  It violates the special use requirements for harmony.  It undermines legally recorded covenants.  It raises serious legal questions under state law.  And most importantly, the residents have resoundingly opposed it via petition. The Board is empowered and obligated to consider all these facts and legal standards in its deliberations. She asked for the materials to be placed into the record, weigh the residents’ lived experiences, and deny the SUP. She stated as a side note, related to both this development’s approval and the earlier budget discussion, she asked the Board to consider assessing impact fees on developers to help fund infrastructure and school improvements. Brenda McCombie, representing Coastal Christian Academy located at 1150 The King’s Highway, Wilmington, NC, spoke in opposition, stating that she is the Head of School Emeritus, founder, and current board member at Coastal Christian High School, located at 1150 The King’s Highway. The school’s property borders the southern edge of Hoosier Daddy’s Tarin Woods development. The drawings submitted show a road stubbed to the back of the school’s property, approximately at the center of the southern property line, for potential future egress by Tarin Woods. The school’s desire is that this road stub be removed from the plans. It will never be appropriate for a road from Tarin Woods to connect through the middle of the campus and onto The King’s Highway. That road is a private road used by Coastal Christian and Myrtle Grove Christian for student drop-off and pickup. It runs through both schools’ parking lots. Between the two campuses, over 700 students, ages three to eighteen, use this section daily. The campus is fenced for safety, and that fence will not be removed in the future to allow access from Tarin Woods. They are already experiencing foot and bike traffic cutting through the property from Tarin Woods by individuals trying to reach the Myrtle Grove Shopping Center, where a new Target is under construction. When non- students are seen crossing campus, the campus director investigates, and the school often goes into lockdown, and calls are made to the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Department. That problem will increase dramatically with higher density. The safety of the students is one of the top concerns. Increased density and access from this neighboring NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 547 development only make those concerns worse. Education Week tracks school shootings. In 2024, there were 39 school deaths; in 2023, there were 438; and in 2022, there were 81. The school stays on high alert to these issues every day. Coastal Christian High School has no interest in allowing a road or egress point against its southern fence and asks that the SUP be denied. The second major concern is traffic. With the new Target store opening and any added housing, traffic impacts are unknown. The school has 200 student drivers, ages 16 to 18, who arrive and leave daily. Over 300 parents of non-drivers from both Coastal and Myrtle Grove also use that same traffic light at The King’s Highway and Carolina Beach Road. She has repeatedly called NCDOT about illegal U-turns at that intersection. Eventually, they installed a fourth ‘No U-turn’ sign and removed the right-turn-on-red option. The situation has improved, but not enough to safely support any increase in density. Until a new TIA is completed after the Target opens, approving higher density would be irresponsible. The primary egress for this project is just north of Rosa Parks Drive, very close to that already dangerous intersection. Coastal Christian has served over 1,000 families for over 18 years in Wilmington. It has been a valued community asset. She respectfully asked the Board to help keep the campus a safe place for students to grow in their education and in their relationship with Jesus Christ. Gayle Tabor, resident of Shiloh Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated she lives in the Battle Park subdivision. She has lived there for 25 years, and has seen many changes in that time, most recently the addition of Tarin Woods. She believes the developer has come before the Board three or four times, asking for lower density than they are asking for tonight, and each time the Board has categorically denied it because the traffic issue is serious. Even on the way here tonight, coming out of the neighborhood, she witnessed an illegal U-turn. Earlier this week, she was forced off the road by another illegal U-turn and had to take evasive action. It is a constant problem at that intersection. Adding 400 homes, while saying buses will solve the traffic issue, is ridiculous. Buses do not come out there, and if there are no buses, no one is taking them. She asked the Board to stand up and, again, deny this request. The infrastructure is not there. Chair Rivenbark stated the applicant and opposition speakers had each used their 15 minutes for presentations, and both would each have five minutes to provide rebuttal remarks. In applicant rebuttal, Mr. Potter stated that this SUP is currently under consideration to be eliminated for this particular type of special use being requested. He thinks that is because the Board understands there are certain legal standards the applicant must meet. Once those standards are met, the burden then shifts to anyone opposing the project. The first step for those in opposition is to establish standing. He knows the gentleman who spoke first, the attorney, does live immediately adjacent to the site, so he has standing. However, the next two people who testified and the last person who spoke live some distance from the property. While they reside in Tarin Woods or Battle Park, they do not live adjacent to the site, and they did not present any evidence showing they would suffer special damages as defined under North Carolina law. Special damages refer to suffering something distinct from the general public, typically shown through a diminution in property value. That was not presented. The fourth speaker, from Coastal Christian, has standing, because she represents a group that owns property adjacent to the project site. Her primary concern appears to be safety. But again, she did not introduce any competent material evidence showing that this project would cause safety issues. She did not bring an expert witness to testify on the matter. She also overlooked the fact that an opaque buffer is required and included in the project conditions along the Coastal Christian property line. This buffer separates the proposed development from the school. Regarding the stubbed-out road she mentioned, as the Board knows, one of the development requirements is to provide stub-outs to adjacent properties, even if no connecting road currently exists on the other side. It is to allow for future connectivity. It is not because this project is going to drive through the Coastal Christian site. Nobody is making her, or the school, move the fence. Nobody is saying traffic will go through their property. That is not part of this proposal. He reiterated that his client is required to meet four specific criteria for an SUP. First, that the use will not materially endanger public health or safety if located where proposed. The Board heard from Mr. Smith and Mr. Resnick that the site meets all criteria from a traffic, open space, and stormwater standpoint. Second, that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the ordinance. Mr. Resnick’s letter and his testimony do support that this use does meet those conditions. Third, the Board heard from Cal Morgan, a highly respected appraiser in this community. He testified that this project would not materially injure the value of adjoining property owners. The Board heard no testimony to the contrary. Finally, the fourth criterion is that the location and character of the use must be in harmony with the area and generally conform with the land use plan. This project is designed to serve as a transition from the intense commercial area of Monkey Junction, moving from multifamily to townhouses, to the smaller lots in Tarin Woods, and finally to the larger lots in Congleton Farms and some older surrounding neighborhoods. In addition to the general findings, specific criteria must also be met. One is that the project is located within 250 feet of an Urban Mixed-Use place type. This was established with Mr. Farrell’s presentation. Another is that the development has direct access to a major or minor arterial road. That is why they have the condition related to the Nixon connection; it will be built to collector road standards, satisfying the requirements under the UDO. Further, the interior drives must be designed to allow adequate emergency vehicle access. Mr. Resnick addressed that point as well. Lastly, at least 35% of the development area is set aside as open space, which also meets one of the required conditions. Mr. Potter then asked if there were any questions for his witnesses or himself, to which Chair Rivenbark responded there were none at this time. Chair Rivenbark stated that under the opposition rebuttal, he would ask Michelle O’Brien to step forward to provide her remarks, as she did not get the opportunity to speak under the opposition’s 15-minute portion of the hearing. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 548 In opposition rebuttal, Michelle O’Brien, a resident of Appomattox Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated her home is in the Tarin Woods community, which borders the proposed development site. She is present as a person of standing. She is a full-time resident and property owner whose home already faces direct impacts from flooding, poor drainage, and deteriorating roads. She also owns a general contracting company. She is not here as an expert witness but does have extensive experience with site development and understands how water behaves in built environments. First, in terms of public safety, her neighborhood is already prone to flooding, and she will be submitting photos as evidence. The photos were taken during heavy rain, not a hurricane, just heavy rain. During these events, she has personally seen the water pool across Appomattox Drive, making parts of the road impassable and creating dangerous conditions for drivers, pedestrians, and children waiting for school buses. Again, she is submitting photos to support that. From a construction standpoint, she can state that adding more impervious surfaces, massive rooftops, parking lots, and concrete totaling nearly 20 acres, to an already flood-prone area, will absolutely increase runoff and worsen the problem. It is a simple matter of capacity; the water must go somewhere. Right now, it is already overwhelming the system. Second, this proposal does not meet infrastructure requirements. Her HOA has submitted a letter outlining the concerns, and she highlighted a key issue: a recent road study, which is nearing completion, indicates that their roads may not last more than a few more years under current traffic conditions. It appears these roads were not constructed to county standards and are degrading rapidly, especially when exposed to wet, unstable ground. This situation is worsened by ongoing construction traffic and the use of heavy service vehicles. If this development moves forward, it will accelerate the failure of the roads, and the repair costs, estimated in hundreds of thousands of dollars, will fall on residents. Why? Because the developer, who still controls the roads, refuses to take responsibility for the damage already done. Third, their property values are already under pressure. Homes surrounded by frequent flooding, broken pavements, and unmaintained infrastructure do not retain value. Expanding development and increasing strain on already failing systems will only make this worse. Finally, this project is not in harmony with the area and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Her community is already overburdened, and no meaningful improvements have been made to address the issues they are facing. Expanding development under these conditions is neither safe nor sustainable. For these reasons, she respectfully requested that the Board deny the SUP. In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Bunge stated she had a couple of things to add, maybe just for clarity. She thinks Mr. Farrell mentioned that one building has a maximum height of 50 feet. But if one looks at the plan, it appears that Building 46 is shown at 65 feet, and that is the one that abuts the Sentry Oaks neighborhood. She also wanted to point out that the TIA, which was revised and finalized in 2022, used data from late 2021, off-season, during the pandemic, when traffic flow was lower than normal. Finally, she wanted to highlight that 444 units are being proposed on a 43-acre lot. By contrast, her current subdivision has just over 350 homes spread out over more than 140 acres. That kind of density is ridiculously out of touch with her single-family home community. In opposition rebuttal, Mr. McCulley stated he wanted to clarify that he is not here just on behalf of himself. His home is adjacent to this project, but he has talked to pretty much every neighbor on his street, at least in the area that is directly adjacent to the site, and they are all in the exact same position. They oppose it. They do not understand why they must keep coming back to this. He also wanted to mention that he can personally attest to the fact that the area is flood prone. He has pictures of his daughter in a kayak in their front yard. He stayed here through Hurricane Florence, and the water came all the way up to his porch. He is very concerned about all the impervious surfaces that would be added because of this development. He worries about it personally, and he worries about it for the area. He also added that, based on his personal and professional history, as a lawyer for 30 years and as someone with experience on a zoning board, he views this proposal as extreme. He does not understand why the developer cannot produce a middle-ground proposal. Something with higher density, but not this high, because he thinks people would be reasonable if that were the case. Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. In Board discussion, Commissioner Zapple stated he does not have any comments at this time until the applicant is asked whether he wants to proceed. Commissioner Scalise noted that, based on the order of proceedings, Board discussion was to occur prior to inviting comments from the applicant and confirmed this was the appropriate time for Board deliberation. Commissioner Zapple clarified he had been about to speak but would wait until the Board discussion concluded. Chairman Rivenbark asked if there were any further comments from the Board. Hearing none, he stated that the Board discussion was closed. Vice-Chair Pierce asked for confirmation that the Board had completed its discussion. Chairman Rivenbark confirmed no additional comments were offered and reiterated that no further discussion was forthcoming. Commissioner Zapple confirmed he had no comments to add. Chairman Rivenbark then proceeded to ask the applicant whether they agreed with the staff’s findings. Mr. Potter responded that they agree with staff findings, as modified by their proposed conditions. The applicant has made some conditions to address at least one of the concerns raised about building height, and to clarify another related to the collector road standard for Ironwood, specifically the Nixon Street connection. He added that all the team members are present and available to answer any questions the Board may have and noted that fifteen minutes is a short period of time to provide this much information. Chair Rivenbark asked if there were any questions and if everyone agrees that the applicant has met all the required conditions. Vice-Chair Pierce responded, asking if the Board is ready for a motion. Commissioner Zapple responded that he can make a motion, but thought the Board needed to ask the applicant whether they want to NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 549 move forward. Chair Rivenbark responded that the applicant has already indicated they agreed with the staff’s findings. County Attorney Smith added that the process of asking the applicant if they would like to move forward is typically built into legislative rezoning procedures. It does not apply in this quasi-judicial matter. Vice-Chair Pierce stated she understood and heard Chair Rivenbark saying the Board is moving forward, noting that she believes there was a bit of confusion on the Board’s part. County Attorney Smith commented that in legislative rezoning cases, which this is not, there is the question that he believes Commissioner Zapple is asking about. He was attempting to clarify that, typically, that is not a question asked in this type of quasi-judicial proceeding. Commissioner Scalise added, to which the county attorney affirmed, the chair asked the applicant whether they agreed with the staff’s findings, and the applicant responded yes, with the conditions they proposed. At this point, it is time for the Board to determine how it is going to proceed with a decision. With no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to deny the permit because the Board cannot find that the proposed use meets all required conditions and specifications. The application, as submitted, is incomplete and does not comply with the Unified Development Ordinance as proposed. Specifically, the project does not meet the building height requirements of the R-15 zoning district, and there are outstanding questions regarding compliance with UDO Section 5.2.2, particularly related to access through Rosa Parks Lane. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 3 TO 2; Chair Rivenbark and Commissioner Scalise dissenting. Vice-Chair Pierce asked for clarification on the vote. Commissioner Scalise stated that Chair Rivenbark and he voted “no” on the motion. A copy of the evidence submitted by the applicant and opponents is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 11.4. The order denying the Special Use Permit and listing the findings of fact is scheduled for approval at the Board’s regular meeting on June 16, 2025. BREAK: Chair Rivenbark called for a break from 6:40 p.m. to 7:03 p.m. Clerk to the Board Crowell asked Chair Rivenbark to clarify in connection with Agenda Item #7, which concerns the SUP matter, whether his vote was in favor or in opposition to the motion to deny the application. Chair Rivenbark confirmed his vote was in opposition to the motion. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HAR-STE INVESTMENTS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 19.32 ACRES LOCATED AT 226 EDGEWATER CLUB ROAD AND THE 900 BLOCK OF WATERSTONE DRIVE FROM THE (CZD) R-7, RESIDENTIAL AND R-20, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO A (CZD) R-5, RESIDENTIAL MODERATE-HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT FOR AN 82 UNIT SENIOR LIVING: INDEPENDENT LIVING RETIREMENT COMMUNITY CONSISTING OF A MIX OF DETACHED AND ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS (Z25-05) Development Review Planner Amy Doss presented the staff report regarding a request to rezone approximately 19.32 acres located on Edgewater Club Road from Conditional R-7 and R-20 Residential to Conditional R-5 Residential. The proposed use is age-restricted housing consisting of 44 attached single-family townhomes and 38 detached single-family dwellings. The southern portion of the site was rezoned to R-7 approximately three years ago to allow for 44 townhomes. The remainder of the property is currently zoned R-20 and is surrounded by R-20 residential zoning. Aerial imagery was provided to show the existing single-family home on the site, nearby institutional uses, and surrounding residential development. Visual examples of adjacent R-20 performance single-family homes and attached single-family homes were also presented. The approved concept plan for the 7-acre portion includes the previously entitled 44 attached townhomes. The updated concept plan proposes an additional 38 detached single- family homes. Under current zoning, 22 homes could be built by right, resulting in a net increase of 16 single-family homes. Key site features include an amenity center, two stormwater ponds, emergency access to Waterstone Drive, and internal sidewalks, as referenced in Condition #1. A 20-foot public access easement with a five-foot sidewalk along Edgewater Club Road is also included, as noted in Condition #4. To address Planning Board concerns, Condition #6 requires a six-foot privacy fence behind Lot 34, extending to Lot 28, and transitioning to a brick wall at the amenity center to help mitigate noise and visibility impacts. The site is located adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood and is one of the few remaining undeveloped tracts in the area. The proposed attached homes will be two stories above a garage and restricted to the County’s 40-foot height maximum under the UDO. The detached homes will interconnect with the surrounding neighborhood via Winding Creek Circle and the emergency access point. The project falls below the threshold requiring a TIA. The development is expected to have a minimal impact on the school system. The proposed rezoning supports the County’s strategic goal of encouraging planned growth and access to basic needs. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as General Residential, which emphasizes lower-density housing and compatible civic and commercial services. The Planning Board considered the request at its May 1, 2025 meeting and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning petition. The Board found the request to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as the proposed mix of uses aligns with the recommended place type. The Board further determined that recommending approval was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed zoning district would NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 550 support efficient land use and offer a variety of housing types within an age-restricted community. There are five conditions related to the request as follows: a sidewalk to Waterstone Drive and a sidewalk along Edgewater Club Road, the stormwater management system, age restricted housing, and a privacy fence. The staff’s recommendation is based on policy guidance of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning considerations, and technical review. Staff concur with the Planning Board’s recommendation of approval. Should the rezoning be approved, the project will be subject to an additional development review through the Technical Review Committee (TRC). Chair Rivenbark thanked Ms. Doss for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, representing Har-Ste Investments, LLC, the property owner, presented an overview of the project. She explained that the two parcels under consideration include one the County rezoned to R-7 for attached housing in May 2022. The current request combines that project with an adjacent 12-acre parcel the owners purchased afterward. Since the 2022 approval, the owners have worked actively with engineers on detailed design and permitting and collaborated with architects to define the style of the attached townhomes. Because the project targets residents over 55, they saw an opportunity to offer a mix of housing types, both attached and detached single-story homes. The proposal includes 82 units on approximately 19.37 acres, yielding a density of 4.2 units per acre. The owners are requesting R-5 zoning based on the requirements outlined in the County’s permitted use table. Ms. Wolf emphasized that the property lies within the General Residential place type in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows one to six units per acre and buildings up to three stories. She stated that the proposal aligns with those guidelines. She also responded to a concern raised by a resident who lives across Edgewater Club Road, who opposed placing the amenity center near the entrance. Ms. Wolf explained that placing amenities near the entrance improves convenience and marketability. In response, the applicant agreed to install a six-foot screening fence along the public access easement, transitioning to a decorative wall around the pool, and to include foundation plantings to strengthen the buffer. Ms. Wolf concluded by thanking staff and the Planning Board for their support and confirmed the applicant agrees with all five proposed conditions. Chair Rivenbark stated that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition to the request and asked if there was any Board discussion. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and asked Ms. Wolf if, based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, whether she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Ms. Wolf responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to approve the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 District. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses are in line with the place type recommendations. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed district would provide for efficient land use and a variety of housing types for an age restricted community. The following proposed conditions are included as part of the approval: 1. An additional sidewalk will be provided between the townhome portion of the project and Porter's Neck Elementary School. 2. The stormwater management system will be designed for a 100-year storm event. 3. Both the detached and attached single-family portions project will be age-restricted based on state and federal Fair Housing requirements for projects for individuals aged 55 and above. 4. A 20-foot-wide public access easement with ADA accessible sidewalk will be installed along the project fronting Edgewater Club Road. The sidewalk must be installed or bonded as part of the construction of the subdivision, and the public access easement must be platted and dedicated with the recordation of the first plat associated with the development. 5. A six-foot-tall wood privacy fence running south along Edgewater Club Road will be installed from lot 34 to lot 28, at which point it will transition to a six-foot-tall brick privacy wall with vegetation, behind the pool and amenity center and tapering to five feet in height at the entrance monument for the neighborhood. 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 will be considered denied. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 3 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED May 18, 1970, is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 3, Page 20. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY JAMES FENTRESS WITH STROUD ENGINEERING, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF DALLAS HARRIS, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.15 ACRES LOCATED AT 7495 MARKET STREET FROM A (CZD) CB, COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT TO A NEW (CZD) CB DISTRICT FOR TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS FOR THE USE OF GENERAL RETAIL AND OTHER LIMITED USES (Z25- 07) Development Review Planner Katherine May presented the staff report, stating that the applicant seeks to NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 551 rezone approximately 1.15 acres from conditional CB (Community Business) to a new conditional CB district to allow retail sales and other limited uses. The property is at the intersection of Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard. In June 2022, the Board rezoned the site from R-15 Residential to conditional CB for a proposed bank and other commercial uses. The site also lies within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD). Ms. May reviewed photographs of the site, highlighting a live oak tree that the developer plans to preserve, an existing fence, and nearby homes. She also presented aerial images showing the undeveloped parcel, which sits between residential properties to the west and commercial uses to the east and south. She showed current conditions along Market Street, where NCDOT plans to build a future sidewalk as part of its corridor improvements. She clarified an earlier reference to a multi-use path, confirming the improvement will be a standard sidewalk. Ms. May then compared the 2022 site plan to the updated proposal. The revised plan removes the second access point to Torchwood Boulevard and limits access to a single right-in/right-out driveway on Market Street. The layout includes two commercial buildings to be constructed in phases, one central building in phase one and another closer to Torchwood Boulevard in phase two. The design also incorporates parking areas, fenced buffers along adjacent residences, and a stormwater facility near Market Street. The access plan includes a signalized U-turn at the intersection to improve circulation. While the parcel size falls below the threshold that would require a TIA, staff pointed out that the proposed retail use would generate fewer peak-hour trips than the previously approved bank. NCDOT maintains both Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard. Staff noted that other nearby projects have already improved the corridor and that the State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) includes the planned widening of Market Street. The proposal advances the County’s strategic goals for Workforce and Economic Development. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as Community Mixed Use, which promotes small-scale development with multi-modal access. At its May 1, 2025 meeting, the Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval, finding the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable, given the site’s location along a growing commercial corridor. Staff also recommended approval based on zoning criteria, technical review, and alignment with the Community Mixed Use designation. The proposal keeps all previously established conditions related to retail hours, exterior lighting, landscaping, and dumpster screening. With the applicant’s agreement, staff added four new conditions: to expand the range of allowed uses, require improved building aesthetics on the northern structure, increase SHOD plantings, and preserve the on-site live oak tree. If the Board approves the request, the project will proceed to the TRC for further review. In response to questions, Caitlin Cerza with the WMPO explained that NCDOT has planned improvements to Market Street under STIP Project U-4090 D, including upgrades to nearby intersections. She said the proposed U- turn should not create an issue, noting that NCDOT will evaluate it as part of the driveway permitting process. Because the project does not meet the threshold for a TIA, that analysis will not be required. Ms. Cerza explained that NCDOT typically requires at least 600 feet between driveways and intersections for safety reasons, which staff will confirm during permit review. If the separation falls short, NCDOT may request a waiver or require a redesign. She added that the plan no longer includes access from Torchwood Boulevard due to traffic concerns, including the potential for cut-through behavior, since that road functions as a collector or minor street. Chair Rivenbark thanked Ms. May for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Jimmy Fentress with Stroud Engineering, representing property owner Dallas Harris, stated that the design team worked directly with NCDOT, which instructed them to remove the driveway connection to Torchwood Boulevard. The team placed the remaining driveway as far from the intersection as possible, designing it to function as a right-in, right-out access point. He described the proposed use as low-intensity and less impactful than the previously approved bank. As brick-and-mortar banking continues to decline, he noted that a new prospective tenant aligns more closely with the revised plan. He expressed support for the staff’s recommended conditions, which allow flexibility for similar uses without requiring additional Board review. He thanked staff for their work, confirmed agreement with the proposed conditions, and added that Mr. Harris was present to answer any questions. Chair Rivenbark stated that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition to the request and closed the public hearing. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked Mr. Fentress if, based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, whether he would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Mr. Fentress responded that he wanted to proceed with the vote. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise, to approve the proposed rezoning. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the rezoning provides for the types of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal serves as an appropriate NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 552 transition between existing residential and commercial uses. The following proposed conditions are included as part of the approval: 1. Retail hours shall be limited to 8AM to 7PM. 2. The height of the exterior light fixtures shall not exceed 25 feet and all exterior luminaries, including security lighting, shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward. 3. An additional row of vegetation beyond the UDO requirements shall be provided in the buffer area along the northwestern property line. 4. The location of the dumpster shall be on the south side of the property and screened with vegetation. 5. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to: Retail Sales (General), Offices for Private Businesses and Professional Activities, Business Service Center, Post Office, Medical and Dental Office and Clinic, Veterinary Service (excluding outdoor storage or kennels), Instructional Services and Studios, and Personal Services. 6. The back facade of the commercial building facing Torchwood Boulevard must be aesthetically similar as the face of the building. The rear of the building must be screened from Torchwood Boulevard. 7. Additional plantings must be provided along Market Street to qualify for the 75-foot setback set forth by the Special Highway Overlay District. 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 will be considered denied. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 8B OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED July 7, 1972 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8B, Page 90. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF 626 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, CONTRACT PURCHASER FROM BLACK KNIGHT 24, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.24 ACRES LOCATED AT THE 100 BLOCK OF GREENVIEW DRIVE FROM (CZD) B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS TO A NEW (CZD) B-1 DISTRICT FOR THE USE OF GENERAL RETAIL, OFFICES FOR PROFESSIONAL BUSINESSES, AND OTHER LIMITED USES (Z25-08) Development Review Planner Ryan Beil presented the request to rezone approximately 1.24 acres on Greenview Drive, adjacent to Market Street, from (CZD) B-1 to (CZD) B-1 with expanded uses. The site is surrounded by R-15 zoning to the north, east, and west, with a mix of (CZD) B-1 and R-15 to the south. It lies within the SHOD. The lot was previously rezoned in 2018 from (CUD) B-1 to support a car care center and car wash. The adjacent lot currently operates a car wash, while the subject site remains vacant, except for existing parking spaces and established street yards. Mr. Beil presented photos showing current site conditions and provided visual examples of a typical vehicle service station and a two-story office building along Market Street. He reviewed the 2018 approved site plan, which included the car wash and car care center. He then provided an overview of the proposed site plan, which features a two-story, 15,000-square-foot general office building with a variety of permitted uses. The site includes a fenced buffer and existing required street yards along Market Street and Greenview Drive. NCDOT has planned widening improvements for this section of Market Street under a STIP, including installation of a sidewalk on the same side of the road as the site. The property has full access to Greenview Drive. While the proposed use may generate slightly more traffic than the previous approval, it does not meet the threshold for a TIA. The proposal aligns with the Community Mixed Use place type and supports the intended purpose of the B-1 district. The site is in a transitional corridor between the Porters Neck and Ogden commercial nodes, both of which are experiencing significant residential and commercial growth. The project advances the County’s strategic goal of promoting a business-friendly environment that encourages growth, flexibility, and collaboration. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Community Mixed Use place type as supporting small-scale, compact, mixed-use development accessible by multiple modes of transportation. Appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed-use, recreational, commercial, institutional, multifamily, and single-family residential. At its May 1, 2025 meeting, the Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval, finding the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to alignment with intended use and density. The Board also found the rezoning to be reasonable and in the public interest, as it fosters a supportive environment for business and development. Staff recommended approval, based on Comprehensive Plan policy guidance, zoning considerations, and technical review. The recommendation includes eight conditions, three of which are carried over from the 2018 approval (preserving existing trees, prohibiting specific signage, and indicating Oak Ridge Lane is a private road). The five new conditions address use limitations, a shared maintenance and parking agreement, cross-access for the car wash, and stormwater improvements. Mr. Beil concluded the presentation by stating that staff reported no public comments on the request. Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Beil for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, representing 626 Retail Development, LLC, contract purchaser from Black Knight 24, LLC, property owner, stated the site includes an existing car wash and an adjacent vacant lot, both zoned B-1. Her client plans to purchase the vacant lot, which was previously part of a larger car care center project. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 553 She explained that converting the site to office use would be significantly less impactful than the original proposal. Ms. Wolf acknowledged receiving a few calls from Greenwood Road residents concerning test drives, clarifying that such activity would not occur under the proposed office use. The project includes a two-story, 15,000-square-foot office building designed to be visually appealing from both Greenview Drive and Market Street. The development may increase open space compared to the earlier plan. Additional parking is proposed, but the site layout remains mostly unchanged. A cross-access and cross-parking agreement is already in place, and the existing stormwater system, designed for 54% impervious coverage, can accommodate the proposed development. Final stormwater permitting will proceed through the County. Ms. Wolf expressed appreciation for the staff and Planning Board recommendations and welcomed questions from the Board. Chair Rivenbark stated 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. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked Ms. Wolf if, based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, whether she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Ms. Wolf responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise, to approve the proposed rezoning. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project is in line with the use and density for the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project helps foster a business-friendly environment that promotes growth, agility, and collaboration. The following proposed conditions are included as part of the approval: 1. All existing trees located within the required buffer yards must be preserved and supplemented as necessary in order to provide a fully opaque screen. In addition, a six-foot-tall solid fence must be installed along the rear buffer yard. 2. Flashing, animated, and digital signs shall be prohibited on the property. 3. A sign indicating that Oak Ridge Lane is a private road shall be installed along the right-of-way of Oak Ridge Lane, west of the proposed driveway access to the subject site. 4. The proposed rezoning’s principal uses shall be limited to: a. Banks and/or Financial Institutions, b. Business Service Center, c. Offices for Private business & Professional Activities, d. Instructional Services & Studios, e. Personal Services, General (no tattoo Parlors permitted), and f. Retail Sales, General. 5. An agreement in place for shared maintenance and parking between car wash and office building. 6. The applicant must provide cross access easements for the carwash to access Greenview Drive through both driveway locations. 7. The project will have a stormwater management agreement for the shared underground stormwater, or the project will be required to obtain permits for a separate underground stormwater system. Any aboveground stormwater system would constitute a substantial deviation to the approved plan and require review and approval through a rezoning. 8. The back façade of the commercial building facing Greenview Drive must be aesthetically similar to the faces of the building. The building façade along Market Street shall incorporate a minimum of one building entrance and form-giving elements, such as entry overhangs and periodic transitions in wall offsets, materials and/or fenestration. Any pads for HVAC equipment shall be screened from the street view by low fencing and/or landscaping. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 5 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 5, Page 93. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF LITTLEBIRD PROPERTIES, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.77 ACRES LOCATED AT THE 3100 BLOCK OF CASTLE HAYNE ROAD FROM AN R-10, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO A (CZD) B-2, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR COMMERCIAL FLEX SPACE FOR THE USE OF RETAIL SALES, OFFICES FOR PRIVATE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES, RESTAURANT, AND OTHER LIMITED USES (Z25-09) Development Review Planner Amy Doss presented the staff report, stating the applicant seeks to rezone approximately 1.78 acres at 3111 Castle Hayne Road from R-10 Residential to (CZD) B-2 Regional Business to allow a 21,000-square-foot flex space development. The site was originally zoned R-20 and rezoned to R-10 in 2020 as part of a larger transfer to Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity (Habitat) for the Haven Place subdivision. The County retained this parcel for a potential fire station, which was later built across Castle Hayne Road. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 554 Ms. Doss reviewed the concept plan, noting the site is currently vacant and lies between Castle Hayne Road to the east and New Dawn Drive to the west. She emphasized the need for shared access and stormwater easements, which must be recorded prior to any sale or transfer. The development includes two buildings totaling 21,000 square feet, oriented around a central parking area. A condition ensures the building façade along Castle Hayne Road will be appropriately designed and not resemble a rear elevation. Additional project features include:  A fenced buffer, as required by condition.  A 20-foot public access easement.  Off-site pedestrian access to Haven Place subdivision.  Location within an active NCDOT widening project along Castle Hayne Road, which may eventually limit access to right-in/right-out only. The project is expected to generate 82 AM and 150 PM peak-hour trips, triggering a TIA. The approved TIA requires the developer to:  Construct a southbound right-turn lane with 75 feet of storage.  Design site access with one ingress lane and two egress lanes (a shared through/left-turn lane and a right-turn lane with 75 feet of storage).  Meet all applicable NCDOT and local standards. Ms. Doss noted that the Castle Hayne corridor continues to transition toward commercial development, with adjacent rezonings to CB, B-1, B-2, and O&I districts. The project supports two County strategic goals: managing planned growth and expanding access to essential services while fostering a business-friendly environment. The site is located within the Community Mixed Use place type in the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages compact commercial development that serves nearby residents and offers a transition between major roads and residential neighborhoods. At its May 1, 2025 meeting, the Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval. The Board cited compatibility with surrounding development and the project’s potential to provide services to adjacent neighborhoods. The request was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest. Staff also recommended approval, based on applicable zoning criteria and technical review. Staff and the Planning Board supported approval with five conditions addressing permitted uses, façade design, stormwater and access easements, and privacy fencing. Ms. Doss concluded by stating that, if approved, the project will proceed with an additional development review. In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet stated that he does not support the rezoning request, departing from the staff and Planning Board recommendations, because he believes it does not serve the public interest. He explained that the County partnered with Habitat to support affordable housing in the area and installed infrastructure to advance that goal. He expressed concern that Habitat may not have had a clear opportunity to comment on the proposed change, noting that the organization acquired the surrounding property under residential zoning. He added that the County had originally designated the site for a future fire station but later chose to purchase the Wrightsboro site farther south instead. He emphasized that the current R-20 zoning allows residential development compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. When asked if the proposed use could benefit local residents, he said he could not determine compatibility without knowing the specific services proposed. While he acknowledged that planning staff appropriately evaluated the request under the ordinance, he said he considered the matter within a broader context and reiterated his view that the rezoning does not align with the public interest. Chair Rivenbark thanked Ms. Doss for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, representing applicant Littlebird Properties LLC, stated that the subject parcel sits adjacent to a previously approved B-2 tract, which the development team is currently designing and permitting. She explained that the proposed rezoning would support a 21,000-square-foot flex space consistent with the Community Mixed Use place type and broader planning goals for walkable, connected communities. Because the same entity owns both parcels, the team completed a comprehensive TIA, which reduces the likelihood of a separate driveway and potential traffic conflicts on Castle Hayne Road. She emphasized that the site design places commercial service areas along New Dawn Drive to reduce impacts on nearby residences, particularly those on Jubilee Court. Although the ordinance requires side and rear setbacks of 30 and 35 feet, the proposal increases those distances to 65 and 45 feet, respectively. She clarified that the project excludes high impact uses such as bars, nightclubs, and kennels. While pet-related services may operate onsite, the plan does not include outdoor runs or boarding. She noted that the team placed the dumpster on the Phase One site, farthest from neighboring homes. Ms. Wolf highlighted the benefits of walkable access to personal care services, professional offices, instructional studios, limited retail, and restaurants. She concluded by thanking staff and the Planning Board for their support and offered to answer any questions. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf stated that the TIA concluded a signal was not warranted at the shared driveway because the projected daily trips (1,420) fell below the required threshold. The TIA accounted for pass-by trips and anticipated site walkability. She acknowledged regional traffic concerns, noting Castle Hayne Road is heavily traveled and will experience increased volume from nearby developments such as Morris Crossing. Although no widening is planned for the corridor, several projects, including this one, have incorporated improvements like right-turn lanes and deceleration tapers to help manage traffic flow. A traffic signal planned near NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 555 Chair Road will further support east-west access. Regarding proposed uses, Ms. Wolf clarified that permitted restaurants could serve alcohol under standard regulations but would not include drive-thrus or fast food. She described potential establishments as small-scale, such as coffee shops or casual dining venues. She added that both parcels are under common ownership and share stormwater infrastructure. While formal agreements are not yet finalized, they would be established if ownership changes. Stormwater permits remain in process. In response to questions about Habitat’s involvement, Ms. Wolf stated that neither she nor her client was approached by Habitat. She recalled that during a prior hearing, a commissioner suggested the applicant consider the former fire station lot, leading to the current proposal. She also confirmed that the larger tract has already been rezoned and is under development. The buildings have been reduced from 12,000 to 10,000 square feet each for consistency across the site. The approved stormwater pond is also being permitted in conjunction with the TIA driven improvements. Chair Rivenbark stated that no one signed up to speak in favor, and one (1) person signed up to speak in opposition to the request. He asked the opposition speakers to provide their remarks. Esmond Anderson, Vice President of Construction, Land Management, and Volunteers at Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He acknowledged the long-standing partnership between the County and Habitat, referencing the Haven Place subdivision, which includes 35 affordable homes built through that collaboration. He noted that Habitat had previously been contacted by the property owner in 2022 regarding commercial development on the northern parcel. At that time, Habitat did not object, as it was considered relatively minor. However, Habitat only recently became aware of the current rezoning request for the former fire station site, after receiving an email on Friday. He explained that the formal notice letter was misdirected to Habitat’s old address, which was vacated five years ago, causing them to miss the first hearing. He stated that Habitat does not support the proposed commercial rezoning of this parcel. The key concerns include increased traffic, light, noise, and potential odor from commercial uses, particularly if restaurants are included. He emphasized that 35 Habitat homes back up to the proposed development, including three completed and sold homes at the cul-de-sac nearest the site, with seven to eight more homes currently under construction. Due to the short notice, Habitat has not yet had an opportunity to speak with current or future residents. As a result, the opposition reflects the position of the organization, not individual homeowners. In response to questions, Mr. Anderson reiterated the notification issues about the property going up for sale and this public hearing. County Manager Coudriet added that the sale of the property was done as an upset bid process so there was notice made the parcel was going to be sold. In response to questions, he reconfirmed that the County owned the land, and it had been sold within the last 24 months through an upset bid process under the current zoning. In response to questions, Mr. Anderson confirmed that the build out will be completed in approximately the next year and a half with 35 homes. Chair Rivenbark stated that the opponents’ speaking time was concluded and that the applicant and opponents will each have up to five (5) minutes for rebuttal statements. In applicant rebuttal, Ms. Wolf stated it is only a difference of opinion that such a project can be valuable to a neighborhood in comparison to impacting it adversely. In response to questions, Ms. Wolf stated that the price paid for the property was $135,000. Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Commissioner Walker raised concerns about increased traffic near Castle Hayne and Rock Hill Roads, emphasizing the rural character of the area and questioning whether the proposed commercial development fits the surrounding community. Commissioner Scalise acknowledged her concerns but expressed support for the flex space proposal, describing it as a reasonable commercial use and noting that more intensive development, such as apartments, could be proposed in the future. Commissioner Zapple voiced opposition to the rezoning, citing the County’s previous partnership with Habitat for Humanity and expressing concern that adjacent commercial development could weaken the residential vision for Haven Place. He supported the county manager’s recommendation to deny the request. Vice-Chair Pierce recognized the differing viewpoints but pointed out that the County had sold the property and no longer held ownership. She referenced nearby commercial uses and expressed support for the proposal, highlighting its potential to offer walkable services and employment opportunities. Commissioner Walker reiterated her concerns about traffic and the uncertainty surrounding future tenants, stating that she could not support the rezoning without knowing what would be built. Vice-Chair Pierce responded by noting that the list of permitted uses under the conditional rezoning is limited and designed to serve the surrounding neighborhood. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked Ms. Wolf if, based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, whether she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Ms. Wolf responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 556 MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce, to approve the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses and intensity align with existing development patterns along the corridor and could provide services and support to nearby residences. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed concept plan is in line with current development patterns. The following proposed conditions are included as part of the approval: 1. Uses will be limited to: a. Animal Grooming Service, b. Veterinary Service (kennel or daycare prohibited), c. Business Service Center, d. Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities, e. Personal Services, General (tattoo parlors prohibited), f. Instructional Services & Studios, g. Retail Sales, General, and h. Restaurant. 2. A solid privacy fence shall be installed along the southern and western portions of the project as shown on the concept plan. 3. A 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be established along the property boundary with Castle Hayne Road. Sufficient space must be provided to accommodate both the easement and the required street yard landscaping. 4. The back façade of the commercial buildings facing Haven Place and Castle Hayne Road must be aesthetically similar to the faces of the buildings. The building façade along Castle Hayne Road shall incorporate a minimum of one building entrance and form-giving elements, such as entry overhangs and periodic transitions in wall offsets, materials and/or fenestration. Any pads for HVAC equipment shall be screened from the street view by low fencing and/or landscaping. 5. The parcels shall either be recombined under common ownership, or before ownership of any property is transferred to another person or entity, an access easement and maintenance agreement and a stormwater easement and maintenance agreement be established and recorded with the Register of Deeds. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 3 TO 2; Commissioners Walker and Zapple dissenting. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 10A OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED April 7, 1971 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 10A, Page 61. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY TERRY HENRY WITH PAWS4PEOPLE, INC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 11.91 ACRES LOCATED AT 5101 TRANSFORMATION LANE FROM A R-15, RESIDENTIAL AND B-2, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS TO A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A DOG TRAINING CENTER FOR USES INCLUDING KENNELS, INDOOR AND OUTDOOR TRAINING AREAS, OFFICES, AND LODGING FOR TRAINEES AND EMPLOYEES (Z25-10) Senior Planner Zach Dickerson presented the staff report, stating that the applicant seeks to rezone approximately 11.24 acres from R-15 Residential and B-2 Regional Business to PD Planned Development for the Paws4People campus. The property is currently zoned R-15 and B-2, with surrounding residential zoning and B-2 zoning to the west. The western portion was rezoned to B-2 in 1989 as part of a 120-acre area. The site currently contains the existing Paws4People campus, with the NCDOT district offices located to the west. Mr. Dickerson shared aerial images of the site, showing the entrance, signage, office building, kennels, and lodging facilities for students and employees. The applicant’s concept plan includes an existing office, lodging for students and employees, two live/work units, an outdoor dog training space, and one existing kennel. The proposed PD would be developed in three phases: 1. Phase 1: A vocational/trade school 2. Phases 2 and 3: Two additional kennels A table in the presentation outlined the square footage of both existing and planned structures. The site has gated access from Blue Clay Road and is surrounded by low-density residential development, including Sidbury Crossing apartments to the south and Blue Bay townhomes to the north. The campus has operated since 2018 and generates minimal traffic; the proposed additions are also low-intensity and do not require a TIA. Mr. Dickerson stated that the project aligns with the County’s Strategic Plan goals related to Business Growth and Community Safety and Well-Being. He acknowledged that the area remains largely low-density residential, but noted that nearby areas, particularly to the south, are growing due to the extension of public utilities through the Last Frontier initiative. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as General Residential, which allows for low-impact civic and institutional uses, and confirmed that the project aligns with that designation. The Planned Development application includes a Terms and Conditions document that outlines the allowed uses, such as dwellings, animal shelters, grooming, kennels, trade schools, and outdoor recreation, and proposes setbacks of 25 feet in the front, 20 feet on the sides, and 20 feet in the rear. He also noted that the applicant committed to preserving perimeter vegetation beyond the ordinance’s required 20-foot buffer. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 557 The Planning Board considered the request at its May 1, 2025, meeting. No public opposition was received at the hearing. The Board voted (6-0) to recommend approval, finding the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest. The Board also supported the staff’s recommended condition to increase side setbacks from 15 to 20 feet. Staff concur with the recommendation. Additional public comments received were provided to the Board. If approved, the project would proceed through TRC and zoning compliance processes. Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Dickerson for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Danielle Cockerham, representing Terry Henry and the Paws4People executive team, provided an overview of the organization and the purpose of the proposed expansion. Founded in 1999, Paws4People places assistance dogs with children, veterans, first responders, military dependents, and civilians, particularly those who have experienced moral injury or sexual trauma. The organization relocated to Wilmington in 2011 to partner with the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) and has been internationally accredited since 2018. Its executive director currently serves on the board of Assistance Dogs International (ADI). A brief video was presented highlighting current campus operations and the life-changing impact of the organization’s service dogs. Following the video, Ms. Cockerham shared that Paws4People supports over 300 active service dog teams across 22 states and has placed more than 1,300 dogs during its 26-year history. She noted that each dog carries an approximate value of $100,000 and that the organization has kept its overhead below 5% for seven consecutive years. She highlighted that Paws4People is one of only five accredited organizations in the U.S. serving civilians who have experienced trauma, including sexual trauma. She explained that the proposed expansion would add a climate- controlled training facility to support year-round operations and expand opportunities for community engagement. The new facility would also create an accessible and inclusive space for volunteers, including retirees and students from UNCW. Ms. Cockerham stressed that expansion is critical to advancing the organization’s mission to transform, and often save, lives. She then introduced Trevor Smith with Becker Morgan Group. Trevor Smith, civil engineer with Becker Morgan Group, explained that Planned Development zoning is necessary to accommodate the campus’s diverse uses for training, lodging, administration, and recreation, which do not fit under a single zoning classification. He noted that the expansion addresses growing demand for service dogs and supports broader community involvement, including volunteer and student engagement. He then presented the phased approach:  Phase 1: Brady Training Center  Phase 2: Wellness Center for new dog intake  Phase 3: On-site Aquatic Facility The design maintains a residential aesthetic to blend with the surrounding neighborhood and existing buildings. He confirmed water and sewer service is available and that stormwater management will be implemented as required. The site plan also exceeds the tree preservation requirements, and the applicant supports the increased 20-foot side setback recommended by staff. In response to questions, Mr. Smith confirmed the campus will look like what was presented in the video. Chair Rivenbark stated 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. A brief discussion ensued about the operations. Ms. Cockerham confirmed that the daily operational hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. In terms of the typical number of animals on the property, it can be three to four on the low end and 15 to 20 on the high end. A community meeting was held, and those in attendance understood what would be placed on the site. There was no opposition received during the community meeting. Commissioners Walker and Zapple expressed their support for the application. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked Ms. Cockerham 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. Cockerham responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Walker, to approve the proposed PD rezoning with the attached Terms and Conditions document, with amendments noted. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provides a generally low-impact civic and institutional development to a General Residential area, The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the expansion of the facility would provide a benefit to the citizens of the County, with greater opportunities for community service and involvement. The following proposed condition is included as part of the approval: 1. Side setbacks within the PD shall be 20 feet from the property line. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JUNE 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 558 Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 8A OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED July 7, 1972 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8A, Page 49. CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY TO AMEND ARTICLES 3 AND 4 OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL DWELLING ALLOWANCES FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL TO LEGISLATIVE (TA25- 03) At the May 29, 2025 Board of Commissioners Agenda Review meeting, the Board voted unanimously to continue this item to their August 4, 2025 meeting. APPOINTMENT OF VOTING DELEGATE TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 2025 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Commissioner Scalise nominated Commissioner Zapple for appointment as the voting delegate to the National Association of Counties (NACo) 2025 Annual Conference. Hearing no further nominations, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction for the nomination on the floor. MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Chair Rivenbark to appoint Commissioner Zapple as the voting delegate to the NACo 2025 Annual Conference. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Rivenbark stated that one person signed up to speak under public comment and asked that the speakers provide comments. Adrianne Garber, a resident of Red Heart Drive, Wilmington, NC, questioned whether current development practices align with the County’s environmental stewardship goals outlined in the 2023 Strategic Plan. She requested that the FY25–26 budget include funding for an environmental stewardship study to support a proposed rate of growth ordinance (ROGO). The ordinance would limit new construction, tie permit fees to building footprint size, and shift more responsibility to developers. She also advocated for the creation of an Environmental Stewardship Department to coordinate with Planning and Zoning. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS County Manager Coudriet confirmed that there was a consensus among the Board to schedule a work session to discuss the FY26 budget. He stated that his office would coordinate with Clerk to the Board Crowell to identify a date, ideally within the next two weeks. Commissioners expressed support for holding the work session in conjunction with a future agenda review, consistent with past practice. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Rivenbark adjourned the meeting at 8:41 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.