Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ25-14 Comments Received Aug 29thAugust 27, 2025 New Hanover County Board of Commissioners 230 Government Center Drive Suite 175 Wilmington NC 28403 Re: Rezoning Case No Z25-14 HELLO: 6634 Carolina Beach Road Well, here we are again, for the 4t' time, regarding the rezoning of the property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road. As you know you practiced THE MODEL OF GOOD GOVERNANCE and denied the prior 3 attempts. At the Building and Planning board meeting, one of the more informed staff, denied the rezoning due to the proposed plan being too close to the communities, essentially saying "WRONG PLAN, WRONG PLACE." We are now asking for another denial for the following reasons: Number of hand signed petitions attached ? Unknown number of phone calls/correspondence to NHC govt Public Comment 7 Form _ I _Number of phone calls, other communications with Robert Farrelts offi e Number of petitions signed online to DENY Attached information gathered from the intemet We residents of this county feet we are being taken advantage of by the developers and some government staff. This is disturbing our reasons for moving here and our love of wanting to stay here. This unbridled growth makes us more afraid of perilous STORMS. Visitors to the beaches are becoming disgruntled too. Please stop the rezoning and new construction along Carolina Beach Road. No one wants the job of being RE -ACTIVE by the toss of life. Liberty, and happiness where they We. Look what suddenly happened to Western North Carolina. Residents of New Hanover County, especially ?_8409, 28411, 841 , 28428. 28429.2844 � � � �C�R��, olz� ) na- 0 IN m Alk PM Land -Use and Development Moratoria David W. Owens January, 1997 Legal topic(s) Summary: One morning members of a county's board of commissioners began receiving calls from concerned citizens about a large, new rock quarry and stone -processing business that had just been announced for a residential area of their rural township. The citizens were concerned about noise, traffic, environmental effects, and potential negative impacts on their property values. The commissioners were sympathetic, but the county did not have zoning or other development regulations in place, and the proposed project was moving quickly. In a neighboring small town, the zoning administrator was being besieged with calls from downtown merchants concerned about a video arcade being installed in an abandoned building. They wanted to know if the town was going to allow this on a site they believed had inadequate parking, and they expressed considerable doubts about the wisdom of allowing such a use to be located downtown. The zoning administrator had to tell them that the town's twenty -year -old zoning ordinance did not address these concerns. And in the county seat, the city planning department received preliminary plats for four large subdivisions and a rezoning application for a new industrial concern and small shopping center. The jobs and extra housing these projects would bring would be welcome additions to the city, but there were concerns that this influx of development might overwhelm the capacity of the city's water and sewer system. Furthermore all of this development was being proposed for a part of the city where a major update of the land -use plan had recently been initiated. In response to the concerns raised by neighborhood groups about traffic, preservation of open space, and increasing commercial intrusions in residential areas, the planning board had concluded that the existing plan and zoning for this area were obsolete. Based on this recommendation the city council directed the planning department to initiate a major update of the land -use plan for this area, a process that would take six months to complete. The publicity about these impending changes in the plan and zoning ordinances no doubt was a key factor in the timing of the development applications, as several applicants told the planner that they had hastily put proposals together in order to beat any more restrictive standards that might be coming. In all three instances, the local government involved would like to consider putting a temporary hold on the proposed developments while they get their plans, ordinances, and public facilities straightened out. What planning tools are available to accomplish this? Do North Carolina localities have the authority to use them? If so, what procedures must be followed and what limitations must be observed? The answers to these questions are not entirely clear, because neither the North Carolina courts nor the legislature have directly addressed the matter. This article provides the background that should be considered by a local government contemplating a development moratorium. Interim Zoning Ordinances One approach a local government can take to temporarily preserve the status quo while longer term solutions are devised is to adopt an interim zoning ordinance. An interim zoning ordinance, sometimes called a stop -gap ordinance, is an ordinance that typically allows existing land uses to continue or expand and similar uses to be established. But it maintains the status quo by not allowing different uses to be established while a more detailed permanent zoning ordinance is being developed. Interim zoning differs from regular zoning in that it is adopted quickly, is not based on the thorough studies that underlie regular zoning, and is intended only to temporarily preserve current land uses, not designate areas suitable for long-term future development. Interim zoning is usually adopted where there was no previous zoning. Where zoning is already in place, portions of the city or county may be placed in temporary holding zones (such as allowing agriculture and large -lot residential use only) while the appropriate long-term zoning classifications are developed. Similarly, the text of a zoning ordinance may be amended to temporarily restrict certain uses in some or all of the city or county. Again, the feature that distinguishes this approach from regular zoning is the intended temporary nature of the restriction. Some states allow interim zoning ordinances to be adopted without going through the detailed public notice and other procedures required to adopt regular zoning ordinances. This is not the case in North Carolina. Despite their differing intent and purpose, interim and regular zoning are not legally different in North Carolina. The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that even zoning ordinances intended to be temporary in nature must follow all of the statutorily required procedures for zoning to be valid. An example was an attempt by the town of Waynesville in 1936 to prohibit the erection of a gasoline filling station on Main Street. An oil company leased a lot and obtained a building permit for the station. But before construction started, the town hastily passed a "zoning' ordinance that created one interim zone, which happened to consist only of the block that included this lot, and prohibited one use in that zone, not coincidentally filling stations. The supreme court in Shuford v. Town of Waynesville[l ] ruled that because the required zoning ordinance adoption procedures set by state law were not followed --there had been no public hearing, no comprehensive plan prepared, no planning board or board of adjustment established --the interim ordinance was not a valid zoning ordinance. An interim zoning ordinance can be adopted in North Carolina, but it must follow all the requirements for a regular zoning ordinance. This includes establishing a planning board, publishing two notices of a public hearing in successive weeks, and applying the ordinance comprehensively. Also if the interim ordinance is to automatically expire at a fixed date in the future, that fact needs to be included in the draft ordinance and public notice, as repeal of a zoning ordinance must follow all the same procedures as adoption or amendment.[2] Given the time required to draft such an ordinance, provide for appointment of a planning board and their review of the draft, provide the required public notice, and hold the mandated hearing, it is unlikely that a new interim zoning ordinance could be adopted by a North Carolina city or county in less than two to three months. An interim amendment to an existing ordinance could be adopted more quickly, as the planning board would already be in place. But even in this situation the public notice and hearing requirements for zoning amendments must be met, a process that takes several weeks. Moratoria Given the time required to adopt an interim zoning ordinance or amend an existing ordinance, local governments occasionally want to take more immediate action to put a hold on proposed projects or maintain the status quo while new regulations are being considered or new public improvements are put into place. Final decisions on major land -use policies should not be made hastily. The complexity of the issues, their controversial nature, the time required to conduct adequate studies and prepare plans, and the need to allow broad public participation in the debate mean that a careful and deliberate course often needs to be followed by the local government. Yet there may well be a need to keep problems from worsening during this period of consideration. The most frequently discussed means of securing this "breathing space" is adoption of an ordinance establishing a moratorium on certain approvals, or adoption of a resolution directing the local government's staff to cease processing applications for certain approvals. In North Carolina this has included moratoria on subdivision approvals, rezonings, building permits, and water and sewer hookups or extensions. In determining whether these development moratoria are legal in North Carolina, two questions must be resolved. First, is there adequate statutory authority to enact moratoria? Second, do moratoria violate landowners' constitutional or other legally protected rights? The state has the authority to exercise its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. In addition to specific authority for land -use regulation and the provision of public services, general police powers have been delegated by the state to cities and counties: A city may by ordinance define, prohibit, regulate, or abate acts, omissions,.or conditions, detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the city, and may define and abate nuisances.[3] Local governments also have been delegated the authority to regulate businesses and prohibit those that are nuisances or that may be inimical to the public health, welfare, safety, order, or convenience. In addition to this general police power, several statutes give local governments specific land -use and development regulatory authority. The zoning enabling acts grant cities and counties authority to regulate and restrict density of population and the location and use of land and buildings. Within zoning districts they may regulate and restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, and use of buildings and land for a variety of purposes, including preventing overcrowding, facilitating the adequate provision of public services, and promoting health, safety, and welfare. The subdivision statutes authorize regulations to provide for the orderly growth and development of cities and counties. Other more specific statutes authorize regulation of floodways, water supply watersheds, airport areas, places of amusement, and public health nuisances. The statutes are silent, however, as to local governments' specific authority to adopt development moratoria. The question then is whether these grants of authority to regulate and prohibit certain activities to protect the public health, safety, and welfare include the authority to adopt moratoria. For discretionary acts of the governing board, such as rezonings, they clearly do. A governing board is under no obligation to change its zoning, and it can withhold that approval as its sound judgment dictates. A moratorium on rezonings can be established by the governing board's refusal to adopt amendments to an existing, valid zoning ordinance. For nonregulatory matters, such as decisions on the extension of utility services or hookups to water and sewer systems, local governments can impose reasonable restrictions when necessary to respond to problems such as a lack of treatment capacity. For example, recently the city of Jacksonville successfully defended in the federal courts a moratorium on multi -family sewer hookups imposed due to a lack of wastewater treatment capacity.[4] Authority to impose moratoria on the approval of existing required development permits --temporarily suspending regulatory approvals such as building permits or plat approvals --is less certain. The main reason for this uncertainty is the standard that is used to interpret delegation of state authority to local governments. If the traditional rule of strict interpretation is applied, a court would have to determine whether the power to adopt a moratorium is implied either in the general grants of power discussed above or the land -use enabling statutes, as North Carolina's statutes do not explicitly delegate the authority to adopt moratoria. While a substantial majority of courts considering this question in other states have ruled that such power is implied, several have ruled that it is not.[5] Considering the legislative mandate adopted by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1971 that local governments' powers are to be broadly construed to include supplementary powers that are expedient to carrying out expressly granted powers, it is likely that North Carolina's courts will hold that cities and counties do have the authority to adopt reasonably limited development moratoria. Because local governments have been granted both general authority to prohibit acts detrimental to the public welfare and specific authority to regulate land use, supplementary authority for development moratoria is an expedient, and occasionally necessary, power. This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the North Carolina Supreme Court has long granted considerable leeway to legislative determinations as to how delegated powers are carried out.[6] This judicial deference should extend to a city or county governing board's reasonable determination that a moratorium is needed to protect the public health and safety. Even so, a solid connection needs to be established linking the need for a moratorium to the specific or general powers of local government to regulate land use and development. For example, there may be a need to temporarily prevent new land uses that would create public health and safety problems due to a lack of water, sewer, transportation, waste disposal, schools, or other necessary public services.[7] There may be situations where a.moratorium is needed to address an unanticipated threat to the most appropriate use of land in the city[8] or county, or to prevent the establishment of land uses that would be inconsistent with pending zoning,[9] historic preservation,[10] or watershed protection measures. It may be important for a local government to carefully specify whether it is relying on the general police power or the zoning enabling act for its statutory authority for a moratorium. This is important because there are different procedural requirements that may have to be met depending upon which choice of underlying authority is used. Courts in some states have required all mandatory notice and procedural requirements for zoning ordinances to be followed if zoning rather than the general police power is used as the underlying statutory authorization for moratoria. If the North Carolina courts were to take this tack, the degree of the urgency of the problem generating the need for a moratorium is likely to be the key factor to be considered in choosing which statutory authority should be used. For those problems that present a substantial threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, the more expedited procedures for general police power ordinances are warranted. Where the problem is more routine, the basic land - use authority and procedures are appropriate. In those situations where a local government has the statutory authority to impose a moratorium, care must be taken to exercise that authority in a constitutionally sound manner. There are two key provisions in the state constitution that require moratoria to be carefully limited. Article 1, Section 1, provides that citizens have the inalienable right to the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and Article 1, Section 19, provides that no person shall be deprived of their property but by the law of the land. In interpreting these provisions the supreme court has ruled that restrictions on businesses and property use are valid only if they are (1) established for a purpose falling within the scope of the police power and (2) actually and reasonably adapted to accomplish that legitimate purpose. To meet this standard a moratorium must have a rational, real, or substantial relation to one or more of the purposes for which the police power is exercised and must not be unreasonable or oppressive in its operation.[1 1] Therefore a moratorium should be based on a clearly documented need and should have a carefully limited duration that is based on the time it takes to address the reasons for its imposition. Also the moratorium should be neither overly nor underly broad; it should address all of the land uses that generated the need for the moratorium but no others.[12] A related question that bears on the reasonableness of a moratorium is the extent to which lawful businesses can be subject to moratoria. One older North Carolina case held that a general ordinance may not permanently prohibit a lawful use throughout a city.[13] Because moratoria adopted under the general police power ordinances must apply uniformly throughout the jurisdiction and should apply equally to existing and future uses, this holding emphasizes the importance of a limited duration for a moratorium. Failure to observe this limitation resulted in the attempted gas station moratorium in the Shuford case being ruled invalid. Another limitation on moratoria is the extent to which they can be applied to projects that are already underway. Once a project has received a building permit or substantial expenditures have been made in good faith reliance on a valid governmental approval, that project can generally be completed as approved. Also the 1990 General Assembly adopted legislation, effective October 1, 1991, that will allow landowners to submit development plans that, if approved by the local government, will lock in the existing zoning regulations on the type and intensity of land uses for up to five years. An exception to these rules on vested rights is present if there is a strong public interest in having the proposed development comply with the newly adopted ordinance. For example, a Winston (now Winston-Salem) ordinance adopted to protect the public health and safety by prohibiting wooden buildings in the congested central part of town was upheld by the state supreme court in 1894 even though it caused suspension of previously contracted work.[14]. Finally, a question arises as to whether moratoria constitute an impermissible taking of property without compensation. The takings clause of the United States Constitution has been interpreted to mean that if a regulation is found to be an unconstitutional taking, even temporarily, compensation must be paid to the landowner. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that this does not apply to normal delays in obtaining building permits, variances, or amendments to zoning ordinances. Whether a moratorium of reasonably limited duration is a "normal delay" is an open question. Courts in other states recently have L7 held that moratoria ranging from six to eighteen months while plans were being prepared were not unconstitutional takings.[15] In any event, a moratorium adopted to prevent either a serious public safety problem or the establishment of a noxious use is not a taking. Conclusions It is likely that North Carolina local governments have the statutory authority to impose temporary development moratoria, though a firm conclusion on this question must await legislation or litigation. This can be done as an interim zoning ordinance if the full statutory procedures for zoning are followed. A moratorium also can be adopted by ordinance as a general police power regulation if it is needed for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare. It is important for a local government considering a moratorium to carefully tailor it to address the particular problem at hand in order for the action to be reasonable. Care should be exercised in determining the urgency of the need, with use of a moratorium limited to those situations where there is a pressing public need for action that cannot be reasonably addressed in any other way. Moratoria should not be used to address routine land -use issues, as normal zoning and related land -use tools can adequately handle such issues. A moratorium should have an explicitly limited duration, with its length being reasonably related to the time it is expected to take the local government to address the problem that led to adoption of the moratorium. For example, it would be unreasonable to have a two-year moratorium when its purpose is to maintain the status quo for six months while a plan and rezoning are considered. However, if it will take an estimated two years to plan and construct a necessary wastewater treatment plant expansion, it would be reasonable to have a two-year moratorium on sewer hookups. The notion of an explicitly limited duration of moratoria has been a critical factor in a number of court decisions upholding moratoria, as the courts have been willing to sanction temporary restrictions imposed in response to urgent needs that would not be allowed as permanent measures. An ordinance establishing a moratorium should be as specific as is possible as to its cause, duration, geographic coverage, and subject matter coverage. There should be no vagueness as to what is being regulated. For example, it should be clear whether a moratorium applies to new land uses only or also to expansions or replacement of existing uses. Lastly, it is important that action be initiated to address the problem leading to the moratorium. The moratorium itself cannot be the answer or solution. It should only be used as a good faith means of providing the time for a reasonable long-term solution --be it new plans, ordinances, or public improvements --to be developed and put into place. The three situations cited at the beginning of this article illustrate the importance of carefully considering these factors before imposing a moratorium. In all three instances, zoning and other land - use ordinances could be adopted or amended on an interim basis to address the concerns while more permanent solutions are devised. But the full statutory process must be followed and that takes time. A moratorium may or may not be warranted in the three cases to hold the line while this is done. In the rock quarry situation, the potential impacts on traffic, environmental quality, property values, and the character of the surrounding rural community create an urgency that would likely justify a temporary moratorium under the general police power on building permits for mines and quarries. But the �ir "���� ■..� � ��� ill! _ _ 1 r a governing board would need to do this by ordinance, carefully considering and documenting the potential impacts of inaction. The board also would need to design and embark on a course of action while the moratorium is in place to more fully study the issue and develop appropriate land -use regulations. The board also would need to limit the duration of the moratorium to a reasonable period for doing this. The video arcade situation, on the other hand, while of real concern to the neighboring businesses, is less likely to present a level of urgency sufficient to justify a general police power moratorium. Questions such as the adequacy of off-street parking requirements are more properly addressed by normal ordinance updates. A normal zoning text amendment, not a building permit moratorium, is the best course of action for this situation.[16] The question of exactly when a newly realized problem rises to the level of urgency to warrant a moratorium is a judgment call that must be made by local elected officials. The subdivision and shopping center is an intermediate situation, but in all likelihood a subdivision plat and rezoning moratorium would be warranted. Action was initiated by the city to address concerns with traffic, open space, and community character. A limited moratorium to preserve the status quo in order to allow public debate would prevent a rush to develop in ways that may be inconsistent with the resulting plan. The more difficult question here is whether a degree of urgency sufficient to justify use of a general police power moratorium exists or whether the zoning and subdivision ordinances should be amended to impose a temporary moratorium. This question generally is left to the judgment of the city's elected officials. The water and sewer shortage, if documented, would further establish a clear public health and safety basis for a moratorium and thereby further support use of the expedited general police power process. In sum, development moratoria serve an important purpose no other land -use management tool can accomplish. They allow a temporary freeze on development activity while rational, long term solutions to urgent problems can be developed, publicly debated, and implemented. Adopting a moratorium is a serious step for a local government. Moratoria should be judiciously employed, carefully limited, and supported by adequate planning and legal study of each particular instance for which its use is considered. If a local government does this in its careful consideration of a moratorium, its use is legally defensible in North Carolina. Notes 1. 214 N.C. 135,198 S.E. 585 (1938). See also Bizzell v. Board of Aldermen of City of Goldsboro, 192 N.C. 364, 135 S.E. 58 (1926). Courts in other states have allowed interim zoning while comprehensive zoning was being prepared. See, e.g., Miller v. Board of Pub. Works, 195 Cal. 477, 234 P. 381 (1925), error dismissed, 273 U.S. 781 (1927). Several states explicitly give local governments statutory authority to adopt interim zoning ordinances. For more information on this subject, see Robert Anderson, American Law of Zoning, 3d ed. (Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co., 1986), vol. 1 § 5.24; Annotation, "Validity and Effect of'Interim' Zoning Ordinance," 30 A.L.R.3d 1196 (1970). 2. Sofran v. City of Greensboro, 327 N.C. 125, 393 S.E.2d 767 (1990); Orange County v. Heath, 278 N.C. 688,180 S.E.2d 810 (1971). 3. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-174(a) (hereinafter the General Statutes will be cited as G.S.). The comparable county statute is G.S. 153A-121. In addition, authority for several other specific types of regulations also are set forth in the statutes at G.S. 160A-178 to -197 and G.S. 153A- 125. The enumeration of specific areas of potential regulation is not exclusive or a limiting factor on the general police power. G.S. 160A- 177, 153A-124. 4. McCauley v. City of Jacksonville, 739 F. Supp. 278 (1989), affd per curiam, 904 F.2d 700 (1990). See also G.S. 143-215.3(a)(8) and-215.3(a)(12) regarding the state's authority to impose moratoria on construction and operation of new or additional waste treatment systems and on new pollution sources. 5. Courts in twenty-three of the twenty-nine other states that have considered the question of implied statutory authority for moratoria have ruled that such authority is included in the general police power or municipal home rule charters, and three of the six holding that there was inadequate authority upheld at least some form of moratoria. Edward Ziegler, Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning and Planning (New York: Clark Boardman Company, Ltd., 1990), vol. 1 § 11.03. 6. Broadnax v. Groom, 64 N.C. 244 (1870). See also State v. Warren, 252 N.C. 690,114 S.E.2d 660 (1960); Rosenthal v. City of Goldsboro, 149 N.C. 128, 62 S.E. 905 (1908). 7. See, e.g., Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal. 3d 582, 557 P.2d 473 (1976) (schools, sewer, and water capacity); Metro Realty v. County of El Dorado, 222 Cal. App. 2d 508, 35 Cal. Rptr. 480 (1963) (water supply); Charles v. Diamond, 41 N.Y.2d 318,360 N.E.2d 1295 (1977) (sewer capacity). 8. See, e.g., SCA Chemical Waste Serv. v. Konigsberg, 636 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1982). 9. See, e.g., Sherman v. Reavis, 273 S.C. 542, 257 S.E.2d 735 (1979). 10. See, e.g., City of Dallas v. Crownrich, 506 S.W.2d 654 Ct. App. 1974). 11. An ordinance may not, for example, declare a lawful land use to be a nuisance when it is not necessarily in fact a nuisance. Barger v. Smith, 156 N.C. 323 (1911). Where there is an arguable public benefit of the regulation, the judicial trend has been to defer to legislative judgment and allow the regulation. Poor Richards, Inc. v. Stone, 322 N.C. 61, 366 S.E.2d 697 (1988); A-S-P Assoc. v. City of Raleigh, 298 N.C. 207, 258 S.E.2d 444 (1979); Smith v. Keator, 285 N.C. 530, 206 S.E.2d 203 (1974); State v. Warren, 252 N.C. 690, 114 S.E.2d 660 (1960). 12. Ordinances in North Carolina have been invalidated both when they regulated one land use but unreasonably exempted very similar uses [Cheek v. City of Charlotte, 273 N.C. 293, 160 S.E.2d 18 (1968)] and when they regulated more uses than necessary to meet the stated purpose of the ordinance [Treants Enter., Inc. v. Onslow County, 320 N.C. 776, 360 S.E.2d 783 (1987)]. For an example of a moratorium being invalidated due to a failure to observe a reasonable fixed length, see Deal Gardens, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Village of Loch Arbor, 48 N.J. 492, 226 A.2d 607 (1967). 13. Kass v. Hedgepeth, 226 N.C. 405, 38 S.E.2d 164 (1946). See also State v. Bass, 171 N.C. 780, 87 S.E. 972 (1916). 14. State v. Johnson, 114 N.C. 846, 19 S.E. 599 (1894). See also McCauley v. City of Jacksonville, 739 F. Supp. 278 (1978), affd per curiam, 904 F.2d 700 (1990); Angelo v. City of Winston-Salem, 193 N.C. 207, 136 S.E. 489 (1926); Small v. Councilmen of Edenton, 146 N.C. 527, 60 S.E. 413 (1908). 15. Zilbter v. Town of Moraga, 692 F. Su pp. 1195 (N.D. Cal. 1988); S.E.W. Friel v. Triangle Oil Co., 76 'Md. App. 96, 543 A.2d 863 (1988) (nine -month zoning approval moratorium); Noghrey v. Acampora, 543 N.Y.S.2d 530 (App. Div. 1989) (six-month moratorium). 16. However, in a somewhat analogous situation, a federal court upheld a ten -and -a -half -month moratorium on fast food restaurants imposed by New Orleans to protect a "picturesque, stable, historically important" neighborhood while ordinance revisions were considered. Schafer v. City of New Orleans, 743 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1984). See also McDonald's Corp. v. Village of Elmsford, 156 A.D.2d 687, 549 N.Y.S.2d 448 (1989) (twelve-month moratorium on fast food restaurants upheld). AccessibiliV UNC Privacy Policy Knapp -Sanders Building Campus Box 3330, UNC Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330 T:919.966.5381 1 F:919.962.0654 © Copyright 2025, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This website 'portcitydaily.com' would like to send push notifications Home > Latest News &Ilow Close Powered by VushEngaae 'Nature's solution to flooding': cooper signs sweeping conservation, wetlands protection executive order By Peter Castagno February 15, 2024 Governor Roy Cooper signed an executive order its office describes as the most ambitious environmental executive action in state history. (Courtesy Port City Daily) NORTH CAROLINA — Governor Roy Cooper signed an executive order this week his office describes as the most ambitious environmental restoration executive action in state history — but questions remain as to how it will interact with conflicting state laws. More on Port City Formoir Edwa -0 Tea aji 4rewery owns arreste d €6r assault of r6st t employee pages eft I Sign In I Subscribe This website'portcitydaily.com' would like to send push notifications Close Powered by VushEnaA READ MORE:'Not paying attention to history': Environmentalists concerned over loosened wetlands rules The order directs the state to support new and ongoing conservation projects, avoid or minimize developments that would adversely impact wetlands, directs state agencies to pursue federal funding to protect and restore wetlands, and calls the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources to research the impact of climate change on the state's biodiversity. It also sets new statewide targets for 2040, including: Permanently conserve 1 million new acres of natural lands with an emphasis on wetlands. Restore 1 million new acres of forests and wetlands. Plant! million new trees in urban areas. 0 ry owner arreste nployee Sign In Subscribe private property owners among many others." "Land in areas like North Carolina's Seventh District where storms can bring heavy rain and water often lingers for short periods of time could easily be classified as a 'wetland' depending on the viewpoint of the bureaucrat making the judgment;" Rouzer said in a statement. The House and Senate passed the Rouzer-Graves resolution before President Biden ry owner arreste nployee Sign Iii I Subscribe t 0, A 0 While Cooper's recent executive order is not a law, it has authcrity to impose a course of action on agencies within the executive branch of government. It remains to be seen how the General Assembly will react to the EO after passing the Farm Act. Asbill told PCD she thought it could indicate to the legislators there is broad public support for stronger wetlands protections, with the hope they would introduce a revised bill. ry owner arreste nployee Sign In I Subscribe J Dickey Sugg of the USACE Wilmington district's regulatory division said he did not know how the order might impact development but recommended inquiring with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality; DEQ did not respond to PCD's inquiry by press. In September 2023, the DEQ's Division of Water Resources (DWR) issued a memo for permittees confirming isolated wetlands would no longer require permits for development so Iona as thev have received annroval from USACE that the wetlands ry owner arreste nployee Sign In I S� bscribe 5 Wood fears diminished regulations would allow developer -hired environmental consultants to determine wetland delineations rather than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He is concerned they could "skew the data" to encourage development in vulnerable areas. On Wednesday, Wood told PCD he believed some of the governor's executive order is "posturing" but thought aspects of it strengthened the case for natural resource nrotpction for human henPfit and cost savinas from avoiding huildina in flood-nronp ry owner arreste nployee Sign In I Subscnbe �) (Q STAFF REPORT FOR Z25-14 CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: Z25-14 Request: Rezoning to a Conditional R-5 district Applicant: Property Owner(s): Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions Giovanni Ippolito & Tanya Vlancancich Location: Acreage: 6634 Carolina Beach Road 4.56 PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R08200-001-036-000 Community Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Vacant Wooded Land 36 Attached Single -Family Homes Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: R-15, Residential (CZD) R-5, Residential Moderate -High Density ZONING North G/e+tarthur pr � o `1t lr � A Site F` m t 2' ZONING G lenarthor` R-15 D, Q Z25-14 SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North Religious Institution (Lighthouse Shining Ministries) R-15 East Single -Family Residential R-15 South Single -Family Residential R-15 West Single -Family Residential & Religious Institution (Myrtle Grove First Born Holiness Church) R-15 Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 1 of 16 DQ �1' h.LL.du' CIS f>_ Mtn +o CAea.r We_rLA tj 65 — rt.,00 o nei — gut �oz V\ qf X0 ZONING HISTORY April 7, 1971 Initially zoned R-15 (Area 4) January 9, 2023 - Withdrawn Z22-18 request to rezone from R-15 to (CZD) RMF-M for a 78-unit multi - family development. May 1, 2023 - Denial Z23-06 request to rezone from R-15 to (CZD) RMF-M for a 64-unit multi - family development. July 22, 2024 - Withdrawn Z24-08 request to rezone from R-15 to (CZD) RMF-M for a 64-unit multi - family development - Withdrawn at the Board of Commissioners hearing. COMMUNITY SERVICES CFPUA public water and sewer is available through extensions of public Water/Sewer utility mains. Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Southern Fire District, New Hanover County Federal Point Station 19 Schools Anderson Elementary, Murray Middle, and Ashley High Schools Q Recreation Veterans Park and Hanover Pines Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation No known conservation resources Historic No known historic resources Archaeological No known archaeological resources Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 2 of 16 X,ag' APPLICANT'S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN Attached Dwellings �'' Proposed North ; -- -- A i �`\, y .. Turn Lane J f 8 T E 5 4 3 2 1Vr J 9 ek 1 14 ,..� 3 1 34 I� r 32 31 330 17 Or 19 20 23 ( Y 24 4. Type A ::. Fenced BufferWetlands r Stormwater I. .. ulf.1'arlhur Urive 2346 Gle `... - narthur Drive z �,j7 ' ��d;: -: t (>. ?>r2?,�1 % Pr<3; J .: 7! lLsCft✓S.ii"t�ff �`��c�.'`a') : ;' ��� y fir- Sc'lJfita n exce S c + N.� p I / eA zeanfn ¢/ l'lg, /l1 tS a� P/amq 11 � U Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 3 of 16 560ketpplicant proposes to construct a maximum 36 unit attached single-family development. While the concept plan shows quadraplex dwellings, staff has included a condition to allow Triplex, Duplex, and Dual -Unit Attached dwelling units to allow flexibility in design. *` _The site is served by a single driveway access on Carolina Beach Road into a circular internal�,�° ck-ive with sidewalks on both sides of the road. Most of the units are on the outer perimeter )`of the drive with the units facing towards the center of the site. Two sets of quadraplexes are along the inside of the drive facing south and west. • Four areas for additional off-street guest parking are provided along the drive, which is in addition to the vehicle parking provided at each dwelling unit. A condition has been included guaranteeing the additional off-street parking. The concept plan also includes a tree retention area in the c nter of the site. A c ndition has S�v�b been included guaranteeing the area for tree retention.: L; 9 A public access easement is proposed along the frontage with Carolina Beach Road to allow ` future bicycle and pedestrian access A condition has been i cluded guaranteeing the easement. 5 • The units along the western and southern boundary vary in distance between 20 to 50 feet from the property lines. The concept plan proposes the retention of existing vegetation within A the 20-foot perimeter setback and the addition of an eight -foot -tall privacy fence along the yet northern, western, and southern property boundaries where the proposed houses are adjacent to existing development. • The stormwater is oriented towards the southeastern portion of the site near an area -tv i identified as a wetland. While a public drainage easement is proposed in the wetia no other part of the project is proposed in the wetland area. rv� I ZONING CONSIDERATIONS I The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the time, the purpose of the district was to ensure housing served by private well and septic would be developed at low densities. Since that time, public and private water and sewer utilities have become available in the area. • The Carolina Beach Road corridor remains primarily zoned and developed for low density housing. However, the corridor has seen increased interest in higher density residential and higher intensity commercial development such as the Myrtle Landing residential development to the north and the Coral Ridge Subdivision to the south of the site. The R-5 district was established to provide land that accommodates moderate to high density residential development on smaller lots with a compact and walkable development pattern. The district allows a range of housing types and can be developed in conjunction with a non- residential district to create a mixed -use development pattern as well as serve as a transition between mixed -use or commercial development and low to moderate density, residential development. As currently zoned the site would be permitted up to 12 dwelling units at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre under performance residential standards. The proposed 36 units is an t� Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 4 of 16 overall maximum density of eig Knits per cre, the maximum allowed in the R-5 zoning district. f` fi' / P • While the maximum buildi'height in bot/h`thh . -115 and R-5 district is 40 feet, the applicant has included a condition7appiog`fhe max ir rGm height of the development at 35 feet tall. • A Type A opaque buffer is required along the western and southern property lines adjacent to single-family residential. The applicant has included a condition guaranteeing Type A opaque buffer Option 3 which requires both a vegetative buffer and a fence where the N D proposed dwellings are adjacent to existing homes. The area adjacent to the stormwater pond will require a Type A buffer however the applicant has not specified a buffer option. A condition also requires existing trees to be retained on site to count towards the required buffer. • The UDO requires a minimum of two parking spaces for most dwelling unit types. The application states each dwelling unit will have a one -car garage and two parking spaces. The concept plan also includes 16 additional parking spaces throughout the site. The applicant has agreed to conditions guaranteeing the additional parking. • Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the circular road meeting the ordinance requirement for sidewalks in the R-5 district. • The UDO states the maximum illumination levels at the common property line with residential properties shall not exceed 0.5-foot candles and 1.0-foot candles along the northern property line adjacent to the church. In addition, the applicant has included a condition restricting the maximum height of light poles to 16 feet tall. • If approved, the project would be subject to the Technical Review Com ttee and zoning „Q compliance review processes to ensure full co.mpliV��, wK0l*l5(ditLi�ii uirmecf U' specific conditions included in the approval. , 25 _.� be F) ) -") i C� e �V'q( re � ri �/ a �k l VVI ``� �f= r(C t 5 `� rips � � � �0 � j'� fie. � �Q � `. A.,, w � 1' �cg a t.L,41 k LVX:d ZGt'1 U b-� Ce nonj N'° �r ���1` 1 noes �_ C 1 ���is S ,r! (o c -e Gil ct � C�h1!0It- 4V S �, . he r s... 1 g e.__.e. , , r• w Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 5 of 16 AREA DEVELOPMENTS Case Site �' `' ��-'� �• , ` .;': r -tea Masonboro Commons .c Norrn Nearby Approved • .114 -%II - Residential Rezoning `' frr?' i' Starbucks Nearby Approved _ _ Sheetz Gas Mixed Use Rezoning Golden Rd _. Nearby Approved Commercial Rezoning Approved TIA -IA _ � •� , a _ji l� � "' Pad � t`j - � 03 L- -ILLX. -14 L 6800 Caoli Bayat Bch Rd Mixed Use j r i r . 1 LL ^T is r ^.._.L 1 Mile Radius _..w_.__.71 Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 6 of 16 TRANSPORTATION Site Access = _. _ -- t Te DriveSago•BIy:Drive .� E °o Halya�s�oc � - E Burroughs +-____ �`� � Access $ _ --=Dri �e From Carolina Beach t J; - - 1 �L" Gleh�_Y. _i { arthur 1 _o o i 1 �riv �, e Q- C $.. ancr6ft ' �. o Q ate: iQ Q` Ve X. t —Myrtle.Landing c ar North -Place FIT,, — f Proposed Entrance Site U-Turn for North Bound Travel k— All �rypress�illage�; Place ` — SO— Road i alwalk — Primary Access — — _ - CURRENT CONDITIONS Intensity of Current Zoning Typical development under current zoning would allow a maximum of 12 single-family dwelling units. PROPOSED ACCESS. Primary Access Carolina Beach Road Secondary Access I ii N/A .-� U EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Affected Roadway Carolina Beach Road Type of Roadway NCDOT major arterial Z25-1 A Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 7 of 16 Roadway Planning Capacity 33,000 (AADT) Latest Traffic Volume (AADT) 41,368 (2023) Latest WMPO Point -in -Time 33,723 (2024) Count (DT) Current Level of Congestion Over Capacity NEARBY NCDOT STIP ROADAWAY PROJECTS No Nearby STIP Projects TRAFFIC GENERATION Traffic Generated Potential Traffic Generated by by Proposed Impact of Present Designation D Designation Proposed Designation AM Peak Hour Trips 8 17 +9 PM Peak Hour Trips 11 21 +10 Typical Development with Existing Conditions - 12 single family Assumptions detached dwellings Proposed Development - 36-unit multi -family development r Sources Source of Trip Generation: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Ed. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). SUMMARY The proposed project is located along a major arterial highway that is currently over capacity. However, the anticipated increase in traffic compared to what is allowed under current zoning is minimal. Access to the site is planned just north of the Lord's Creek community entrance, with improvements proposed to extend the existing right -turn lane into that neighborhood. The nearest U-turn for northbound traffic is approximately 1,800 feet south of the site. While the applicant is providing a public access easement for future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, there are currently not any alternative transportation options in the area. Currently, no State Transportation Improvement Projects (STIP) are planned in the immediate area to address existing traffic conditions. The project peak hour traffic for this development is below the 100-trip threshold that triggers a Traffic Impact An lysis, but NCDOT will review the project through the driveway permitting process. While several higher -traffic developments along the corridor that required TIAs are under review or construction, their traffic studies did not account for this project specifically but were designed to reflect overall traffic growth in the area. Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 8 of 16 ENVIRONMENTAL The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area or Special Flood Hazard Area. The property is within the Lords Creek watershed. • The New Hanover County Conservation Resources map indicates there are no conservation resources on the property. • Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the property consist of Class I (suitable), Class II (moderate limitation), Class III (severe limitation), and approximately 0.02 acres of Class IV (Unsuitable) soils. The project proposes to connect to CFPUA public water and sewer. • The Class IV soils correspond with the area of wetland shown on the concept plan. The US Army Corps of Engineers stated the wetland area is a jurisdictional wetland. However, unless the project has any impact on the wetland, no permit is required from the Corps. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Schools PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT ZONES Elementary School Anderson Elementary 2024-2025 Capacity 910,E Middle School Murray Middle 2024-2025 Capacity 102% High School Ashley High 2024-2025 Capacity 99.7% STUDENT GENERATION RATES (SGRs) Overall SGR (24-25) 0.19 public school students per residential unit Elementary School SGR (24-25) 0.08 public sch,,bol students per residential unit Middle School SGR (24-25) 0.04 public school students per residential unit High School SGR (24-25) 0.07 public school students per residential unit Local Elementary SGR (24-25) 0.11 -Higher 6n the County -Wide Generation Rate SGR Trend (20-21 to 24-25) Decrease of 0.05 public school students per residential unit Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 9 of 16 POTENTIAL PROJECT STUDENT IMPACT Intensity of Current Zoning: Typical Development under current zoning would allow a maximum of 11 residential units. Proposed Development: 36 residential units Students Students Potential Impact Generated by .Generated by of Proposed Current Zoning proposed Zoning Project Elementary School 1 3 +2 Middle School 0 1 +1 High School 1 3 +2 TOTAL 2 7 +5 Sources 2024-2025 NHC Student Yield Analysis SUMMARY The proposed project is anticipated to be built out within five years, and currently, the middle school that serves this area is over capacity and the high school is nearing capacity. The generation rate for the Anderson Elementary School area is higher than the county -wide generation rate, however the students generated by the proposed development are minimal and should have a limited impact on the area's public schools. r "e_ a Qj c r 7 ,r;-r>C . c��a ✓ran i/ Qrr, J1 VD U Ci.t/1�Gt V1 GL— Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 10 of 16 New Hanover County Strategic Plan On July 17, 2023 the Board of Commissioners adopted a new strategic plan for Fiscal Years 2024-2028. This plan focuses on three core areas: workforce, and economic development, community safety and well-being, and sustainable land use and environmental stewardship. Strategic Plan Outcomes Relevant to Proposal Analysis The strategic objective to achieve this desired outcome includes the provision of a variety of housing options. The proposed CZD R-5 rezoning will provide new attached single-family Through planned growth and development, homes in an area of the county that is largely residents have access to their basic needs. single-family, detached and can aid in achieving the target of increasing the housing supply to level of one residential unit per every two residents. _ n ..�. i LA) vt. 4 O.V- . GtL while wetl n have been identified on site the Natural areas and critical environmental project does not opose any construction in the features are enhanced and protected. wetland areas. itionally, the project proposes 25.2% open s ce, 5.2 percent more than the minimum requi d for performance residential developments. 6.eaj n+o mo r<, .-�- s� den VA n�,J44sgv',"_4 _ro Oro [11�6► t, cru. h a� a i s t 5 't, r� �o >� a-LS u1 o ri ' yam, -� ��, 11 cara(•4 love, vIn . Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 11 of 16 Representative Developments Representative Developments of R-15: Woods Edge in MonkeyJuncdlon ���►rr-h'�ft�p�in fv�or��F�e�fJr�;lctrUr7 Z25-1A Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 12 of 16 Representative Development of Attached Single Family Development: Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 13 of 16 Context and Compatibility J+ This parcel has been the subject of three prior rezoning requests for multi -family Ill) development. The first request was for a density of 17 dwelling units per acre and two requests for 14 dwelling units per acre. Public comments at those public hearings expressed concern about the building height, traffic impacts, density, and housing type. The property is located along Carolina Beach Road bordered by detached single-family / residential development to the west and south, with a church to the north. The site does not r have access to other portions of the road network and is proposed with a single right- -out access to the highway. v 4 c" The Carolina Beach Road corridor has historically been developed as lower density detached single-family homes. The site is currently a wooded lot separating Lords Creek and the highway.'�� Q,�Lda • Although it lies just south of Veterans Park and nearby schools, the nearest U-turn for northbound traffic is approximately 1,800 feet south of the site. While the applicant is providing a public access easement for future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, there are currently not any alternative transportation options in the area. • Given the parcel size and direct access to Carolina Beach Road, it is not anticipated to be developed for low -density, detached single-family housing. • The application includes attached single-family housing with several conditions intended to reduce potential impacts on adjacent parcels by reducing the building height below what is Aa i allowed in the R-5 district and below what is allowed in the surrounding R-15 district, �! preserved existing trees and natural areas as buffers, and lighting restrictions. 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for New Hanover County's future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be interpreted as being parcel specific. LAND USE North G1eRa�hur• Drr d 1 � Site o gd��rgrO"� Future Land Use m _w ,wt GENERAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY MIXED USE r ._�. ;;4T' it j.earth ur Dr o Z2514 , Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 14 of 16 Proposed Conditions 1. In addition to the quadraplex units shown on the concept plan the following dwelling unit types are permitted: a. Triplex Dwelling b. Duplex Dwelling c. Dual -Unit Attached Dwelling 2. Each dwelling unit shall have a one -car garage and a minimum of two exterior parking spaces on a private driveway parking pad. A minimum of 16 additional vehicle parking spaces shall be provided in addition to the vehicle parking provided for each unit. 3. Structures shall have a maximum building height of 35 feet. 4. The proposed right -turn lane must be approved and permitted by NCDOT. Changes to the concept plan to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved administratively by county staff. 5. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading along a minimum 15-foot offset from the rear boundary of the tract. No disturbance of existing vegetation or grading will be permitted within that buffer strip. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum eight -foot -tall solid wood screening fence shall be installed along that 15-foot buffer yard. 6. Prior to detailed design and permitting, a Certified Arborist will inventory any existing Significant and Specimen trees within the central courtyard for health and viability. After clearing of underbrush and any damaged or dead trees, protection fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of proposed preservation area, prior to the onset of land clearing and grading elsewhere on the site. Those existing trees, along with other regulated trees will be protected as a natural grove meeting the county's tree protection standards. 7. Exterior luminaries, including security lighting, shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward in compliance with Figure 5.5.4.0 Full Cut-off Fixtures of the Unified Development Ordinance. Light posts shall be no taller than 16 feet. Alternative Motion for DENIAL (if based on information presented at the public hearing or other consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.) I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed housing type and density is within the range recommended by the Community Mixed Use place type, I find RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project places the attached dwelling units too close to existing single-family development. Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 16 of 16 Future Land Use Community Mixed Use Map Place Type Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve Place Type all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors. Description Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi -family and single-family residential. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Mixed Use, a land use classification that promotes a mix of retail, office, and residential development at moderate densities up to 15 units per acre. This place type is generally intended for community -level service nodes or transitional areas between lower density housing and higher intensity development, specifically identifying the Carolina Beach Road corridor as appropriate for higher - intensity development. Analysis At eight dwelling units per acre, the proposed maximum density for the site is within the density recommendation of the place type. Given the parcel size and direct access to Carolina Beach Road, it is not anticipated to be developed for low -density, detached single-family housing. Additional conditions related to building height, landscape buffers, tree retention, and lighting are intended to both mimic the surrounding development pattern and reduce impacts on adjacent parcels. The proposed (CZD) R-5 district is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed housing type and density is within Consistency the range recommended by the Community Mixed Use place type, and the Recommendation project includes additional conditions to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffs recommendation is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning considerations, and technical review. This parcel has been the subject of three prior rezoning requests for multi -family development. The proposed project reduces the density to eight dwelling units per acre compared to prior requests and proposes an attached housing type. Additional conditions have also been provided intended to mitigate potential impacts on surrounding properties. As a result, Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests the following motion: I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed housing type and density is within the range recommended by the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed conditions can mitigate potential impacts on neighboring development. Z25-14 Staff Report PB 8.7.2025 Page 15 of 16 z-AK N L _ .O ,i � 'J N 0 � C o a Rd each C a�O�Xna C •= Ln O N V— CLVI r C) V x uu GG r J V 0 �r M iwr \\ ..�_._._..__.h. _.._....__.._ v Q •� O W J � Q : 40 � Z UJ Z W N i z Z O .6. W U. LA V N ■New Hanover County Strategic Plan OIL The Model of Good Governance A vibrant, prosperous, diverse coastal community committed to building a sustainable future for generations to come Workforce &&' Economic Development Residents are provided equitable opportunities to connect to education and highly skilled employment. A business -friendly environment that promotes growth, agility, and collaboration. New Hanover County is committed to providing equitable opportunities and exceptional public services through good governance to ensure a safe, healthy, secure and thriving community for all. Community Focused Outcomes yy� Community Safety & Well-being Every resident has access to services that support their physical health and mental well-being. The community supports a life that mitigates health and safety risks. Sustainable Land Use & Environmental Stewardship Through planned growth and development, residents have access to their basic needs. Natural areas and critical environmental features are enhanced and protected. Resilient infrastructure drives Residents feel supported and Cultural amenities that enhance economic growth and opportunities, connected to their community. quality of place are safeguarded. CountyThe Foundation of Good Governance Effective •ng Financial Performance ResponsibleStewardship • Continuous focus on the customer experience • Minimize taxes and fees • Reduce carbon footprint at our facilities • Increase transparency • Proactively manage the . Reduce carbon footprint and awareness about county budget of our fleet county actions • Plan for the long-term • Deliver quality service at financial health of the county • Utilize innovative energy the right time solutions Internal Business Processes • rganizational Capacity • Provide equitable, effective, and efficient . Hire and retain people committed to public customer -driven practices service • Align services and programs with strategic priorities • Communicate what the county does and why • Develop and nurture inclusive partnerships to deliver strategic objectives • Foster an agile culture that embraces diversity and drives innovative solutions • Build capacity for data -driven decision making • Engage in and apply continuous learning PROFESSIONALISM • EQUITY • INTEGRITY • INNOVATION • STEWARDSHIP • ACCOUNTABILITY Adopted July 2023 ■New Hanover County Strategic Plan 1 Workforce & Economic Development co ,.j Desired Outcomes Strategic Objectives. :- f 0NA L9Residents are provided J Develop a cradle to career 1 equitable opportunities to pipeline to ensure lifelong Maintain a county unemployment rate 0.25% lower than the state connect to education and learning and employment Achieve an average wage growth 1.5% higher than the state p ighly skilled employment. success. A business -friendly Plan for the long-term needs environment that promotes of businesses through timely, Maintain new business growth within 2.5% of the state (: k growth, agility, and innovative programs and County sales tax year over year growth 1 % higher than the state -t; GOO4.1laboration. community partnerships. p Resilient infrastructure drives Lead the area in well -planned Achieve a positive return on investment for infrastructure protects economic growth and infrastructure creation and or funding within 15 years opportunities. resources. County has GDP per capita growth higher than the state 4 PP 1IUU\\ Community Safety & Well-being h Desired OutcomesTargets p% _ Q_f Every resident has access to Connect residents to Reduce top 3 causes of premature death by y �1yi� services that support their individualized services at the Cancer & Heart Diseases - 2% annually, 10% over 5 years physical health and mental right time with a variety of • Accidents -1% annually, 5% over 5 years �n%� . well-being. service providers. Achieve mental healthcare provider ratio of 140 residents/provider "L" a ® The community supports a 004ively and efficiently 90%of urgent 911 calls are dispatched within 90 seconds G life that mitigates health and respond to public health 90% of Fire Rescue responses are timely and arrive within safety risks. and safety demands. official emergency benchmarks lopJ0� Build relationships and 0 � � Residents feel supported and create opportunities that Residents report there are opportunities available to build connected to their community. enhance engagement for meaningful connections and encourage community connections a diverse community. 7 f, �r Sustainable Land Use & Environmental Stewardship Desired Outcomes Targets Through tanned growth and Connect residents to basic needs 95% of residential units are within a 10-minute drive of health g p g care, childcare, grocery stores and pharmacies development, residents have through a variety of housing and At access to their basic needs. transportation options. Increase the housing supply to a level of one residential unite per two residents �J Natural areas and critical Reduce the number of new residential lots created in special Ensure development flood hazard areas within the unincorporated county environmental features are compliments natural features. p enhanced and protected. Reduce bacterial contaminants in county creeks Cultural amenities that Promote the community Increase attendance at county -operated cultural and enhance quality of place through activities that enhance recreation facilities are safeguarded. life and connect people. Residents report their culture is valued in New Hanover County Good Governance Strategic Objectives Targets M. Provide equitable, effective, and efficient customer -driven practices 75% of respondents report they are satisfied with the level of services the county provides and are treated fairly by the New Hanover County team Align services and programs with strategic priorities 75% of all focus area metrics are making positive progress — Communicate what the county does and why 75% of respondents report they understand the decisions the county makes Hire and retain people committed to public service <5% of controllable losses during the fiscal year were from high performers Foster an agile culture that embraces diversity and drives Organizational diversity assessment matches our county demographic within innovative solutions 5% of Census demographic Build capacity for data -driven decisions 90% of all department KPIs are met Engage In and apply continuous learning 80% of county employees report they have or are receiving continuous education/training related to their Job Carbon Footprint Reduction Reduce carbon footprint by 25% at our facilities and fleet Reduce demand and consumption at newly constructed facilities by 30% '1 • I • 1 A'•ACCOUNTABILITY Adopted July 2023 1 / r �� a • J r� � • ,fill' City of Wilmington addresses flooding on New Centre Drive 1, -Y hA ML-1 lryXps�/Iwww MMavlvJ cem/Elo✓naMmeulnlM WILMINGTON, NC (W WAY) — The city of Wilmington saw some flooding Sunday after a downpour in the afternoon. Videos captured near the intersection of New Centre Drive and South College Road Sunday show several feet of standing water. The area has been prone to flooding in the past. A city spokesperson told W WAY there is a plan in place to address flooding in that area. The Clear Run Branch project is the largest stormwater management project in the city's history. Phase one of the $16 million project wrapped up in 2023, with stormwater pipes being installed under College Acres Drive. 1 ho J0 1 M � �r Phase two —which is currently in the design phase —will see large stormwater pipes installed near South College and New Centre `^ It's not clear yet when that project will be complete. Tags: r&oital pMal;ji( s:11www.wwavtv3.cominews-fa glil2pital-0miecls/1, /news-tags/f oodingo, New Centre Ddve (hh S./hw .wwavtv3.com/news-tags/new-centre-ddve/), South College Road fh tps://www.wwavtv3.coMnews-tags/south-college-roadA, WilmingLQn ,hi(ws-tag it i gtont) Government Grants Georgia Residents Relief for Mortgages Doctor Tells: Do You Have Too Nuch Belly Fat? Under $356,362 (Eat This Before Bed) wpersamo�owoe Gu ,JryMD (httpsJ/smeagol.revcontent.com/cvtv3/GTiihEZshMFD87sYcF9HOF (https://smeagol.re.ntent.com/cvtv3/C aRIXWlx2ODfiXf19NE$MjogVIBUrZ WMMVxk\IBW)DWROO IqQ W P6UAJXj5GsCB788LaXSwpbypVfm W KQsIRC LTAmgv83PCg CZY-YT- DKnxglJf W SRu6cmnywGN NykViCq D!5xrRr6wmKW 02eHv3KZVpuw4uXd 1 BEu8AUeohtaaFtFQzNUwSdOxul- $pKRpb5Gw_alGmhNU_ fXolGOlemA3VMt_Sr6sjNAuuw69M1 WDF9miR4FthUABFIGjMZWhOKoz8r9e48AJOy1- 1>gEuhhke5v_YwHAi56zZGe BzS- 07JgpF.jyhwMn- kyDAMg2FIHTfV3mzU17TFWLR68ByXH42gPa3gymwndiew6kzzior flA17hS.IMv57xMBXPWar;Art.IT(.Fh,IRFr;AvVXPFdnd,Rmn7MWkkWnaFixtarxl7WlmaRWM1.,t.gMvkcn T.,V0.,dn'MRd Ma,9 nvRM ,60--a F �j a.r 9.1 a HWne3eAk-y34o1-K5oZU-KJOBhgXlo 3tD9B5LmUnd1hjl-70- c9g4739J4teQJ1v3nWLV9g_e_11MeyhFGCKQS- 7jzVPmjAzggmg2SudfQ5MFxgxF6DOBsY7 OouTerhlGm9UXpy7LgPX8cJQh94z- p=GgFDMNXD- Qy52ZX3oBo- cQGOiQ3NzNIYjc4ZSOxN2ZmLTRhZTMtYTdjMCO2MTIiNDM5M211 xawdXoS_bGcVAMuaW25nG65j3iPOwANS8cXmG6? M_gglPMTYzLjExNl4xMzcuMTg06giRCghncmF5X21tcBIFZmFsc2> p=GgFDMNXD- cQGOiQ3NzNIYjc4ZSOxN2ZmLTRhZTMtYTdjMCO2MTIiNDM5M211 YTICJGI3NWZiMzRILWQI NzEtNDAzNy04NTM3LTkzNTQwNWE M_qg[PMTYzLjExNi4xMzcuMTg06giSCg[OZXNOX2l vZGUSBWZhbHN16glXCgSl cHNjYWx[ZF9pbWFnZRIFZmFsc2XgAhEKCGdyY. Seniors Born 1939-1969 Eat 1 Teaspoon Every Night, The 1 Household Item That The End Of Elon Musk Soon? Receive 11 Benefits This Month See What Happens a Week Visibly Tightens Saggy Skin Brownsrone Researm If They Ask Later BeYerly HITS MD (https://smeagol.revcontent.con/cvAt3/pOM_8wsw7zngWh8KginGc super saxngonllne Healmwellna journal (https://smeagol.revcontent.00m/cv/v3ttGHp gkR" d(9�flyTplgplpl) x (https:/Ismeagol.revcontent.com/cv/v31EX2gbtlp §ohoecq"boh@QWC Mpvolittt kYMmhV/nKhEMYCaNCO4Zns733n7F s59eO6WOuMYjrFRhpVhr0lhf L67CSVuxPhOkICEP tOOMO/6CS4D4?VVB-OEZ*2 QTI61 KFYI*$VhwHF3tM1eYjD1FoEOJCzpZlpjglD9XJluNUzO- sgskOaARz7szeaYBoF6R5wKmT_6H8aZ4tjOHlWf RILMU)24UEP6ef Aak NBkBi�FIO §QfXC89PmOnO_Wylf4UCgul7bA6gRXOPdZgRexl rcx6_gAxwuc6yll2jsj6dk429v81 gxpbgGDOuIHd{61hdsNgb02CZoacw7e9LXcvfc6l BOLQRjGDrjBQ-ghJxyWMs- OS36anWvOGq y7N148cKSBNLITTgBjIk4gL6bOpN5KDL- cgWCNulEgYplgygDVr5P2xw8ihmBMsna`L VVAff4M4D@4Wep&MtSOMEJt®08 _ �dFrfEgf8AdC19L6Bfi9d RjrBiE8n1 A7bzHIFVhvtkddr6mTtb3lgazAc78Zml_brMgffBgFDMNXD- ltfcNt_uFWO_KxD2HWOcNZyNUBwYOuFfrMC00AW077rNweESthKOCJ69_c6xaywmR_D1J xDuRP_yl WBObh J1GEg9g?p=GgFDMNXD- cQGOiQ3NzNIYjc4ZSOxN2ZmLTRhZTMtYT7ijUQMM14MM5M211YTICJGI3NWZiMzF�L169 AzNyO4NTM3LTkzNTQwNWEyMjh!OEoLd2hpZSV cQGOiQ3NzNIYjo4ZSOxN2ZmLTRhZTMtYWj-PQqWJATMbLPLCRAUtTa9b M_gglPMTYzLjExNl4xMzcuMTg06gIRCghncmF5X2hcBIFZmFsc2XgAhIKCXRE3RfbWIQk7IPSA#F'iIG' M17kKf30`uNrt� _ dpffgOB fiGMt1BY0$IfOBIR `d046 Here's Why You Should Never Put Mustard In Your Fridge 1Onife 'a (https:/Ismeagol.revcontent.com/cv/v3/-7d3TRiOZIVa9Xg38BJXL8xNPvigF- zRP3r- wPHU4j17QpBVxUloeBllZKdIAHHRQUsQVs5ngQ1 bl 3UeKaDQUSwQJK49KBIREFhX4X21 OTFG86fd8FRpDU 1 TV l20sN[wRbX2VOOVNsTUDfwhydt7Bl2keLVKVTnv8lfOnGgY_2rC8iyYVnnUaiQMdb 3aYAul- oPaR3uWSVnTpjwCbRVZg13R7R4uhgp- sD- xsEDznreNmlgrDxJwF1V4USSCH811wi5OP_7V4B9G1_Zn_KRKH.Pre5hcoUPxlFq_U9NQVoThD7SAaw YhIYFb6p1Dh3uwh2liHOPF3pQkNKC4;,cWJ7FQYiQmcOyvl9igATQH7gpf3HYplefEuDyze3gl. 7Hfxb9eOglNyBikKzTYjJm- VK7g9kRFUAhsv_uEugYEzsSekdP2QLGRZUh7Kjl g4HJGbF�6MTeKT3KgPl lrChuRRLFObomDGcuXtWzl hnitn W E4OQulYMR31 ZZ9gAjy2YZOgyVQSPyFWFTzjFgM_KgAlprRyF- HwCp- 765ssN6elvbEOCxY2wd4WwCOjZsgol utgGO- 8ZmC1 mZtcNJSexZBZQti4lhmtkhBbKIWT8pvbFg_1X 97p=GgFDMNXD- NzEtNDAzNyO4NTM3LTkzNTOwNWEyMjhiOEoLd2hpZS13YWxrZXJQkL4JWM7FEWILd3dheXR2My5 This content provided by: WWAYF, RELATED (httpsJ1www.wwaytv3.com/wilmington- (https://www.wwaytv3.com/great-food- (httpsJ1www.wwaytv3"com/carolina- (https://www.wwaytv3.com/811oNicials- man-gets-Drison-time-after-attempted- truck-race-featuring-wi mington-and- beach -town -council -votes -down - remind -public-to-call-before-you-dig/) robberyfiver-gambling-oss/) Leland-airs-sundayj) motorized -beach -carts!) 811 officials remind public to Wilmington man gets prison Great Food Truck Race Carolina Beach Town Council 'call before you dig' time after attempted robbery featuring Wilmington and votes down motorized beach (https://www.wwaytv3.com/81 over gambling loss Leland airs Sunday carts officials-remind-public-to-call- (https://www.wwaytv3.com/wi (https://www.wwaytv3.com/gr (https://www.wwaytv3.com/ce before -you -dig/) man -gets -prison -time -after- food -truck -race -featuring- beach -town -council -votes - attempted -robbery -over- wilmington-and-leland-airs- down -motorized -beach - gambling -loss/) Sunday/) carts/) f_(LC1//f {) W AY 0 ne P,blF 1 IOLt ://u�Lli J Is 1,, [ov",­fili- Children's Proeraa b9 Reporl lhap�ubli[files fa cov/rv-pref 1IM—v��!amf-liyt Closed Caprianlh[ms wwavN3 corn/close0-[aotoM Talk To Us Talk to WWAY's anchors, reporters and meteorologists. When you see news happening, report it! We'd love to hear from you. (910) 763-0979 1 pr,,srr,,.m� wway[va.�or, .,. , Itc:oc:.em„m(wwaytv3 coa„� 1224 Magnolia Village Way, Leland, NC 28451 Watch us We live, work and play right here in the Cape Fear. We're your neighbors. We celebrate community and we tell your stories. We're the most trusted source for way more local news. Ijge. CenLral (ilaLesL-vig I. __ Stri a_,w-I," estr e ar Get Alerts Download the WWAY News and StormTrack 3 Weather Apps on your smart phone or tablet device to receive break- ing news and weather push notifications the minute It happens. I I, TU Emad.5i99Up (/newsletter) We're everywhere you need us to be. #ThisIsThePlace HOME F1 ?d R iPi'.7:\ i I.i i i 3i I /.^.^.L7 CS'.'Fl5+TF71� Ti i1f 1 T 7 R SF.'F.l7f. Corporate Philanthropy-(bttps:tl w . wayW.com/communityD Meet The News Team (bURrW ww.wwaytv3 coml"w team/i Advertise With WWAY (baps•/Aw wwaytv3mm/advertise-with-wwav1) Creative Services (hops:// w .wwaytv3.com/creativesemices/) EmpJgym n bURkiLv bM.wwaytv3.com/emRLQYmenO In ernship Program (Wps'//w-wwavtv3.com/wway-internship_pL- A FCC(httpsJAwww wwaM comACC[i WWAY Online Public File (b_gpL publicfiles.fcc.g vv�proFlle/wwav) Children's Programr2tjDg f_epojt (httpsipublicRles fcc.g vv//t_v-profile/wwavlprpgr-3rns- EEORsport httns://www.wwayN3.com/content/uploads/2025/08/g/d/EEO-Public-File-Report-20242025.pdD Closed Caption but s://www.wway-v3.com/closedtaptlo Contact Us (b1tps'//W&w.wwaytv3.com/contact-u0 NEWS Local News (bttpsJAm wwa\M3 comAocal-newsA Crimelhttos1/www.wwaytv3.com/crime/) pgffij{,5_(bItpsJ/www.wwaytv3.com/politic Health -(/news- gSLbsdlth0 Education (jneWS_t@gs/educat m0 Distraction (hitpsY/w.vw.wwayty.3.com/distractiQn-/) Upe Fear History & Mysteries (/news -tag /0pe-fear-his[orv� Unsolved (/n_gws-tags/unsolvedd COMMUNITY Contests (bttpsl/www vnvavtv3 com/contests/I Viewers' Choice Awards (https://www wwayW comtviewers-cholmawards/) Whats Happ?—nL�g-(bttosJ/www.wwaM3.com/whats-happgnlngfI The Carolina Beat (hops//Ihecarolinaheatcom/1 Mom To Mom bitps,LbN!hm.mbmayty3.com/mom-to-momb Hooked On Science (b_ttpsJ/www.wway_U3.cgrndlooked-on-science Teacher Of The Month (blips)/www.wwavtv3.com/teacher-of-the-month/f Bdraordinarv.Eeople-(baps•/Awm.w aM3.com/eMraord narv_ReQnle-next-door/) Pgt_Pjl5jhttps:/Avww.wwayN3.c rn/ per Local Events bttps://www.wwayW.com/locai-even WEATHER ail _Eorecasl(!Iqps://wwv-wwotv3.com/dally-forecastl) 7 Day F r L(httos7/www wwaytv3 coml7-day-forecas0 stormtrack 3 RagAL(hAps://www.wwaytL3.com/stormtrack-3-rada stormtrack 3 Weather MapL(t_qps://www.wwaytv3.com/stormtrack-3-weather-m WWAY Hurricane Center bttps,//www.wwayLv3,comAmayjluLu'canesenW Weather Wise (hhttpv/An .wwaytv3.com/weather-wiser Beach And Boating Forecast (h1t V/www.wwayrv3.com/beach-and-boating-forecast/) Slwview Camera Network (httpsJ/waa avtv3.com/skwiew/) os'Lngs And Delays (hgos://—.wwaytv3.com/closings-and-delays/) NOAA Weather Radios (https//www wwayN3 com/noaa-weather-radios SPORTS $ports News fhttpsJ/www wwayN3 com/spprrsA 5dl_Quag_cr_(bitps,//ww.v.wwayV3.com/fifth-quartcrQ Full Court Press (baps://www.wwaytv3.com/full-court-oress/1 The Masters Life (https://www.wwaytv3.com/the-masters-life Basketball(http/'/3,s4ggebaske[ball.apsrg/wwaVN3/) Football bill (htt Wcollegefootball.ap.org/�MvUWM NASCAR News (ha//R, raclpg.�pgrg/wwavN3) 02025, WWAY-TV3 North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan Protect, restore, and facilitate the migration of salt marshes in North Carolina to minimize loss of function, benefits, and acreage through 2050 and beyond. May 2024 Seri, rc- N North Carolina SOUTH Coastal Federation ATLANTIC SALT WorkingTagether for a Healthy Coast MARSH 10111111111111 INITIATIVE Executive Summary About the North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan This North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan (NC SMAP) details a five-year strategy to protect, restore, and allow for the migration of salt marshes in coastal North Carolina to minimize the loss and degradation of their existing ecological, economic, and cultural functions. These salt marshes are regularly and irregularly flooded by lunar and wind tides, and for the purposes of this plan, are defined as all estuarine wetlands (salinities >_ 0.5 parts per thousand). North Carolina has one of the largest and most productive estuarine systems in the United States. Its nearly 2.3 million acres of diverse coastal habitats support fisheries and wildlife, protect and provide socio- economic benefits to coastal communities, facilitate military readiness, and foster cultural and spiritual values and traditions. Salt marshes provide a wide array of ecosystem services, including essential fish habitats, water quality enhancements, flood protection for adjacent communities, and climate mitigation by sequestering carbon. The North Carolina coast has approximately 220,000 acres of salt marshes, a critical component of one of the country's largest remaining expanses of salt marsh. There are about one million acres of salt marshes along the South Atlantic coast from North Carolina to the Atlantic coast of northern Florida, and this plan is coordinated with region -wide efforts to protect and restore this vast marsh ecosystem. Persistent and emerging threats to current and future salt marshes are numerous, including degradation by incompatible land and water uses, boat wakes, as well as more intense and wetter storms and sea level rise (SLR) resulting from climate change. These threats and impacts must be addressed effectively to retain and reclaim ecosystem services that have already been impacted and to avert projected future losses that could fundamentally degrade and endanger fisheries and water quality, as well as the resiliency, economy, and cultural heritage of coastal communities. The threats to salt marshes require urgent and effective actions. In response to this need, the South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative (SASMI) was formed in 2021 under the leadership and guidance of The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) and the Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). As a regional initiative, SASMI brings together more than 350 diverse partners, including leaders from federal, state, and local agencies and stakeholders from academia, non -governmental organizations (NGOs), and the community. With the goal of preserving and enhancing the existing million acres of salt marsh between North Carolina and the northern Atlantic coast of Florida, SASMI released Marsh Forward: A Regional Plan for the Future of the South Atlantic Coast's Million -Acre Salt Marsh Ecosystem (SASMI Plan) in May 2023. The NC SMAP aligns with the regional SASMI Plan and brings together local, state, and federal stakeholders from academia, governmental agencies, communities and NGOs to prioritize actions and make the best use of available resources within North Carolina. It is meant to further other efforts aimed at protecting the coastal environment and to include strategies and recommendations to increase carbon sequestration and resilience of coastal habitats and communities in North Carolina. The NC SMAP is the result of the collaborative efforts and valuable insights of numerous local experts and stakeholders. The North Carolina Coastal Federation hosted three workshops during the summers of 2022 and 2023 that were vital for establishing fundamental elements of the plan and refining the recommended actions. The NC SMAP leverages spatial analysis and diverse stakeholder expertise to identify practical actions for all stakeholders and entities working on a range of actions to maintain or enhance salt marshes through 2050 as the climate changes. Projections generated from Warnell, et al. 2020, which utilizes elevation and SLR data, estimate that North Carolina could see a net gain of about 180,000 acres of salt marsh by 2050 under an intermediate SLR scenario, assuming no major developmental or geological changes. These estimates show, however, that the gains and losses of salt marsh will not be experienced equally along the coast. The southern coast, with its higher elevation and coastal development, will experience significantly more salt marsh loss than the lower -lying, less developed central and northern coasts. This geographical dichotomy shaped the strategies outlined in the NC SMAP, focusing on minimizing salt marsh loss, restoring existing marsh, facilitating migration, and pursuing cross -cutting actions to facilitate overall implementation. Goal The overarching goal of the NC SMAP is to protect, restore, and facilitate the migration of salt marshes in North Carolina to minimize loss of function, benefits, and acreage through 2050 and beyond. Strategies and Implementation In coordination with the SASMI Plan, there are three guiding strategies of the NC SMAP necessary to achieve the overarching goal. These strategies detail approaches to conserve, restore, and facilitate the migration of salt marshes based on the needs and projections of North Carolina. Each strategy has multiple objectives and recommended actions for implementation. Where appropriate and feasible, the objectives and actions are aligned and coordinated with those of the SASMI Plan. Finally, for each action, the outputs and intended results of its successful completion have been identified. The three guiding strategies are: Strategy 1: Advance marsh conservation & restoration Goal: To minimize loss of Strategy 3: function, benefits, Strategy 2: Incorporate and acreage Facilitate salt cross -cutting through 2050 and marsh approaches beyond migration The NC SMAP includes five key features, in which it: Identifies current and emerging threats to salt marshes Devises strategies that will effectively address identified threats relying upon the best available science and expertise that can be obtained Promotes widespread and meaningful public understanding and demand for achieving the goal of this plan Devises way to engage stakeholders from all walks of life in taking ownership of advancing the plan's recommended actions Outlines a 5-year guidance to support annual strategic planning, monitoring, evaluating success, and adapting the plan as needed to address emerging challenges and needs Implementation of the NC SMAP will be a collaborative and complementary effort. The new Salt Marsh Steering Committee (SMSC), which also serves as the North Carolina State Implementation Team for the SASMI Plan, works with partners and stakeholders from across the state to put the NC SMAP into action, while engaging target audiences, supporting ongoing efforts, and sharing information regularly. The NC SMAP is intended to guide priority salt marsh conservation- and migration -focused actions over the next five years (2024-2029) using projections of change to salt marsh extent, health, and function from land use and climate change through the year 2050. Each year, a strategic implementation plan is developed to identify priority locations, key partners, necessary courses of action, specific goals, clear metrics of success for accomplishing the plan objectives, and track progress. The SMSC meets regularly to provide updates, discuss collaboration needs, and assign next steps toward the implementation of the recommended actions. The SMSC also continue to collaborate with SASMI leadership, coalition members, and others to further implement relevant actions outlined in the SASMI Plan. After five years, the NC SMAP will be revaluated, updated, and re- released to ensure that the recommended actions and guidance are always following the best available science and accurately fulfilling the needs for coastal North Carolina. Geographic Scope The NC SMAP covers the entire coast of North Carolina's coastal counties (a). The plan divides the region into smaller units based on the US Geological Survey's 10-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC-10) watershed units directly connecting to estuarine surface waters (b). The plan focuses on those HUC- 10s in which salt marsh is currently present or is projected to exist by 2050 under intermediate SLR predictions of approximately 1.5 feet. These HUC-10s were then trimmed and amended into the plan's conservation planning units (CPUs) based on jurisdictional and ecological needs (c). f_b] FBI ,]6 ]n MMks A Coastal Counties A watersnea units V A rianning units Acknowledgments The North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan (NC SMAP) was produced collaboratively by numerous professionals from the NC Coastal Federation with support from the South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative (SASMI). In addition, staff from state and federal agencies, universities, and other organizations contributed information for the NC SMAP. All contributed extensive feedback on the NC SMAP, as well as support and guidance on key decision points. A very special thank you to Katie Warnell, Lydia Olander, and Carolyn Currin, who provided the data and modeling for developing the salt marsh projections through 2050. Additionally, we would like to acknowledge others who provided valuable information for the document. This includes attendees, presenters, and facilitators of the Salt Marsh Workshops held in August 2022 and 2023. The NC SMAP would not have been possible without the assistance of all involved. Table of Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................... 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................................................................... V TABLEOF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................................................... VI ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ......................................... .............................................................................. VII LISTOF TABLES.............................................................................................................................................................. VI11 LISTOF FIGURES.............................................................................................................................................................. IX 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................................1 1.2. IMPETUS FOR MARSH CONSERVATION EFFORTS................................................................................................................. 4 1.2.1. Values and Services........................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2.1.1. Provisioning Services...................................................................................................................................................4 1.2.1.2. Cultural and Spiritual Services..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.1.3. Regulating Services...................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2. Threats........................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.2.1. Human -Induced Environmental Impacts..................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.2.2. Stormwater runoff and pollution................................................................................................................................ 9 1.2.2.3. Ditching and Draining.................................................................................................................................................. 9 1.2.2.4. Boat Wake -Generated Shoreline Erosion.................................................................................................................. 10 1.2.2.5. Marine Debris............................................................................................................................................................ 11 1.2.2.6. Invasive Species......................................................................................................................................................... 11 1.2.2.7. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise........................................................................................................................... 12 1.2.3. Salt Marsh Response to Sea Level Rise......................................................................................................... 13 1.2.3.1. Vertical marsh accretion........................................................................................................................................... 14 1.2.3.2. Horizontal marsh migration...................................................................................................................................... 14 2. CURRENT AND PROJECTED STATUS OF NORTH CAROLINA SALT MARSH.................................................................15 2.1. IMPLICATIONS OF FUTURE PROJECTIONS......................................................................................................................... 20 3. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS......................................................................................................................................21 3.1. STRATEGY 1. ADVANCE SALT MARSH CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION............................................................................. 22 3.2. STRATEGY 2. FACILITATE SALT MARSH MIGRATION.......................................................................................................... 25 3.3. STRATEGY 3: INCORPORATE CROSS -CUTTING APPROACHES................................................................................................ 28 4. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................................................................32 APPROACH............................................................................................................................................................................ 32 FRAMEWORK.................................................................................................................................. ............................ 32 S. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................34 6. APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................................37 6.1. APPENDIX A. STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP SUMMARIES....................................................................................................... 37 6.2. APPENDIX B. NORTH CAROLINA SALT MARSH PROJECTIONS THROUGH 2O50........................................................................ H 6.3. APPENDIX C. NORTH CAROLINA SALT MARSH PROJECTIONS THROUGH 2O50 BY COUNTY ....................................................... 42 6.4. APPENDIX D. CONSERVATION PLANNING UNITS............................................................................................................... 43 6.5. APPENDIX E. NON -EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF EXISTING EFFORTS, PROGRAMS, AND TOOLS WITH POTENTIAL SYNERGIES WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA SALT MARSH PLAN................................................................................................................................................... 45 6.6. APPENDIX F. PROPOSED ANNUAL STRATEGIC PLAN OUTLINE.............................................................................................. 46 y Abbreviations and Acronyms CAMA Coastal Area Management Act CHPP Coastal Habitat Protection Plan CO2 Atmospheric carbon CPU Conservation planning unit DCM Division of Coastal Management DoD Department of Defense DOT Department of Transportation ENCSL Eastern NC Sentinel Landscape EO Executive Order HUC-10 10-digit hydrologic unit code IMM Integrated Marsh Management MMT CO2e Million metric tons of CO2 equivalent NC DEQ NC Department of Environmental Quality NC SMAP NC Salt Marsh Action Plan NC WRC NC Water Resources Commission NCCF NC Coastal Federation NCORR NC Office of Recovery and Resiliency NGO Non -governmental organization NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OMWM Open Marsh Water Management SAC Stakeholder Advisory Committee SASMI South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative SAV Submerged aquatic vegetation SERPPAS Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability SET Surface Elevation Table SLR Sea level rise SMSC Salt Marsh Steering Committee SWI Saltwater intrusion US ACE US Army Corps of Engineers US EPA US Environmental Protection Agency US FWS US Fish and Wildlife Services USDA US Department of Agriculture List of Tables TABLE 1. NON -EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES THAT INCLUDE ITEMS SUPPORTING THE ACTIONS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA SALT MARSH ACTION PLAN BY YEAR........................................................................................................ 3 TABLE 2. STRATEGY 1-OBJECTIVE A. PROTECT SALT MARSHES FROM NEW AND EXISTING STRESSORS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS FROM LANDWARDACTIVITIES........................................................................................................................................ 23 TABLE 3. STRATEGY 1-OBJECTIVE B. PROMOTE AND ADVANCE RESTORATION, PROTECTION, AND CONSERVATION OF SALT MARSHES TO SUPPORT SALT MARSH AND BROADER ESTUARY HEALTH....................................................................................... 24 TABLE 4. STRATEGY 1-OBJECTIVE C. FACILITATE AND EXPAND THE USE OF LIVING SHORELINES TO PROTECT AND RESTORE SALT MARSHEDGES................................................................................................................................................... 24 TABLE 5. STRATEGY 1-OBJECTIVE D. FACILITATE AND ADVANCE SALT MARSH RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENT TO PROTECT AND RESTORE EXISTING SALT MARSHES AND IMPROVE SALT MARSH FUNCTION.................................................................... 25 TABLE 6. STRATEGY 2-OBJECTIVE A. CONSERVE MIGRATION CORRIDORS THROUGH LAND ACQUISITIONS AND EASEMENTS, SECURING NECESSARY FUNDING AND RESOURCES, AND UPDATING PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .................................. 26 TABLE 7. STRATEGY 2-OBJECTIVE B. ENCOURAGE THE INCLUSION OF MARSH MIGRATION AS A PRIORITY IN PLANNING AND INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE, WETLAND RESTORATION, AND WORKING LANDS TO FACILITATE MIGRATION AND IMPROVE MANAGEMENTPRACTICES................................................................................................................................... 27 TABLE H. STRATEGY 2-OBJECTIVE C. ADVANCE RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENT OF SALT MARSH MIGRATION AREAS ....................... 28 TABLE 9. STRATEGY 3-OBJECTIVE A. CONDUCT RESEARCH, SUPPORT MONITORING EFFORTS, AND PURSUE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES................................................................................................................................................. 29 TABLE 10. STRATEGY 3-OBJECTIVE B. ENCOURAGE POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT ................................................ 30 TABLE 11. STRATEGY 3-OBJECTIVE C: COMMUNICATE, EDUCATE, AND ENGAGE WITH TARGET AUDIENCES AND COMMUNITIES.... 31 List of Figures FIGURE 1. THE ECOSYSTEM AND RESILIENCE BENEFITS OF LIVING SHORELINES USED FOR SHORELINE STABILIZATION ...................... 8 FIGURE 2. COASTWIDE EXTENT OF SHORELINE WITH SHORELINE STRUCTURES WITHIN NORTH CAROLINA's 20 COASTAL COUNTIES, BASED ON 2012 AERIAL IMAGERY........................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 3. TIME SERIES OF TWO BULKHEAD SITES ILLUSTRATING CHANGES IN MARSH WIDTH, 1981-2013. THE RED DELINEATES THE BULKHEAD LOCATIONS, BLUE DELINEATES 20M TRANSECTS, AND THE GREEN AREAS OUTLINE THE MARSH ........................... 9 FIGURE 4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM BOAT WAKES TO SOME DIFFERENT AQUATIC RESOURCES. THE BLUE BOXES REPRESENT DRIVERS OF CHANGE, YELLOW BOXES REPRESENT CHANGES IN ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONS, AND GREEN BOXES REPRESENT IMPACTS ON LIVING RESOURCES........................................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 5. CREATION OF GHOST FORESTS ALONG THE VIRGINIA EASTERN SHORE FROM SALTWATER INTRUSION ......................... 13 FIGURE 6. SALTWATER INTRUSION INTO AGRICULTURAL FIELDS IN NC................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 7. DIAGRAM OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MARSH RESPONSES TO SEA -LEVEL RISE ................................................... 14 FIGURE 8. THE ELEVATION IN RELATION TO THE TIDAL RANGE IS ONE OF THE KEY FACTORS DETERMINING THE TYPE OF INTERTIDAL HABITAT THAT MAY DEVELOP IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION (A). NATURAL HABITATS TEND TO MIGRATE INLAND AS A RESPONSE TO RISING SEA LEVELS (B). AS A RESULT OF THIS MIGRATION THE INTERTIDAL AREA MAY EXPAND OR REDUCE DEPENDING, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE COASTAL TOPOGRAPHY. HARD ENGINEERING STRUCTURES WILL INVARIABLY FIX THE LANDWARD LIMIT OF INTERTIDAL AREAS (C), WHICH WILL BE REDUCED IN EXTENT AS SEA LEVELS RISE AND MORE LAND BECOMES PERMANENTLY INUNDATED (D). THE LOSS OF COASTAL HABITATS DUE TO RISING SEA LEVELS IN FRONT OF ARTIFICIALLY FIXED SHORELINES IS KNOWN AS COASTAL SQUEEZE.............................................................................................................................. 15 FIGURE 9. CURRENT (A) AND 2050 PROJECTIONS (B) OF SALT MARSH COASTWIDE THROUGHOUT NORTH CAROLINA UNDER AN INTERMEDIATE (1.5FT) SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO, ASSUMING NO MAJOR GEOLOGICAL, ECOLOGICAL, OR DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGES.......................................................................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 10. CURRENT (A, B, C) AND 2050 PROJECTIONS (D, E, F) OF SALT MARSH BY REGION THROUGHOUT NORTH CAROLINA UNDER AN INTERMEDIATE (1.5FT) SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO, ASSUMING NO MAJOR GEOLOGICAL, ECOLOGICAL, OR DEVELOPMENTALCHANGES................................................................................................................................. 17 FIGURE 11. THE ELEVATION OF EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SUFFOLK SCARP, ALONG THE RED DASHEDLINE..................................................................................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 12. SALT MARSH PROJECTIONS FOR 2050 WITHIN THE SUFFOLK SCARP REGION........................................................ 18 FIGURE 13. THE COAST OF NORTH CAROLINA (A) DIVIDED INTO SMALLER SEGMENTS BASED ON THE US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY'S 10- DIGIT HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE (HUC-10) WATERSHED UNITS CONNECTED TO ESTUARINE SURFACE WATERS (B) IN WHICH SALT MARSH IS CURRENTLY PRESENT OR IS PROJECTED TO EXIST BY 2050 UNDER INTERMEDIATE SEA LEVEL RISE (SLR) PREDICTIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 1.5 FEET AND AMENDED INTO CONSERVATION PLANNING UNITS (CPU) BASED ON JURISDICTIONAL AND ECOLOGICAL NEEDS (C). PROJECTED NET SALT MARSH ACREAGE CHANGE BETWEEN PRESENT AND 2050 UNDER AN INTERMEDIATE SLR SCENARIO OF 0.46M RELATIVE TO 2010 (D) WITH THE COLOR FILL OF EACH CPU CORRESPONDING WITH PROJECTED NET CHANGE, BARRING NO MAJOR DEVELOPMENTAL OR GEOLOGICAL CHANGES ........................................... 19 FIGURE 14. NORTH CAROLINA COASTLINE WITH THE (A) CURRENT MEAN HIGH-WATER LINE AND WITH (B) 2FT OF SEA LEVEL RISE.20 FIGURE 15. (A) INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF BEING EXCLUDED FROM ADAPTATION TO COASTAL INUNDATION BY SOCIAL VULNERABILITY FACTOR. (B) SPATIAL VULNERABILITY FOR LEAST PRIVILEGED VS. MOST PRIVILEGED QUINTILES OF RACIAL SEGREGATION AND INCOME DISPARITIES AT 2 FEET OF SLR....................................................................................... 21 1. Introduction 1.1. Background The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines wetlands as "areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season."' There are different types of wetlands due to variable conditions (i.e., regional and local differences in soils, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, human disturbance) with two general categories of wetlands that are recognized: coastal or tidal wetlands and inland or non -tidal wetlands.' Because there are multiple classification systems and terms used to describe different types of wetlands, this plan takes a similar approach as identified in the 2021 NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) Amendment that used a simplified Cowardin System splitting wetlands within the CHPP region into two broad classes, palustrine wetlands (freshwater) and estuarine wetlands (salinities >_0.5 parts per thousand - ppt)'. For the purposes of this plan, salt marsh is defined as all estuarine wetlands in North Carolina. Approximately 95% of North Carolina's remaining 4 million acres of wetland resources are located in the state's Coastal Plain region'. While most of these are freshwater wetlands, North Carolina also has an extensive span of salt marsh that are part of the state's more than 2.3-million-acre estuarine system. Salt marshes are regularly or irregularly flooded by lunar or wind tides, generating a unique ecosystem with thick mats of grasses, sedges, and rushes that, over time, form peat soils as their foundation. This distinctive array of vegetation provides a suite of largely irreplaceable ecosystem services, which are forfeited when salt marsh is degraded or destroyed. The South Atlantic coast of the United States harbors nearly one million acres of salt marsh, spanning from North Carolina through the northern Atlantic coast of Florida. Currently, there are approximately 220,000 acres of salt marsh along the North Carolina coast. These marshes, however, face many localized and widespread threats to their function and existence. Past trends and future projections under a changing climate paint a bleak picture if concerted action is not taken to embrace opportunities at our collective disposal to conserve and restore existing salt marshes and facilitate their ability to adapt to climate change. Fortunately, North Carolina stands well positioned to face the challenges of minimizing loss of salt marsh acreage and functions through 2050 due to the state's investments in climate adaptation, a wealth of expertise from government, nonprofits, and universities, and forward momentum in implementing nature -based climate adaptation solutions. In response to the need for effective actions for addressing threats to salt marsh, the South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative (SASMI) was formed in 2021 under the leadership and guidance of The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) and the Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). As a regional initiative, SASMI brings together more than 350 diverse partners, including leaders from federal, state, and local stakeholders from academia, government agencies, NGOs, and the community. With the goal of preserving and enhancing the existing one million acres of salt marsh between North Carolina and the northern Atlantic coast of Florida, SASMI released Marsh Forward: A Regional Plan for the Future of the South Atlantic Coast's Million -Acre Salt Marsh Ecosystem (SASMI Plan) in May 2023. To effectively implement the SASMI Plan at the state level in North Carolina, the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF; the Federation) led the development of this North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan (NC SMAP). This plan is the result of the collaborative efforts and valuable insights of numerous local experts and stakeholders. To foster this collaboration, the Federation hosted three workshops during the summers of 2022 and 2023 (Appendix A). These workshops were vital for establishing fundamental elements of the plan and refining the recommended actions detailed in Section 3. The NC SMAP further implements and aligns with the SASMI Plan and details a five-year strategy to protect, restore, and allow for the migration of salt marshes in coastal North Carolina so that their existing ecological, economic, and cultural functions are not degraded or lost. Bringing together local, state, and federal stakeholders and experts, it details priority actions and makes the best use of available resources. The NC SMAP leverages spatial analysis and diverse stakeholder expertise to identify practical actions for communities, organizations, government agencies, lawmakers, and other entities working on a range of actions throughout the coast to maintain or enhance salt marshes through 2050 as the climate changes. Building on and in conjunction with other planning efforts, the NC SMAP outlines: The NC SMAP is meant to further other efforts aimed at protecting the coastal environment and that include strategies and recommendations to increase carbon sequestration and resilience of coastal habitats and communities in North Carolina. Other efforts include the North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP), which is led by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ), who is charged with development, updating, and implementation of the plan (Table 1). The overarching goal of the CHPP is the long- term enhancement of coastal fisheries through habitat protection and enhancement efforts. The 2021 Amendment to the CHPP included sections specific to wetland conservation and restoration and impacts from climate change that are affecting all coastal habitats and species throughout North Carolina (Table 1). Additional efforts in North Carolina that include strategies and recommendations to increase carbon sequestration and resilience of coastal habitats and communities include the 2020 North Carolina Climate Risk Assessment and Resilience Plan (2020 Resilience Plan) and the 2020 Natural and Working Lands Action Plan (Table 1). These were the result of Governor Roy Cooper's 2018 Executive Order 80 (E080) - North Carolina's Commitment to Address Climate Change and Transition to a Clean Energy Economy directing all cabinet agencies to integrate climate adaptation and resiliency planning into their policies, programs, and operations. The E080 calls for action aimed at adaption and mitigation efforts to enhance resilience against the impacts of climate change. The Currituck Sound Coalition Marsh Conservation Plan was launched in 2021 that outlined five strategies intended to yield near -term benefits for marshes in northeastern North Carolina and will be revisited every three years to update. Governor Cooper's 2022 Executive Order 246 (E0246) - North Carolina's Transformation to a Clean, Equitable Economy, includes priorities that builds on the Governor's previous actions supporting clean energy, climate change, and environmental justice. The E0246 addresses adaptation and resilience and requires integrating climate and equity into government -wide actions when implementing E080 and the state's 2020 Resilience Plan. Governor Cooper's 2024 Executive Order 305 (E0305) - An Order to Protect and Restore North Carolina's Critical Natural and Working Lands, provided that North Carolina encourage, facilitate, plan, coordinate, and support federal, state, local, and private land protection and restoration efforts. The following goals were set by E0305 to be achieved by 2040: permanently conserve one million new acres of natural lands (with a focus on wetlands), restore or reforest one million new acres of forests and wetlands, and plant one million trees in urban areas. The North Carolina Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP) was launched in 2024 for phase 1 of the EPA Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG) program that offers funding to states, local governments, tribes, and territories to develop and implement plans aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other harmful air pollutants. The NC PCAP priority measures include natural and working lands to pursue policy, programs, and projects to protect and restore high -carbon habitats across the region. This includes protecting and restoring high -carbon coastal habitats and peatlands (Table 1). Table 1 contains a non -exhaustive list of information on additional efforts in North Carolina (Table 1). Table 1. Non -exhaustive list of existing plans and policies that include items supporting the actions in the North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan by year. Title Description Year North Carolina's commitment to address climate change and transition Executive Order 80 to a clean energy economy integrating climate adaptation and 2018 resiliency planning into policies, programs, and operations. A plan to identify and create opportunities for North Carolina's natural Natural and Working Lands Action and working lands that sequester carbon, build ecosystem and Plan community resilience, provide ecosystem benefits, and enhance the 2020 economy. NC Climate Risk Assessment and A plan directed by Executive Order 80 to develop resilience strategies 2020 Resilience Plan to adapt to climate change. Action Plan for Nature -Based A plan for promoting natural designs that reduce flooding and improve 2021 Stormwater Strategies water quality. A plan that serves as a starting point in an ongoing process of Currituck Sound Coalition Marsh collaborative conservation planning and action to increase community 2021 Conservation Plan and ecosystem resilience to climate change and other threats through enhanced collaboration and partnership on nature -based initiatives. A resource and guide to assist the Marine Fisheries, Environmental NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan Management, and Coastal Resources commissions in development of 2021 Amendment 2021 goals and recommendations for protecting fisheries habitat in North Carolina. Updates to the North Carolina Wetland Program Plan with wetland goals and specific activities, divisions addressing them through 2025, NC Wetland Program Plan 2021 appropriate EPA Core Element Framework actions, and stakeholder members and interests. A plan for oyster restoration and protection focusing on ways to enhance native oyster populations, addressing specific stakeholder The Oyster Blueprint 2021-2025 2021 concerns or documented threats to support healthy and productive coastal waters and habitats. APNEP Comprehensive Conservation Albemarle -Pamlico National Estuary Partnership 2012-2022 and Management Plan Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan to ensure these 2022 resources are sustained and available to future generations. North Carolina's transformation to a clean, equitable economy that Executive Order 246 builds on previous actions supporting clean energy, climate change, and 2022 environmental justice. An order to protect and restore North Carolina's critical natural and Executive Order 305 2024 working lands including wetlands. A plan for the US Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Pollution NC Priority Climate Action Plan Reduction Grants program with natural and working lands priority 2024 measures to pursue policy, programs, and projects to protect and restore high -carbon habitats. A policy that provides for the sound management of state-owned Uniform Floodplain Management properties as they relate to potential flood hazards by requiring the Policy for State Property 2024 consideration of nature -based infrastructure, flooding, and sea level rise in designs. 1.2. Impetus for Marsh Conservation Efforts Salt marshes are enormously important to the health and productivity of the coastal environment, economy, and way of life. They provide cross -cutting benefits at no cost, but the scale of projected salt marsh loss and potential gain along the North Carolina coast (Section 2) could fundamentally alter these systems. If damage to the marsh is not prevented or reversed, or if successful migration cannot be facilitated, the loss of this natural resource could severely degrade the vibrancy and livability of our coast and the communities it supports, resulting in the forfeiture of invaluable ecosystem services and the unique appeal of the North Carolina coast (Section 3). 1.2.1. Values and Services Salt marshes offer many benefits that not only better the communities around them but also intrinsically benefit the natural ecosystems. The interconnectivity and regionally specific needs of coastal habitats and nearby communities make it difficult and seemingly impractical to calculate a single dollar -per -acre value of salt marshes. However, valuations of selected wetland ecosystem services (e.g., storm protection, erosion protection, and water quality enhancement) estimate monetary values for tidal marsh at approximately $78,000 per acre per year4. If these global averages are applied to North Carolina's 220,000 acres of salt marsh, the anticipated benefit will exceed $17 billion each year. The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services has placed a price tag on the value of an acre of salt marsh that is restored for compensatory mitigation. Anyone seeking to buy credits to offset unavoidable losses must pay $560,000 per acre of salt marsh'. This value helps to illustrate the actual overall contribution of salt marshes to both our coastal environment and economy. Using this mitigation price per acre, the real estate value of salt marshes in the state totals more than $123 billion. Generally, salt marshes provide three classes of services: provisioning (i.e., direct extraction of goods and materials from the ecosystem), cultural (i.e., spirituality, recreation, tourism, health, well-being), and regulating (i.e., coastal protections, climate regulation, water quality management)6•'. Salt marshes worldwide offer varying levels of each service type, and they are all vital to the larger interconnected ecosystem of humans and nature that they comprise. 1.2.1.1. Provisioning Services Wetlands have been referred to as nature's supermarkets owing to the expansive variety of resources and biodiversity they provide and support'. Salt marshes, specifically, are highly productive ecosystems with valuable resources and habitats supporting many ecologically and economically important wildlife and plant species. In North Carolina, over 70% of the wildlife on federal or state lists of endangered, threatened, or special concern species, such as the saltmarsh sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus), are wetland dependent',"). Furthermore, many fish and marine invertebrate species utilize the warm, shallow marsh waters as nurseries and feeding grounds. More than 90% of North Carolina's commercial fisheries landings and 60% of its recreational harvest consist of species dependent on estuarine habitats, like wetlands and salt marshes11. This ideal habitat provides a safe, resource -rich environment to support the growth and development of many environmentally and commercially important species and aids in the recruitment process for continued and future growth. 1.2.1.2. Cultural and Spiritual Services Salt marshes offer appreciable cultural and spiritual ecosystem services that enhance the socio-economic well- being of coastal communities and visitors. They support a suite of activities, including recreation, tourism, and education, all of which promote healthy lifestyles, enable engagement with nature, have no or minimal environmental impact, create jobs, and, in some cases, generate funds used for conservation. Over one-third of all adults in the United States participate in recreational activities within wetlands, including kayaking, boating, fishing, oystering, clamming, hunting, bird watching, and wildlife photography12. Such engagement with nature has been shown to improve cognitive function and emotional well-being13. Additionally, there is a demonstrated tie between nature and psychological well-being, including stress relief, perceived health, sense of self, and social relationships14. Not only do these activities support the well-being of coastal residents, but coastal recreation and tourism also support tens of thousands of jobs and infuse more than one billion dollars annually into North Carolina's economy". The purchase of a fishing, hunting, or trapping license from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC) directly funds conservation programs and projects16. Salt marshes support many recreational activities that attract visitors to North Carolina's coastal counties, such as fishing, seafood, ecotourism, and swimming. Of the top ten counties in terms of average per capita economic contribution derived from tourism, four are coastal counties (Dare, Hyde, Currituck, and Carteret). In Dare County, which ranks first in the state for per capita economic contribution from tourism, tourism contributes over $27,000 on average per year per resident'. Moreover, wetlands hold many historical and contemporary spiritual connections. They often serve as pilgrimage sites and sources of spiritual fulfillment. The waters within these wetlands are utilized for healing purposes and various rituals. The spirituality of indigenous communities worldwide is frequently tied directly to the presence of spirits within wetlands and their surrounding ecosystems. Other faiths, such as Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, tend to perceive wetlands as integral parts of divine creation. The religious values associated with these faiths view the environment's spiritual significance as stemming from its role in a godly creation. Rather than considering natural elements as infused with spirits that warrant reverence and respect, these faiths emphasize the belief that the environment was created by God for humanity to manage responsibly and often opt to locate places of worship within the wetlands". 1.2.1.3. Regulating Services Salt marshes are important regulators of physical and biogeochemical processes in the estuarine environment. These services buffer shorelines from erosion, protect communities from impacts of storm surge flooding, regulate water quality, and help regulate climate change through the removal and sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere. Natural Hazard Mitigation Salt marshes can drastically reduce storm -related damage to coastal property and infrastructure through the control and reduction of shoreline erosion, flooding, and storm surge. The dense vegetation binds soil and traps suspended sediments, holding the shoreline in place. Additionally, the intricate below -ground biomass strengthens the substrate, further reducing erodibilityl8.19. In fact, one study found that, over a four -decade period, unvegetated shoreline types in Cedar Island, NC, eroded at roughly twice the rate as those with estuarine emergent wetlands20. Similarly, salt marsh vegetation absorbs the wave energy induced by boat wake, winds, and storms, reducing the force with which it strikes the shoreline. As water flows through salt marsh vegetation, friction caused by above -ground biomass reduces wave energy dramatically". This drag from the vegetation inflicted on water flow is effective enough that even relatively narrow salt marshes (<10m wide) have been shown to reduce wave heights by 50-80%"," Salt marshes can also play a vital role in the protection and preservation of barrier islands. Backbarrier salt marshes, which lie directly landward of barrier islands, are created and reinforced by the natural wind- and storm -driven transport of sediments from the beaches and dunes. As the marshes grow and strengthen, they help stabilize the barrier island. By providing a natural platform or perch onto which the beach and dunes can migrate, the barrier system can widen, thus slowing its landward migration and hindering storm breaching. Consequently, this symbiotic relationship between the backbarrier marshes and barrier islands has been explored in depth for its coastal systems management capabilities. By adding or enhancing existing backbarrier marshes, which can then be reinforced through overwash and sediment transport, the marshes can then act as a stabilizing force, thus increasing resilience and protecting the crucial barrier islands". Many studies have worked toward estimating the monetary value of storm, flood, and erosion protection provided by salt marshes and wetlands. For instance, using a replacement cost valuation method, researchers estimated the shoreline stabilization value of tidal wetlands in Florida to be $50 per linear foot24. One analysis of 34 major hurricanes impacting the United States estimated that the total storm protection value of wetlands in the US was more than $23 billion per year. The analysis also found that, on average, each acre of wetland lost resulted in an additional $13,000 in storm -related damages25. Another study showed that the presence of temperate coastal wetlands in the Northeastern United States saved more than $625 million in flood damages following Hurricane Sandy in 201221. One recent analysis found that one square mile of wetland provided more than $2.5 million of storm protection in eight of the 20 North Carolina coastal countie527. This value increased about ten -fold in highly developed New Hanover County, where the wetlands were valued at approximately $25 million per square mile in storm protection. Water Quality Enhancement As the kidneys of the landscape, healthy salt marshes are often the terminal biofilter through which surface waters pass before entering estuarine waters$. They are highly efficient at trapping the suspended solids and assimilating excess nutrients that increase turbidity and contribute to coastal eutrophication. As water flows over salt marshes, it is slowed by above -ground vegetation, allowing any suspended sediments to settle out. As a result, less sediment reaches the receiving waters, decreasing turbidity, increasing light penetration to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and improving the health and survivorship of filter -feeding organisms. Additionally, sediment -bound pollutants (e.g., phosphorus and heavy metals) are sequestered within salt marsh soils, and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) are assimilated by salt marsh plants and microorganism communities28. Indeed, studies have shown that salt marshes are capable of assimilating virtually 100% of ambient nitrate loads from coastal stormwater29. As such, salt marshes are fundamental in the reduction of eutrophication-caused harmful algal blooms, which can negatively impact wild harvest fisheries, mariculture, coastal tourism, and property values, leading to tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses" Carbon Sequestration Perhaps one of the most paramount services salt marshes and other vegetated coastal habitats (e.g., seagrasses, mangroves, macroalgae) provide is their ability to mitigate climate change through the sequestration of vast amounts of carbon in their above- and below -ground biomass and soils31. Atmospheric carbon, in the form of CO2, is assimilated into salt marsh plant biomass, becoming trapped within the complex root system and, ultimately, buried below the sediment along with additional sources of organic carbon, often at concentrations 30-50x greater than those found in terrestrial forests32. Decomposition occurs slowly within the low -oxygen soils of the tidal marshes, allowing carbon to stay sequestered in the sediment for centuries to millennia as long as the habitat remains undisturbed3a These vegetated coastal habitats rank globally among the densest carbon sinks34. Despite comprising just 0.2% of the ocean surface worldwide, vegetated coastal habitats collectively constitute 50% of carbon burial in marine sediment, also known as 'blue carbon,' and, thus, play a significant role in mitigating the effects of global climate change3-1,34 The estimated carbon stock within contiguous US salt marshes is about 640 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e)36,17 In North Carolina, salt marshes alone store an estimated 64 MMT CO2e and sequester an additional 200,000 MMT CO2e each year38. Simultaneously, salt marsh can reduce additional CO2e through uptake and subsequent removal from the atmosphere. For example, coastal wetlands throughout the US removed 4.8 MMT CO2e from the atmosphere in 201931. The sheer capacity to which these coastal habitats can sequester and store carbon is impressive and beyond essential. Those that can withstand the pressures of rising sea levels and other anthropogenic threats and continue to thrive have a near -limitless capability to sequester carbon40. However, this capacity ultimately depends on their long-term survival41. Due to the large quantity and long lifetime of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, it has been found that carbon must remain sequestered within the wetlands for at least a century to be considered an effective climate change defense12,11. As such, the loss of salt marsh would not only forfeit future carbon sequestration services but also emit some of the carbon stored over millennia back into the system. The 2020 Resilience Plan acknowledges the essential service offered by salt marshes and their distinction of being among the highest vegetated habitats to sequester carbon per unit area. This plan, which, as directed by EO80, is the state's most comprehensive effort to date to address North Carolina's vulnerability to climate change, observes that incentivizing marsh conservation, marsh migration corridor protection, and active wetland restoration efforts are critical for coastal wetlands to continue sequestering greenhouse gases and fighting against the effects of climate change44. 1.2.2. Threats Coastal wetlands worldwide have lost approximately 46.4% of their area since their historic maxima 41. Historical drivers of salt marsh loss include conversion to other land use types (e.g., agriculture, development), ditching, eutrophication, and sediment supply deficiencies. Before the 1980s, thousands of acres of wetlands had been drained and converted to agricultural lands. Since then, land use has shifted to urban and rural development46,41. While Section 404 of the US Clean Water Act affords protection to wetlands connected to navigable waters of the US and has reduced direct conversion of salt marshes, eutrophication and sediment supply still remain significant drivers of salt marsh loss. Further, despite reductions in wetland loss in recent decades, they are still disappearing at alarming rates. From 2000 to 2019, an area larger than two standard soccer pitches (about 3.5 acres or 14,000 mZ) was lost hourly worldwide. Including the natural gain and recovery throughout this period, this resulted in a net loss of about 360,000 acres (1450 kM2) of salt marsh in 20 years48. That loss is more than 1.5 times greater than all the salt marshes currently in North Carolina (approximately 220,000 acres). These more recent losses are primarily driven by such threats as increased stormwater runoff and pollution, direct fill and destruction, boat wake - induced erosion, marine debris, and climate change, particularly accelerating sea level rise (SLR). If left unaddressed, these threats will continue to pose compounding and substantial threats to the health and persistence of salt marshes globally. 1.2.2.1. Human -Induced Environmental Impacts Development within the 20 coastal counties of North Carolina is increasing significantly. The North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management reported a nearly 10% increase in population from 2010-201949. Furthermore, many coastal North Carolina counties are projected to increase by more than 16-30% between 2019-2039. While Section 404 of the US Clean Water Act, the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), and the North Carolina Dredge and Fill Act have protected salt marshes in North Carolina by significantly reducing draining, filling, and other direct disturbances, loss rates can be significantly higher in areas of high population growth and development in coastal zones50 because of the indirect effects of adjacent development and working lands. Namely, increases in impervious surfaces that accompany development and its supporting infrastructure dramatically increase the quantity and velocity of stormwater reaching estuarine systems, including salt marshes. For example, one acre of conventional parking lot produces 16 times the runoff from one acre of meadow". This increased stormwater brings pollutants in the form of sediment, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), metals, pesticides, and hydrocarbons. While salt marshes can assimilate background and even enriched levels of nutrients, eutrophication of salt marshes can increase above -ground biomass and decrease bank -stabilizing below -ground biomass, resulting in salt marsh collapse and conversion to unvegetated open water". Furthermore, as the coast has developed, property owners have sought to fortify their shoreline and landward property. Living shorelines, a nature -based solution for shoreline stabilization, not only provide erosion control, they also provide numerous benefits to fish habitat, salt marsh restoration, oyster restoration, water quality improvement, and enhancing coastal resilience (Figure 1). Historically and at present, bulkheads have been the overwhelmingly dominant shoreline protection strategy (Figure 2). Vertical shoreline armoring structures, including bulkheads, have been shown to dramatically exacerbate the erosive impacts of vessel- and wind - generated waves. In contrast, natural shorelines dissipate energy across the sloped profile, when waves encounter a vertical structure, their energy is reflected, further eroding waterward sediments and vegetation (Figure 3). tieing shorelines use plants or other natural elements —sometimes in combination with harder shoteline structures —to stabilize estuarine coasts, bays, and tributaries. 4" Oatala"" Marshes trap iwi*g .r,areiexs '.larshesand Living 33%91 Bard stwr ��ne m** of salt sedwnents from mpove Water aystav reels act sho ellnes am darelasos.n lke SlruttYfK bMe marsh stores the tidal waters, "lity. Provide as natwat rWra rasitfant US. wiN be bulkheads tartan anwa nrg them to fishcnes habitat baited to agarrut storms hardatad by prevent n31u.41 cq.vatent of qmw In vuease waves fish of than 11041 decmosing m,aashmWatian Mm gal of elavMion as sea blodiversity, nw sh can tnrtkheads. flshcsres Mixtat and may create gasa Oy. kvcl nses and pornnte abs b"%sA and 6+od,ve,t , xaward recrtsRion. rrK wnargwavv "GAIrrn energy. sr h: r Figure 1. The ecosystem and resilience benefits of living shorelines used for shoreline stabilization. Source: NOAA Bu;khead 496.8 Riprao 181.5 Bulkhead with Marsn Waterward 75.4 euiknead with Sediment Bank Waterward ■ 16.7 Groin S 1U Riprap with Marsh Waterward C 11.5 B,eakwater 1 7.2 Boat Ramp 1 6.9 Riprap with Sediment Bank Waterward 1 5A S?Il 1 4.9 Jetty 1 4,4 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Total Length (mi) Figure 2. Coastwide extent of shoreline with shoreline structures within North Carolina's 20 coastal counties, based on 2012 aerial imagery53. Source: NC CHPP 2021 Amendmentz. Figure 3. Time series of two bulkhead sites illustrating changes in marsh width, 1981-201354. The red delineates the bulkhead locations, blue delineates 20m transects, and the green areas outline the marsh. Source: NC CHPP 2021 Amendment2. Increasing coastal development is expected to increase the demand for shoreline stabilization. More than 48,000 properties valued at $13 billion are predicted to become chronically inundated by 2100 under relatively conservative SLR estimated values that could more than double under more extreme SLR scenarios. Utilizing vertical armoring structures to temporarily maintain the horizontal position of shorelines and protect landward property could dramatically accelerate the loss of waterward marshes through erosive processes, an effect compounded by sea level rise. 1.2.2.2. Stormwater runoff and pollution Stormwater runoff and pollution pose significant threats to the health and sustainability of salt marshes and surrounding ecosystems (i.e., oyster reefs, SAV beds) in North Carolina, compromising their ecological integrity and the numerous benefits they provide. One of the primary concerns is the increasing influx of stormwater runoff into salt marsh ecosystems. Urbanization and land development often lead to increased impervious surfaces, such as roads and parking lots, which hinder natural water absorption. Consequently, during rain events, stormwater runoff flows more rapidly across these surfaces, accumulating pollutants along the way. When this contaminated runoff reaches salt marshes, it introduces a suite of pollutants, including sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, and chemicals. The excess nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, delivered by stormwater runoff can trigger eutrophication within the salt marshes, leading to the proliferation of algae. Furthermore, stormwater runoff carries sediments that can smother the marsh vegetation and alter sediment composition. The sedimentation process reduces light penetration in the water, inhibiting photosynthesis and impeding the growth of essential marsh plants. Such alterations can result in the loss of plant diversity, affecting the overall resilience of the salt marsh ecosystem. Finally, toxic pollutants carried by stormwater runoff, including oil, heavy metals, and chemicals, pose direct threats to the wildlife inhabiting salt marshes. The toxic substances can accumulate in sediments and water, affecting the health of fish, invertebrates, and bird species that rely on the marsh as a critical habitat for feeding and breeding. 1.2.2.3. Ditching and Draining Since the early twentieth century, salt marshes along the east coast of the US have been altered in attempt to control mosquito populations. Some of the earliest alteration methods included extensive parallel grid -ditching and impounding". The widespread use of the parallel grid -ditching method has been shown to lead to cascading negative impacts. By ditching the marsh, the natural hydroperiod (i.e., the depth and duration of inundation) is altered. Modifying the hydrology of wetlands can significantly impair or impede many essential functions and services provided by the ecosystem, including sediment transport and nutrient cycling. Many marshes that have been extensively ditched tend to drain much more rapidly, resulting in decreased water filtration and nutrient retention and prolonged oxidized conditions, negatively affecting organic matter accumulation and soil chemistry. These altered soils can then negatively impact wetland vegetation, becoming less suitable for native plants and more suitable for invasive or exotic speciesse Over the last 50 years, these alteration methods have been modified to have fewer harmful impacts on the marshes. These newer methods include Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) and the more recent and holistic approach of Integrated Marsh Management (IMM). However, as sea levels are rising, it is imperative to more fully understand the possible impacts that mosquito ditches and other hydrology alteration methods have or will have on marshes. Marshes are becoming wetter and, with the assistance of the ditches, could drown. Similarly, the drainage ditches utilized in freshwater and agricultural lands could potentially lead to increased levels of saltwater intrusion, thus increasing the rate of habitat transition from freshwater to saltwater species. 1.2.2.4. Boat Wake -Generated Shoreline Erosion Boating activity and subsequent boat wake, especially in shallow and narrow waters, can cause significant damage and harm to wetlands when mismanaged (Figure 4). The repetitive and forceful impact of boat wakes hitting the shore can lead to physical erosion of the shoreline and the marsh sediment structure, as well as scouring the bottom of the shoreface. The constant battering undermines the stability of the shorelines, gradually wearing away the soil and vegetation that serve as crucial buffers against erosion. Additionally, the disturbance created by boat wake disrupts the natural hydrological balance within salt marshes. These ecosystems depend on a delicate equilibrium between tidal flows, sediment deposition, and plant growth. The turbulence generated by boat wakes can alter sediment distribution and interfere with the marsh's ability to naturally accrete sediments, ultimately affecting its capacity to keep pace with SLR. Boat Wake Vegetation Washing Out Turbulence Bank Erosion i Oyster Reef Degradation Bottom Scour Undercutting Suspended Sediment Bank Failure Marsh Loss Currents Increased Turbidity Fish HafbitatLoss Sediment Reallocation Decreased Photosynthesis / Disrupted Fish Assemblage Loss of Submerged Vegetation Figure 4. Potential impacts from boat wakes to some different aquatic resources". The blue boxes represent drivers of change, yellow boxes represent changes in ecosystem structures and functions, and green boxes represent impacts on living resources. Adapted from Liddle and Scorgie, 1980". Furthermore, boat wake may contribute to the resuspension of sediments in the water, leading to increased turbidity and a temporary decrease in water clarity. Elevated turbidity levels can impede light penetration, hampering photosynthesis for marsh vegetation. This disruption in plant productivity not only weakens the marsh's structural integrity but also compromises its role as a habitat and breeding ground for various species, including fish and migratory birds. Finally, the forceful boat wakes can physically damage the marsh vegetation and faunal communities directly. As coastal population continues to rise, so too does the number of boaters within the coastal waters. The damaging effects of boat wake combined with the increased number of boats on the water contribute to the growing need and desire for shoreline armoring, compounding the threats against salt marshes, especially in narrow and shallow coastal waters. 1.2.2.5. Marine Debris Marine debris, as defined by The Marine Debris Act (33 USC § 1956(3)) as "any persistent solid material that is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment or the Great Lakes," is a rapidly growing and compounding anthropogenic threat to coastal and oceanic systems worldwide59. In 2010 alone, it is estimated that about 5-12.5 million metric tons of plastic waste entered the ocean from nearly 200 different coastal countries60. Ranging in size from micrometers (e.g., microplastic fragments, microfibers) to meters (e.g., abandoned or derelict vessels), this debris has been observed from pole to pole across the globe and in almost every perceivable coastal or ocean ecosystem. Pieces of microplastics are even being discovered within organisms, like bivalves and fish, that are consumed by others, including humans. When left in the ecosystem, marine debris negatively impacts the environment, economy, health, and safety of coastal organisms and communities. Many characteristics and traits that allow salt marshes to provide crucial services, such as sediment trapping and erosion control, also make it very easy to trap marine debris, threatening the health of the surrounding vegetation and organisms. The dense vegetation and complex root systems within wetlands ensnare debris carried in by either the coastal tides or the landward stormwater discharge. Common types of marine debris found in wetlands include microplastics, fishing gear (e.g., fishing nets, fishing lines, crab pots), wooden dock fragments, and abandoned or derelict vessels. When large or heavy debris washes into wetlands, it can become lodged in the soft sediment, where it can remain for several weeks or years. The presence of this large debris can negatively impact the wetland aesthetic, entrap or snag estuarine organisms (including fish, mammals, and birds), and destroy the marsh vegetation. Uhrin and Schellinger61 conducted a study observing the response of a North Carolina marsh — specifically, the dominant grass Spartina alterniflora—to marine debris overtime. They observed that after 13 weeks in the marsh, tires and wired crab pots caused the direct destruction of the above- ground grasses and the burial and subsequent suffocation, death, and loss of grass stems. While the smaller pieces of debris pose less of a direct threat to wetland vegetation and cultural values, they are often ingested by key estuarine organisms, such as birds, turtles, fish, and bivalves62. The small microplastic fragments have also been shown to alter the carbon and nutrient fluctuations within the water column and sediments, altering biological processes" There are currently many international, federal, and state-wide efforts to address the marine debris issue. In North Carolina, NCCF published the NC Marine Debris Action Plan in January 2020. This plan is complimentary to the Southeast Regional Marine Debris Plan, coordinated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2019, and provides a strategic plan for the prevention and removal of marine debris throughout coastal North Carolina. 1.2.2.6. Invasive Species Invasive species can pose a significant and multifaceted threat to North Carolina's salt marshes. These resilient non-native plants and animals outcompete and displace native species, disrupting the fragile balance of the salt marsh ecosystem. The introduction of invasive species, such as Phragmites australis, in North Carolina's salt marshes can occur through various pathways, including ballast water discharge from ships, unintentional transport by recreational boaters, or even deliberate release for landscaping purposes. Once established, invasive species can rapidly colonize and dominate marsh landscapes, altering the structure and composition of the habitat. This not onlyjeopardizes the biodiversity of these vital coastal ecosystems but also undermines their ability to provide critical services, such as water filtration, erosion control, and essential nursery grounds for Figure S. Creation of ghost forests along the Virginia Eastern Shore from saltwater intrusion. Photo: Arielle Bader (@abaderphoto). Figure 6. Saltwater intrusion into agricultural fields in NC. Photo: Dr. Matthew Ricker/NCSU. 1.2.3. Salt Marsh Response to Sea Level Rise Salt marshes have two primary responses to the threat of SLR and extended periods of inundation — vertical accretion or horizontal migration (Figure 7). Several factors will determine a marsh's response to a threat. Salt marshes vary in many natural attributes (e.g., plant community, hydrodynamics, elevation, and sediment composition and availability) and are exposed to different anthropogenic influences (e.g., coastal development, dredging, and stormwater runoff)67,68,69 The combination of these factors affects the way marshes react to different threats. It is essential for effective marsh conservation and planning to recognize how marshes can or cannot respond70. If sediment accumulation within the marsh cannot keep pace with the rising seas, these vertically challenged wetlands will drown. Similarly, horizontally challenged marshes facing wave -induced marsh edge erosion on one side and coastal development barriers on the other cannot migrate inland and will drown71. Many of the recommended actions detailed within this plan focus on developing and implementing various strategies to help salt marsh accrete vertically, migrate horizontally, or do both. various marine species. The introduction of invasive species often results in the loss of native plant diversity, compromising the resilience of salt marshes to environmental stressors, including SLR and climate change. As invasive species continue to encroach upon these valuable habitats, the need for vigilant monitoring for early detection and prompt removal efforts becomes increasingly crucial to safeguard the ecological integrity and functions of salt marsh ecosystems. 1.2.2.7. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise The effects of climate change arguably represent the greatest threat to the function and persistence of salt marshes today. In many cases, the effects of climate change, such as SLR, increased sea surface temperature, droughts, floods, and heatwaves, will interact synergistically and with non -climate stressors (e.g., coastal development, shoreline armoring, sediment limitation, pollution) to accelerate salt marsh degradation and losses. For example, increased surface water runoff and pollution from development compounded by wetter storm events may increase nutrient delivery to marshes. This may alter salt marsh plants' above- and below - ground biomass ratios and accelerate microbial decomposition of organic matter within soils52. Already destabilized by reduced below -ground plant biomass and lower soil organic matter content, marsh edges may be increasingly vulnerable to collapse with rising sea levels and increasing tropical storm intensity. All these individual and compound effects of climate change on salt marshes must be considered and underscore the need to take action to mitigate climate change. However, among the impacts of a changing climate, SLR and its interactive effects with shoreline hardening, development, and sediment limitation are likely to have the most significant impact on the future abundance and distribution of salt marshes along the North Carolina coast37. Salt marshes are periodically inundated by the tides. As sea levels rise and storms become more frequent and wetter, however, these periods of inundation will become more and more prolonged until the marsh is forced to react or drown. Saltwater Intrusion Rising sea levels presents a different concern. As the sea levels rise, saltwater becomes more and more prevalent inland, an event known as saltwater intrusion. Saltwater intrusion (SWI) refers to the process in which saltwater infiltrates freshwater, surface water, groundwater, or terrestrial systems due to various environmental (i.e., storm surge, subsidence, rebound) and anthropogenic factors (i.e., ditching, land drainage, land use changes)64. This surplus of saltwater in these systems can significantly damage and eventually alter their composition, ecological function, and services offered. Significant increases in salinity can be damaging to salt -intolerant species. Should the exposure to high -salinity conditions persist long enough, the entire community can shift permanently. If the salt -intolerant species cannot survive in the new conditions, they are outcompeted by the more salt -tolerant species, shifting the dynamics of the ecosystem. This shift in ecosystem can be beneficial to salt marshes, as it helps to facilitate their migration and the creation of new marsh. However, this can be concerning to landowners and land managers depending on terrestrial or freshwater species or those dependent on dry or low salinity environments. One prevalent example of this habitat transition along the coast of North Carolina is the emergence of ghost forests (Figure 5). Ghost forests are stretches of dead trees found in what used to be freshwater forests. As saltwater infiltrates the system, the trees cannot survive, and the freshwater forests are transitioning to tidal swamps. These are particularly evident on the Albemarle -Pamlico peninsula65. In the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, for example, 11% of the forested land transitioned to ghost forest between 1985 and 201966. In addition to the freshwater forests, increases in SWI from SLR also pose threats to current agricultural and other working lands (Figure 6). As more saltwater seeps into the soil, the environment will become less suitable for many crops, hindering growth and production. n ish horizontal migration laa&vard edge advances �v ater-uiaish edge retreats Future NISI. Upland MSL-------------------- marsh vertical: accretion Figure 7. Diagram of vertical and horizontal marsh responses to sea -level rise70. 1.2.3.1. Vertical marsh accretion For salt marshes to persist in place, they must rise vertically at a rate equal to or greater than that of rising sea levels. Vertical marsh accretion occurs with the accumulation of organic matter (i.e., root material) and sedimentation. Both sources of material are important. One study72 demonstrated that marshes have a theoretical maximum vertical accretion rate of 5 mm per year. This rate is based on the highest sediment loading rates of combined inputs of organic and inorganic materials. According to a different study73, this maximum accretion rate is equivalent to the current rate of SLR of the southeastern Chesapeake Bay, which was approximately 5.1 mm per year with an acceleration of about 0.16 mm each year. Long term analysis of SLR and salt marsh accretion, however, indicates that North Carolina marshes are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of SLR74. Marshes cannot indefinitely survive a higher rate of SLR in the absence of a significant source of inorganic sediment. The suspended sediment supply throughout coastal North Carolina waters is relatively lower. Analysis of Surface Elevation Table (SET) data between the year 2004- 2018 indicates that local sea levels in North Carolina were rising approximately 7.5 mm/yr. Marshes must be able to accrue sediment at an equal or faster rate than that of the rising sea levels to avoid total inundation and drowning. If they fail to keep pace vertically, they must retreat horizontally and migrate inland. 1.2.3.2. Horizontal marsh migration Salt marshes have a second mechanism for responding to SLR, which involves migrating landward. As sea levels rise, saltwater floods inland habitats, infiltrating the soil. The increased soil salinity makes the low-lying forests and agricultural lands less habitable for saltwater -intolerant species. Halophytic marsh vegetation eventually replaces terrestrial and freshwater plants as the marsh -upland boundary moves landward. However, this process is influenced by many environmental and anthropogenic factors, including topography, hardened structures, shoreline armoring, and drainage features. Land use, however, is among the most impactful, as marsh migration along its natural path is impeded in areas with hardscapes like roads or urban development. When this occurs, the marsh erodes at the waterward extent and remains stationary at the landward extent. The marsh becomes trapped between rising sea levels and impediments to inland migration, known as coastal squeeze (Figure 8). In North Carolina, there are buffer rules and regulations in place that aim to restrict development from encroaching upon the water. However, as sea levels continue to rise, the shoreline that is typically above water will inevitably be impacted. This will reduce buffer zones, posing challenges for stakeholders and communities along the coast70. Eventually, as SLR and SWI become severe enough (3.3ft SLR by 2100), salt marsh will be much less hindered by development and will migrate beyond these barriers. For the timeline of this plan (1.5ft SLR by 2050), however, the focus is to prevent and remove such barriers to allow for clear migration pathways. mean high spring tide i — — — _ — — — mean high neap tide r mean low neap tide upper marsh ': lower marsh pioneer i mudflat inland migration of coastal habitats b■�� _ _.sealevel .. -., rise upper marsh lower marsh ': pioneer mudflat landward reach of tidal waters is fixed by the presence of a seawall c'- i _-----___-_- sea level coastal squeeze j rise upper marsh i lower marsh pioneer mudflat intertidal habitats are squeezed between rising water level and the seawall d-------- - - - - - - t sea level i :..... ...... . coastal squeeze ? } i rise lower marsh ! pioneer mudflat i sea/estuary Figure 8. The elevation in relation to the tidal range is one of the key factors determining the type of intertidal habitat that may develop in a particular location (a). Natural habitats tend to migrate inland as a response to rising sea levels (b). As a result of this migration the intertidal area may expand or reduce depending, for example, on the coastal topography. Hard engineering structures will invariably fix the landward limit of intertidal areas (c), which will be reduced in extent as sea levels rise and more land becomes permanently inundated (d). The loss of coastal habitats due to rising sea levels in front of artificially fixed shorelines is known as coastal squeeze. Source: Esteves, 201675. 2. Current and Projected Status of North Carolina Salt Marsh Presently, North Carolina has about 220,000 acres of salt marsh along its coast (Figures 9a and 10a-c). These marshes are found lining the mainland side of estuaries, as isolated marsh complexes within the open water estuarine system, and behind the state's barrier islands. By 2050, a projected 1.5-foot rise in sea level would dramatically alter the landscape of salt marshes across the North Carolina coast. Utilizing data derived from Warnell, et al., (2022)37 and ArcGIS Pro geospatial analysis software, salt marsh gains and losses throughout North Carolina are projected in this plan based on the intermediate sea level rise scenario. Assuming a sustained level of development, no efforts to slow or impede salt marsh encroachment into agricultural or forested uplands, and no major ecological or geological changes, the salt marsh acreage throughout the state could nearly double to almost 400,000 acres (Figures 9b and 10d-f). However, the projected distribution of salt marsh and, thus, its local and regional ecosystem service provisioning will not be evenly divided along the coast and is projected to shift dramatically. For more detailed images of the projection analysis, see Appendices B and C. Nara �" uRalelgh �es'�*- csl. HERE N00.4. USGS, EPA. Esi I.lKGS ilw.b Raleigh orexarnlr Cm Asrmr^ Nia�tan .�ul, la<l.�o.n•tlfT >w Norfol .� Ralelgls Beach N 0 9.5 19 38 Miles I s f l t It .}*St♦i Current salt Marsh* . 'Developed hom data by Wamell, Olandeg and Curren (20221 Data are not scaled for panzel•level uelitatlon Es^. HERE Garmm, FAD 110AA, USGS EPA WS N 0 9.5 19 38 Mlles I 1 I At .j c is Esn. HERE N00.4. USGS } � EPA E.�i. USGS .~ Raleigh g nrh i.li. Projected Salt Marsh in 2050* C "Doveloped hom data by Wamell, Oland., and Curren (2022). Data — not scaled fnr parcel -level utilization Esn HERE Ganln, 1;40 NOAA :'SGS EPA. NPS Beach Figure 9. Current (a) and 2050 projections (b) of salt marsh coastwide throughout North Carolina under an intermediate (1.5ft) sea level rise scenario, assuming no major geological, ecological, or developmental changes. ,�� �� ,• 9 R � o,rRrt setwnr ^ it • '�, .wc.mr�uvr;.nr...mr.„wt. ir� w�4vMwwa� • r-7 •,+rm ___J �,` � a S I�((r -��� s��.n ns.�ir m xuw•''^ M � owe+w..».�.wae �, ' wrwaww� `i a i I a Vol 41 • ,p1.ti / C �� t r .. . r u- 1Y� 'rr � at In II rri - CUrtml SeR MaM• ` 4 Y, r .R. .! / — �Md S.k nxJr m lOsa" -�+'A •wwrwd4a+.euM .eRar�r. timxra aaw ra wen+rwe +N `/ man •mm 376 IA t6 NLw .. �Ut. ...n. y. .w.�. .tcn Vr#��✓ D Jib 1G I.41es t<.r rc� ..n w. o '� [ rs , A n . CurmR �X MmeM o ' l -J M rO4Lea A _ Roleated SeX Mar3r in 1050�. ewbpratmmaa:. pyw� ,n..lrmA.mo-.K.o�mww pu rrcrummun f 0.uleped 4mm dar. trl wamep geneer .�dwm. Roul.wm x. nar rz.im %r S- .rat ne vnuom � j. ,r t �w. 4......- s. .r_. .,'mow;yi� K � � -......�._ ��.�i. .mow.. .., r. .n r.� .. n. s, .. 'e.e.., r. r,:r�rr.,❑ Figure 10. Current (a, b, c) and 2050 projections (d, e, f) of salt marsh by region throughout North Carolina under an intermediate (1.5ft) sea level rise scenario, assuming no major geological, ecological, or developmental changes. Owing to the geology of North Carolina's coastal plain, the availability of potential marsh migration space differs dramatically between the northern and southern portions of the coast. Roughly bisected by the Suffolk Scarp (Figures 11 and 12), the lower elevation of land in the northern portion of the coast affords appreciably more potential marsh migration space than do the higher elevations of the southern coast. Indeed, under intermediate SLR projections for 2050 (+0.46m relative to 2010), North Carolina is projected to lose approximately 92,000 acres of existing salt marsh and gain more than 270,000 acres of new marsh. Yet, most net gains in salt marsh acreage are projected to occur within mainland watersheds in the northern and central coast, while the majority of losses are observed along the barrier islands and southern coast. Figure 11. The elevation of eastern North Carolina showing the location of the Suffolk Scarp, along the red dashed line. Map from NC Land of Water76. L__t 3i ..EFr •^'4y � t T i4:y legend ft*Akq Marsh }.!i '" ;P; .r•' �. c—ft to M-h . ,f b v ,.• 0 7 14 ?8 Mlbb u -E+E ••n.n tv.i+M',°+� ��-""xn4 .-544 FAA h9i Figure 12. Salt marsh projections for 2050 within the Suffolk Scarp region. The vast disparity of salt marsh projections across the coast justifies the need to divide the coastline into smaller fragments (Figure 13a). The region is divided into small watershed units based on the US Geological Survey's 10- digit hydrologic unit code (HUC-10) watershed units directly connecting to estuarine surface waters in which salt marsh is currently present or is projected to exist by 2050 under intermediate SLR predictions of about 1.5 feet. (Figure 13b). These HUC-10s were then trimmed and amended into the plan's 38 conservation planning units (CPUs) based on jurisdictional and ecological needs to provide more specialized recommendations for salt marsh throughout the state (Figure 13c). The 2050 marsh projection data were then clipped to the individual CPUs, and that allowed total acreage of marsh gained or lost to be calculated within each CPU between now and 2050 (Appendix D). Figure 13d illustrates the magnitude of the gain or loss within each CPU throughout the state. NY 3 5.. �r`w—• i Coastal Counties A 1 j l , Conservation Watershed Units Planning Units A USGS HUC-10 FFd N Raleigh Legend Marsh loss or Gain 0 -Soo by 20so (aces) 500 _ lope (-15,000) (-5000) 1000 - 5000 (-5000) (-1000) 5000 - 15,000 (-1000) - (500) ! 15,000 - 35,000 (-500) 0 35,000 - 100,000 0 12.5 25 50 Miles nHtk o.nnm, FNc rvcaa uxs t,�a NJ", Figure 13. The coast of North Carolina (a) divided into smaller segments based on the US Geological Survey's 10-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC-10) watershed units connected to estuarine surface waters (b) in which salt marsh is currently present or is projected to exist by 2050 under intermediate sea level rise (SLR) predictions of approximately 1.5 feet and amended into conservation planning units (CPU) based on jurisdictional and ecological needs (c). Projected net salt marsh acreage change between present and 2050 under an intermediate SLR scenario of 0.46m relative to 2010 (d) with the color fill of each CPU corresponding with projected net change, barring no major developmental or geological changes. 2.1. Implications of Future Projections The prospective loss of salt marshes in North Carolina carries multifaceted implications, impacting both the environment and human communities. With a 1.5ft rise in sea level, the coast of North Carolina will change dramatically (Figure 14). Much of the low-lying lands in the central and northern regions of the coast will become increasingly inundated until permanently submerged. The barrier islands will become even more subjected to overwash and the creation of new inlets. Consequently, as the seas rise and these occurrences of overwash and new inlet formations increase, saltwater intrusion will be at an all-time high, leading to landward salt marsh migration and habitat transitions. Regions along the coast with heavy shoreline armoring will be subjected to more destruction and loss of vital coastal habitats and vegetation. These unique coastal ecosystems provide a range of invaluable ecological services, and their decline could result in far-reaching consequences, such as increased erosion and storm damage, decreased carbon sequestration potential, and the collapse of crucial nursery and breeding grounds for ecologically and commercial significant wetlands species. While these outlooks are projected to 2050, several areas are currently experiencing the negative effects of rising sea levels and climate change. There is already evidence of marsh loss, increased saltwater intrusion, and marsh migration occurring throughout the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. This reinforces the immediate and urgent need for organized action. By enhancing existing marsh and bolstering its capacity for sediment accrual, the marsh can keep pace with SLR vertically. Simultaneously, facilitating marsh migration and establishing clear, protected migration corridors will allow the marsh to retreat horizontally, preserving the coastal protection and other benefits it provides. Figure 14. North Carolina coastline with the (a) current mean high-water line and with (b) 2ft of sea level rise. Source: NOAA17. Across the US, especially along the coast of the southeastern US, SLR is expected to have disproportionate impacts on socially vulnerable communities78,79•80, with residents in rural coastal communities, such as North Carolina's Albemarle -Pamlico Peninsula, especially exposed to the impacts of SLR81 (Figure 15). Handwerger et al. 2021" examined the differential impacts of SLR on minority and economically disadvantaged communities in the Carolinas, finding that "as SLR progresses throughout the century, impacts grow increasingly disproportionate by as much as two -fold for low-income alone and low-income Black coastal communities at 2- and 4-ft of SLR... [and that] 2-ft of SLR is expected to increase 700% for low-lying flooding in the most economically disadvantaged, Black communities compared to economically disadvantaged, white communities." Supporting these findings, participants in a mapping exercise during the August 2022 workshop (Appendix A) emphasized the forecasted impacts of marsh migration on the historically Black community of North River in Carteret County. Given the ways that government actions supporting coastal protection, navigation, and development resulted in displacement and exacerbation of existing inequalities facing Black communities across the coastal southeastern US83, addressing the vulnerabilities and needs specific to these communities will be imperative as SLR accelerates. Recent literature has documented significant risks to minority and low-income communities that arise from "colorblind" resilience and adaptation efforts and policies that don't take into consideration the histories and challenges faced by those communities7 ,", suggesting that such adaptation and hazard mitigation efforts can further redistribute vulnerability toward those already -vulnerable groups84 and exacerbate existing racial wealth inequality85. As SLR drives marsh migration and loss in North Carolina's socially vulnerable communities, particularly minority and low-income communities, it will be crucial for government agencies and NGOs to prioritize proactively collaborating with and supporting these communities in planning and funding efforts that enhance adaptation to rising seas and migrating marshes. 3. Recommended Actions Based on the projected trends for North Carolina's salt marshes detailed in the previous section, and given the imminent pressures from the increasing threats, there are a number of actions that must be taken promptly to protect, restore, and enhance this vital coastal habitat. These threats are often interconnected, and addressing them requires comprehensive and integrated management strategies, involving government agencies, conservation organizations, researchers, and local communities. Conservation efforts that consider the cumulative impacts of these threats are crucial for the long-term health and resilience of salt marsh in North Carolina and elsewhere. This section describes the various components necessary to accomplish just that (please note: strategies, objectives, and actions are not listed in any priority ranking). a Exclusion from Adaptation 50 cm Global SLR Low Income +8% Minority +9% No High School Diploma +9% 65 and Older -6% Figure 15. (a) Increased likelihood of being excluded from adaptation to coastal inundation by social vulnerability factor86. (b) Spatial vulnerability for least privileged vs. most privileged quintiles of racial segregation and income disparities at 2 feet of SLR82. Goal What the implementation of this plan is designed to achieve Strategy The overarching approaches to achieve the larger goal Objective How the strategies are implemented Action High -priority steps necessary to meet specific strategy objectives Output The expected deliverables for each action Result The intended outcome of the fulfillment of each action In coordination with the SASMI Plan, there are three guiding strategies of the NC SMAP necessary to achieve the overarching goal. These strategies detail approaches to conserve, restore, and facilitate the migration of salt marshes based on the needs and projections of North Carolina. Each strategy has multiple objectives and necessary recommended actions for implementation. These recommended actions are the product of multiple collaborative workshops and discussions with local stakeholders and experts (Appendix A). Where appropriate and feasible, the objectives and actions are aligned and coordinated with those of the SASMI Plan. Finally, for each action, the outputs and intended results of its successful completion have been identified. GOAL: Protect, restore, and facilitate the migration of salt marshes in North Carolina to minimize loss of function, benefits, and acreage through 2050 and beyond. 3.1. Strategy 1. Advance Salt Marsh Conservation and Restoration. Conserving and restoring existing salt marshes in North Carolina in the face of intensifying SLR, storms, and erosion is essential to maintaining the acreage and ecological functions of these valuable coastal ecosystems and the services they provide. If marshes continue to degrade or drown, coastal communities will become more vulnerable to storm surge and erosion, wetland -dependent species will lose habitat, essential nursey areas, or breeding grounds, and the ability to help address climate change impacts through greenhouse gas sequestration will be jeopardized. This section details numerous objectives and actions recommended to restore lost or degraded marsh, enhance existing marsh, and protect current and future marsh from further damages and threats. In general, these recommendations aim to assist sediment accrual for more efficient vertical accretion, reduce impacts of pollution and runoff through effective stormwater management, enhance existing or degraded marsh through the implementation and development of both proven and new restoration techniques, and increase public awareness and engagement to reduce pollution, encourage responsible land use, and help safeguard North Carolina's coastal habitats. This aligns with the SASMI Plan Strategy 1: Protect and restore the health and functions of existing salt marshes. Objective A. Protect salt marshes from new and existing stressors to minimize impacts from landward activities (Table 2). Table 2. Strategy 1-Objective A. Protect salt marshes from new and existing stressors to minimize impacts from landward activities. Action 1.A.1. Description: Review existing water quality Outputs: Regulatory guidance Prevent outfalls to marshes and sedimentation development standards to examine the effectiveness of current standards, need for additional standards, and Results: Marsh protection from stormwater runoff damage potential enforcement challenges. Action 1.A.2. Description: Encourage local municipalities Outputs: Educational stakeholder meetings Results: Adopted or adjusted stormwater Educate and and state agencies to adopt stormwater adjust controls that protect marshes on individual management policies; better stormwater and community waterfront properties, protection for marshes on private policies to including helping to strengthen and enforce lands protect salt the DEQ Coastal Stormwater Program. marsh Action 1.A.3. Description: Work with local communities, Outputs: Outreach and educational materials; Maintain and municipalities, and state lawmakers to relevant stakeholder meetings; more promote maintain and promote adequate setbacks vegetated buffers; adjustments to adequate and while building support for larger setbacks local and state development larger (>30') for development from marshes to standards; demonstration projects Results: Adaptable management of setbacks and allow for more protective riparian waterfront vegetated areas and marsh migration corridors. development that is safer for both buffers infrastructure and the salt marsh to account for sea level rise and more intense storms Action 1.A.4. Description: Maintain contiguous freshwater Outputs: Outreach and educational materials; Prevent filling wetlands adjacent to marshes to maintain cost -share to help maintain natural near marshes overall hydrology, storm protection, and vegetative buffers; site development future marsh migration areas through standards Results: Natural habitat conversion; room for restoration and strategic land acquisition. marsh migration; storm buffers better protecting waterfront development Action 1.A.5. Description: Prevent and manage invasive Outputs: Preventative efforts; consistent Prevent and species from encroaching on marsh areas by monitoring and managing; prioritized manage focusing on early detection, prompt removal, itinerary; maps and GIs data; pilot invasive and using inventories and maps to prioritize early detection management program Results: Halted spread of invasive species species problem areas where marshes are being degraded by invasive species. within marshes; information to support decision -making; early removal of invasive species Objective B. Promote and advance restoration, protection, and conservation of salt marshes to support salt marsh and broader estuary health (Table 3). Table 3. Strategy 1-Objective B. Promote and advance restoration, protection, and conservation of salt marshes to support salt marsh and broader estuary health. Action 1.6.1. Description: Continue and expand the Outputs: Restored and enhanced connecting marsh Continue and restoration and protection of degraded complexes Results: Healthier and more resilient salt marshes; advance salt or vulnerable salt marshes while marsh exploring and advancing new measures reconnect fragmented marshes; enhance restoration and for restoration and protection. long-term stability; advancement of marsh protection restoration and protection measures Action 1.6.2. Description: Continue and expand salt Outputs: Varying marsh conservation projects along Continue and marsh conservation to protect existing the coast Results: Protection of existing salt marshes for expand salt marshes through conservation projects, marsh funding opportunities, land acquisition, continued habitat value and ecosystem conservation and easements. services Action 1.6.3. Description: Engage in relevant land Outputs: Updated management strategies Engage in management planning processes and water resource management planning processes to incorporate indicators of salt marsh and estuarine ecosystem health as metrics for success. Results: Land management strategies that include indicators of salt marsh and ecosystem health as metrics for success. Objective C. Facilitate and expand the use of living shorelines to protect and restore salt marsh edges (Table 4). Table 4. Strategy 1-Objective C. Facilitate and expand the use of living shorelines to protect and restore salt marsh edges. Action 1.C.1. Description: Continue and expand the use of Outputs: Varying living shoreline projects Continue use living shorelines as the preferred shoreline along the coast; more plantings Results: More abundant and more successful of living stabilization method to protect and restore salt shorelines marsh, especially in lieu of bulk heads where living shoreline projects; protected appropriate infrastructure and salt marsh Action 1.C.2. Description: Maintain and enhance federal, Outputs: Applications and requests for Expand state, and local funding for cost -share programs funding Results: Increased funds to offset costs of funding for to encourage the use of living shorelines and cost -share better establish private market demand. living shorelines as financial program incentives Action 1.C.3. Description: Maintain consistent education and Outputs: Educational and outreach materials; Continue and outreach about the merits of living shorelines consistent meetings and sharing of advance with federal and state agencies, landowners, information Results: Increased awareness about nature - education and landscapers, engineers, marine contractors, real outreach estate agents, local governments, and any other based alternatives to shoreline stakeholders that can influence how waterfront stabilization and increased demand properties are managed and protected. for living shorelines Action 1.C.4. Description: Expand the capacity of contractors Outputs: Reports; successful plant nurseries Expand to provide needed plants for living shorelines by and donor marshes Results: Continual, sustainable, ready source capacity of demonstrating the utility of a "donor marsh" and contractors to by working with nurseries to encourage them to of plants for living shoreline projects grow their grow more plants each year. own plants Action I.C.S. Conduct Description: Conduct research on predetermined topics and knowledge gaps to help with project Outputs: Information; data; reports Results: Increased knowledge and research designs and to ensure environmentally understanding about living compatible projects, including studies into the shorelines, adaptive design, and long-term interaction between living shorelines impact on surrounding environment and SAV, water quality, and fish utilization and the best designs for fish passages. Objective D. Facilitate and advance salt marsh research and assessment to protect and restore existing salt marshes and improve salt marsh function (Table 5). Table S. Strategy 1-Objective D. Facilitate and advance salt marsh research and assessment to protect and restore existing salt marshes and imnrove salt marsh function. Action 1.D.1. Description: Support and collaborate with Outputs: Statewide Beneficial Use Plan for Support the partnering agencies to develop a Beneficial Use NC development of Plan for North Carolina for all areas where Results: More methods and options for a Beneficial Use routine dredging is conducted by federal, state, of Dredge Spoils local, and private entities. Seek to achieve the coastal habitat restoration Plan US Army Corps of Engineers' national goal of 70% beneficial use of dredge spoils. Action 1.D.2. Description: Inventory and map threatened, Outputs: Maps and GIS data Identify degraded, or eroded marsh complexes based on Results: Information to support decision compromised acreage, ecological, and protective functions. making marsh complexes Action 1.D.3. Description: Continue restoration efforts by Outputs: Prioritized list of sites with possible Prioritize prioritizing identified sites based on federal, restoration techniques Results: Cost-effective use of funds and inventoried sites state, and/or local criteria and identifying and identify potential restoration techniques for each resources based on priority potential prioritized site. restoration techniques Action 1.D.4. Description: Work with partnering agencies Outputs: Funding mechanisms Identify and from all levels of government to identify and Results: More specific opportunities to fund develop develop additional funding mechanisms that additional can support prioritized projects on both public marsh restoration on different fundink; and private lands. levels mechanisms 3.2. Strategy 2. Facilitate Salt Marsh Migration. The strategy of facilitating salt marsh migration is rooted in the recognition of the imminent challenges posed by SLR. As climate change is causing rising sea levels and an increase in more frequent and stronger storms, freshwater and terrestrial systems are becoming more and more inundated by saltwater. This persistent saltwater intrusion eventually leads to a shift in habitats from dry land to more freshwater and saltwater wetlands, especially in areas of lower elevation and minimal shoreline armoring. Much of this salt marsh migration has been occurring for centuries but will become more rapid along the central and northern coast of North Carolina, impacting many communities, farms, and forested areas. Given the concern that some landowners and managers may have and given that saltwater intrusion resulting from SLR is exceedingly difficult and expensive to prevent, the feasibility of stopping marsh migration is very low over the long run. Therefore, the need in some locations is to collaborate with communities and help them to protect the status quo for as long as practical, while also planning for orderly and strategic transitions as both V groundwater and sea levels rise. By providing resources and fostering resilience in coastal communities, we seek to address the implications of this habitat shift and, in turn, contribute to the well-being of these communities for as long as possible. This strategic adaptation requires cooperation among all stakeholders, recognizing the shared interest in building a sustainable and thriving future for coastal regions. This section details numerous objectives and actions recommended to overcome the various obstacles (i.e., roads, coastal development, funding) and collaborate with community members and stakeholders. Taking these steps and working toward these objectives will help facilitate successful habitat transition and salt marsh migration. This aligns with the SASMI Plan Strategy 2 Conserve marsh migration corridors and remove or retrofit barriers to ensure salt marshes can shift as sea levels rise. Objective A. Conserve migration corridors through land acquisitions and easements, securing necessary funding and resources, and updating planning and management practices (Table 6). Table 6. Strategy 2-Objective A. Conserve migration corridors through land acquisitions and easements, securing necessary funding and resources, and updating planning and management practices. Action 2.A.1. Description: Obtain funding for the Outputs: Easement contracts Utilize easements to avoid urbanization in implementation of projects that focus agricultural farmland easements within marsh migration areas to avoid urbanization of those Results: Increased protected land for marsh migration migration zones. corridors Action 2.A.2. Description: Concentrate Natural Resources Outputs: Identification and maps; Focus NRCS Conservation Service's (NRCS) wetland stakeholder engagement; programs within protection and enhancement cost -share documents and reports Results: Increased protected land for marsh migration programs within salt marsh migration areas. corridors migration Action 2.A.3. Description: Use USDA federal farm bill Outputs: Easements; restoration projects Secure easements conservation programs to secure conservation Results: Increased protected land for marsh under the USDA easements and undertake hydrology federal farm bill restoration on lands that are becoming migration conservation marginally productive due to saltwater programs encroachment and flooding. Action 2.A.4. Description: Work with state and federal land Outputs: Updated and promoted Collaborate with management agencies to ensure that their management strategies and policies Results: Land management that is beneficial land management land management strategies are conducive to agencies marsh migration needs and work to establish to future marsh; consistent land uniform policies. management for marsh migration Action 2.A.5. Description: Obtain resilience funding to work Outputs: Applications and requests for nhtain f ind;ng to with NC DOT, DoD, USDA, DCM, and other funding Results: Increased opportunities for marsh - work with federal state and federal agencies to ensure that and state infrastructure planning and investments align friendly infrastructure planning agencies with future marsh migration needs. Objective B. Encourage the inclusion of marsh migration as a priority in planning and investments in infrastructure, wetland restoration, and working lands to facilitate migration and improve management practices (Table 7). Table 7. Strategy 2-Objective B. Encourage the inclusion of marsh migration as a priority in planning and investments in infrastructure, wetland restoration, and working lands to facilitate migration and improve manacrPmPnt nrartires. Action 2.8.1. Utilize local Description: Work with local governments to Outputs: Regulation; management government regulations better manage for new development in low- strategies Results: Increased protected land for to better manage new lying areas near salt marshes to avoid development within blocking potential migration pathways. marsh migration marsh migration pathways Action 2.6.2. Develop Description: Coordinate with state agencies Outputs: Updated Policy and Blueprint guidance and incorporate to provide guidance for including marsh Results: More comprehensive marsh migration into migration projections and needs in state decision -making and flood state policies policies including the Uniform Floodplain policy to include marsh Management Policy and Flood Resiliency migration Blueprint. Action 2.6.3. Advocate Description: Advocate for the adjustment of Outputs: Adjusted scoring criteria for the adjustment of the grant funding scoring criteria used by Results: Increased protected land for grant funding scoring public and private funders to incentivize the marsh migration criteria use of conservation areas to allow for marsh migration. Action 2.6.4. Include Description: Work with state agencies to Outputs: Updated strategies nature -based strategies, ensure that nature -based strategies that Results: More effective and sea level rise, and marsh consider sea level rise and marsh migration sustainable coastal flood migration within flood needs are fully reflected in flood mitigation mitigation projects projects undertaken along the coast. mitigation Action 2.B.5. Encourage Description: Encourage and help implement Outputs: New and updated legislation state legislation and state legislation and/or Executive Orders that Results: Infrastructure development Executive Orders guide government investments in state and that is forward -thinking, community infrastructure that reflect environmentally conscious, projected marsh migration patterns and and adaptive to marsh needs. migration Action 2.6.6. Develop Description: Develop guidance for partners of Outputs: Guidance document Results: Align human activities like guidance to incorporate the Eastern NC Sentinel Landscape (ENCSL) to marsh migration into ensure public investments in infrastructure infrastructure and military public infrastructure and military operations align with marsh ops. with the changing needs investments migration needs and priorities. of marsh migration, fostering a more sustainable and eco- conscious approach within the ENCSL Action 2.B.7. Develop a Description: Develop a decision -support tool Outputs: Decision -support tool decision -support tool for for enlarging roadway tidal stream crossings Results: More informed decision - tidal stream crossings to promote marsh migration. making and planning Action 2.6.8. Address Description: Identify, prioritize, and address Outputs: Prioritized lists of locations hydrologic barriers to hydrologic barriers to marsh migration and strategies Results: More effective and efficient marsh migration through removal or retrofitting. marsh migration Objective C. Advance research and assessment of salt marsh migration areas (Table 8). Table 8. Strategy 2-Obiective C. Advance research and assessment of salt marsh migration areas. Action 2.C.1. Description: Update and refine existing Outputs: Maps; GIs data Update and refine marsh migration projection maps to account Results: More informed planning and existing marsh for the influence of existing drainage decision -making; readily available migration systems, patterns in rainfall, etc. to enhance data for prioritization and decision - projection maps prioritization efforts. making Action 2.C.2. Description: Inventory and prioritize Outputs: Prioritized lists Inventory and migration areas based on specific strategies Results: More informed planning and prioritize migration (i.e., acquisition, conservation based on decision -making; readily available areas inevitable natural processes and existing data for prioritization and decision - land uses, most vulnerable to sea level rise, making management for marsh movement on conservation lands purchased with public funds). Action 2.C.3. Description: Identify for conservation the Outputs: Map; GIs data Identify prior federally designated "prior converted Results: Increased protected land for marsh converted cropland" located within known marsh migration croplands within migration corridors. migration corridors Action 2.C.4. Description: Support research that projects Outputs: Research projects, reports, data; Update hydrology how the geology and hydrology of existing adjusted design processes restoration designs shorelines, barrier islands, and coastal plain Results: Adaptive planning; updated and for sea level rise wetlands will change with sea level rise and more comprehensive based on research work with NRCS to ensure that hydrology understanding of coastal dynamics restoration designs account for this. 3.3. Strategy 3: Incorporate Cross -Cutting Approaches. In addition to the objectives and actions outlined for Strategy 1 and 2 mentioned above, there are several crucial cross -cutting approaches this strategy focuses on that are essential for advancing ongoing efforts to conserve and restore both existing and future salt marshes. First, it is vital to always leverage the latest advancements in science and technology to inform management and policy decisions. Given the continuous development of new technologies, monitoring methods, and implementation strategies, it is paramount that our management practices, policies, and regulations remain abreast of these innovations to optimize the use of time, resources, and efforts. Further, securing funding to implement the strategies is critical to the successful implementation of the plan to protect and restore salt marshes and conserve marsh migration corridors. The actions detailed below are recommended to ensure that our conservation and restoration endeavors remain effective and adaptive. This aligns with the SASMI Plan's Crosscutting Approaches. Objective A. Conduct research, support monitoring efforts, and pursue funding opportunities (Table 9). Table 9. Strategy 3-Objective A. Conduct research, support monitoring efforts, and pursue funding opportunities. Action 3.A.1. Description: Develop and publicize yearly research Outputs: Itinerary of areas of research Research priorities related to marsh restoration, conservation, needs/interests and migration, and circulate to researchers and their Results: Comprehensive understanding funders. of knowledge gaps and needs Action 3.A.2. Description: Continue to refine and publish SLR- Outputs: GIS data and layers Results: More comprehensive Refine and driven marsh loss and migration projection data publish marsh across multiple platforms, including ArcGIS Online. knowledge for public and projection Add projection data layer to such projects and tools private sectors for planning, data as the NC OneMap and the NOAA Digital Coast. research, etc. Action 3.A.3. Description: Develop ambient water quality and Outputs: Monitoring stations; data Monitor water water level monitoring stations throughout coastal Results: Comprehensive understanding quality water bodies. of coastal water quality Action 3.A.4. Description: Support a coordinated federal and state Outputs: Maps; GIS; reports Support long- mapping effort to utilize existing information, Results: Up-to-date and readily term mapping identify and address gaps, and seek funding available data for prioritization and necessary to monitor salt marshes over time to and decision -making; monitoring determine status and trends and overall ecosystem comprehensive understanding efforts health. of marsh trends and projections; adjust management strategies Action 3.A.5. Description: Identify and pursue funding to support Outputs: Applications; requests; list of Pursue salt marsh restoration, conservation, protection, and possible funding sources Results: Increased funding for salt funding migration efforts and research. opportunities marsh conservation, restoration, and protection Photo: NCCF Secondly, building upon existing policy, laws and programs at the local, state and federal levels and pursuing new policies to plan and implement initiatives to conserve and restore salt marshes while accommodating migration is critical. Salt marshes exist within a dynamic coastal environment and a complex legal, regulatory and policy framework. Coordination and collaboration with state, federal, and local partners present an opportunity to gain a comprehensive understanding of the existing framework, as well as identify and pursue opportunities to strengthen and build upon it in ways that bring improved results for salt marshes and stakeholders. Objective B. Encourage policy and management adjustment (Table 10). Table 10. Strategy 3-Objective B. Encourage policy and management adjustment. Action 3.6.1. Description: Collaborate with state and federal Outputs: Regulatory framework summary; Conduct agencies to conduct a gap analysis of existing regulatory guidance; adaptive regulatory gap state, regional, and federal laws, policies, and management strategies Results: Identify policies and regulations analysis programs relevant to the protection and restoration of salt marshes, shoreline buffer that promote environmentally restrictions, living shorelines and other nature- beneficial coastal development; based solutions, and the conservation of marsh installation of more nature -based migration corridors. solutions; protected essential public infrastructure Action 3.6.2. Description: Collaborate with state and federal Outputs: Updated permitting processes, Identify agencies to identify alternative permitting policies, and guidance; adaptive alternative strategies, provide regulatory guidance, and management strategies; permitting adjust management strategies to ensure that the streamlined permitting process Results: Updated policies and regulations strategies most effective and environmentally beneficial project designs are consistently selected as part that promote environmentally of permit processes for living shorelines and beneficial coastal development; other nature -based solutions. installation of more nature -based solutions; efficient permitting process that encourages using living shorelines when they are the best environmental alternative; programmatic review of large-scale projects Action 3.6.3. Description: Collaborate with state and federal Outputs: Reference document; online Develop and agencies, academia, and other organizations to portal; decision -making tools; update decision- develop and maintain an online resource as a guidance documents; update support tools for guide to implementation of the regulatory existing tools/guidance salt marsh process that can be used by agencies and permit documents (i.e., NOAA, DCM); protection and applicants to determine the most cost-effective, updated permitting processes, restoration environmentally beneficial, and readily policies, and guidance; better methods permissible protection and/or restoration coordination between methods for individual project sites (i.e., stakeholders Results: Improved and informed decision - beneficial use of sediments, marsh grass plantings, oyster reef creation or enhancement, making; efficient permitting living shorelines). roadma Action 3.13.4. Description: Ensure appropriate decision -makers Outputs: Reports; meetings Results: Improved and more informed Inform decision- are kept informed of important information, makers progress, and needs. decision -making Thirdly, there must be a sustained effort to engage stakeholders and target audiences through comprehensive education and outreach programs. This engagement is fundamental for building a strong foundation of support, understanding, and cooperation among all parties involved, ranging from local communities and landowners to government entities and NGOs. By fostering a culture of informed participation and dialogue, we can ensure that conservation and restoration initiatives are not only more broadly supported but also enriched by diverse perspectives and localized knowledge. The following actions aim to feed this continuous loop of engagement and feedback that will facilitate the creation and implementation of solutions that are both ecologically sound and socially equitable, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and sustainability of these efforts. Objective C. Communicate, educate, and engage with target audiences and communities (Table 11). Table 11. Strategy 3-Objective C: Communicate, educate, and engage with target audiences and communities. Action 3.C.1. Description: Raise public and decision -maker Outputs: Educational materials; outreach Raise public awareness about the importance of salt events awareness marshes and their role in coastal resilience to Results: More informed public to support foster community support for conservation and demand marsh restoration and efforts. conservation efforts Action 3.C.2. Description: Identify target audiences to Outputs: Targeted educational and outreach Identify target educate and engage (i.e., waterfront property materials Results: Individualized education for more audiences owners, working landowners, government decision -makers, landscapers, real estate effective communication professionals, engineers, developers, contractors). Action 3.C.3. Description: Encourage public support for Outputs: Educational materials; outreach Encourage public policies and projects that promote marsh events support conservation through regular media stories, Results: Increased dissemination of etc. knowledge and understanding Action 3.C.4. Description: Educate local communities (i.e., Outputs: Educational materials; outreach Educate local schools, homeowners associations, events Results: More informed communities to communities government planners, soil and water through a Coastal conservation districts) about the importance support marsh conservation efforts Leadership of salt marsh migration and restoration and its Institute role in coastal resilience through a planned Coastal Leadership Institute. Action 3.C.5. Description: Implement well -advertised and Outputs: Personnel; educational materials; Assign local easily accessible "points of contact" for forums Results: Supported and informed points of contact landowners to obtain assistance for managing for landowners their land and salt marsh migration, and communities, leading to improved support the development of peer -led public land management practices that forums and learning opportunities. are compatible with salt marsh migration Action 3.C.6. Description: Engage with underserved Outputs: Educational materials; Engage with and communities, particularly those at risk due to informational meetings; outreach support rising sea levels and consequent marsh loss or events; funding Results: Strong relationships and underserved migration, to understand their needs, and communities collaborate with organizations to proactively communities that are more develop and deliver resources to those prepared and resilient to respond communities. to the challenges posed by sea level rise and marsh loss or migration. 4. Plan Implementation Approach Given the urgency of this situation, it is imperative to act in an organized, well -thought-out, and structured manner. To achieve efficient and effective implementation of the NC SMAP, it is important to collaborate with partners to 1) incorporate actions into existing efforts and programs, and 2) identify new pathways to implement actions. This includes identifying, partnering on, and facilitating complementary and synergistic projects for salt marshes that involve and benefit federal, state, and local governments, military, land trusts, private landowners, and/or vulnerable and marginalized community members. There are many efforts already underway in North Carolina to advance the strategies and actions in the NC SMAP. Collaboration is key to ensuring the NC SMAP is additive and complementary to these existing efforts by leveraging resources and expertise to achieve common goals and objectives. Framework While action at the regional and national scale holds significance, the majority of the SASMI Plan implementation will take place at the state and local levels. The success of the SASMI Plan relies on the establishment of teams within each SASMI state (State Implementation Team — SIT) tasked with the development and implementation of state specific plans that include priority actions tailored to the assortment of state- and local -level challenges and opportunities. This entails delineating specific projects, pathways, and involved stakeholders for addressing the designated projects/actions, along with identifying funding sources, establishing timelines, and defining metrics of success. The North Carolina Coastal Federation is charged with leading the North Carolina SIT (NC SIT). The NC SIT is charged with facilitating the implementation of the NC SMAP and SASMI Plan through collaboration with partners and stakeholders, while engaging target audiences, supporting ongoing efforts, and sharing information regularly. The Salt Marsh Steering Committee (SMSC) was formed to function as the NC SIT, bolstering and building on North Carolina's long history of salt marsh protection and restoration efforts. The SMSC members are individuals from several key organizations that represent a wide spectrum of sectoral and geographic interests and subject matter expertise. The composition of the SMSC was judiciously selected to include 20-25 actively engaged professionals with expertise relevant to the goals and objectives of the NC SMAP and SASMI Plan, a group with the collective knowledge and experience to guide effective project implementation. In recognition of the fact that understanding how communities are being impacted by changes to salt marsh extent and function requires robust engagement with diverse stakeholders, a Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) was established. The SAC comprises various federal-, state-, and local- government agency representatives, academics, community members, special interest groups, and NGOs. With a diverse and inclusive membership of over 100 stakeholders, its purpose is to provide high level guidance and feedback on the implementation of the NC SMAP and SASMI Plan, serving in an advisory compacity to the SMSC and ensuring the stakeholder and decision -maker engagement, guidance, and support that is critical to successfully carrying out actions prioritized in the NC SMAP. The SMSC utilizes various workgroups to provide critical information on specific action items, focus areas, and priorities set by the SMSC. Where priority areas align with existing committees and workgroups affiliated with external efforts or organizations, the SMSC has worked to support and integrate with those groups rather than creating SMSC-specific workgroups in order to minimize redundancy. Existing committees already incorporated under the SMSC include the North Carolina Living Shorelines Steering Committee and the North Carolina Coastal Carbon Collaborative. As implementation of the NC SMAP and SASMI Plan progresses, other workgroups may be identified to further streamline efficiency and effectiveness. Together, these teams help with the development of a prioritized and comprehensive list of potential projects throughout North Carolina, pathways for implementation, stakeholders to involve, and funding sources to implement actions identified within the NC SMAP. A non -exhaustive list of existing efforts, programs, and tools have been identified by the SMSC as having synergies (Appendix E). Using this information to build upon, a strategic implementation plan is developed each year from the collaborative efforts of the SMSC, SAC, and workgroups to identify priority locations, key partners, necessary courses of action, specific goals, clear metrics of success for accomplishing the plan objectives, and track progress (Appendix F). The SMSC, SAC, and workgroups meet regularly to provide updates, discuss collaboration needs, and assign next steps toward the implementation of the recommended actions. The groups also continue to collaborate with SASMI leadership and coalition members to further implement relevant actions outlined in the SASMI Plan. After five years, the NC SMAP will be revaluated, updated, and re-released to ensure that the recommended actions and guidance are always following the best available science and accurately fulfilling the needs for coastal North Carolina. This effort began as a regional effort across the South Atlantic states through the work of SASMI. Salt marshes are not bound to state lines, and any threats to their health or work to protect and restore their acreage and function will transcend those lines. The work must start at the state and local level, with regional resources, support, and objectives. As such, the SMSC works closely with SASMI and regional partners to continually identify new and future efforts within North Carolina and beyond. The broader SASMI Partnership Council supports each SIT in efforts to secure resources for implementation, address policy, capacity, or other priority actions, as well as to facilitate coordination with regional -level efforts. Through these collaborative and concerted efforts, we can strive to preserve and enhance all that salt marshes have to offer North Carolina and beyond for decades to come. Photo:NCCF S. References 1. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2023). What is a Wetland? US EPA. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/what- wetland. 2. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ). (2021). North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan 2021 Amendment. Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, NC. 266 p. 3. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). (2020). National Wetland Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. 4. Mitsch, W. J., Bernal, B., & Hernandez, M. E. (2015). Ecosystem Services of Wetlands. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services, and Management, 11(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1006250 S. NC DEQ (2023). Current Rate Schedules. Division of Mitigation Services. Available from: https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation- services/customers/current-rate-schedules. 6. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 1-59726-040-1. 7. Hudson, R., Kenworthy, J. & Best, M. (eds) (2021). Saltmarsh Restoration Handbook: UK & Ireland. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK. 8. Mitsch, W.J., & Gosselink, J.G. (2015). Wetlands. (51^ ed.) Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 9. Fretwell, J.D. (1996). National water summary on wetland resources. U.S. Government Printing Office. 10. Poulter, B., Feldman, R.L., Brinson, M.M., Horton, B.P., Orbach, M.K., Pearsall, S.H., Reyes, E., Riggs, S.R., & Whitehead, J.C. (2009). Sea -level rise research and dialogue in North Carolina: creating windows for policy change. Ocean and Coastal Management 52(3-4):147-153. 11. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. (2020). North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries License and Statistics Section annual report. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City, NC. 454 p. 12. Purcell A.D., Khanal, P.N., Straka, T.J., & Willis, D.B. (2020). Valuing ecosystem services of coastal marshes and wetlands. Clemson Cooperative Extension, Land -Grant Press by Clemson Extension. LGP 1032. https://doi.org/10.34068/report4. 13. Bratman, G.N., et al. (2019). Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective.Sci. Adv.5,eaax0903.D01:10.1126/sciadv.aax0903. 14. Willis, C. (2015). The contribution of cultural ecosystem services to understanding the tourism -nature -wellbeing nexus, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 10,38-43. 15. Harrison, J., Pickle, A., Vegh, T., & Virdin, J. (2017). North Carolina's ocean economy: a first assessment and transitioning to a blue economy. NC Sea Grant. UNC-SG-17-02. 26 p. 16. David, M. (2022). Where do License Dollars Go? NC Wildlife Resources Commission. 17. Verschuuren, B. (2016). Religious and Spiritual Aspects of Wetland Management. 10.1007/978-94-007-6172-8_242-2. 18. Shepard, C.C., Crain, C.M., & Beck, M.W. (2011). The protective role of coastal marshes: a systematic review and meta -analysis. PloS One 6(11):e27374. 19. Francalanci, S., Bendoni, M., Rinaldi, M., & Solari, L. (2013). Ecomorphodynamic evolution of salt marshes: experimental observations of bank retreat processes. Geomorphology 195(2013):53-65. 20. Cowart, L., Walsh, J., & Corbett, D.R. (2010). Analyzing estuarine shoreline change: A case study of Cedar Island, North Carolina. Journal of Coastal Research 26(5):817-830. 21. Silinski, A., Schoutens, K., Puijalon, S., Schoelynck, J., Luyckx, D., Troch, P., Meire, P., & Temmerman, S. (2018). Coping with waves: plasticity in tidal marsh plants as self -adapting coastal ecosystem engineers. Limnology and Oceanography 63(2):799815. 22. Currin, C.A., Davis, J., & Malhotra, A. (2017). Response of salt marshes to wave energy provides guidance for successful living shoreline implementation. Living Shorelines: the science and management of nature -based coastal protection. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. 23. Hein, C.J., Fenster, M.S., Gedan, K.B., Tabar, J.R., Hein, E.A., & DeMunda, T. (2021). Leveraging the Interdependencies Between Barrier Islands and Backbarrier Saltmarshes to Enhance Resilience to Sea -Level Rise. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:721904. Doi; 10.3389/fmars.2021.721904 24. Center for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. (2014). Living Shoreline Implementation: Challenges and Solutions. Rivers & Coast, Summer 2014 issue. V.9, no.2. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/m2-2d2k-a6O2. 25. Costanza, R., Perez-Maqueo, 0., Martinez, M.L., Sutton, P., Anderson, S.J., & Mulder, K. (2008). The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37(4):241-48. 26. Narayan, S., Beck, M., Wilson, P., Thomas, C., Guerrero, A., Shepard, C., Reguero, B., Franco, G., Carter Ingram, J., & Trespalacios, D. (2017). The Value of Coastal Wetlands for Flood Damage Reduction in the Northeastern USA. Scientific Reports, 7(9463). 27. Sun, F., & Carson, R.T. (2020). Coastal Wetlands Reduce Property Damage during Tropical Cyclones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117(11):5719-5725. 28. Perillo, G, E. Wolanski, D.R. Cahoon, and C.S. Hopkinson. 2018. Coastal wetlands: an integrated ecosystem approach. Elsevier. Perillo, G., Wolanski, E., Cahoon, D.R., & Hopkinson, C.S. (2018). Coastal wetlands: an integrated ecosystem approach. Elsevier. 29. Drake, D.C., Peterson, B.J., Galvan, K.A., Deegan, L.A., Hopkinson, C., Johnson, J.M., Koop-Jakobsen, K., Lemay, L.E., & Picard, C. (2009). Salt marsh ecosystem biogeochemical responses to nutrient enrichment: a paired 15N tracer study. Ecology 90(9):25352546. 30. Trainer, V.L., Davidson, K., Wakita, K., Berdalet, E., Suddleson, M., & Myre, G. (2020). GlobalHAB: Evaluating, reducing and mitigating the cost of harmful algal blooms: a compendium of case studies. 31. Duarte, C.M. (2017). Reviews and syntheses: hidden forests, the role of vegetated coastal habitats in the ocean carbon budget. Biogeosciences, 14(2):301-310 https://repository.kaust.edu.sa/handle/10754/622845. 32. Mcleod, E., Chmura, G.L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Bjork, M., Duarte, C.M., Lovelock, C.E., Schlesinger, W.H., & Silliman, B.R. (2011). A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(10):552-560. 33. Macreadie, P.I., Allen, K., Kelaher, B.P., Ralph, P.J., & Skilbeck, C.G. (2012). Paleoreconstruction of estuarine sediments reveal human -induced weakening of coastal carbon sinks. Global Change Biology 18(3):891-901. 34. Nahlik, A.M., & Fennessy, M.S. (2016). Carbon storage in US Wetlands. Nature Communications 7(1):1-9. 35. Duarte, C.M., Losada, I.J., Hendriks, I.E., Mazarrasa, I., & Marba, N. (2013). The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nature Climate Change 3(11):961-68. 36. Holmquist, J.R., Windham -Myers, L., Bliss, N., Crooks, S., Morris, J.T., Megonigal, J.P., et al. (2018). Accuracy and Precision of Tidal Wetland Soil Carbon Mapping in the Conterminous United States. Sci Rep. 8: 9478. Pmid:29930337. 37. Warnell, K., Olander, L., and Currin, C. (2022). Sea level rise drives carbon and habitat loss in the U.S. mid -Atlantic coastal zone. PLOS Clim 1(6): e0000044. https://doi.org/10.1371/J*ournal.pcim.0000044. 38. Warnell, K., & Olander, L. (2020). Data from: Coastal protection and blue carbon mapping for six mid -Atlantic states. Duke Research Data Repository. https:Hdoi.org/10.7924/r4pglgw8p. 39. US EPA. (2021). U.S. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2019. Report No.: EPA 430-R-21-005. 40. Howard, J., Sutton -Grier, A., Herr, D., Kleypas, J., Landis, E., Mcleod, E., Pidgeon, E., & Simpson, S. (2017). Clarifying the role of coastal and marine systems in climate mitigation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15(1):42-50. 41. Chmura, G.L. (2013). What do we need to assess the sustainability of the tidal salt marsh carbon sink? Ocean Coast Manag. 83: 25-31, 42. Mackey, B., Prentice, I.C., Steffen, W., House, J.l., Undenmayer, D., Keith, H., et al. (2013). Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nat Clim Change. 3: 552-557. 43. Needleman, B., Emmot-Maddox, S., Crooks, S., Beers, L., Megonigal, P., Myers, D., et al. (2021). VM0033 Methodology for tidal wetland and seagrass restoration, v 2.0. VCS; Available: https://verra.org/methodology/vm0033-methodology-for-tidal-wetland-and-seagrass-restoration- v2-0/. 44. NC DEQ. (2020). North Carolina Climate Risk Assessment and Resiliency Plan. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC. https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/climate-change/resilience-plan/2020-Climate-Risk-Assessment-and-Resilience- Plan.pdf. 45. Davidson, N.C. (2014). How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar. Freshwater Res. 65, 934-941. 46. Dahl, T.E. & Johnson, C.R. (1991). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, mid-1970's to mid-1980s. US Dept Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 28p. 47. Dahl, T.E. (2006). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, 1998-2004. US Dept Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 112 p. 48. Campbell, A.D., Fatoyinbo, L., Goldberg, L., & Lagomasino, D. (2022). Global hotspots of salt marsh change and carbon emissions. Nature, 612(7941), 701-706. https://doi.org/10,1038/s41586-022-05355-z. 49. NCOSBM (North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management). (2021). Population Estimates Timeline and 2020 Census. Raleigh, NC. https://www.osbm.nc.gov/facts-figures/population-demographics/state-demographer/population-estimatestimeline-2020-census. 50. Coverdale, T.C., Brisson, C.P., Young, E.W., Yin, S.F., Donnelly, J.P., & Bertness, M.D. (2014). Indirect human impacts reverse centuries of carbon sequestration and salt marsh accretion. PloS ONE 9(3): e93296. https://doi.org/10.1371/J"ournal.pone.0093296. 51. Schueler, T.R., & Holland, H.K. (2000). The practice of watershed protection; techniques for protecting our nation's streams, lakes, rivers, and estuaries. Center for Watershed Protection Publishers, Ellicott City. 52. Deegan, L.A., Johnson, D.S., Warren, R.S., Peterson, B.J., Fleeger, J.W., Fagherazzi, S., & Wollheim, W.M. (2012). Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss. Nature 490 (7420): 388-392. https://doi.org/10.1038/naturell533. 53. NC DCM (North Carolina Division of Coastal Management) (2015). North Carolina estuarine shoreline mapping project:. 2012 statistical reports. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Morehead City, NC. 109 p. 54. Burdick, S.A. (2018). Effects of bulkheads on salt marsh loss: a multi-decadal assessment using remote sensing. Masters, Duke University. Durham, NC. 34p. 55. Wolfe, R., Zarebicki, P., & Meredith, W. (2021). The evolution of saltmarsh mosquito control water management practices relative to coastal resiliency in the Mid -Atlantic and northeastern United States. Wetlands Ecol Manage 30:1099-1108. https:Hdoi.org/10.1007/sll273-021- 09817-5(0123456789().,-volV)(01234567. 56. Lashley, D. (2013). Historic ditching effects on salt marsh structure. GreenVest. Available from: https://www.g ree nvestus.com/2013/11/15/h istoric-d itchi ng-effects-sa It -ma rsh- structure/#:-:text=Extensively%20d itched%20salt%20marsh%20systems,%2C%20sulfide%20production%2C%20and%20pH. 57. Bilkovic, D., Mitchell, M., Davis, J., Andrews, E., King, A., Mason, P., Herman, J., Tahvildari, N., & Davis, J. (2017). Review of boat wake wave impacts on shoreline erosion and potential solutions for the Chesapeake Bay. STAC Publication Number 17-002, Edgewater, MD. 68 pp. 58. Liddle, M.J., & Scorgie, H.R.A. (1980). The effects of recreation on freshwater plants and animals: a review. Biological Conservation 17(3): 183- 206. 59. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2016). Report on Marine Debris Impacts on Coastal and Benthic Habitats. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. 60. Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., & Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768-771. Doi: 10.1126/science.1260352. 61. Uhrin, A. V., & Schellinger, J. (2011). Marine debris impacts to a tidal fringing -marsh in North Carolina. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(12), 2605-2610. Doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.10.006. 62. Viehman, S., Vander Pluym, J. L., & Schellinger, J. (2011). Characterization of marine debris in North Carolina salt marshes. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(12), 2771-2779. Doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.010. 63. Paduani, M. (2020). Microplastics as novel sedimentary particles in coastal wetlands: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 161:111739. 64. White, E., & Kaplan, D. (2016). Restore or retreat? Saltwater intrusion and water management in coastal wetlands. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3(1):e01258. 65. Ury, E.A., Yang, X., Wright, J.P., & Bernhardt, E.S. (2021). Rapid deforestation of a coastal landscape driven by sea level rise and extreme events. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2339. 66. NC DEQ. (2021). North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan 2021 Amendment. Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, NC. Pp.101-102. 67. Cahoon, D.R., & Guntenspergen, G.R. (2010). Climate change, sea -level rise, and coastal wetlands. National 752 Wetlands Newsletter 32:8-12. 68. Kolker, A.S., Kirwan, M.L., Goodbred, S.L., & Cochran, J.K. (2010). Global climate changes recorded in coastal 877 wetland sediments: empirical observation linked to theoretical predictions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, 878 L14706. 69. Jorgensen, S.E., & Fath, B.D. (2011). 10-Structurally dynamic models. In: Sven Erik J, Brian DF (Eds.), 863 Developments in Environmental Modelling, vol. 23. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 309-346. 70. Nunez, M.K., Zhang, Y., Herman, J., Reay, W., & Hershner, C. (2020). A multi -scale approach for simulating tidal marsh evolution. Ocean Dynamics. 70. 10.1007/s 10236-020-01380-6. 71. Mariotti, G., & Carr, J. (2014). Dual role of salt marsh retreat: Long-term loss and short-term resilience. Water Resources Research. 50. 10.1002/2013 W R014676. 72. Morris, J.T., Barber, D.C., Callaway, J.C., Chambers, R., Hagen, S.C., Hopkinson, C.S., Johnson, B.J., Megonigal, P., Neubauer, S.C., Troxler, T., & Wigand, C. (2016). Contributions of organic and inorganic matter to 948 sediment volume and accretion in tidal wetlands at steady state. Earth's Future 4(4):110-121. 949 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EF000334. 73. Boon, J.D., & Mitchell, M. (2015). Nonlinear Change in Sea Level Observed at North American Tide 740 Stations. Journal of Coastal Research 31(6):1295-1305. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-741 00041.1. 74. Currin, C., Davis, 1., & Hilting, A. Decadal changes in surface elevation confirm vulnerability of microtidal marshes to sea level rise in North Carolina. In Press. 75. Esteves, L.S. (2016). Coastal Squeeze. In: Kennish, M.J. (eds) Encyclopedia of Estuaries. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Springer, Dordrecht.https:Hdoi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8801-4_405. 76. North Carolina Land of Water. (2023). The NC LOW Coastal System. Northeastern North Carolina Region. Available from: http://www.nciandofwater.org/regions/. 77. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2023). Sea Level Rise Viewer. NOAA. Available from: https:Hcoast.noaa.gov/sir/. 78. Martinich, J., Neumann, J., Ludwig, L., & Jantarasami, L. (2013). Risks of sea level rise to disadvantaged communities in the United States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(2), 169-185. https:Hdoi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9356-0. 79. Hardy, R. D., Milligan, R. A., & Heynen, N. (2017). Racial coastal formation: The environmental injustice of colorblind adaptation planning for sea -level rise. Geoforum, 87, 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.10.005. 80. Hardy, R. D., & Hauer, M. E. (2018). Social vulnerability projections improve sea -level rise risk assessments. Applied Geography, 91, 10-20. https:Hdoi.org/10,1016/j.apgeog.2017.12.019. 81. Bhattachan, A., Jurjonas, M. D., Moody, A. C., Morris, P. R., Sanchez, G. M., Smart, L. S., Taillie, P. J., Emanuel, R. E., & Seekamp, E. L. (2018). Sea level rise impacts on rural coastal social -ecological systems and the implications for decision making. Environmental Science & Policy, 90, 122-134.https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.006. 82. Handwerger, L., Sugg, M., & Runkle, J. (2021). Present and future sea level rise at the intersection of race and poverty in the Carolinas: A geospatial analysis. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 3, 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100028. 83. Kahrl, A. W. (2014). The Sunbelt's sandy foundation: Coastal development and the making of the modern South. Southern Cultures, 20(3), 24- 42, https://doi.org/10.1353/scu.2014.0028. 84. Atteridge, A., & Remling, E. (2018). Is adaptation reducing vulnerability or redistributing it? WIRES Climate Change, 9, 1-16, e500. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.500. 85. Howell, J., & Elliott, J. R. (2019). Damages done: The longitudinal impacts of natural hazards on wealth inequality in the United States. Social Problems, 66, 448-467. https:Hdoi.org/10.1093/socpro/spy016. 86. US EPA. (2021). Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the United States: A Focus on Six Impacts (Report No. EPA 430-R-21-003). Retrieved from www.epa.gov/cira/social-vulnerability-report. Photo: NCCF 6. Appendices 6.1. Appendix A. Stakeholder Workshop Summaries. Salt Marsh Workshop —August 19, 2022 • Held in Newport, NC • Representatives from DCM, DMF, Duke University, East Carteret Collaborative, ECU, NC Coastal Federation, NC Coastal Reserve, NOAA, NRCS, Southern Environmental Law Center NC, Town of Beaufort, UNCW • Discussed starting points and key components for development of NC SMAP, including the timeframe, SLR scenario, scope, etc. Salt Marsh Restoration Workshop — August 22, 2023 • Held in Hammocks Beach State Park in Swansboro, NC • Representatives from APNEP, CCC, DCM, DMF, DWR, ECU, ENCSL, MCB Camp Lejeune, Native Shorelines, NC Coastal Federation, NC Coastal Reserve, NC Sea Grant, NC State Parks, NC WRC, NERRS, NOAA, Sandbar Oyster Company, UNC-IMS, UNCW • Discussed marsh restoration -focused recommendations for the NC SMAP Salt Marsh Migration Workshop —August 29, 2023 • Held in Wanchese, NC • Representatives from Albemarle RC&D, Dare Soil & Water Conservation District, DCM, ECU-CSI, NIPS, NC Coastal Federation, NC Coastal Reserve, NC State Parks, NC WRC, NERRS, TNC, USACE, USFWS • Discussed marsh migration -focused recommendations for the NC SMAP Figure 1. Participant discussions during the Salt Marsh Workshop held in Newport, NC in August 2022. Image Source: NCCF. 6.2. Appendix B. North Carolina Salt Marsh Projections through 2050. N F; t w lioi V'J 4 Raleigh Ak Gotdsbo,_ W aa:ksonv�lte .; 0 12.5 25 50 Miles Figure 1. North Carolina salt marsh projections through 20S0. Legend _ Lost Original Coastal Marsh — Persisting Original Marsh Converting to Marsh Bri. HE RF, Garmrn, FAO, NOAA USGS LPA. NIPS 0 orfol �oRakigh 0 ora` Es,, HERE Garman FAO, NCMA USGS EPA Esn. USGS N A _A Legend CPUs Converting Protected _ Lost Original Marsh _ Persisting Original Marsh Forest Converting to Marsh Agricultural Lands Converting to Marsh 0 075 1.5 3 Miles I r r r I r 1 S�rw u/ NPiin C.rzv:na " . Eu.. HEkE. Gu min, Snfei.�Ph. c:ec7r�Ww{<•yes n. Mt �I.: k�.SA VSS:S EPA. WS U3GA Figure 2. North Carolina salt marsh projections through 2050 throughout 9amlico Sound — Hyde County. N o _ A Esn, HEM, Gamut FAO. NC AA L-V:S EPA. Ev USGS •^ . , ,� , � �. ' � tom, � � Kt �� . L . • �.�y. ' r Legend Iy ~";r,-w+,, Marsh Lost by 2050 M Persisting Marsh "'{7`�� *'�»!►" s \\\fie.,. , tr%A Converting to Marsh 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles - 4 +U//' M.-O L—hla U'_' E.u. HER! W4.1 1. Oel —t Gco r�-iN _ JE'TL NASA M— r��� r •. �. EPA NK 'rSDA `t r ► Figure 3. North Carolina salt marsh projections through 2050 throughout North River — Carteret County. Legend h % Lost Original Marsh t Persisting Onginai Marsh ' �i�iConverting Marsh �e TS Converting Protected h r 0 0.5 1 2 Miles iIP ` t z I i z e e 1 I �eze o+h>ti fj,cY .s ]]T Evi FE#E 61— 5rf,,G•wF :xeoTe:^+r. c pes �1ry ME%NASA X S i" ?Xt .r-CA Figure 4. North Carolina salt marsh projections through 2050 throughout Wrightsville Beach — New Hanover County. 6.3. Appendix C. North Carolina Salt Marsh Projections through 2050 by County. Table 1. North Carolina salt marsh projections through 2050 by acreage per county, in order from most acreage loss to most acreage gain. Data sourced from Warnell, et al, 202237. _____ ..... County- 'Current Acreage '2050 Acreage .... ....... Difference I Gain or Loss i _ ....._ ........._ Percent Change .... _.. Onslow 10,095 . ......... ....._. - ........ __. _.. - ......._ _ . , _ . Carteret 55,715 52,339 -3,376 Loss .. -6% -- Brunswick 15,135 - -- - 12,924 .._ ... ..... -2,211 .. -- - .... - Loss ; 15% -- . Pender 5,674 3,522 -2,152 Loss -38% New Hanover ; 6,822 _..-... 4,975 -1,846 ..... Loss 27% Perquimans 0.2 ...- ... ......... - 0.00 --r ... 0 2 ._._ ... Loss .......... 100% -% - uotank 36 i 645 608 --- Gain . ........ 1,667% - _.Pas Craven 1,547 2,179 632 ; ; Gain . 41% Currituck 24 783 26,334 1,551 Gain_ ; 6% I Camden 1,468 6,600 I _ ._ .. - ...... Pamlico 20,680 _-....... ........ .. _ 28,315 ........... 7,635 _._ Gain ._.... 37% ._ ..., _._...-._._._ ...._..- Beaufort 7,497 24,264 16,767 Gain 224% Tyrrell 1,191 42,996 41,805 Gain 3,510% Dare 28,923 81,025 52,102 Gain a 180/ _. .. _.. Hyde --- - ... . 38,450 ......... ----- _ ... - 104,322 ........ _. . - . . 65,872 ---- ....... Gain ._-._ ..- -- 171% _ _ ...... ............. 'Current acreage was calculated by adding persisting original marsh acreage to lost original marsh acreage; 22050 acreage was calculated by adding persisting original marsh acreage to migrated coastal marsh acreage (i.e., forested lands converting to marsh) and ag to marsh acreage (i.e., agricultural lands converting to marsh). N A 0 725 25 50 W. . ,•, •, •, • • Figure 1. North Carolina salt marsh projections through 2050 per coastal county. 6.4. Appendix D. Conservation Planning Units. 0 125 25 50 Miles Ew HERE. Gamin FAO NOAA, USGS. EPA NPS Figure 1. North Carolina salt marsh projections through 2050 per conservation planning unit. Table 1. North Carolina salt marsh projections through 2050 per conservation planning unit. Data sourced from Warnell, et al. 202237. - .... .. _ ..... _ _..__.. _. - _...... - _ _....-. _..._ __ ...... 'Current 22050 + Gain or Percent No I CPU Watershed __.... Acreage Acreage Difference _-.. -. Loss Change _ g 1 Lower Cape Fear River 7,371 6,761 - I 610 - Loss - -- -8% - - - 2 .. .. - -- .. Shallotte River -.... 2 367 1 839 528 Loss -22% + 3 - _ ... .-_.._-. - _ _�. Little River , - _ - 2,605 _ .... 1,245 .._ 1,360 -. Loss -- --- 52% - 4 - - --- _ .. -- Alligator River g 3,568 86,523 82,955 Gain 2,325% _...._. 5 - . -- -- -- ._.. __.-i�_..- North River Game Land I 4,302 15,324 -- - . _ _ ....__ ._.-...__ 11,022 _ .. Gain ......._ _ 256% 6 ( Hatteras Island 93 98 5 _ Gam 6% -. 7 Northern Outer Banks 14 21 7 Gam 49% 8 Currituck Sound --- .....-__... _._. ..__ 21,315 - -, 1 15,581 i 5,734 _ Loss _.. 27% 9 Upper Pamlico River 625 3,113 2,489 Gam 3. .. 10 Middle Pamlico River j . .. - 1,967 3,755 .. _-_ 1,788 .... Gain 91% .._ .---- 11 - g _ Pungo River i 10 357 39 802 �....__...._..-. .__.�_..... 29 446 �.. ...-'-.... Gain - _.._.._E 284% ...._. ....................__:...._-..._...__._.............-......_..........._....._........_._............._........__.__......... 12 I ....__...................._..................._..--.... Lower Pamlico River ( 8,336 i 13,7S8 j_ 5,422_ Gain 65% .... 13 ---- -._.. _ _ Lake Mattamuskeet - _ 22,81 53,914 -- -- - I -- - 31,027 _ L.... - Gain - _ 136% -- .... 14 - - -- -- - ....-- - - Core Sound + ! 13,983 ( 11,384 j 2,599 _ Loss I 19% T 15 __.. ...... . ........ ......-. -..__ Lower Trent River -- 49 -- - I_ 24 25 _ Loss -_ - - -51% -- - ..- I16 ' - .... --. __. ............. _. _� __-_ Upper Bro ...... - __. - - _ - -- _._,_ .. - - -. - - - -. 17 .... _. -..-- -.--_ Neuse River -Cherry Point ....... 1,221 j 1,390 I 169 Gain 14% 18 i _........__ Lower Neuse River Cedar Island i 26,655 ... _ 25,346 _. - --- -1,309 1 _ - -- Loss -- ....- -S% 19 .. .... _.._ .._.... _ __.._...._.... Bay River -Jones Bay 11,065 14,724 3,659 + Gain 33% 20 White Oak River _ 919 664 ! 255 Loss I -28% 21 Queen Creek Bogue Sound 5,445 i 2,926 -2,520 Loss -46% - 22 ! Newport River i 4,847 S,831 I 9..... 23 i North River 4,375 4,967 592 _ Gain _...... _._.._ 14% .. 24 ... .. _ . _ .._ ....._ .._.._......._.. _. New River 2,042 -..._.. ........ 1,287 - ! 755 - -- -_ Loss -37% -., 25 - - - -- North Topsail Beach .- __. _... 3,059 ........ _. 1 926 1 133 Loss 37/ - °° 26 ....... ..........P .. -.. Topsail Beach 5 971 3,736 2 235 Loss 37% - _ I 27 _ Wrightsville Beach ........ 5,056 - .. 3,569 -1,487 _...... loss -29% _ 28 Pasquotank River 121 ... 1,551 _ 1,430 .. Gain 1,187% _ i 29 ........ _.. Croatan_Roanoke Sound Kitty Hawk Bay _. _.. .----._ 9,55- 2..........I - 14,448 4 896 Gam 51% -i 30 Croatan Sound Stumpy Point Bay 3,146 12,189 . 9 043 ... Gam 287% .. .... 31 Roanoke Sound Ore on Inl.._.� _. _ _- --- -- . _ - - 32 . Long Shoal River -Hyde Co Airport ._...-_ _._._.._. _ 9,194 25,954 ......-.. 16,760 Gam 182% ... 33 i ..._ ...................__ Pamlico Sound -Hatteras Island ; 1,974 1,670 -303 Loss -15% 34 I Pamlico Sound -Ocracoke Inlet 4,342 3,915 -427 Loss 10% 35 Lockwoods Folly River 3,009 3,311 303 Gain j 10.% 36 i Upper Cape Fear River 741 581 161 Loss -22% 37 ! ; Bogue Sound j 2,861 2,408 j 453 ... . Loss -.... _.. -16% .... ...._...... -- -- ......-......_ _ _ NeuseRiver-Mmnesott Beach -._ 3,418 _ ---....__-i 3,86438 447 Gain 13% ........ ......... Total 218,004 396,510 ! 178,506 Gain 1 82% 'Current acreage was calculated by adding persisting original marsh acreage to lost original marsh acreage; 22050 acreage was calculated by adding persisting original marsh acreage to migrated coastal marsh acreage (i.e., forested lands converting to marsh) and ag to marsh acreage (i.e., agricultural lands converting to marsh). 6.5. Appendix E. Non -exhaustive list of existing efforts, programs, and tools with potential synergies with the North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan. Title Description 'Lead(s) Guidance for Guidance intended to provide information on NOAA's perspective and roles regarding living Considering the Use of shorelines implementation. NOAA LSW Living Shorelines 2015 2022-2026 Estuarine Aims to better understand and manage estuarine shorelines through an integrated approach of NCDCM Shoreline Strategy planning, permitting, education, and research. Helps local and state leaders in North Carolina understand their community's climate resilience NC Resilience Exchange needs, identify appropriate actions and find the resources to implement solutions. NCORR NC NC SET Community of A voluntary and unfunded partnership among stakeholders who have either installed Surface CR&NERR, Practice Elevation Tables in coastal wetlands or who rely on data. NCSG, NOAA NCCOS Aims to facilitate a community -driven process for setting coastal resilience goals, assessing NC Resilient Coastal existing and needed local capacity, and identifying and prioritizing projects to enhance community NCDCM Communities Program resilience to coastal hazards. 2024 Efficient A guide to the regulatory process for sediment management on the North-Central California NCCCSCC Permitting Roadmap Coast. Wetland Monitoring Provides the partnership with technical guidance for monitoring and assessing a subsystem of the and Assessment Team regional ecosystem: wetland vegetation and associated fauna. APNEP Currituck Sound Fosters collaboration among diverse partners on ecosystem restoration and conservation with NC Coalition members working together to advance nature -based solutions. Audubon Regions Innovating for Aims to support resilience by providing coaching and technical assistance to regional partners to Strong Economies and support community vulnerability assessments, identify priority actions to reduce risk and enhance NCORR Environment Program resilience in their region, and develop paths to implementation. Conduct convergence research by building a connective intellectual network and an integrated Saltwater Intrusion and conceptual scaffolding to rapidly expand our capacity to forecast and prepare for SWISLR impacts Duke Sea Level Rise throughout the rural communities of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America. + NC Flood Resiliency Statewide initiative to develop an online -decision support tool and associated planning to address Blueprint flooding for communities in North Carolina's river basins. NCDEQ e NC Living Shoreline Brings together governmental agencies, NGOs, universities, suppliers, contractors, and engineers NCCF, to communicate and collaborate on living shoreline education and outreach, implementation and Steering Committee incentives, policy, and research to increase the use of living shorelines coastwide. APNEP Building Capacity for Community capacity building and planning within vulnerable coastal communities to identify, Community Resilience prioritize, and advance projects that protect and enhance existing or conserve potential future NCCF, and Ecosystem salt marsh habitat and build coastal resilience. Develop a suite of 20-25 nature -based solutions is NCDCM Enhancement ready for site assessment and preliminary design across NC, SC, GA, and NE FL. Pathways to Resilience: NC Reserve is 1 of 6 participating in a NERRS project to create a pipeline of tidal wetland NC Ensuring a Future for migrations projects. Stage 1 of the larger project focused on identifying and engaging community CR&NERR Tidal Wetlands partners and determining future geographic scope. Wetlands Mapping Interagency Wetlands Mapping Workgroup for planning and implementing conservation actions NCDMF, Interagency Workgroup that protect coastal wetlands and the ecosystem services they provide. NCDEQ 1 APNEP - Albemarle -Pamlico National Estuary Partnership; Duke - Duke University; NC CR&NERR - NC Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research Reserve; NCCCSCC - North-Central California Coastal Sediment Coordination Committee; NCCF - NC Coastal Federation; NCDCM - NC Division of Coastal Management; NCDEQ- NC Department of Environmental Quality; NCDMF - NC Division of Marine Fisheries; NCORR - NC Office of Recovery and Resiliency; NCSG - NC Sea Grant, NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NOAA LSW - NOAA Living Shorelines Workgroup; NOAA NCCOS - NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 6.6. Appendix F. Proposed Annual Strategic Plan Outline. 1. Introduction — Purpose and Scope 2. The Current State of Salt Marsh in North Carolina (1-2 paragraphs to set the stage for priority objectives, actions, and related projects identified below) 3. Maps a. Coastwide and county by county or watershed by watershed showing current salt marsh and expected marsh migration areas 4. Phases of Implementation (by county or watershed) a. Strategy 1: Advance Salt Marsh Conservation and Restoration i. Identify priority objectives and actions from the SASMI plan ii. Identify priority marsh areas to protect or restore iii. Best pathway or method to restore or protect each priority area identified iv. Set goals for protection and for restoration (e.g., # acres restored) v. Identify partners to lead each identified action b. Strategy 2: Facilitate Salt Marsh Migration i. Identify priority objectives and actions from the SASMI plan ii. Identify priority marsh migration corridors to be conserved and hydrologic barriers to be removed/retrofitted iii. Best pathway or method to conserve each priority area identified iv. Set goals for migration corridors conserved (e.g., # acres conserved, barriers removed, etc.) v. Identify partners to lead each identified action c. Strategy 3: Incorporate Crosscutting Approaches — Prioritization of actions, related work to address those actions, pathways and players for each crosscutting approach identified in the regional plan i. Policy changes ii. Cultural and community engagement iii. Communication, education, and engagement iv. Funding (including state and local funding sources) 5. Tracking Progress a. Identify key metrics for success I. In coordination with the partnership council b. Systematic monitoring of key metrics against goals c. Adaptive management i. Timetable and process for updating and adapting the roadmap 6. Change Analysis a. What will the impact be if these projects/policies aren't implemented? 7. Other (Appendix?) a. Prioritization methodology NATURAL AREA INVENTORY OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA by Richard J. LeBlond with animal data provided by Gilbert S. Grant Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Community Affairs North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Funded by Natural Heritage Trust Fund and New Hanover County May 2003 .'Allele #I C� S-A *:I New Hanover County Natural Area Inventory LORDS CREEK Significant Natural Heritage Area Site significance: regional Size: 428 acres: 262 acres within primary boundary, 166 acres in secondary boundary Quadrangle: Carolina Beach Ownership: private (including land trust) SIGNIFICANT FEATURES: Lords Creek natural area supports populations of three animals rare in North Carolina: eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), glossy crayfish snake (Regina rigida), and one of only four sites ever recorded in the state for the poorly known spinycheek sleeper (Eleotris pisonis) (a fish). The site also contains a very good quality Brackish Marsh community, plus sandhill and swamp communities. LANDSCAPE RELATIONSHIPS: This site is located in southern New Hanover County along the Cape Fear River north of Snow's Cut. Doctor Point Hammocks and Coast Guard Loran Station Sandhills natural areas lie 1 and 2 miles to the south, respectively. The site is otherwise isolated from natural areas except as connected by Cape Fear River, and residential development is increasing adjacent to the north, east, and south sides. Within the natural area, the primary boundary includes habitat in good natural condition and/or with other exceptional biological values, while the secondary boundary includes areas of lesser natural value, but which buffer primary habitat and/or have good restoration potential. SITE DESCRIPTION: Lords Creek is a small freshwater tributary of tidal, salty Cape Fear River. Marsh habitat near the river (and River Road) is dominated by the Brackish Marsh community, one of the larger and better quality examples in the southern part of the county. Upstream from the marshes and tidal influence, the floodplain becomes wooded and supports a small example of the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) natural community. Two longleaf pine sandhill communities are found on adjacent uplands: Coastal Fringe Sandhill and Xeric Sandhill Scrub Coastal Fringe Variant. About a mile upstream from River Road, a large ditch transects the floodplain. Floodplain habitat upstream of this ditch appears to be an old excavation that has regenerated with a canopy composition similar to that of the Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest community. This area comprises the portion of the site that has been placed within the secondary boundary. Brackish Marsh is found along the lower reaches of Lords Creek from about 0.2 mile upstream of River Road to Cape Fear River, and extending north and south of the creek along the river. Portions of these marshes are flooded daily, while areas farther from tidal creeks are flooded only during lunar and storm tides. Vegetation is dense and dominated by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), with saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) a patch dominant along tidal creeks, and giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) a patch dominant along the upland edge. M Upstream of the tidal marsh, the floodplain supports the forested Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) community. Although a small example, it is in good condition with a fairly mature canopy of swamp tupelo (Nyssa Mora) and swamp red maple (Ater rubrum var. trilobum), with larger tree trunks reaching 1.5 feet in diameter. Swamp red bay (Persea palustris) and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) are prominent in the sparse to moderate shrub layer. Dry sand ridges north of the floodplain and east of River Road support two sandhills communities. Coastal Fringe Sandhill has an open to sparse canopy of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) over a moderate to dense understory of sand live oak (Quercus geminata). Dwarf blueberry (Gaylussacia dumosa) dominates the shrub layer, with reindeer lichen (Cladonia sp.) and Carolina wiregrass (Aristida stricta) dominant in the ground layer. This community is in fair condition, with small canopy trees after having been logged in the recent past, and with dense litter buildup and increased subcanopy and shrub growth from lack of fire. Xeric Sandhill Scrub Coastal Fringe Variant has an open to moderate canopy of mature longleaf pine, with the largest trunks reaching 20 inches in diameter. The moderate to dense oak understory is dominated by turkey oak (Quercus laevis), with shrub and ground layers similar to those of Coastal Fringe Sandhill. This community, while also experiencing extended fire suppression, is in fair to good condition. It is distinguished from other xeric sandhill communities by the presence of such species as sand live oak and sand laurel oak (Q. hemisphaerica) in the subcanopy, and sandhill beaksedge (Rhynchospora megalocarpa) in the ground layer. The diversity of upland pine forests, bottomland swamps, and open tidal marshes and creeks provides excellent habitat for several groups of animals. The marshes are part of a critical wildlife corridor extending north from Bald Head Island to Wilmington, and provide critical habitat for the rare glossy crayfish snake and spinycheek sleeper. Sandhill oaks and swamp gums and cypresses provide ample mast for game animals. MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION: Sandhill longleaf pine habitat is in need of burning, but the surrounding area is becoming more residentially developed, which will restrict burning opportunities. A portion of the site within the secondary boundary is owned and managed for protection of natural values by N.C. Coastal Land Trust. The rest of the site has no protection status. NATURAL COMMUNITIES: Brackish Marsh, Coastal Fringe Sandhill, Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype), Xeric Sandhill Scrub Coastal Fringe Variant. RARE ANIMALS: spinycheek sleeper (Eleotris pisonis), glossy crayfish snake (Regina rigida), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger). REFERENCES: LeBlond, R.J. 2002. Site survey report: Lords Creek. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, OCCA, DENR, Raleigh, N.C. a i= /3ATL o A s �fw o•"V,� AL�AMANCE i o �l --------------- ------------------ i \ ` , m .`�",.�'•,� Y i f ,Y:' ! _"'"t„•, ( rig Jar" \ m 1 3 ol ZA g yptk�?z z d�® �- o r✓ '§8 �x� i a = - 8 __—_"' � �_�'— ."� .¢_.-• _ a' ♦ yr, — 0 .V ` 1 o >I 4 1 i ARr�mn CC,) c m pnx x m z (n !� y �c {z— 7 11 arm �I y Mom, Uf Z m mx0 G 0 O G7 c 5) Zo ��V1 ^ m > a 0 m ® �m0 Ch m z m � ft_ Watch Live News Weather Sky Tracker Investigate Traffic t4~ Ith Cape Fear Eats NEW HANOVER COUNT' Wanda M, Copley County Attorney Kctnp P. CounDurty At or $bartm J. Nuffmm Deputy County lttterMy r 1.-pu;) t buet y Araorncy Augum 9.2ol8 RK WW4 Mlt r thi,.c �, *.�.• .LJ,1rc„ fitrt t;irn:urhur l>rnr tl..a 7t �t*rrrtln 1 l rnJ, C'rsrkl P.,•ullli+ RoNa01-1111-t1t0s�OOo \, ,� tt 'c 1:�.i>•1 i:!1ti ;ttt atc tlhrt tt:lt nWjrr 11(aahng, that tv%:urre,l in s3Eta Ita%. the'tiMs 1,1,m -1 it s,l tour Prty,ert}. \rtt Ha %cr Count; i.fiipneenn� IkPtrtm.rt lrc doctminc,l that the druinage Pipe iocatrd on ttnu propcn) is ixwgtfd mr, ttdl he c:rrrrgcmy replactmient of the drainage PflV A1ll be c,xtduetetl by VC% l l : •:, . t t r t . •ur+n i'Ic3,r he aJt r,ct1 that a;y fen.-c, shed, busttrs attd�or trr,cs vruatt�l m the tttt;ph• t...r Jr 1111aa'c t'3 -runt. 10 Imt on rash We of the Mipcn) htx, atnuitutrs a atasamx 1, tr:,: •n ; t'r t EEt ! iglc ,eJ t.h ttahurt t s :!- i 7J wW hittdrrs ac x'cs to the dmIrWe c=enmY. Ihcrc urc• ttc .trc requesting that ; ou 4:onrplorr the follo%ing Our or Ware �MmJa). ,luyuw -M tJlR, as a cuntraciar trill be cng:tlttd to I%*& the repl3cvatent of the Orv. %wother)xrmilthV, uh,rtit tltcreaRet. • �t�4r.Y BtiY iClt�'C.�tt�'�. huiix', .,i r,rF;:r „a,..�:'i.tn� ,tith�n r`:. ,!r.,:'�.ir .�e.tY..e...t r,, '� 11 t • 1 ti rCRp�y:;rl antl in�g'i riral „t ti .'.t.v; .i p','= ajrare that 1 ortl, C'rrck t IU •1, thwgh its m,na anent agent, h.t, rx't t ,its ttry t1 xt ,t s.t 1te re�Pcutsihle for such %Wrk 1J to 1 are uttttrltatp to ctrttiPlaic the atxAc an k b% morkla} Aut;u,t .0 ,thin the Ctr3nh t,tit rettrcnr tlw oh,trrullons and \till AOA: 8s the cost to you,\ c` Iaitctic%11 to the ,almetntan'rcr a., x1 C•ountt tt111 tc,ult to a lien King P1ac'ed on >t'W � Pt t.th.rcm rrt+rent t.cY4-. 2w00r,rrasaet faatar Mt"' anti. 3aS wuattflstox. 1114wk Carol- "403 Trtmho"(910 s-rIS3 roe,dwl{tr /D trM 7'91t 7rlt7 'g New Hanover County sent this letter asking some residents to clear debris from the r property. (Source: WECT) NEW i lANOVER COUNTY, NC (WECT) - In Southeastern North Carolina, we have been enjoying mostly sunny skies with minimal rain the past few weeks, but some residents in New Hanover County are still dealing with the aftermath of heavy July rains. "While there is no water in our yard, it still is behind our fence and it has nowhere to go," said Bob Turner, who lives in the Sago B ty subdivision in Wilmington. Turner says he has spent thousands of dollars of his own money putting down sand, and pumping out water from his property over the past several weeks. i d 7A n r', 7 trVatc-n Live News Weather Sky Tracker Investigate Traffic Heaith Cape Fear Eats "If we have another storm, myself and a few of my neighbors will be in trouble," Turner said. "It's a scary situation." Turner lost his well in the July floods and says he is still drinking and cooking with bottled water. He will have to replace his well. On Aug. 1, New Hanover County engineers stepped in to help these residents after our first report showing many areas in the community with over five feet of floodwater. According to New Hanover County officials, a 12-inch pipe was crushed so the contractor is working to establish a flow for drainage. The county has since pumped out more than a million gallons of water, but now a new pipe must be ins *ad. kv o v� p C na� OCA I c; "They haven't started it yet. I call that pretty slow," Turner said. "We are doing our portion, and keep pouring money in, but why are we out there busting our butts for nothing?" Turner is referring to a letter New Hanover County sent a handful of residents dated Aug. 9 requesting they clear their property of any debris, trees, bushes or obstructions so county employees could start work on the new pipe installation. Sandra Quarles, who lives in Lord's Creek next to Sago Bay, received the letter. "We were all very excited to start getting this corrected," Quarles said. "I don't mind problem, but I am having to pay for this out of pocket." V 1 They are digging up my pro 40 stop he O CI CC Q The letter to citizens says easement areas had to be cleared by Aug. 20 when a contractor was supposed to begin the pipe replacement. The letter goes on to state that Lords Creek homeowners association, through its management agent has not indicated it will be responsible for the work. "I now have a bill to get this cleared, to fix a pipe that was installed improperly to begin with," said Quarles. " It's frustrating, but my sympathy does go out to the Sago Bay community. They are the ones that have really been inconvenienced by this." As of Monday afternoon, residents say they have not seen a contractor on site to begin work. i 0 .P�, a ". P m !11 .000 Watch we Nees Weather Sky Yrackar Ind+estigate Traffic Hazith Cape Fear Eats °w HEALTH CARE ANTISEPTIC LOTION SOAP with VITAMIN E Mild on skin fORMUl�TFO WITMOU� IRICWSAN TlnrmaRito 0 'It's an unfortunate situation': Restaurants want Edward Teach beer off their shelves after assault incident (F) Pender County Commissioner Randy Burton sued over alleged unpaid credit debt (j) Leland Police Department searching for missing teen Q 'It's frustrating': Scotts Hill neighbors look for answers as flooding problems worsen 0 Autopsy report released for woman found dead in rain barrel x;u G)-0 m-0 --1-0v D-0 ;o z-0 zv-a cn-0 _0 _0 -+ 'o -0 -0CD W O n -+ C N �_ n -� N �. C O n O CD 0)0 v cn (a r 5' n CD ami — m CD CDa! - CD z fD N o CDC vi CD O O (n p S Co (n CD v N CD -Do 2 O m (i W 0 �1 =-u 3 lD N N cL W z CD i CD .l7 CD �1 �C 3 W < m � n m y � U 2 m -n 3. (n a 0 m Z m a CD o cfl (D = CD c S a (D o m m -^ D z v v Z 0 CL (a CD ca 0 C CD Q m m CD O O C -' z (n Z -' z;p G7 CD n N N Z W Z N n N N Z to N m a' i -4 O nC nV O') CN U1 CO 0 vV CDCOCcn nCD(D N N • N CD CD CD 3 CA CD NJ D N O N V O 0) _ •C C < CCL r C � d W co 2) Q N ?,<O CD N in W Z C7 (n d o cn Z z ca O m 0 � Z 0 cn n CD N CL to 00 Z) Ul C V V n=? C n C..0 EP CD CD Q C" o 0 fil a (.0 0 < CD CD CD D ( N WO O GN CD Z W ti Q m W U)< CJ7CD rn c 0 < n Ci -< O O CD < _ = O C CQ fl' CD 0 CD W < CD G m CD G CD Z CD -< CD CD -G (D CD -G N < CD N N (n Cn O !n N (n N (n N !n r 0 o o m o m CD CD m o Cn 0 (n o V7 N (n N Cn W t�. r CD g z z z c z z z m Q) cn O O O N N O O O N N W (n O O O O N O O O 0 O W O O O CD CD O Cn O O O O N N O O C 0 CD Cl) W W w W W W W W W W W ? Ul Cn CJl Ul CP CJl � CJ1 Cn U'1 U7 co W N VW a) ..— O Cb A CD -' CWO V ILO CD (n W C) 00 00 81 ? ? O V N Ut N V A W V Cn ? O W W O 0o a) N ? W N x] A N CO 00 A 00 Cfl N 00 W CA CD Cl) CD W V w V V V V oo v V V oo V 0 rn 90 7A v p N (r V rn o p V CO O Cca aa)j - W 0) V 00 CD :3 N O CA O W CD A U1 W W W C1 4 co W W O � gyp. 4 w 00O w 0 CD V A A A V N 00 00 W n -u n T n -0 0 -0 n "O n _0 n n N 0 O N O CU O N O O N O N 0 p� 0 CD W O _ y C a _m 0)N-. 7 C 7 7 N 7 N 5 0_ 7 fWn m 3 0 .W N .W�•. W W N .W�•. W 0 N vai w r W m -H cn �' (n n o cn 3 m N — ? CD < < o 0 N m < m n O m N 0 O .- a c 3 is 3 3 z O cn 3 m 3 W CD CD ? �• -* s N W W C1 to 'D � v, o, 6 3CD m m m m 3 o 3 -o CD m O �, m (n�' o, `n Co < 3 CD N :3 a_ (n y cn 'p-cn CD O O CD 3 C 3 CD C CD CD CD w 3 m •_ m m 3 CD m a S 0 a. 7 3 CD W C 3 CD CD 3 (D L C U) > L L m E C m Qi C 0) 0) E co LC O C C C C Q Y m n m V5 3 _0 "a _0 m cn L L co co m N �_ O cn m L m L D m L U U m m U) O_ N E L L U m@ L L N @ L Lca (D CCU •C m O U cn CO cmn CO U) m y (/) (n (n m L.L m (n (n C p C m0 V) C_ p C m0 U C m0 7 (n C m0 m U) C p m U C m0 m m U Cl. m U IL m U o_ m U a m U D_ O O U a U Cl. U a. O 2E LO It V m N C4 LO O a LO M (0 CO a1 co O '�t LO Ll- m (O C � IN (Op (.0 ((00 M M N m O .M- 7 d v M CO I� O _r_ (O co co 00 N N M LO I- (O M L ti r; r-- CO co CO m N U) N Q_' M 00 O (.O Il- O 01 (O m M N M �t N N a)_ 00 OO O N (�_ � sM- N ( CNO M (.O M 00 I- r- m (O ._J..— LO O) O) O) Imo• M M N O) _ (0 M co M LO In M V LO LO co M m c`') co M M M M M M N � UI O O O O O O O O O O V) 0) z Z z z Z z z Z z z m 0.. U O O O 0 o O o O O O ?� Z Z Z z Z Z z Z Z Z E O O O z o Z m z Z J C Y U y U U U } O z O z O Z N (n O Z O O J O z d N cn ? (n N W > (n > N � N 9 N (6 O `- o 0) C LO "0 N p W' y' Z N O J CO m N > U (Cd t�f) M W U U - J M a) H Y m � LO a N z O o z � O Z r- z O Z CW n O m N Nm U00 N N 0) •� '� N 4O: O Z O O m— m 'D O U rr (0 (n (D d z > c N t M _� C 6 E O .0 'a N Y a0 0) LO O 00 N N CO Cl) N -C -� ( O Y Z N co = N ti> O N LO > O U SZ i 0) •� C W U W U C W m 't N 0) N `- U - U j '0 _ 00 4: 'a m S^j - U N (n z (n z U) N (V M z m z z .- CC J .E CC W (D O >1 C c C.) : (_i :n U) .0 (� m � i O C m o T a% ... _ m ......,.> J C CD U C M U C O) U C— (L6 m 1 —_ 0) >, N m O U_ U t m cn d U) U) (n U) in C H h U W Y N C Co L3 N 1 1 "O 1 J C 0) c w Y N d LL E 00 Ur N (T6 (9 m m 0 Q N (� m '� m U N O 0) -t m - O �� U 3 U 3 U 3 O y L O >_ N N N N E z c0 O O - a) 0 m z 2 m 0 cn m O� cn m 0 mC: 0 m Y N U 0 I- Q 0 � It O O ° m m o_ o_ m a o_ m O m o_ m z "0 z -0 z r Z co Z 0 z r Z —i Z m z K (/) K z K w K v 0 C� O 0) o o_ CD v. CD 0(D m y o co O v 0 v o v o CD =r Q O (O N fD N Q 3� p N CD CD O CD _ N (�D ZJ O 0] p N CD a CD - N O N 3 CD CD N C L X 7c O 7C d' CD C CD (7 CD CD -0 sv m CD CD CD w CD CD 7 m y CL m 0- a U) "0 c L CO N CO N cn (] co N o (n z G) A A 0 V r N CO ;u A CO Z A O G) -4 g v 0 O co V cn W V CO O V Cr O N ;Z• W CD CD - CD O) CD O < C= W 2 C) CD 0) �. 0 °�� �� OD >A 0 < v r 3 cn - CD n - O y O 6 Q =o - O zK C7 CD CD W O <. CD cr o n 0 0 00 n o ° N 0 °�° a) o to �, m 7 LU � CD cn O7 oo m Z D °. - o S Z Ci a Z � N 0) N= S W x Q Z '"' (7 0 •P v CD N n Ul 0 0) � � w X ;U O " C7 Cp N CD N CA = � Z 0 N O Z CD O O V CD O' r N O V CVO 0 O C) C coVQ N n ? co a o r co c °° -< rnID o m m oc C) a z < z f G — O a, cn O m vo, cn cn 0 cn r 0 N z l z z CAD O O (mD O CD O cn O (n Cl)Cn cn cn w 7 C2 r CD z z z O CD<y O cn O O ( O N N (n N y O 0 CD O 0 CCD 0 O O O 0 cn !n cn L17 O O O O O O O O O O CD G) it CD W W W W W W W W W W W W A A Cn cn cn Cn (A U7 cn cn A W -I V W CO 00 W C.o A W A A -_..-- A m CA A O W A W co CT CTT W A 00 V Cn W W CO Cn W CA N O N W A 00 -4 Cn O Cfl A W W -C CO m A N 00 O Co �C O W Cn CA w CO -I A -C O W Cn CD Cn CD w i �I V V i -!4 i -!4 i �l i -1 v n .lI 91 Cn 00 OD W W Cn N O OD Cn =r w Cn CO Co Cn (n 00 0) N O -I CU N M OC') co mO :3(0 W � 000 ( 000 0 Q -• CA 00 W Cn -C N A OD cn w Cn OV 00 O A Cin 00 000 VO N cn -4 OODD N �l T O -0 (7 '0 n n - n T C) O O Cp u O p7 O O O O CS7 O ycn to SD cn 3 Z1 S N S -- -n - or - 3 -n 0 2 CD N C) 0 'D ai N N Q (n n m Cn N 0)� � — m v(: O_ 3 CCDD �. � 0 c CD N D cn zr m m CD a o o i m m d <n cn sz w sv o -« v m o o sli :z m o 0- v m v m G) a CD o° CD o 3• m CD 3 CD cn fD - m O O - O a CD o m m ° s �CD in in 0 0 � Co � U) CD cnvn a V .U) o o, ? a m o m• M 1 v -^ o 6< O M m O 3 CD -+. m CD z CD CD CL CD Q. CD Cn c O C2 �- C1 C N CD - m / a / f \ \ E / E \ / Cc k k / 7 / o ƒ ¥ % « e \ J J \ \ 5 \ } / § / 0 IL \ f Cl) \ k \ � \ p 2 \ \ \ / 2 � \ � E ƒ Cl) h $ \ / n E 2 \ 2 k \ E \ I E } \ \ % 00 / n k k } \ k k \ } k E E k?§ 7 \ _ ° DO)§ % 7 / E / » @ » £ f ƒ ® 2 ƒ 2 _ _ � _ _ n n = _ ! c } } \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ) a mm _� ] E 2\ / = 0 =) \ y 7 2 z 0 u= E_ _= 2 2 / C 2 3 7 2 2 v} L 2± 2 a # k / E \ \ ) \ \ M D 0 7 0 I 0 I 0 E E E E \ o # a c \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / \ $ $ \ $ \ - \ \ k \ C> f S 2 \ a r e e a a con Cl)con Cl) a)k k } \ k \ k } k k k \ / \ } \ \ \ \ \ } } \ / \ \ \ \ \ . \ \ \ a k ƒ a \ ƒ # E \ m ƒ $ \ 2 \ $ \ % 2 / \ \ / / § ^ O g 2 m % % 2 \ , = , z � / m om a 5 3 u / ƒ \ $ E \ t k E n . _ _ ¥. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ a a = _ § 2 k \ m 2: 2 > %- \� %±� / 2 c S )0 2 m $ J $ / a $ jk]/ < a- \ < / $ CD ƒ\ // \ \ k \ k \ \ \ \ \ _ \ r / \ \ \ a \ ~ ƒ O < N a & g \ CDO c \ ƒ \ \ / % k 0 O ƒ a) W = z e z k \ / k \ m o / \ § ƒ \ / \ \ \ \ $ J 2 � t CD t IL f « / � / I 0)k E K i \ $ 3 \ + k ) ) / 2 O X r O r r r r- r Z r cn r m r m r m r m O* r- m r m o < 3 m m 0 3 m (D (a CD CD m a, m 0) = m T. CD 0. 7c = CD 77 CD X, CD 7c a CD 77 CDD = 0 CD , CD (D (D vi Z o m 3 Cp O y r T. o r m �_ o 0 w �1 m v, (D "� m C) m m 0 3 m m �, a m n— n 3 CD a m m a m m o T �' m w a o o' m >r CD o' 3 CD 7 CD Co CD C) -0 CD T, m x 7 o O n � m � c _ - CD ao Z Ul 00- v Z -' Z -' w v� :U -4 CD o rn 00 -� O CCP O � -� (D w O (D o CO co m CT `G Cfl m O N 7 O m O (D. nCC v `- -) O O Cn C O o `� N C) W C7 o (D ao m ao cp 0 O m cn (D O - m. cfl -• w (n ;(7 g to D G (n � n cn CD o CD - 3 O m m � .c < m S z 0 Now — � _ ? m = ° z & z � _ X m C) .. Z P J o av W , �Qnm C C) z Z CD N) NN ma � mO O n C C G zCn o CO D � 00 Cn Q CP� � 0 o � 0)C mZ rn CD Z O C(p QO �'(D z C) Q o r z C) _ m m n C)o rn CCD 0 0 CCD 0 N N N 0 N N ID N O (n (n Cn (n (n (n U) Cn r 0 z z z 0mmm0m 0 m77 o O O O N y ( Cl) Cy 0) O Q r CD W m 0 0 m m m m 0 m (n (n (n (D (n (n oz Cn CD m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cv 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 (n �, (n C. CD w cn w rn w cn w v, w � w cn w cn w � w (n w (n w cn w rn w cn OD O OD CA N_ -' N CD -1 v OD A VCU O o') N 0') ? (n N N V W C)CO 000 OND (n 4�- 00 0 O co O W V N N 00 O 0) (fl O V V V N w 00 (n N V V w .c] CD (n CD m 44 V V V 44 OD V Ou V V V V V CA V O V p V 00 -!4 0o 00 O V OD 0 O Cn W 00 O CO A O CA a) N -1 m � ODN O N (.0 C) COn — A (O N Q 00 ? CA coV N OD V V N) (P N) A au W ODD N W ? W 00 ti O al (n U O C) 0 C) T -0 C) T C) T C) _0 n -0 C) T -0 T N O N O CD CD. (U O N O N O (D O E O (D (D (D CD�... y_ � y 5 m 3 3 3 3 3 O 3 O O O O O m cn (n mW ;U -n m -n Go co W 3 ;-u -0 X -n co Cl) (s -n o o o o o 0 m m <' CD 0 CD < CD ? m O� 0 m Q 3 �' u y 3 g 3 3 70c, � O 0 s O cy m CL cn v - s m 5CD `�° 3 m CD C)- o a a 3 o° ° a cn ° c y 3 a m � � Cn (D m a s N W ti m a CD m m v, a m O (ten O o m o CD 0 a 0 oa n m (n m m n o a o o m a a .. a -30 0 CD m cn •o 0 a a a 'D N 0 E fL0 ` 'O > O O 3: 0 O 3: -C � O 4? cu 0 O L >O U cc 3 cu @ a C L m CL a)CU ` m t L L E cu O (n cu 3 E L a � � L °' 3 N � (n w �' C E E E E cu (n E ) m m 3 E O O O O > p O O > O O = O y m a) m z O a) m m Of m m LL of m a) .E E p LL m to m J C C C C C C (n C C C O O O O L6 LO (6 co O m O 'o "Ep '0 '0 7 7 m .- 7 _ .0 -0 0) a) N N O O p m O N p m cu iu ti f` (fl M c0 00 r V LO O N O CA 'IT a) C m f- a7 M O (.0 O) 0') O N M LO (M Li) .0 U 00 fl- 00 ti 00 ti co - 00 00 00 r-- N 00 O co LO 00 1- a) r- M fl— 00 LO O CD P Cm [� 'T CD 00M O co CO O LO W LO f-- o0 co LO O 'Cl- f` O M (O LO M _.__._._.._ Cn Ln 00 00 00 O O V M O CO N N M r- O V 00 Ln Ln L6 L6 6 (O 4 Ln Ln 6 Ln co M co co M co M M co M M N C7 O O O O N O N O O Z O Z O Z c m Z Z Z Z } Z > Z n } Z Z Z Z Z Z Ln } (n } to m O N cn N O Z N } N } Z } } } Q> J C _Y N } N } (n } 0) } O Z N } O Z N } O Z cn } } p O J O O O O } } } N } N } Z Z Z Z } } 'p Lo a) Ln Cl) L. U o i' m "O Q -0 a 06 � N 0. N O O m a 0) o �' 3 0 m a) E Q Z ( coa� t- m Y N m aiLO 0 o m aCl) Y U a)LO > U a N Ln U a 0 N U a co m N p C co >C'j C UZi m Z�e p Z N a) Z iUY Z OmZ = 'm O YZn 0 E a) U LL m :O Z o > > m Z (nU m m N a� = Q N 00 N �' MCn L N U U i 3 N O i U 6) U m CO 7 O 70 O N O 'C m m -r—O O C N LO M 00 M_ 00 r- Z Lo U M 0 to m m a. a_ o- m O Q .M- 2 N U N rn Y i V U 'C E C Y a) U C Y a� a� C a� a) CD U _ a. L m m m � 0 a) a� d m E W m E U m E C m E m m a) Y U a) p 0 m o � Y m ` rS�r�}j O CD m 0O d LL a N U m (6 E 3 3 m m O = SW = C m L C m C L m a) LC6 E N_ E a) _a 'O 7� Lu LL "O u j. co U a> TT}} O O O O O D O a O Z) a) O Y 3 O m C C O m C m Y m ` O m p Y m Z � Z � tq r C- W � ` -1 C_ C- T C- C- C< m r m 2 Z m -0 m O O v O N = CD N sv n CCDCD n v m <_ c m CD ° jCD j N �. _ p M. CD CD CD fO" Q CA m � cn a CO 7 o m s OT G) fD v C-)v v `Z r v 3 n CD o 0 m m CD�- CD 3 ll CD cD 3 7C CD /mom Cn o O 0) v 7r n N m 7 M CD m Cu c� 1 CD sv m v z ;� v a cD o y m ? 3 m 3 m X, n a c CD X v CD c m cn s, -n Cv ;o m = -> N -' Cb cn 00 N 0 O W 0 2 OD CD O Z X cn a O Z N N TI m O m N CU CO N ;u 7 Cn 0. CD _� CD CD CO 3 CL O N -' Cn N l< N _ O > -+ . C n 0 c O N lD• (n 0) n @ A O CO CO V W CC O a• _3 O = C1 7_ N 00 0 = -� D N n O CQ Z CD CAD = pCj N O O M O CD CD to OG O O y �. cn C Q CD O N O_ CD v O O, 7 X O `G CD a CD 3? 3 m CD U) W O w �• Z V) .�•. O iU Q Z CD co cn W V �, C� j N N.)CCDD z n �• — CD -nCL v O Z Z G� Co CD CL CD Z 0 a N $CD N ° a CD S Ln :Z. N Ocn — CL A n NN NN N nW 3 O co O CD PCO X n 0 � OZ CD V CO N cb N CL CAD N a z -< C< < Z < < < C< < -f < (n cn N ° Cl) Cn cn co CA cn co r O cn O O O O N O (n 0 O O O cn� O O a r CD CD m m m o p o C Cn cn N m Cn Cn o o o Cl O m O (n O O O O O O O O O O N I O O y O O O O O O CD O 0 C Q CD Cl) Cn W 0 W •A W cn W cn W � W to W (n W A W Cn W cn W � 000 V O00 � ? V N v 00 O �.._ _ O 00 co O N V O W Cn V to 00 N A W N W O OD CA N A co Ln � N N W W 0 -••. OWO CD Cn CD N V W V (b V (b V V V O V V Cb N V V -I V V OD V W V CA C) S CO O cn i4. V 0 A O N W Cn V Cll co •P CO w CA V -P, a) W cn O A W A W 00 00 0 00 0 CYI m W COD V N 00 a O PO Cn V CO O Cl) 0) CO � w W V (n W co V Cn W W S17 iy -0 0 -u n -v -0 n CLFD' CL N O y ET N p� O y p� O N O C W O 0) pj O 0)N p� O FD CL p7 O a) _. 3 O O � a r W W v Wm � 3 n 9 i a 0 CDCD O O (D cn m O 3 O 3N 0 S p (n —' O a( 3 N 61 O � � m cn n 0 CD ° CC CD to CD G? CL a n v 3 a ccnor n a' CL cn CD a CL a a rt v v m v v g Ci CD `t -" 3 v °ate o a a cn (n c a S 0 S co n S 0 CD CD S 'a -« a in S CD� w < o 00 00 `L 00 o fl1 CS a d CD 00 ° CD a a Cll a y CD ° - ;* cn T a 3 Sll CL cn3 v Cn m m 3 s co m 'a_0 = a n '0 k E / ƒ-.7 E k a £ 2 E I j k \ 2 ƒ \ —2 \ E f 2 / k k r \ 0 0 I = \ \ \ 7 \ / \ \ \ \ 2 2 \ } \ \ g \ k \ k k k \ a o 0 5 a g g § y % \ ƒ _ \ 7 a § f 7 . . § b = § c= 2 2 ƒ n R\ \ 3 m _ 2 E 0 ma $ m 2 / k \ § « § # % m e » E 2 SCEL m R m k ca to o®\ # 2 a t e a m _= c= E\ a s R __ � c ƒ 2\ n '° E £ E \ E o E§ 7 7 \ / \ \ k k ƒ \ i § § \ L / 0 CO # ® # / / / E ) \ \ \ - - 7 / 7 7 Q I o f 0 I I E I E \ $ @ % 2 / \ \ \ Cl) \ / \ \ \ \ \ ƒ / \ ® - / $ \ p 3 \ \ ± 2 2 \ f 4 f \ \ 2 \ w § S % % Cl) Cl) / \ E § \ J / \ } \ k k k k z k k \ k k z z k z k m « « k k k k 2 7 \ z k k z \ \ k z k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ z . £. co2 2 a § 3 a § o \ 2 = % 0 — k 2 e n ƒ * Cl) ƒ/ _ E E» m\ / I $ E E E » n 2 3 o k & \ o== / o N / \ z O= \ $ o ± N =� z R \ / / / 2 0 2 \ = a E o z$ ƒ° = e@ e\ r 4 0 a E 2 e m \ a© t\ƒ E n =® a e \^ ± 2 7= ` 2 \/ f\ 1 7@ m 2 m$# /§ c# z 2 z CO k \ \ \ � # % § f F $ q E p M CO m ^ / > £ 2 I 2 E \ f / z f \ / Co ? f ƒ \ / z & Cl) 0 % \ 0 ? } 2 i E m e = » __ E \ . \ - D \ \ ) \ \ } k 0 © $ E z 0 E = 3 « k$ / z / -C \ 2 (n \ / \ \ k » m# ® I �k o 0 m m R § E cn \ E \$o= §ƒ \ m o m e@e n m CD m @ o s= o O cL o o 2 I o I I I m I a I I I z ± 0 I u c ƒ / / - f ® > z CD Cr � E ) o 3 _ § .. CDW k ƒ ? \ ® a f n / H \ f CD z E m= o o p. r n @ 2 o 0 Q 2 � § / ) o@ S 7 m & 2 q - ¢ 2 z f i = r a N) & § -4 0 CO CD 0 k k CD I r » = _ 0 CD< / / I (n ; / / 0 / 2 E E / / _ / I « f 0 § ƒ ƒ / 0) e � % $ % OD 6 k k \ \ \ / a = j \ � o £ q t 2 \ \ - k « = a m 3 m o o /m o 3 E o \ 3 cn a � k 2 2 7 o Eƒ / E ■ -a F e = 2 3 * E / 3 2 ] = ± / E & % \ \ § m e 2 E e & _ C a ® Q E _ \ E E R a R 0 ) ƒ " \ � 2 z 0 � � � � � � � � ch � � C)7 0' �. � 0 0 (D cn cn 07 (D :E (D � � C- cn I \ m \ X, / m e LY > > C u Ur m Ln J 00 3 L "0 U) (`Q o c ca m O t O m ,= m w Cn 'u Ua p O n. m C p 6 U li m w N u1 N c a� ca N a L' 0 n, (6 O p N LL 0 3 c O E a O O L cn o (6 E N cn 3 c a D O O N V) 9 'O 7 C L o- o o E .` O N .� mC 6 L) N O L i M '- m m 3 N .0 LL w c a O a cu d c m O- O c Q N cn E m Ua C Y rn O O CO CL L Q C N 3 in 0) (6 ) 0) >�, ,C U � � m UCL Y Lo O L U) M a� m 3 y CD d C LL w c m Op L co m ` Lu m 3 ccnn LL c O E a n O m CU o o c a) > T Fu p c6 U a L = L Co -O f6 a� " 3 m 0 N N LL ° c O E a N 0- -- m M N N M Cl) N M 00 0) 0) 0 O Co M r d - Ln Ln N_ �- "O Ln O N _ f� Ln Ln I- N 0) CD f- � 0) Ln O a LC') ti Cl) CO MO O O Cl) I- co O M U) 00 It M (0 0) M 0) Ln 0) (0 00 ,I: Ln c0 M 0) _C 00 I,- c0 N I- - ti c0 N 00 f- 0) L 1 1 I- I co I Ih 1 00 I I- 1 ti I 00 I ti I I- I I m a) Ln a) Cl) .- co CM Ln N (.0 00 00 0) N Ln .- M I- Ln O n N c0 M O N I- Cl) It c- Ln N O Il - O Cl) LO Ln Ln LO IM Cl) N M I� ti M 00 0) (o (o O (o O In In Ln M (D Ln 4 Ln (O Ln (o M co (M M Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) M M Cl) Cl) d) C.7 O O O o O O O O O O O O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z C m d O O O O O O O O O O O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z c o O o O O o z O z Z z z Z z > (D J C YO O O O O O (n N 0) O Z O Z O Z p Z Z Z Z Z Z >- O J Ln (n cn (n Ln Lo (n (n N . N Ln � c U p ' Z O a O N N C6 (o Q U = m Z OM -C co LO N. m0 L Z - M 'c O ui > C �; N O O N co Ln (4 N o (� 0 N U U -o Z C o Z U Z rn 04 Of> N N 00 d' to m = E Z N Z U N c j C m 0 3 N Z J U U cc Z Q) a) 3 }O. Z O U co LU O a) (n -O N 'O Ln Z U LL C t It > L6 � N C CO ) N > N O N Y M O N V O d r- V >O U N S a)) M O R' co V 3 co S O tLi) Q (0 � U C) U -� M LL N N N Ln C � T C O Y E Y m a) o U) m 0 ~ O ) m L N (y U T m w m e o U a H m m m J N CDU) m J m 0) C7 m E T E p m m m Z m Z m J (/� F� N 3 Y O O X 06 p _ O U N F Y a) .0 > U N > Ln L U c O Y C L`6 � LCO O_ a) N m N m m m m d (CO N a) O U N 0-Q J Q Q Y U m� m M m a m cn m a M cn m CD a CA ao 00 _r 00 00 'O 0o * C) W -a CA '0 o m -n W CA x 00 00 (D ° Cn 7 con `° Q ? _x Q' cr d N v r° c (D c Cn CD N c CD O- N CD CL N n U a O n �: `° cQ 0 CD Cp � - N `° rt '� _ y ' O to 3 5- �' c �' �' OS m e m n r '-<� CD CD '0 cnm m m c=i v CD v o CD CDCD CL [n N m (n X v fl 0 C) �' 0 `C N n CD m CD cn N CD CD CD N : — (n (D CD 9 C N 2 r OD N cn -0 A z z C) co z D M4�, z W m M OD G) W � co N CD O CD CQ W v cn O O C7 RI - Q � U7 C N CD -p' - N �A CD 7 M �' 0 v a �. � j CNi) CD $ Q pN1 O Cr N S oD = n n 0 CCDD W O C o z co cn CD �1 0 6 C) fD Q - C•) j cn cn Z 0 :i7 p N N C) (D O -- Q_ O N v ;a 3 - CO O S n CD n 7 N co n � z W N- N U1 ` C OD C) M. C C) N CO Z 7 N (n O W Z ,Z7 Voi Oo v O CD N �' v 0) Q (n L (7 O CD N N :3 n L N (n 00 fD Wp O co Z CD CCD W OD W tv CD Q z C,n v m m � c n 3 < < z z z < < U) (n N m (n o c o W o cn cn r a 0 0 CD o m o 0 0 o C 0 a N y cn UJ w 7 Q. r m o CD CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 CD 0 :3 (n (n V) (n cn N O O O o O O O O CD N O O O tU z z z z z z z z z z z z O O O O o 0 O o O O o O 0 G) C Q CD W W W W ! W W W w W W W O O OD Ut 00 CA N N 00 00 C) co O) O W (.000 cn cn c v c n CTI -� 0) A 6) v N W CD @ cn CD iv O V :• OJD (44O (~n 00 00 co D CD W 0 - W Ut tv W N a) OD O W N ( N 00 W O 0000 O (2 a)i O 00 O CO N Ut OD v 000 O 00 O (� (n CA) 0o -4 n W W OD � 00 N m C) m m C) C) m C) U m C) m C) -V C) 'U C) y o (p N O 07 O v O CD o O " v o v 0 v O N O O t11 N fU O N CU N II1 N SU (!7 o o 3 0 v° W o CD 0 0 a m n D m m — �• _ = = N o m CD CD (0_ a rn (ncn (n CD U) -+. C1 CD O :E N Q CD N v o fU O o m 3 Conn oo @ Q N B l< cn< CD 3 m v N -6 nj(.- CCD co S (a 0) 3 CD a) CD Q CD v :3 _ Sv CD 0 -Q (n N : cn N 0- N a N = m (p - w 0 a a 3 0) CD c ......_.._._._. N } } c a) CL E 3 O O t o m U m E C m m `n°n L_ -0L m E m m a) LL N O m U) ami Cp L C E `—° `m c °� m �i m a p m LL LL O m E a� m LL. ` N CO m in O U E -6 N O � Q 0 Q L y � m 0 a`ni c .a U L in n a m `� � -p cc' Q a O a� a m Z CL 0N c o O O O O O 3 'a L p m O m c ,` j m i m E m° Eyc LL N E m m 3 C y N � N 3 m w O Q N `n !n o f = 3 a) cu c a) C L m m a .0 0 O 00 LL. - m J C C C C C to O E O E fn O E O E '0 �p C Cl) C mp CO C mp C C N C mp N O _m m p m O _N p _m m _m m m 0 0) LO CV 00 P- LO lO d' O U') 70 M Or O_ (D LO C(14 l) (D M LO qzr 00 'ITC r- N V O co ONO 't CDONO CD m - 0 O C) O LO 00 LO co 00 L O I_ Cb 06 O 06 00 6 O N U co I-- 00 I- r-- r ti ti rl- m N N O (D d' LO N N CD O m LO � 000 (0 LO coc CDIt It O I� O U') Cl) O) I- O O 00 N 00 m rl_ N It N N M O 'IT00 fl N N 17 Il fl 00 _ N O O LO CD CO LO LO LO CO LO LO LO Cl) M M M M M Cl) co Cl) M M m :3 to fn Z z cn Z Z Z Z Z z >- m n O Z N > O Z O Z N O Z O Z N > N N O Z w Cn Cn Cn cn O Z Cl) > O Z Z tv J O m rn } O Z N N N ? N O Z (n } O Z O Z O Z O J Z } } Z Z Z O U Z Cl) X N rn c o rn m O N c O Z t� Z O O N� 00 Z m N LLI O U N -p _m N r- y Z Cl) - N U U coO O U _0 c m E N 7 N Q C N N O Z _0 N Z L N �' Z J O L U N O Q) U m N f6 0 C N U Z jj 7 N Z C O O CO Z OO Z L 3 m > U _ 7� m = CO m E > m L -p Q 0) N L 0 co. C O M N N m m N LO r• N N LO O O C'n U LO LO a) O� O � O O C_ CD l�O U CC � i t` OD U 00 m O O O O �' m M m p M J N N LO m > N > O Z C9 CV tO Z LO m LO d �' to LL EZ � °) C a) "a d N ,� J (n a) a) d m Z U p y E O cn O m E m a. =_ N Y U Ln CT a) O LL (� >O N > LL N L Co Y N n m p m Cn O : c - O - m C ca LL mCL g� CS 7 C O C ` U V a) Y C X O in Q_ Y O O m 0 'C m m J 2 m i m m(L 7 a) m 3 7 a) m0� O m m 0- 7 d m Z 7 O m m -00 00 � zn x zn m n ao*n =n -v n _00 Kn *n vCD m m s m CD CD CD vCL n m ° O M m m m m m m CD m m EnO CD 0 v o C o 3:o CD v v �. m *= n c , � Dn .g a o O n m _ CD m m00 i ° Ta 0 cn m< m -1 CD CD m� m 7 m : CD °: m ° fD n U) cn o m a CD (D m (D m m c 03 W G cn -n N r- D Co (n N N N (n N n -' = cn O W O 0) O 00 O_ O m m W -I O to •J N Ln O -a Cn m O p) O i• m �. N = CD N Z m CD N O Q Vi O 6 00 W O 3 7 CT O r O O N ;D 3 m G A `� T. D N 0 m N CD (n � CD z ,O. (� m O m 0 Z "a �CD CA O x� co CD CD Z a 2 m � (n Z CD CD rn= N cn n D �' j N cn Z 0) CD Z �� mP cn �o 00 -CD CL no CDC n� 00 v "m CD O n � v 00 00 Q 0 z •p W O OO fl N m a Q Cl) L Z z z N c O n CD N n eo Z < < -< < G z (n O cn U)i m ai (n ((Dn (i (n O r O p N CAD C-D p N p O O V) (n N (n N (n y m f1 r m z m z z CD CD z m n O O (n cn (n (nO cn (n (n O O N N O O O O O O O m W 0 CD< (n C< D U)C. O O O O O (n O O Q CD w Cl) W W W W W C.) w W W 67 CA A 1� C7) (� Ui Un A U1 A coO .�. . CD(I) (D W � O �) O � co w v O N (Ji O (co co Ui ? O W coO Cl W N O 00 ;o O N A CA •P N CD N CD m (JO 1 �I 1 V �l 1 W 1 -I 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 -) 1 v l C) CA V O O O W W v 90 v ? CA 4 O W A (O v co (O ti 00 m � (JD N O 73 O -• a) O 0) Cr Q' V W Cl) N O CT N M -) O U) W v Cb v O O O 00 W co Ui N A A O U) N fy N 0 Ci -u n -0 n -0 T n -u (n -u n (� O _N O v O U O CD N O CD CL ff N CD �CD-_ O .. 7 y N rn 3 3 m 3 CL Cn 3 V m O O _ v O m U) v v v m Mo m o m <woo O m CD in S a O N CD -a �. 00 O (D in u, � w 3 -2 o CD m m O 3 n c CD rn m v c � m a a. m �' CD m 6 o l< (D �, CD a cn c CD CD m (Q m -� �' m G7 m cn _ o c 3� 3 m 3 Q.3 av o m cn 1 U) (Z cn ai CD c°� c v m s o o cn CD o m m 3 m N 0 m N cn a -a - O 3 m v E m t1 m a �' m an d _-. y to (n O N.r a. Q v m 3 w o N 7 Q ._____..... L L m L m L N (n L Co m 3 a a: f4 a c- 'C m O m a� a - N N m m E c -0 N 0 O O c L� 3 0) U)i 3 c 0 > -o a a i — 0) u) (n cn E CU LO -t m 2 m m C7 L L O a a a)VL� C a) a) wL- L O L CU a. a v) L y a) a) O 7 U) m a m C d 3 a a) i a) m a. E-C .i .LJ L a) C CO C L Q E U) O Z E. E m 3 _. —...— Co i 3 m 0) > > cn C O U) C O L m a. a) m a) >> U) m m OU O a a' *- U) m U) o m U U m U .c v, 3 3 LL cn o c CL `° m o m U) a) 4�-- cn 3 m J c c c c c O E 0 E O E N O E N -- c N c o 'm U c '� (n c 'c� c o '� N c Co 'm U c CU 'm A)o a. U d LD d a) d a U ❑. o U d U d C U I o U CL tII m 0 O V) CO N cc M !- N O O N O N 00 N fl- CO It coO0')0_0 •-- - It It co N LO 0) N V' CO O 00 h C 0') (D C)f� LO N CO Cl) m m 1� Cfl N Cfl O _ O) c0 O L 00 co O) h Il- O 00 LO m L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m a] in O M OD O) Cl) CO N N U') N In co e- M m to co !� I� m O N co O O c0 O Cfl M 0') 0) N_ O � LO NO 00 00 O LC) (0 O 't r- LO M co c0 Co V 't M (D M Cfl V O Cl) Cl) M M Cl) co CO M Cl) M M a) U O O O O O O O O O O O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z m 0 0 N O z 0 z N } N } N } N } 0 } N } Z Z } o O O o O a) m (n 0 Z co } cn } m Z Z z z z } } ? 0 J .0 C Y O O O O O N d O z 0 z N tn z z Z Z Z } } } } 0 J N N O N O O z cn y 0 Z N } N } } } Z } Z } } a i a) z U c a) O ~ o o m O z m O N U O U a) N Q 04 004 LO co a) M 0) U Z 3 LO Y o�0 O 'c O N = N O Z U) N U (W (� U 0 m Z N Y a C fn Z z Q1 O Z O_ (D > M m Z -C -0 m Of-_ Z a) L N >' U C a '6 Z � Q 00 ID > = Z no �7 0 a) tf) N U N U) M m U O N (6 a) 7 O L Q U O FU N LO U m U LO U U 0 0 p N U m 0.. > m> M z 0' LL. Z >� > 2 N Z Z U CL a d m N ..T� Y -le a C '� m a) N _.._.m. CO d Y C J C O C a Q Y N O a) - 'gyp O O U a (0 0 N f0 a) O M m O is m C a a) C 7 N m N O Z w C C ? U a Z Z= Z d E w -c D O Y OL O m Q J C m o Y U m i Y U o d o > ca m c m �a m 0) 0 y c O 7 a 0 _a E C 7 a) C C OL m L .m V) L a a O U W LL 0> 0 0 0 m U U' 0 0 O 0 O U LL O m U LL J O 0 LL. H 0 2 7 N U ZQ� 3 U v m m m m ;U v K v co v on 0 m 0 m v m (� 77 c3o 3• cQ 0 -Da °' X, CD v o n< m T. '� � 'D _ v o m m D cn n m CDcr m m C m 3 v <n o N m m-U Cn + N cn m m 3 -O CD .,.w.._ _. 00 7 a)N 3 CD U) u1 ;7 CD C A ` O V 0 C 0 O N co 9 O FL Un 3 Q" O n A O O N O E O co m O �A < N O CD m Cn CCDD CD cD a V m N C j 3• m � a� cD CD O � v � D a o m g _ Jo 3 -4 0 3 3 v 0 Z 0 cn CD PL -0 CD u� � CD CD m ca d Z ?c � cn 2 Z n O M m 0 ? D = na no v� �m Za n N� WP a N Z C o Q C1 N n Co CD v C n ID - n * m C) Z o ;v 0 ?� z o -4 m �< CD n D N -n � =r c) a n CL m -' -4� Z m , -C o (nn m 3 m 3 z o m CD Cl) m m m CD CD CD m Z Z Cn O cn Cn cn Cn Cn to cn O O r 0 CD z z z CD o CD o m o 0 (nO O O cn cn cn Cn m m m Z z CD 0 CD o y Cn O O M N 0 N N Z CD O Cn O O CD (n O O CD O O O O Z Z z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 w w w w w w W w w W co :p rn p p Cn p rn p rn p .p m W CD 00 co N O O N Cn O) CA OD CD Cb CA ? O N -P� W v W 4 N W -� O N Np Op co A _A A a co Cfl m i i i i i i � i 74 -I Cb 00 N 00 Cn -1 91 W Cb Oi 00 A 0) U O cn 000 al0 N O � 00 W W A N � O v Cn O COD W W w -1 Cb O CD CD CD O CD O m O O O N O _N W cn CL 3 CL 3 CLM 3 3 3 _N a' �' SD a y 0 O O m 0 N m N v :3 3 3 m y v m 0 m 0 CAD N (7 < N 0 CD a in < CD v, m fl c0 0 m m 3 0 3 5 ° 0 = O m o N : 3; CD O -w m m � = m CD d N m m to O � v CD C-Di O a O S N O 0 m CD CD 3 CL _0 U 3 � 0 3 C o v c m m m m a v v v 3 cn o Q-�3 CL 3 -� CD m � o CL n �m ._ CD 3 M. n n .. CD 0 CD �' 0 Q � V) CD CD cn Q n O Q M. L1 V1 m N cn CD 3 zT :3 Q ►� LV < 0 CD sz i �� cc o CU a Q -C p w U O 0 'cn L cn O ?i -o co > C:E ° co m Q E •d m co in s co M C:CLa> u, E o cn r M CD in m m -°o co c m c c 3- (n(n m co m ca m 3 ca o c (n m a C M E E E E m to o a) o ° m L lYl (n Cn Un Un 3i LL LL m m N m J C C N C w <6 O (0 (�6 y6 t4 O co cn c -0 -0 cUc m Co Co -- p ) c0 com m _ Op p c9 p _m p M U IL U EL d U d U 0- U Ll U a- CL U CL U CL U 0.. m cu co - ~ r- M d m r- mCfl V N OO O O O) N O W M O O V) V CT tl- - O t` W r- co N N It c0 It Ln Lc) M m O N O O O CO cD Cl) O O M CO CD O h ti ti O M h h CD .0 O f� I,- c0 h ti ti r I` 00 � r- r- m (D N (D Cfl ce) 0') CD I- M V M M Cl) M O � O m to am rl- OMO h O COD CD O M Cl) Ln m 0')m N- ti N CO c0 ' t ti m Li) O O O O O Ln O O m O CT CD r- r Cl) NT N �t Ln c'M ch cM 4 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Cl) M M M M M M M M M M M N a CD O a) O O O O O O O O O z ? z z z z z z z z z m O O O O O O O O O O O N z z z z z z z z z z z L O N O O M O y O N O z O z O > m z z z > z z > W J .O C m cn z z O z > O z O z CDO N > O z O z o a J cn cn cn y cn fn cn Cl) cA h (n O N N Y N M N a co Z (n O O It Ln co z p M "= U 'o -p ti > � CD Oo N c U .0 °_) U 2 N Ln � m z >> Cl) Y In ONO. L N �° O N U z m L N O Y00 C> 00 m u U Z t N Z U Z O z Q z N M N ..p C U N Y U Co N E Z FL U 0) C)00 U p 0 U U_ U O O O U Od m 0)Z m LL m >, -C O O C O N O N M Z O C= O O LL m J L CO Lu' V C U Ln 0 000 o N U d N a Co O , a) O O 7 O U OO N O M M Cl N f- O N O U C -p O Z -p O E f6 OL U _m N LL m U C.D Y lYl 7 Y N Q co N N Z O C U m (D > > CD M O O U co Q Z co J N cn M 3 M O). C E m .r-z N c O w d N M O :: m a- c O �' � a) Cl L M :? CD O Z c in m z fn N U Q r-,L6 U N �_ N N° (D 0 2 Y °� lb 7 U o LL U N 0 C p N o _ o N o 3 m N Y ° U ° U m m°° �_ - c�a m U •cL—° o° o a� o = S c°n C CL c0 lb LL LL N lL Y 2 Y LL O c •U _O U) >Z y .° V > M > � (0 O n 0 0 0 0 O M i d p O O> O M M W d LL U CC Q z LL CL LL 2 LL Q' LL W LL CL LL U U' 16 U N (U J CL K X X X X X ; v� X X M 0 X m� 0 m co o v O a> '� 2• Ev y _ 6 CD d 7CC CD y �• p cr G p 3 upi CD T o m v � O sv G) G) CD G) CD v y C1 a -- Z T OCj x m m m m ,_.. m O 'r ? r w o c m w 3 sv < -i << sli << a CD — sy c N-P� Z N 2 m Z m G) -� G) w Z� N -' X X N ;a 2 Z w g V CD V n 00 0')C,n V Ul- C)CD CD C,m @ (n C)n m C)to m -' o 0 0 w w 00 p 0 Ol O 0 0 s= -p O 0 Ul s O N O CD O CD N — w Ul (n p. C) (n� �. C7 (� - < Cr CD (0_ � ►� 0 w w m Z �_ < ((n co Z X 0 0 o :U � v< (D m N CD CD O O O O N c O C2 3 .< Ul CD p Z O O N p 7 o p 0" ,� 0 CD o O 0 < Z n a Q ()a rnw rnW aa°, CD CD Z CD V o o (D O Z CA _C OD a N 0 `Z A < C2 O' p �: �7 O 0 Z 3 N 1 O x (fl CA O N (n. a (�00 N Z 09 CD � c U1 C) C1 CD CD < CD Z CD CD < CD CD < (D -D CD CD y y y p Vl y y Cl) y y (1) r 0 o m o o 0 0 0 0 77 y Cl) y y y Cv 7 CL r CD < < Z Z g Z < CD Z DO M co y y y O O y O y O fD O O O O O O O y O O O y 0) O O r« O O O O y O O y O O O G) C CZ CD W W Cl) W CW W W Cl) W W w p p -P, sp C31 Cn sn p p OD N OD m — N N V OD V wA N N w N W CA cn Cb V CA O CA N Cr CA -4 w c C) N 0, W � W OWD -4 OODD CD VI y CD N �I V W �I i V V C?D V V V V 0 Ui V -' V V p O 90 Co Cb Cb =3" CA (D CO w 00 OD CA (A CY) cn v (00 n 00 V N 0) CP -� C) :3(A N W A N - WO Cl (.n CA oo C�JI CO coc N 00 00 N � N 0 V A V Cn N CP 00 OD CO 'J V p� -u 0 -u 0 _0 0 _0 0 -u -0 0 T �• vON 0 0 _ . 3 7 y c O C 7 y Cv y Q 3 QET 3 O ^' 0 3 O. 3 Q 3 w v v m 0 0 0 0 0 r y to 3 c3 CA y -n =r CA cr ;o -n g -n () y -n 0) p CD CD M o) <' CD CD 'a CD 0- O fl- O - -. g 3 in -0 3 3 w a w -3a a m — a s o sv m� U CD w m y CD c� y o °' CD CDCD G� CD CD mCD 3 a CDCD a CD a CD CD 3 v S 0) 3 N 3 m? y 3 _ y y N y 0 3 0) w 3 0) CD v N 3 s (nm� °� (n- � w a `< m a < 0 O E; Q p 0 p 7' ? 3 3 CD N CD <' (Oil 0- w 7' < O Q O C2 Q CD (D C CD 7 a y CD 0 v a Q c CD (D a)m 3 3 _0 -a a y c y cc c m 3 — z co 0 0 0 co 0 m Q 0 cu a) 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 -0 c a) m o � 0 0 3 t 0 0 3 c O> Q "O d cu O_ N i O_ i U i "a i -O O_ C M cL @@ E L E U) N m E .0 M U) c U) N C_ tan U) U) U) N O N M C E O C m m 3 3 m a a) E m 3 O C O E m M 3 m 3 m E cn — m CL a� aL) (n 0 C N cn 0) N 0° a cc a) > a) 0 o O > 0 2 Li �v0i l0 U- E m LL -0 LL m U ch (n M (n J C C C N N C C C .0 _0 7 .0 cn .0 'd '� '0 a 'O (n .0 — O O6 a) O O _N O c0 a) O M U) a) (D O c0 U a d U U d (n Cn d d d U d m m LO LO LO CO co N m (fl ro N LO d 00 N .- N LO 00 m a- 00 t0 00 t` 00 N V 0') Cl) O 00 N m O t` LO O N — t- N_ Il- Ln C N _ N Ln I- LOO _ It CO W Ln m O O M co Ln V O O 'IT N -C r 00 00 L6 O O O 00 00 Cb O 0 L ti I � 00 I r- I � I 00 1 h I I-- I rl- I � I f` I I a) cn O I- 00 LO 00 co I- 00 I- M 0o O fY CO "It OA O N — N Ln M N O 00 N O t- Cl) 't N O 00 LO LO Cl) N 00 � LO Cfl O Co O 1:T O 00 � 1:T I,- c0 O O O 0) N Cl)_ O Cl) .—. M CO O O O .- OA N O O OA LO LO tD LO CO It Ln CO Ln LO Ln M M M M Cl) Cl) Cl) co co fM M Cl) (D } O z O Z O z O Z O z (n } O Z O z O z O Z O Z M FL 0 O O O o O z (n 0 z U) 0 z O z 0 z z z z z } } cn U) U) O o cn 0 0 o O o m } } } z z } z z z z z } a� J C YU) O O O O O O O O N O } } Z Z Z } Z Z Z Z z } O J En } Ln } Ln } Ln } N } O z N O z U) } N } N } z }� O _ 0)z 1 M U O -0 2) C _ L 6 N (n L L V C N CO C O L / 1 0 2 cu U LO O N N @ C >> U a Z Z �_ > t` Ocp co LL O7 Z O> C U > O N Q' a) ~ r a) N U LO O O U U C _� LL ,� _ o S W N U O L U N 0 i m j U C vi 70 m Z E J ` O .� On U U z O Z E >, U Z J Z M �_ w? rn o m o > LL `o p - Z y a) m� c d O w -O C O= M E O C J m J O j N M N M Y r — N .0 (Op N CD 3 E Cl) O N M aMp d 0 � C m O cG LOC M cu N ON z O � � z (O N m (n Cn N J On Lo Z lm U O C a) � 1 L > Q) . �.. ..,�„ O O- L U) Y Yl. m a) (D m d Y .. =0 CY6cu CL U Y Y a) 0) a) �Njy M.. : EO d C a) Y U >+ 0 j Y f0 a) 'O J = Q J 'O N "' U U '0 3 U) N m O G4 C N C—CO m = E c L -0 _0 .E U -0 -0 y Lp_ 'O a -0 >, C m _ c c c� C C a c c 0 L L a) m o m (D Q' Z w O a) Of a- O >� w > 0 Q' 0 io 0' Z m m (n > M M (n J m 0 (n 2 m cc (n J m (n m l (n CD v -- O (n m j °—' z cn v X z cn G) --i cn CD G) cn m m cn m cn r cn v z cn m cn -a cn cn cn v� 0 CD -« m: iv c m —. sv c cQ n 3 c c < 3 g < 3 o v m m v: zr ID CD CD 0 (a 0 3 CD =v 3 CD CD Cy 0 p O CD p CD << CL CD CD � m CD CC] CD CD CD'D CD m N sll v �' u, v 3 3 0 N 0 mCD m CD <0 r c CD oo CD nci CD s CD =- 0 m m CD vi ,c zll� c� ti� CD = -�� Q CD _0 a Cn C� > CD N K > m N m Cn CD N 0 r CD n m e m r 0 7c 7c C7 CD p m CD a x CD N ZJ �I n co-n N C7 Cr C_ .A Z ? cn -a co (n Z -� N O -4 � j CD mc OO CD — CO ? CO N � 0) Cy 0 cn 3 CD C CO O 00 OJ Cv -0. O Q CD o CD cn' :3 �' 3 co CO s X- O o S < N a < m N -4 0 •-P 0 O. cn _ r z Z< a z m n w m o �' o can Z Q N Q (7 C CD � n Q CD Q W N 6 if7 v N 'cn p Z O 0 w � CD z N can � S .0 z !/� Q v° N O (a 0) n0 -4 U) CD CD N OD O z (7 a N >c o rn N J 0 00 Cn 3 N Z o a N Q Q- Q Ul Cn co A 0 Z 0 000 C31 _7wC' O 00 � 0' p~p ; CD Z 0 o CD G CD Z < CD CD < CD < CD z < CD G 0 < CD < CD cn N 0 N Cn N N p cn N Cn N z z CD 0 CD C o 0 0 0 0 O O cn cn cn cn Z Z CD m m N 0 ID O O Cn Cn N N N Z Z Z Z CD O 0 m 0 0 0 0 N z z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 CD o O 0 G1 Ul Un p A p •A N -4 -N -� 00 v (O f n A v cn r N N)(.0 W O co 000 CND 24 -q W OJO W 00 ,l -A a) DO O A O— 000 W � 000 O CA 0) 0 c CD a N O m 0 c _N 0 m v O v N O m v° m 3 N N rt cn v (a N N O fl1 N SU 3 m N fD TI T CND =i - c) cn cn 3 3 0 o o O E c 0) m cn -0 �< m m- c m <' CD 0 C1 C1 a) 3 � CD cD cn cn Cr = cr M. v iv iv 3' m CD v LA. cn 3 CD -3 * � (-D � � n a � 0° CD O° a 3 �. 3 ? 3 ,n v Q 0 U) CD -p 0) o CL c°n 3• "a co CD O 30 CD 0)CD S• CD O m N C 3 w cn 0 _n CD ° _(n O N _ p 7 3 C 0 z z < z 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 s 0 3 CD c O• 0 m 3 C2 N Z CD 0 00 C r 0 0 N S?. r CD v 0 0 CTC U1 C) 0 N N A cn z 0 cn N v G Q CD W W N N CC n CD O N CD n� O 0 0 V 0 0 s CD � co 3 coW co V W m N p -Al Ln P m 1U N 'D C7 '0 C7 FD'a m M �' v m ' `� a 3 0 3 O 0 N OCD @ cn 0 (n0 3 = -- iv y n v sv a 3 m a z' N N W p � 0 0 CD tZ Cn N + O N 3 CD cn C2 N Q � E i � o L U) n a) > C a � f6 �: cc E E O a) UI o c r �' cn r > c a) co O — n E n E cn a) a) c cu E E cn o`o ca crs a> c E C� � o y 3 n 3 m c c c 3 E cn c 'O a) i —_ E w _ L () _ L a) h L 0) to c `i C c .c f6 O m ?� L N co > > C O > O O N 0) a) U) LL cA 3 cn U E LL 3 m LL 3 3 J = C O 0) c6 ca N O 0 0 m O O p m C m 0 M n C p9O_ C O N C ONN O "0 0) O FL U 0 a. U n U 0- a U a_ C7 c� L7 �_ N 't O 0) � N_ O N r- M P- - co O (LO O NW N � CD C _O M O M (O O O (O 00 rl- m d' 00 LO (O (0 co O f- ..0 O N M (O t` 06 (O CO P-: O C) L 00 1 0o 1 00 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 1 O 1 a] fn a) Li LO to M O 00 (fl f9 O m 00 O O U') O r` V O O LO N N O coM N M N M CO N 00 LO U) (LO CA O O O M (.4 IT N �- O LO Ln _ In (O (O V) (D V) (0 ....._. co M M M M M M M M M M a) U' O O O O O O O O Z O Z } Z Z Z Z Z Z Z } ca a O O O O O O O O z z O z O z U) } m z Ch } z O z z O z } (n > } U) } z } c } z z } } a� J r z z r z° r z° z° z° z O O J to y to N N N O N O a) N @ N M tn O i N 70 LL i j F- 000 0 C/) m O 00 N CD -N Z C _Za >1 LO a) r- N ac) aC) C>(ll N C - N N 0co N ZUmUrcn > Z N j C f6 > O 6C a- O ZcnO O pZ ) O N U) co Z Z=E Zm O N 0 CLO N O r1i 00 a) O CD LL � NWYC U O o 00v (n Z W r- W Z U m > 00 .iFL O rn ca OOO c6 o O a) - E m m d y -o z o c co Z d N O i a5 O O O C _� W c0 N O a) O � a) N N L C O 3 m I- __ L O (D O n �' E O 0 3 f0 rn .� N -� L m C_ f0 to 7 E _ <( p> Y a) L) c a) co O 0) N m O m c m C n 0 E 0 - a) O c I� H U H Q 1— U H H a D Of C7 D LL > U 0 -�� o d 3 Z 4�, n 0 N CC V <co °'> m ( 3 Ca O z 3 3 W - Cn •A C A 0) 5 3 -n n n N O 00 z j� C2 m ili CD r w O 0) 7CD OCD N � O 4�- Co OD Cn n CIl <a CD z n -< m cD CD N Cn Cn j 00 -^ O in 0 Z� N Cj < w CD o Q O2: O n CD D O CAD CD X CD O iZi CD N CD N C-) W 3 :p wcc cn m 7 `Q a 0 CL OW C2 O CA O v -n -n O N �• C z< 0 O N CO 3 W CD m CL < ' m 0 CD < N 0 N N ;a — W 0) Cl 00 Cy A V- 0 C 3 CD O 7 W CD (aa to cc z n -< m m Z co 3 a)O 0 — < OP Q •L A ? CD CD O Q m -< m m Z Cn n W N OD Z D.W T. (/� — -n v _ -< °CD T s p7 00 w `� O to O O 0 `< `< Z 0 (� CD s� W a - < fl o ' -0 O to Cn CD CO CD N M W C CD CD � FD 3 O Q v � z n < � X- T Z (O C7 CD to V 0 0 0 3 � CD < O ri. CAD Z N (,7 V O ' C v 0 7 Ci 0 3 _ C D" n < G CD N O �.. z CD v -� 0 O CD to CD N CD N CD to CD to CD N (D N CD to CD N CD fn CD (n (D fn r 0 < < z z z z z z z z 0 cn N N N O y O O O O O O O 7 C2 r- CD < < < z < z z z z z z z (n N N O N O O O O O O O OO O m O O O OO O O O Al r. N O O O O (D O O O CD 0 O O C. C1 CD W W W W Cl) co W W W W W W W (n W A (Tt Cn CJ7 CT U7 Cn Cn Cn C37 U1 O (D U7 O V O Z w N V V 00 W N V V ? Cn O W O O) 00 W A O O V V V 4 CA co W O W 00 0) W co O 00 O (D O N _W to W v CD v N 0000 m O cn (D N CD w V V V V V O V 00 Cp 00 V �I v n O 00 PD O O W O O W W cD 90 00 a' (D O :p (D Cn W V W Cl) w m V Sll Cn O O co V V (n � N Cn O W 00 00 v o CD rn 0 (n M w co w 0) Cl. U W O N Q co W W N U) V Ut Sv T O T Tn to U n -0 v 0 LU• O N• 0 CD CD O 0) N O O N 0 CD CD N C2 0. c CLC c O C1 Q. ' ' ' v 3 3 3 3 3 v °' -_ 0 0 0 N 0 0 r- Cn to Cn in tp _ T7 O < CD N < CD O 0 O t0 CD <• CD CD (Q CD CD Cn < CD O O O_ �. . S CL0 ? O CD � CD v v v m ° w v v CD °�• v 3 (� (� V) a CD v 3O v N N 3O o 3 o w 3 3 3 0 3 3 w O 3 ? m CO _ o m c ,O v m to �' w a 3 a < 0 0 CD o � o o 0 Nn (n = CD CD W O C1 CD C1 iz a cr 0 cc P v 0 c m CD co E cu v� m J fo C --- cu .� O _ U 0- co 00 o c v co rn U I� L 1 m U) LO OD 00 CT ---' I Cl) O C� O Z CCS d O Z N t6 O J .O C (6 U) Y O O J O Z V LL L 4% c6 d' m 0 Z LO (1) N j (n .O Y c co o_ E -a > v comma (-D C N co .p m LL Z c d C N Co E ER: m O ptn z QY U) N Of h 0 4— U cc C 0 U C co C 0 U N L m w 0 c 0 N co c 0 co U t 0 Z O A N O a. L O y co U C N CL C O w co E L C Cn c m ?N co .C- 0 L m U .0 t 0 Z U') N O N O c N O a> m U) 0 U Q' N L �U 0) U) Co L 0 0 C N O N U L Q 0 z w c O cu E L 4 U (o C 0 U 0 c O N fo Q O Q 7 0 a� N U) 17 w4v Shelter Locations 0 1. Blair Elementary School 6510 Mxket St. New Hanover County _ju44�_ I5 " - __� :agr. �% _7 S pecia I flood Codington Elementary School 4321 Carolina Beach Rd. Wilm;ngton,NC26412 Hazard Areas 8. Won Elementary School 6701 Gordon Rd. ipevav ft-ad HazordArer3s w f qo J1,11 at be Ue forreffuctwy P'ZPC*C5 Wilmington, NC 28411 R,eaae C(AfOCj(91Q 796-711,- jwmore derofalalvManw A I^kne^n 1100 McRae SG Wil rn ingto n, NC 28401 IvacuationRoute 6f yu'- C lese'r C A - New WruwGjar IV 91f eA I Ov, arket NEW •VER • 0.T WtA�S= ---^- v lam- • ., i -fit � E DER 28429 N W HANOVE,R 28401 =;—, .3 28411, 28405 �zf I ♦ y L4f t r7 foy ty BRUNSWICK �G� ,r W 10 1 e 8f11• 8401 WILMINGTON H10 840I1 WILMINGTON Ca Q ' - - - 28405 WILMINGTON Jtt _ WILMINGTON FS WILMINGTON J10- WILMINGTON F4- 1$409 WILMINGTON F7 11 WILMINGTON G3 - 0412 WILMINGTON 112- 8412 WILMINGTON E7 - - 28428 CAROLINA BEACH E10 8429 CASTLE HAYNE E2 8449 KURE BEACH D11 6460 WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH G5 , 'IOVEA�._ Fr. .vrkningwe " M JL• 23403, Ir F Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4m Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z025-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Zeancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers; policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: C,a,z-, z a s-' 9- JAAQ� Sh/%f A s p lGN f 141Yve ---roll kawed A �w s4tA -H Name: ✓ S `� Address: 640 � Vlt t- Phone Number: TIO — ,?a' 73 Signature:. �-,% Date: % f MA Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: r1is-t -ro)�-,)L,\ Address: w-.c)5 014t�,- Cv , W1'v�;.,g1�v,� NC Z-zq Phone Number: (R CP' Zak • M($ ) Signature: &9�� IK T( zeI / Date: Zoo IZ Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Addres s:'°% Nnone Number: Signature: . Date: 2tiZ�j Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 0 Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. (� t Comments: e -e i- i� < � ry � �� � E2 ►y �"y- C d� D e. S �i "� u� .tee lx. wJ � � -� 0 '-" M -4 act ") e / -f S a % Q- '-- r i /� r � 1l Y rl. � /P�(1/� ... ( W '2- Val -2 fo u ` Name: r lbt Q �c� �� �nrD (� i1'\�aC ulcti'F� onCe�vnur�t� Address: 1 SD 3 GHO V d- K . -br 11 A)(- 5 Phone Number: Signature: Wes- ► Date: D 6- Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: i ��� � G C(�� i ��` � ilk DN C 11 P oAp �Ot'U.� 1 Vr-, ldq A LAfq t c--Jr ANp)) & Or l" 1& s AAO�:c c Name: ` ' Address: /�.� Phone Number Signature: s %� Q 5oOrif Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C B2 Comments: Name: Address: 6 Ya d' V--e -d Phone Number: -Q `l — 3-273 Signature: Date: �-r Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: i Address: Phone Nui Signature:. 0 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4t+ Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving-Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the fi#estyle expected by present residents (Le., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system instaflled on Carolina Beach_ Road must be installed from north of Olden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach it needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments:. Mary Ann Targonski Name: 848 Settlers Ln Kure Beach, NC 28449 Address: // Phone Number. (-151 Z9 Signature; 'p—' - _ ©ate: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone. Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Teddy Targonski 848 Settlers Ln. Kure Beach, NC 28449-4908 Address: — Phone Number: Signatu D Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: / 0 L-l✓/f )� Address: /W Phone Number: Signature:�e �� Date:���`�� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: A iJ !�^ Address: 6 4 Y 4 C) A Phone Number: 8 Date: A LA, Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: ' 6 ( ) en ", Name: \ Jc Address: Phone Number: Signature: ,,A e 2�5� J Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and dnterested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (7-225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctor;, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be Installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: in, U .fore Y, i -ems 4A iq)bv-e r � (A n qLj ct IA- 4 -kree-- bd4i 4n fhU,-'x' Nara: Address: 833 \-kg Phone Number. Dr . ZqbCYO 5 Date.- Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Addres Phone Number, � �� L � (p/ Signature: ^ ate: a Z 5Z,.g Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: L ALA pis Address: ,2Q 0 Phone Number: 6 "� o '7 l� f Signature: Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: 4 Phone Number: Signature: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: n rP n C f-UL, , R Name: Address: Phone Number: Signature: Date: �� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4m Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Addres Phone Number: Signature: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: l/1 Q7, 6 qk/- aKILEL- S e- —41Z4- 4 Name: e�? pie Address: / J ��h , 1 v� Phone Number: _ Signature: Date: G Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: � h `� G Joe S nu+ ha ve s � 4 c f &4 ' n ✓� J` ✓kc � Name: Tu.�,N- R j- )S is S Address: 2 7' �,�uz,(�J .a l,�G _, 1,� 1 w�:h,� ZkY t 1 Phone Number:�����`� Signature: l`I Date: j tl 7 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Addres Ph( Sig Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: �\/'*J p J00 v, J7 ►i t-f-3 4:1,%h ; v, c G Name: �� .� Y'l l" ,t " a'n � Iltl ( I Address: tjac &% �, J 4c vrc b, —, t, J L 23 W' j Phone Number: l C) & J 4 3'3 3 2 Date: -R/zg /Z a zj' Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Addres Phone Signatt Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: 7/3-7 Phone Number: Signature: ')t'1 Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Addres Phone Number: Signature: Date: o Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: M - -.-, CL',t d�l & 1, U-- K Address: ( 1 D 7� w , ( I u") C ('--1 Phone Number: �l L �t ' Z �' 6 o Signature: Date: ,L a Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Gienarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Addres Phone Signatt Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: TOT,ef1/ - El- (". C —,70 Address: To-? CPC i (-4AI CO J,P 7 Phone Number, %% 7 — ��-/a ^ ? -j y Signature: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments:, c� Q f.P P' i9-Yx ,ram i Q Name: Addres Phone SignatL remEram 01 / trill U Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: pia h 4n.t Phone Number: $ $ — '�76 5 b — Signature: Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc,) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: t- V 0 �-:l0 -c 2 Name: L rT 44 " l 1 Of t t. Address: 165 g rZ.(FO-1-0rJ 6),47j W rr4,yi r, Lr-i tl' e4G 2-E V Phone Number: v2-v ` Signature: A A Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: Phone Number: Signature: Date: `t' Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: 7'(1Sf-pq S 22-0 Address: -3Ova 1� i q L &-r o 1� /�Gl 6-z6A Phone Number: Signature: Date: 2 ZS� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1 _ The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: D v ►— Phone Number- 3- Signature: Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: ffAlwd-rL r I/ l Address: Phone Number: r� ` ,5� — 3 00 Signature: Date:/ Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: AIAI -e— Name: -el? Address: Phone Number: Date: X/ = —J'� Signature: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 0 Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: ) 1� y r 011,01c /� b ,-• , L-v Phone Number: 7 Li ZI Ll 6 Z Signature: /J Q 4,aL-, nz-1 Date: �,f y/ --)- Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: Phone Number: 1V1,91 Signature: G Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Zf25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z^25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C6e Z as ^ 4 Comments: Name: L L 0 )'ic' I'G Address: _g1 l or G kFAA A%y D T, Phone Number: l / d ^ Z 74 Signature: ram%'_ � Date: �� —� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z^_25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. H ctnGe. GG tm vn v n c ,-J Z t �/�2 } v it D s ; .�- �*p�� pe n r �-�r Wtti� F3Ur i f�r� orr% cn!� do r.c 1) CC-4-01- j hive f�c Zv o L Wevatic IiL fic� I t1 e M Z. hd- Comments: ��° p `'�' r) /n �% S t� 34L 6-1 iJ L A - .sa c. . 14 5 bA Z41 <n per ay U.pa i-s A r? n vie k-. 4 E- " f 11 ff �1 r%rel in /J : .-0 d- ® r,-1 A9*-Iw ( 5 �14 1 ii � o l l � � n "F 1 r� ✓ e � I1? Ake. G D IY vh lJ r7 c ralln t &zr c/7 �a� �N ie � ilfs r prs Au 1 � 0� fee In J h ��d -7f-? h- g- /fir —Ac-11i ter Address: Phone Number: 9/49' -9 g `f Signature: Date: Yr'cc�L �oC'�ir� fSiJ,eS (n® ,2,e12-,,c-7L7an �avnd f �j �7J � r,, fr #I A �"e- a � ECG & �� r- 0 df7 -t r O-A a If V)Z,E A FJ cy-I t © -rr -e" RUC r A, i) Ira, cx czc ce-s s e-o-l? Serv-G a.rza t' 5 . Lin o��c�r�,�. Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: Phone N SignatO Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z?25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Cate- Z- Comments: Name: Addres Phone Signatt Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z'25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C,,� -7- aG-14 Comments: Name: t IL L4 0 WIZ --.7 Address: 2 2G 0o. c—. lQc�, 1� ; 1 aa-t - 2 4( Z Phone Number: �l r�� j �{— �✓J Signature: z. Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Zo25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: (. Name: CAW ` Address: Phone Number: , y -7 1 — ZqO '-( J Date: Signature: o6' .V A .��� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C `Z as-/ - Comments: VI s� � �,➢Q l k; Name: Address: !v C, a "if t L� r' < t f e -2- Phone Number: 9 I o i Z I -- ` v �► � Signature: Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Zf25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZW25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4m Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (ZI25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZI25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: + � \ -C � �.'C 1 � otiI 5' ' U d,,) i Name: Address: _�]Z) Phone Numb : '-�`Z�'[v .. G L6 CD Signature: e., Dater Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (7125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space,.teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZF25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Ale e a It i 7 e X / e )lc,/ y 3 r 1 UG ?- 1Jii Name: / KY �Vy e CV % sC Address: Phone Number: Signature: (am. ):: (z C Dater Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z#25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: G C� Address: �p Phone Number: Signature: Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (ZA25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space,.teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C t5,.,- ZZ5-14 Comments: pi l,a�/l f 'A &W v t I D RAN -fh ((; i n t-L t,v i an, m � 1, Name: I Address: _j_Y)Il �V Phone Number: !r ) Z_ Sig 7 -fh ((; i n t-L t,v i an, m � 1, Name: I Address: _j_Y)Il �V Phone Number: !r ) Z_ Sig 7 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z#25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z825-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (7-125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZQ25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are re,-Pnuesting a - year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach P +'^n to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Addres Phone Signaft /Mv ZA -ZS- Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z?25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4m Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. czt4-,, Z. a S 14- Comments Nar Ad( Ph( Sig M Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C� : z -As-r"t Comments: fS 014 7— (DO r1 4 f Name: Address: '7kO S h`' leoi ✓ Phone Number: Signature:-C/,6 ,,. �T/ _ Date: z 3 NttC-7 Z02 5 6 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZE25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z025-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Lar a` V%,od j 5!5 u e s Name: G/ li�! e-,g „w e- Address: 207 y�ti�E Phone Numb — a00 — Signature: Date:— Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C Comments: Name: Address: Phone Number: Signature: `04W Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (7125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZP25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (ZJ25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippoiito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZE25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Cc�G. 7a5 J'� Comments: Name: KWIVl \ 11 �b1`' 060 ('\ 1�9 Address: 7M MYc(\ D)c • 00� Phone Number: 0 1 " Signature: A Date: �� �2 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 0 Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (ZE25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (7125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: C?a,, Z--)- s- /2� (on cev n 5 tv 5) I rr%hd Name: ) Voz, Address: 1 Phone Number: ai Signature: H IL e'O V1009 6Q Date: L' hO 2 ) Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (U25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (ZE25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z#25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. (L'Qse 7a5- 14 Comments: -Vc6A-k'% isc"Jt5 (i��t�e��vt ,, We dent ueeJ hwe heAV3 Name: Address: 6c'1 g 017fo el'c eA Phone Number: V4 3 - 2_4) b Sig Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (ZE25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Zd25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. zas q- Comments: l r icl a TC t 6 Name: c/OA 0A A,(\W-cnrN Address: R o&4-a f 'iC) U Phone Number: ob Signature: Date: ��C•3 ��� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 0 Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Addres da,5e- z.?5-114 --��P�ff oZI,-j 1dL Phone Number: F Signature: Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 41 Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZU5-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: Phone N Signatur Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z-#25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) ZA 5 —!'' RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C� z2 s- I L� Comments: Name: Address: Phone Number: Signature: f �� I a- Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z"25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z"25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z',25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z.,25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. (fa,ie-, Z9/ 4 Comments: Name: ( , Y-I '-' � n Address: ' S �\1 (�\ �y� lei t �G � � <1 � Phone Number: 'l ti o 1 '� —19 /V Signature: / .�L�/./ Date: c3 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z(25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Ca,s.e- Z,25 -/ If Comments: Ad( Ph( Na Ad Ph Sig me: � ` ► '\ N r: nature. Date:�� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (ZE25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Zf25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. O-a� -�_ a 5-1 q- Comment: Name: Address: Phone N Signature - L 'r 1L Date:-,i)/dQ a Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z&25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni 1ppolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments Name: Addres O-a,4-e- `Z a ,5-/4 =t,GQ'4R/, s: l ��. Phone Number:-' Signature:- Date: ' 3 _h, I ao@f d8y l�( Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Og,— `Z r �- Comments: Kill NO Si Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Zt25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: r ✓= I I can o y c ri"% �✓�/�G Name: -Tc M e 5 Address: 76 1 .12— /c— ,14 // U. Phone Number: A27Z Z— — 22- Y I - Signature: Date: ZJ/zazf Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (ZZ25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZE25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (ZF25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Zt25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: Phone Number: W 7 -5- 3 Sig Date: ,Z Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z 25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z.y25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z' '25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z.. 25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C�56 Za29-14 Comments: Name: Addre Phone wela Number:j `�Z Signature: Date: -rj Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z;25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z"25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (7' :5-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya 4acancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (7_25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C,,-, Za s- I Lf Comments: Name: _. Address: Phone Number: Signature:c Date: <"z—z iV� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (725-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z825-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZA25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Na Ad Ph Sic �4;)61!�- Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Cc 7g5-,tL4 Comments: r Name: g / Q pit Address: Phone Number: 10- o-00 -4S Signature: Date: B o Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z` 25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z :25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z:'?5-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z._25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Ar, 1c (5 I-R- Address: —7q M 3 CkSfLA� A ('�sl- Phone Number: Z y0 -60% Signature: ATMLL Date: 3 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z11225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4"h Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Ca_7zs-1 q- Comments: Ad( Na Ad Ph Sig me: r one Number: nature: Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z1,25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. G&e- za5-,14 Comments: Name: two (` Address: M Phone Number: Q I Signature: ii twd',6 •1 lCti� �z)-7b Date: �� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z'-25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z'25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z:.25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z`.25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C'' . ZO-S'IL� Comments: Name: Address: IL,3 z Van [emu v tr� l �.� �, � � r%bI i /I (� � /��� 2� � 1 Z Phone Number:�— Signature:,/ Date: . Z Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z..25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z :25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z: 25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Z72 Comments: Name: Address: TL Son \ r) UA Phone Number: ', � r Signature: �'� Date: �J Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z425-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. G,Z,S.O- za "5-- / 4 Comments: r a Name: Afle-'e, -Alali Address: 1 Phone Numbe * F) HA "(3 f 0 'n Signature: Date: �2 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z#25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4m Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (7125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. �Q za5- 14 Comments: Name: Addres Phone Number: Signature: Date:-°? Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z#25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Zf25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZF25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. CQ,5, e— Comments: Name: Addres Phone Signatt Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (ZA25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the folicwing Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Zt25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. 0—a-5e, zas-' + Comments: Name: Addre: Phone Signati Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Zt25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: we AV VIlA r-w - an d vvte mc�qu��,Y-) Name: , l ' . l 4� Address: 1 �'�O�(' wyD� ( ,�n �J ��W� c-)- Phone umb M o'1 J Signature: Date:"� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z .25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z-25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z':25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. cc� zap - Comments: Name: Lk-Z -. Address: Phone NL Signature rM 9, g Ll 1 r2 J Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z025-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z?25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (7125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (U25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. 0 0,5L `Z A'5-Iq Comments: Name: Address: / Y-7: 3 /7 U la -`' Phone Number: K O ' --- 9, 57 — .3 ^ Signature: `- Date: 23 7- Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZE25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (ZF25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z825-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Oa 5-L —4 -?5 —1' Comments: sir r Name: Addres Phone Signatt Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4m Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (ZU5-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Ze25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Case z as-�� Comments: kaw z1Q,Rco�tb OY-) Nan Add Phone Number: �� �JL1 2-;, — �01-k Signature: Date: a S Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (7125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z#25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (7125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z,125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: �p Name: Address: 1,7, k I - Phone Sig Date: <7 /7-$ Z S, Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z-25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z' 25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z:.25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z.25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. G.a,st, -Z Z 5 - , 4 Comments: IM Ili � Address: ele. '/iw Phone Number: Zze Signature: Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Name: Addres Phone Number: %3 Signature: Date: 71d3 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (ZIt25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Ca5U `z A S-l4- Comments: 4 C Name: 3 ► Address: Phone Number: - 3 0 Signature:':3 �� Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (U25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (3225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Case. `z a s -lA) Comments: -1-4 n n 6 a, \ 1 Name: 1 h a Address: C-6 ,n 1.,Ir, . e Phone Number: Signature: Date: Z-3 Z Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZE25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: t Address: Phone Number: (,a 14,.-J - 53 a7 7 Signature: �� �d�J'a� .- Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (ZE25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons- 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. La.5e- Z-9,6-/If Comments: Name: e (A i il SQU &A Address: 1 a) -q ['l, ,&-w,- j O Phone Number: 44, 9 (Q -1-11 3G Signature: �'c ^ I�,L C�, �Q,t Date: 0 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: �-S i 'k Name: Address: 41q-r/+U Phone Number: f / q Signature: �. - Date: 20 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z?25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZR25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Ca4& -c a - 14 Comments: Name: Address: Phone Nui Signature:. Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property.�Z&25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: r Ode r ., S Name: G r-2c, Zo74 Address: Phone Ni SignaturE re Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Zl-25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Addres Phone Number: 7 . D4: ` Signature: Date: 3 S Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing Septembe- 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZE25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: h i S -5� o o/ a/ o P cl e r h q ee e-i l Name: s Address: ' a b7 5 t Phone Number: '132 m 671- 4676 Signature:-&4, Date: o �.. Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 01 Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z?25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space,.teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z2125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: As, < ata !L+ Name: t X LgAer- - fiOOMri Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (ZI,25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZA25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZC25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Name: Address: Phone N Signatur( Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. C4,1, ids-4 Comments: Name: ' LAddress: 2- 'f Phone Num4r: Signature:Date: �S 3 f Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z@25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2425 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZA25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZP25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: Phone Nu Signature: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: Wwtc k r c a ivecL c7 VLI i Ze q /Z Phone Number: Sit) -7gg 02 O. > V Signature: Date: 09- 2 3. 2.5 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name, r.cll 'R*m1mo Vl Address: Phone _ Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZE25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. •WI, oW Mice■ ff Swi 2 , OTO • K.. Name: RxAnA n ►�[`� b � c C`�tti Address: '7_0CA GLCnQr jjnUj- Ot'' Phone Number: 30�4 Q — ) ca'a Signature:1 A 4A 11-2, Date: g %L�-f j Q� Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (ZZ25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z_25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z?25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (ZP-25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Cc,,a,t— M a 5- -I'+ Commeni Nat Ad( Ph( Sig Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (ZE25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. ca,,� -L2.s-M Comments: Nai Ad( Ph( Sig Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z?25-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z''25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. 0-a,6c- Z ;z6- IL- Nai Ad( Ph( Sig Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZIs25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Zt25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (77-25-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: j Ca5 zas—Iy WO 5-- 5 Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September L, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z125-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (7-125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z025-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Lam `z AS-) 4 Comments: 6l'� �f � 4i �wfG A1161,173. O� * <�s c",o' Ca �c�!// rf-J/�7'l `^ 4h� /"/i�a t `'/ 6 r41/o fj� VL � h / y .( yea � i ' � Gi' 6 csv�c .�t"� � •s T wi �% �/ '� �%� w a �S 6� �+� t"i � � 1L� Name: - Address: :7-X Z/ VQ -,C or lV6- Phone Number:�� Signature: i Date: Z°2,cz7- Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z225-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z225-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z225-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Ila) `C l w i 5 y1 eiF Address: +O E�O � uc�� Phone Number: G I e- A4 a 5 It 4 .a-- Signature:Amn LkaGnaun Date: Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZR25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z''25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc.) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. ca4-�, -7 as-Il+ Comments: Name: f�avvl Address: Phone Numbe Signature: Date: r Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZP-25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Zu25-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z225-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. ca5e- -Zas-►+ Comments: --� -le Nai Ad( Ph( Sig WIN Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (Z1e25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1. The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. ec� -z- as- jy- Comments: Name: Address: Phone Number: Signature: Date: 23 _ Petition Subject: Rezoning Request (Z125-14) To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Notice of Public Hearing September 2, 2025 From: Property Owners and Interested Parties of the Public Hearing New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property Located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road (ZE25-14) RE: The Model of Good Governance- 4th Attempt The undersigned hereby urges the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY the Request for Rezoning (Z125-14) as requested by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions on behalf of Owners Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Viacancich, for the following Reasons 1, The Developer has not met all our concerns as discussed in the 3 prior attempts to rezone the 4.65 lot property at 6634 Carolina Beach Road a.) Newly proposed lane into Lords Creek, Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes communities using Glenarthur Blvd does not satisfactorily solve out traffic issue. It still causes safety issues (i.e., 55mph on Carolina Beach Rd, traffic back-up from leaving Glenarthur onto Carolina Beach Rd) b.) Infrastructure corrections are needed to improve the lifestyle expected by present residents (i.e., more doctors, nurses, more hospital space, teachers, policemen, firemen, schools, etc) c.) Flooding that is possible throughout the communities due to building on wetlands. The proposed retention pond is the only solution on the proposed property (Z125-14) to contain stormwater. A new storm water system installed on Carolina Beach Road must be installed from north of Golden Road/Masonboro Commons to Carolina Beach Road (and Carolina Beach if needed as requested by the Engineer) Due to the previous unsatisfactory resolutions to our concerns, we are respectfully requesting a 5- year moratorium on rezoning and new construction on Carolina Beach Road from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach and any wetlands in the area. Comments: Name: Address: Phone Number: Signature: Date: