Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-06 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 668 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met on October 6, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. in Regular Session in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present: Chair Bill Rivenbark; Vice Chair LeAnn Pierce; Commissioner Dane Scalise; Commissioner Stephanie A.C. Walker; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell; and County Attorney K. Jordan Smith. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Associate Pastor Leon Baker, Apostolic Tabernacle Wilmington, provided the invocation, and Chair Rivenbark led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Rivenbark requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes – Governing Body The Board approved the minutes of the September 11, 2025 Agenda Review and the September 15, 2025 Regular Meeting. Adoption of 2026 Schedule of Agenda Review and Regular Board of Commissioners Meetings – Governing Body The Board adopted the 2026 Schedule of Agenda Review and Regular Board of Commissioners Meetings. A copy of the schedule is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 18.1. Approval of Revised Museum Governance Documents – Museum The Board approved the revised Cape Fear Museum Collections Policy, Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, and Cape Fear Museum Advisory Board Bylaws, aligning them with current American Alliance of Museums standards and County policies. Approval of New Hanover County Monthly Collection Report for August 2025 – Tax The Board approved the August 2025 tax collection reports for New Hanover County, New Hanover County Debt Service, and New Hanover County Fire District. Copies of the tax collection reports are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 18.2. Adoption of Budget Amendments – Budget The Board adopted the following budget amendments, amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026: Senior Resource Center: 26-014 A copy of the budget amendment is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 18.3. Approval of Dennis Dixon’s Individual Gift in the Amount of $200,000 As Part of the “Invest in Grace” Campaign – Museum The Board approved the acceptance of a $200,000 pledge from Dennis Dixon, a museum supporter, donor, and former Cape Fear Museum Advisory Board member, payable over four years, in support of the Cape Fear Museum’s Invest in Grace campaign. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AGEISM AWARENESS DAY PROCLAMATION Commissioner Zapple read the proclamation into the record recognizing October 9, 2025 as “Ageism Awareness Day” in New Hanover County. Senior Resource Center Director Amber Smith and Tina Newsham, Ph.D., UNCW Gerontological Program Coordinator and Professor at School of Health and Applied Human Sciences, thanked the Board for considering the proclamation and discussed the benefits of promoting positive ideas about aging and combating ageism. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 669 Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to adopt the proclamation recognizing October 9, 2025 as “Ageism Awareness Day” in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 18.4. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY TO AMEND ARTICLES 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, AND 12 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO MODERNIZE AND CLARIFY SIGN STANDARDS AND ENSURE PROVISIONS ARE COMPLIANT WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS (TA25-04) Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth presented the proposed text amendment to the sign regulations within the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), initiated as part of the County’s ongoing maintenance updates to ensure alignment with current laws, market conditions, and best practices. The amendment adds clear standards for digital and emerging sign technologies, consolidates scattered provisions, and improves readability and legal compliance in accordance with recent state laws and court rulings on content neutrality. Ms. Roth noted that most existing sign regulations date to the early 2000s and were not comprehensively updated during the UDO project. Older nonconforming signs remain legal due to a prior Board decision to remove amortization requirements, and evolving legal standards have made some current provisions difficult to enforce. The amendment reorganizes and consolidates sign standards previously spread across seven UDO articles and introduces specific regulations for digital and changeable copy signs, including illumination, brightness, and message transition limits. Under the proposal, all signs may be illuminated unless restricted by type or location. Manual changeable copy would be allowed on any freestanding sign, while electronic changeable copy would be permitted in commercial districts and for nonresidential uses, such as churches and schools, along major corridors. Brightness limits align with City of Wilmington daytime standards and adopt reduced nighttime brightness based on International Dark Sky recommendations. The update also removes outdated purpose statements and unnecessary cross-references, ensures content neutrality, and clarifies when sign permits are required. Ms. Roth stated that this is a maintenance update, not a policy overhaul, and therefore does not change maximum sign sizes or heights, corridor restrictions, or sign types allowed in each zoning district. The amendment clarifies exemptions for certain signs, such as government notices, residential yard signs, and on-site directional signs, and maintains prohibitions on signs that create safety hazards, occupy public rights-of-way, or violate obscenity laws. The Planning Board reviewed the proposed amendment on September 4, 2025, and voted 6–0 to recommend approval. Staff concur with that recommendation. In response to questions, Ms. Roth confirmed that the amendment only applies to the unincorporated area of the County. Chair Rivenbark stated that no one signed up to speak in favor nor in opposition. Hearing no further discussion, he closed the public hearing and asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce, to approve the proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to modernize and clarify sign standards and ensure provisions are compliant with legal requirements. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it supports business success through its inclusion of provisions for modern technologies and sign standards. The Board finds approval to be reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed amendment supports a common understanding of sign requirements, retains existing sign-related policies, and aligns regulations with the current legal context. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the text amendment is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 18.5. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF A REQUEST BY JAMES YOPP WITH HOOSIER DADDY, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING ALLOWANCE FOR ADDITIONAL DENSITY UP TO 6.54 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IN A R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 43.10 ACRES LOCATED AT 5669, 5671, 5713, 5831 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD AND 1046, 1051, 1052, 1055 ROSA PARKS LANE (S25-04) Chair Rivenbark stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and before the hearing is opened, the deputy county attorney will provide an overview of the hearing procedures. Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards: For a special use permit (SUP), just to refresh your memory, is that you must find that four criteria or elements must be stated clearly on the record. Will this project materially endanger the public health or safety? Does the project meet all required conditions and specifications of the UDO? Will this project substantially injure the value of the adjoining or abutting property, and will this property be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general conformity with the comprehensive use plan for New Hanover County. Staff has compiled information from the application that may or may not support this criteria that NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 670 is for the Board and the Board alone to decide. The Board must state the reasons why the application does not meet the above four criteria in, if the Board decides to do so. If the Board determines that any of the above criteria cannot be made based on the evidence that's presented today, that alone may be a basis for denial, if the Board, the Board only needs to find that the evidence does not support one of these criteria is not all four, to deny the application. The Board has the authority to determine if this application should be approved or denied based solely on the competent and material evidence presented during this public hearing. Nothing from the public forum held in front of the Planning Board should be considered, therefore there is not a Planning Board member present for this hearing. Board members may add conditions to the special use permit. A condition added to the SUP must be related to ensuring the requests meet one of these criteria. For example, you could ask for something additional based on it, but not the color of the houses. The applicant has asked us to has asked you to consider adding a making their time limit 30 minutes instead of the traditional 15, and they've asked us to ask you to address that before you start hearing any evidence based on the application, I would turn that over to you and to the county attorney at this time. Chair Rivenbark: Did anybody got any thoughts on that? Commissioner Zapple: Mr. Chair, typically for SUP or any rezoning, we have 15 minutes allotted for each, for the presentation. Is that correct? Chair Rivenbark: Yes, sir, and five minutes rebuttal. Commissioner Zapple: And five minutes rebuttal. Chair Rivenbark: Both sides. Commissioner Zapple: I think if we hold everybody else to that standard, that we should move ahead with a 15-minute presentation here. And if I need that in a motion form, that is what I just said. Chair Rivenbark: What I’m worried about is we’re setting a precedent for the future. You know? I mean, if we give it to one, we’ll have to give it to everybody. Anybody have any feelings on that? Commissioner Walker: I’ll go ahead and second, just so we can have discussion. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Walker to not extend the presentation time to 30 minutes and retain it at 15 minutes. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Zapple: Mr. Chair, to make sure the applicant understands clearly what just happened. You got it, Corrie, thanks. Chair Rivenbark: Okay, the staff, Robert Farrell. Clerk Crowell: Mr. Chair before you do that, I need to sign in, swear in people who signed up to speak. Chair Rivenbark: I’m sorry. Yep, anybody that wants to speak on this needs to sign up over here. Let me read this in case it’s not clear for who is speaking. Because the SUP process requires a quasi-judicial hearing, any person wishing to testify must be sworn in. All persons who signed in to speak and wish to present competent and material testimony please step forward to be sworn in. Robert Farrell Howard Resnick James Yopp Rebekah Roth Chase Smith Michael McCulley Tim Lowe David Syster Rochelle Marino Caitlin Cerza Jack Morgan, III Samantha Bunge Corrie Lee Ashli Barefoot Keven Culotta Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell: Thank you chair, members of the board. As you've heard, this is a special use permit request for an additional dwelling allowance in an R-15 district. This project will look somewhat familiar. In June, the Board of Commissioners denied special use permit request S25-02 for an additional dwelling allowance for 444 units in this area. The Unified Development Ordinance allows reapplication if the new project is materially different from the previous application. Based on staff's review, the project proposes a reduced unit count and density and adds a second access for the project. Another important note is that this application was submitted before the Board of Commissioners adopted changes to how additional dwelling allowances are considered by the county. As a result, this application must be reviewed through the previous preliminary forum and quasi-judicial process. Development Review Supervisor Farrell: Just as a reminder, the properties are located north of the existing Tarin Woods subdivision between Carolina Beach Road corridor to the west and single family development to the east and south. Here's an aerial photo of the site with image of the property from different angles, which includes some existing curb infrastructure installed last year. The parcels were originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s at the time, the purpose of the district was to provide lower density due to the need for private wells and septic systems. Since then, public water and sewer have become available in the area. The project proposes 291 dwelling units at a maximum density of 6.75 dwelling units per acre. The area outlined in blue is approximately 13.10 acres and consists NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 671 of 110 units. The concept plan includes a provision allowing flexibility in the unit type. By proposing options for a variety of housing types, including multifamily row style, quadraplex, triplex, dual unit, attached and detached, single family. This area with potential multifamily structures provides the possibility for a transitional development pattern, moving east through the amenity area to the central drive. The area outlined in green, is approximately 30 acres and is part of a larger parent parcel. If approved, the additional dwelling allowance and conditions of approval would only apply to the acreage shown in the application and on the concept plan. This section includes a provision allowing flexibility in the unit type as well, by proposing an option for the following attached housing types, but does not allow multifamily housing. Those include the row style quadruplex, triplex, dual unit attached. This would act as a transition to the existing lower density detached single family development further east. However, the applicant has included a condition allowing flexibility in how the units are configured on the site in the final site design. Development Review Supervisor Farrell: The project includes open space and storm water throughout and a new collector road connects to a new right in, right out access on the Carolina Beach Road. There is also a stub connected to Rosa Parks Lane. However, a condition is included restricting access to Rosa Parks Lane unless the developer reaches an agreement with the property owners for an access easement. Additional dwelling allowances can increase the density of certain zoning districts with the approval of a special use permit under the previous ordinance. The ordinance contains supplementary standards for additional dwelling allowances regarding density, open space and impervious surface limitations. The ordinance standards for an additional dwelling allowance are different from a typical performance residential subdivision. For example, the base density may be increased up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre. This project proposes 6.75 dwelling units per acre. Minimum open space requirement is 35%, which this project provides, there is an impervious surface limit of 40% this project includes the maximum 40% impervious and an additional 3.68 acres of pervious surface. There is a perimeter setback of 25 feet, which is slightly higher than the setback for performance residential and structures over 25 feet tall, up to the maximum 40 feet allowed in the R-15 district, are required to meet additional setbacks. Development Review Supervisor Farrell: The project is estimated to generate over 100 AM and PM peak hour trips, which triggers the ordinance requirement for traffic impact analysis. The site is currently accessed by Manassas Drive through the Tarin Woods subdivision. NCDOT and the WMPO have reviewed the existing TIA for the project and concluded the project is within the scope of the TIA and two improvements will need to be installed for this development. The first is the connection to Carolina Beach Road, and the second is extending the U-turn near Rosa Parks Lane. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as General Residential and Urban Mixed Use. The majority of the property is General Residential, which encourages single family and duplex residential development out of a maximum density of eight dwelling units per acre, the Urban Mixed Use place type promotes multifamily and higher density single family development to provide a range of housing types, opportunities and choices. The Urban Mixed Use place type does not recommend a maximum density because of the general nature of place type borders. Sites located in proximity to the boundaries between place types could be appropriately developed with either place type allowing site specific features and evolving development patterns in the surrounding area to be considered. Development Review Supervisor Farrell: The applicant has included three conditions with their application. First is the restricted access to Rosa Parks Lane. This is through the preservation of existing trees or the installation of some other physical barrier to prevent vehicles from using the road. The condition does allow future access if the developer reaches an agreement with the Rosa Parks property owners for an easement. The second condition would allow the developer to reconfigure the dwelling types on the concept plan as an administrative approval. The third specifies what will be included as part of the restrictive covenants to include maintenance of the roads, open space, pervious concrete, and maintenance and repair of the exterior of the buildings. Development Review Supervisor Farrell: As a reminder, when the Board of Commissioners evaluates the request for approval during quasi-judicial hearings, they must determine that the following four conditions are met, that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located were proposed and approved, the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or the uses of public necessity. And the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan, as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of New Hanover County. As you heard previously, staff compiled a set of facts provided in the application and identified through technical review and organized them by the applicable conclusion. These findings are preliminary, and additional relevant facts may be presented during the hearing. The compiled facts may or may not support the Board's ultimate conclusion. Development Review Supervisor Farrell: The findings for conclusion one, address connection to water and sewer, public water and sewer, fire service, access to capacity of Carolina Beach Road, roadway improvements, proximity to Hanover Pines and conservation resources. The findings for conclusion two, address existing zoning, building height considerations for calculating density, the maximum number of dwelling units, restrictions in the floodplain, proximity to the urban mixed use, place, type, specific access requirements for additional dwelling allowances, roadway design, open space, impervious surface, limits, setbacks, building height, spacing between buildings, landscape buffers, parking requirements, sign requirements, the requirement for water and sewer, requirements for restrictive covenants, maintenance of private roads, open space, infrastructure and buildings, repair of damaged buildings, site plan review standards, wetlands, compliance with minimum stormwater standards, board review of substantial deviations from the approved plan and the maintenance of pervious surfaces. Conclusion three includes existing conditions and impacts to nearby land uses. Conclusion four, also includes existing conditions NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 672 and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. This concludes my presentation. Tim Lowe with County Engineering and Caitlin Cerza with the WMPO are here and the applicant is present and has prepared a presentation. Chair Rivenbark: Thank you. Corrie Lee (Applicant Representative): Preliminarily, we do have packets of evidence. If my colleague may approach the Commissioners and Mr. County Manager, I have one for you as well. Chair Rivenbark: Who’s speaking now? Corrie Lee: I’m Corrie Lee, here on behalf of the applicant. Yes sir. Chair Rivenbark: I want to hear from Tim Lowe at some point in time, but we can go ahead and do this now. Commissioner Scalise: Yes, go ahead. Corrie Lee: Thank you. And if I may, ask Mr. Farrell one question before he returns to his seat. Corrie Lee: Mr. Farrell, we just wanted to confirm that our application did, was confirmed as complete by staff and in compliance with the ordinances for submission of a complete application. Mr. Farrell: Yes, ma’am. At the time of the submittal, we deemed it complete. Corrie Lee: Thank you. Commissioners, we appreciate your time and staff’s thorough report. I’m going to try to move quickly through the presentation given our time limitations. We appreciate staff’s thorough report, as I said, and at this point we would move to admit into the record staff’s report as evidence, as well as all of the information contained within your binder and my presentation in evidence this afternoon. Staff has already addressed for you why we’re here this afternoon. We wanted to address that elephant in the room head-on, but staff has already done that thoroughly and we appreciate that. I do want to call out that the comparison from the June application to the application before you this evening did cut the density by approximately a third and modifies many of the proposed uses from the multifamily apartment style to single family attached. We’ve also included a direct connection to Carolina Beach Road, which we believe will help alleviate traffic concerns. This is an image of our proposed development if it were to be approved in compliance with the SUP. You’ll see that we have requested 291 dwelling units at a density of six and three-quarters dwelling units per acre, and this is what the project would look like in the scope of the entire Tarin Woods development. Staff has already indicated for you that we have several elements we must satisfy in order to be able to make out a case that we are entitled to the special use permit. I’ve brought experts here this afternoon to speak to each of those standards, as well as the additional dwelling-allowance standards that we have to satisfy above and beyond those four criteria. Corrie Lee: The first expert I have to speak with you this afternoon is Mr. Howard Resnick. He is here to speak with you regarding health and safety and compliance with ordinance requirements. Mr. Resnick is a North Carolina licensed professional engineer, licensed in 2000. He graduated from North Carolina State University with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering in 1994 and is the President and Principal of CSD Engineering. Corrie Lee: Mr. Resnick, did you prepare an affidavit in support of your testimony this afternoon? Mr. Resnick: I did. Corrie Lee: And is all of the information contained in that affidavit true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Mr. Resnick: Yes, it is. Mr. Resnick: This SUP application is a request for additional dwelling density within an existing R-15 zoning district, seeking approval to develop 291 dwelling units for a density of 6.75 dwelling units per acre. The UDO allows for up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes direct access to Carolina Beach Road with the installation of a collector road designed to County standards. All interior roadways are designed to provide adequate access for emergency service vehicles and meet the UDO requirements for interconnectivity. In meeting the UDO’s open space requirements, the SUP proposes setting aside 35.06% for open space. Public water and sewer services provided to the project site will meet Cape Fear Public Utility Authority requirements and will ultimately be taken over for ownership and maintenance by CFPUA. Stormwater management for the SUP has been designed to meet North Carolina DEQ requirements for both runoff storage and treatment, and it has also been designed to meet New Hanover County pre- and post-development requirements. It is built to accommodate a 25-year storm event with a goal to manage the 100-year storm event. The total amount of impervious surface proposed within the SUP area is 40%, and proposed setbacks from adjacent properties are all at least 25 feet, and multifamily units are spaced at least 20 feet apart. The SUP project will utilize Type A opaque buffers. The SUP complies with UDO parking requirements by providing a total of 255 parking spaces, which is 23 more than required, and also meets or exceeds all off-street parking requirements for each proposed building. Signage to be installed on site will meet the minimum UDO requirements, and proposed buildings will not exceed 40 feet in height. Pervious surfaces are proposed on site for many of the drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading areas, and have been designed to accommodate NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 673 anticipated traffic loading. There are no jurisdictional wetlands located within the SUP area, and the project is located within a Zone X, which is not considered a flood hazard area nor within a special flood hazard area. All regulated trees located on the SUP property have been surveyed and included on the existing conditions plan sheet, in accordance with the UDO. Corrie Lee: Thank you, Mr. Resnick. Based upon the information to which you’ve testified, are you of the professional opinion that the SUP will not materially endanger the public health and safety where it is proposed and developed according to the plan submitted? Mr. Resnick: I am. Corrie Lee: Are you further of the professional opinion that the SUP meets all required conditions and specifications of the UDO to which you’ve testified? Mr. Resnick: It does. Corrie Lee: Thank you. The next expert we have to speak with you regarding the same subject matter and those two criteria is Mr. Chase Smith, who is a traffic engineer. His affidavit appears at Tab 2. He is a North Carolina licensed professional engineer as well, having received his license in 2018. He attended North Carolina State University and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in 2013. He is a senior traffic engineer with RFK Engineers. Corrie Lee: Mr. Smith, did you prepare an affidavit in support of your testimony here this afternoon? Mr. Smith: I did. Corrie Lee: And is all of the information contained within that affidavit true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Mr. Smith: It is. My role with RFK Engineers on the SUP was to coordinate proposed density and unit-mix changes from the originally approved Traffic Impact Analysis, to validate and verify whether the new development plan falls within the original approval provided by the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization on July 27, 2022. I analyzed and assessed the estimated traffic generation for the SUP compared to the initial approvals and estimated traffic counts for the property and found that the new plan results in a reduction in potential generated traffic. Upon providing the trip-generation comparison to the WMPO, the WMPO provided a new approval letter on August 27, 2025. This updated letter reflects that the previously submitted TIA is valid for SUP25-04, just as the developer has done in completing previously required improvements along Carolina Beach Road at various locations. Required roadway improvements associated with SUP25-04 will be installed in accordance with WMPO and NCDOT standards. Corrie Lee: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Based upon the testimony that you’ve given this afternoon, is it your professional opinion that the SUP will not materially endanger the public health and safety if developed according to the plan as submitted? Mr. Smith: It is. Corrie Lee: Is it further your professional opinion that the SUP meets all required conditions and specifications of the UDO as it relates to the matters to which you’ve testified? Mr. Smith: Yes. Corrie Lee: Thank you. The next expert we have to appear before you this afternoon is Mr. David Syster. He graduated from East Carolina University with a Bachelor of Science in Biology in 1992 and a Master of Science in 1995. He is the President and Senior Wetland Biologist for Southern Environmental Group. Corrie Lee: Mr. Syster, did you prepare an affidavit in support of your testimony this afternoon? Mr. Syster: I did. Corrie Lee: And is all of the information contained within that affidavit true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Mr. Syster: It is. Our role in the SUP project was to obtain Army Corps of Engineers concurrence for wetlands on the property. We delineated the wetlands on the property, and none were found to be jurisdictional. Corrie Lee: Thank you, Mr. Syster. Based on the testimony that you’ve given this afternoon, is it your professional opinion that the SUP will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan submitted, relating to the matters to which you’ve testified? Mr. Syster: It is. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 674 Corrie Lee: Is it further your professional opinion that the SUP meets all required conditions and specifications of the UDO relating to the matters for which you’ve testified? Mr. Syster: It is. Corrie Lee: Thank you. The next individual we have to speak with you this afternoon, his affidavit appears at Tab 4, is Mr. Cal Morgan. He is here to speak with you regarding valuations for adjoining and abutting property owners. Mr. Morgan is a North Carolina Licensed Certified General Real Estate Appraiser with more than 20 years of experience, having graduated from the College of Charleston with a degree in Business Administration. He is the Owner and President of JC Morgan Company. Corrie Lee: Mr. Morgan, did you prepare an affidavit in support of your testimony today? Mr. Morgan: Yes, ma’am. Corrie Lee: And is all of the information contained in that affidavit true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Mr. Morgan: Yes, ma’am. I was engaged by the applicant to conclude an opinion as to Item 3 of the applicant’s special use permit. Item 3 states that “the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity.” To develop an opinion on this requirement, I researched several comparable attached and multifamily properties in our local market, as well as the single-family residential properties that adjoin them. My analysis included reviewing the sales history and prices of single-family properties that were adjacent to the attached and multifamily projects, then comparing that data to the sales history and prices of similar single-family properties that were close by but not adjacent to those same projects. Several of the projects I reviewed include Beau Rivage Plantation (less than one mile away), Belle Meade Village (approximately two miles away), Johnson Farm Residential Subdivision (approximately one and a half miles away), and the Georgetown Residential Subdivision (approximately two miles away). Additional attached and multifamily developments were also reviewed for added support. Corrie Lee: Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Based upon the information you’ve testified to here today, is it your professional opinion that, if granted, the use of the property as proposed in the special use permit will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property? Mr. Morgan: It is. Corrie Lee: Thank you. Commissioners, you’ve heard several times over the last few months that the very fact we can apply for a Special Use Permit is a legislative finding that it is in compliance with the code. However, we want to go a step further. We’ve brought on board Ms. Ashli Barefoot, who is an AICP, CNU-A, CZO with more than 17 years of experience in both long-range and short-term planning. She graduated from the University of North Carolina Wilmington in 2008 with a Master of Public Administration and a concentration in Public Policy Analysis, and she currently serves as the Director of Planning and Land Use for Insight Consulting Group. Corrie Lee: Ms. Barefoot, did you prepare an affidavit in support of your testimony this afternoon? Ms. Barefoot: I did, yes. Corrie Lee: And is all of the information contained in that affidavit true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Ms. Barefoot: Yes. I was engaged by the applicant to review the plan and determine if the project is in harmony with the surrounding areas and also in conformity with the New Hanover County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. As a result of my analysis, I found that the project is within 250 feet of the Urban Mixed Use place type, which is a requirement of the UDO. It provides diverse housing types and choices in close proximity to an identified growth node and its supporting land uses and infrastructure. The project also includes design choices that promote consumer choice and are desired by people of all ages and abilities, thus promoting accessibility and aging in place. The proposed density is appropriate as a transitional land use between the commercial thoroughfare of Carolina Beach Road and the lower-density single-family residential neighborhoods to the east and south. Corrie Lee: Ms. Barefoot, based upon the information to which you’ve testified today, are you of the professional opinion that the SUP will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan submitted, relating to the matters for which you’ve testified? Ms. Barefoot: I am. Corrie Lee: Are you further of the professional opinion that the special use permit meets all required conditions and specifications of the UDO relating to the matters to which you’ve testified? Ms. Barefoot: Yes. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 675 Corrie Lee: And are you further of the professional opinion that the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it will be located and in general conformity with the New Hanover County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? Ms. Barefoot: Yes, I am. Corrie Lee: Thank you. Commissioners, the staff has also indicated what our proposed conditions are on this property. We agree with them as they’ve been presented, and they are on your screen as well. At this point, we have given you prima facie evidence of entitlement to this permit. We’ve had five experts testify to each of the elements of the special use permit, including the additional dwelling allowances. The burden has now shifted to any opposition who is here this afternoon to establish that we are not entitled to the permit. They must rebut that prima facie showing. You’re probably wondering what that requires. Well, it requires a party with standing to present competent, material, and substantial evidence. A party with standing is someone who can demonstrate that they would suffer special damage, which is more than what a general member of the public would suffer, if this project were to be granted. Additionally, competent evidence is evidence that is of such a character that it should be considered by this Board. It requires that opinions given before you are not just lay opinions, but expert opinions, just as we’ve presented to you this afternoon. Corrie Lee: At this point, given those elements, we would like to introduce Item Number 6, which was part of your binder. It is a letter we submitted to the county attorney last week relating to several procedural matters, including parties without standing being authorized to testify. We would like that letter to be admitted into evidence, along with the remainder of our affidavits and our presentation. We would also like to object to the introduction of any of the public comments that you have received. We received additional public comments today, and we would like to ensure that those are disregarded, as those parties are not present for cross-examination. We would also challenge that they have standing. Are there any questions that I can answer at this point? Thank you. And so this Board knows, we have provided a binder of this evidence to one of the parties that we anticipate speaking this afternoon, so that they could review these materials as well. Chair Rivenbark: Ma’am, James Yopp’s name was down here to speak, but we’re running out of time. Corrie Lee: He’s not speaking, no sir. Thank you very much. We had him sign up out of an abundance of caution. Chair Rivenbark: Okay. Corrie Lee: Thank you so much. Chair Rivenbark: Yes, ma’am. All right, now we have the opposition. The first person to speak is Michael McCulley. Michael McCulley (Opposition): Yes, sir, and I believe I’m the only person speaking. Chair Rivenbark: Well, no, three more signed up. Michael McCulley: Since those are witnesses of mine. Chair Rivenbark: Okay, that’s fine. Michael McCulley: I represent my family and my neighbors along Linden Road in Sentry Oaks. Commissioner Scalise: Sir, could you position yourself relative to that microphone a little bit more? Michael McCulley: Very sorry. Commissioner Scalise: And you can also bring up the podium, there’s a button just behind the mic. Michael McCulley: Gotcha. Obviously I’m not practiced at this. Commissioner Scalise: Just want to make sure your testimony gets into the record. Michael McCulley: I appreciate that. As I was saying, I represent some folks along my road in Sentry Oaks, Linden Road, and I also represent the Tarin Woods Homeowners Association. I do, in fact, have a certificate of authority from them. They actually created it very quickly because Ms. Lee indicated she thought that would be appropriate. I have that here for you, and with that, I’m going to begin my presentation. Michael McCulley: Before I begin, I want to express my sincere condolences to the Carlisle family and to James Yopp on the passing of Jack Carlisle. As I understand it, he and Jack were very close. I never met Mr. Carlisle, but I’ve learned a bit about him over the past few weeks, and it appears he had a very full life with lots of success, and he got to work side-by-side with his daughters, who I’m sure are grieving his loss. Mr. Carlisle’s family and Mr. Yopp are not going to like what I have to say this evening, and I want them to know that I take no pleasure in it. I’m NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 676 not here by choice, and I bear them no ill will. I do have something to say at the end, which I hope they’ll consider. This case is controversial because of a long history of denied requests for high density in this area by Hoosier Daddy, LLC and James Yopp since 2018. This case is also controversial because it involves the use of a quasi-judicial hearing process, which is perceived as unfairly favoring developers and which can require residents in opposition to spend considerable amounts of money to hire lawyers and experts, and spend considerable time, which is in many ways an even more precious loss. Imagine that burden being imposed on you year after year after year, and sometimes even two times in a year just a few months apart, as is the case here. Michael McCulley: This case is also controversial because this Board voted unanimously on August 18 to stop doing quasi-judicial hearings in one specific situation where special use permits are requested for extra dwelling allowances, which is precisely what this applicant is requesting today. Clearly you all realize that this process unfairly favors developers, or at least you will acknowledge this is how the public perceives it, and public perceptions really do matter, because even the perception that public servants are doing something unfair or biased erodes public confidence in government. This point is relevant to this case for reasons I will explain. The only reason we’re here today, at what hopefully will be the very last quasi-judicial hearing for an extra dwelling-allowance request in New Hanover County, is that James Yopp submitted an application for a special use permit on July 31, just before the deadline for the month of August. The circumstances suggest that he did this because he and Hoosier Daddy, LLC wanted one last chance to take advantage of the quasi-judicial hearing process, despite the unanimous vote by this Board to stop doing them. The deadline to do so was August 1. I respectfully ask that each of you keep all this in mind as you weigh the arguments and the evidence. Michael McCulley: I have three main arguments to make today. Just to give you a basic overview, they are that the application is incomplete and inaccurate. Even if it were complete and accurate, the proposed development would not meet the applicable criteria. And if, despite my arguments and the evidence, you are still seriously considering approval, please impose reasonable conditions to mitigate adverse impacts. Michael McCulley: My first argument: the application which James Yopp submitted on July 31 is, at best, incomplete and inaccurate. In fact, the application that James Yopp submitted on July 1, if you really dig into the history and the relevant public records, serves as evidence that all of the applications James Yopp has signed as owner in his capacity as manager of Hoosier Daddy, LLC since 2021 may also have been incomplete and inaccurate. It is reasonable to infer from this application and the available evidence is that not only were those prior applications incomplete and inaccurate because James Yopp was not actually a member of Hoosier Daddy, LLC after 2021, but that he must have realized that at some point, whether he knew all along or figured it out more recently, I cannot say with any certainty. So that is why I say I’m calling these applications incomplete and inaccurate. I’d like to start with a basic question. For many years, James Yopp has been signing special use permits and rezoning applications as the owner of the site in question, in his capacity as manager of Hoosier Daddy, LLC. So why didn’t he do that this time? And why did he think it was necessary to add a signature from Jack Carlisle and an authorization of agency document? Michael McCulley: I looked at all the available public records, and I think I know the answer. James Yopp and Hoosier Daddy, LLC are experienced real estate professionals represented by real estate attorneys, so it is more than reasonable to expect basic competency from them when they submit applications, and this is even more true when the applications are both highly controversial and highly consequential, as this one is. Please also keep in mind that they have submitted numerous applications just for this site (not to mention countless others). These folks shouldn’t need any help filling out the basic information on an SUP application form. To be clear, I’m not talking about the technical information for the development; I’m just talking about clearly stating who the applicant and the owner are, making sure that information is accurate, and making sure you have the correct signatures for the owner and the applicant. If they submit an application where they can’t even get this basic information right, it is not complete or accurate and should be rejected. The proper procedure would be for the applicant to correct the errors and resubmit, not to accept the application, deem it complete without regard for accuracy, and then try to clean it up two months later, less than a week before the hearing. Michael McCulley: The first few applications submitted by James Yopp and Hoosier Daddy, LLC from 2018– 2020, look pretty good. They had help from Cindee Wolf on the first two, and she did a professional job. But things get more complicated after 2020. Did you know that there were two Hoosier Daddy LLCs? There’s one in South Carolina and there’s one in North Carolina. In the beginning, the South Carolina version of Hoosier Daddy LLC owned the property we’re talking about now. But in 2021, they transferred all that property to Hoosier Daddy, LLC of North Carolina. The important difference between these two Hoosier Daddy LLCs is that the South Carolina LLC was manager-managed, and the North Carolina LLC is member-managed, but member-managed LLCs can only be managed by a member. James Yopp apparently was a manager, or at least that is possible of likely, of the South Carolina Hoosier Daddy, LLC, which I believe was manager-managed. But I do not think he was a member of Hoosier Daddy, LLC of North Carolina, because it is member-managed, and I have looked through every annual report they’ve ever filed, and he’s never mentioned as a member. All the members are Carlisle family relatives, it’s Jack Carlisle, I believe his brother, and his two daughters. Michael McCulley: Before continuing, I will note that Hoosier Daddy, LLC has an operating agreement, which I am not privy to, and maybe it provides some justification for James Yopp signing as manager. But it is also my understanding that the applicable law requires there to be a change to the Articles of Organization to change the management structure, and that such a change be filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State. I have searched more than once for this type of filing with the Secretary of State, and to the best of my knowledge there isn’t one. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 677 Which means Hoosier Daddy, LLC of North Carolina is member-managed. Beginning in 2021, every application submitted by Hoosier Daddy and James Yopp to try to get high density approved at this site was signed by James Yopp as “manager” for Hoosier Daddy, LLC of North Carolina until July 31, 2025, when the current application was submitted. This means that if James Yopp was not a member or manager, none of those previous applications had the required signature of the actual owner, only that of an agent, and he signed as manager, which does not appear to be true based on available public records. I will note, that unless you did the research, this is not an easy error to catch, especially since in the beginning, prior to 2021 James Yopp probably was a manager of the Hoosier Daddy LLC of South Carolina. But despite the fact that it was not easy to spot, it remains very legally significant. The application form expressly requires that it be signed by the actual owner, not an agent. So, all of these applications signed by James Yopp as manager for the Hoosier Daddy LLC of North Carolina were incomplete and inaccurate. The application submitted this past spring, which went to a hearing on June 2, was submitted by attorney Sam Potter, and it named Mr. Potter’s applicant and Hoosier Daddy, LLC as owner, and James Yopp signed as manager for Hoosier Daddy, LLC. So, for the reasons stated, that application was arguably incomplete and inaccurate for that reason, not to mention it proposed a big apartment building that was 25 feet higher than the max height allowed in the UDO. For all these reasons, arguably that quasi-judicial hearing should never have happened, but it did. Considering how much goes into a quasi-judicial hearing, all the time, the effort, the cost for so many people, isn’t it important to make sure the application is truly complete and accurate and complies with the UDO, which is a requirement for an SUP before proceeding to such a hearing? Michael McCulley: I know that counsel said they were willing to fix it, but that would have required a materially different development plan. Which brings us to the current application. These are just pictures of the application \[referencing exhibit\]. Take a look at what James Yopp filed on July 31, which is the reason why we’re all here today. On page 1, Hoosier Daddy, LLC is listed as the applicant and type, and James Yopp handprints his own name as the owner, which I believe is false. On page 7, James Yopp handprints Hoosier Daddy, LLC as the owner and James Yopp as the agent/applicant, and he signs for both, but since he is not a member, his signature does not meet the requirement. The Signature and Acknowledgment page on page 7 is supposed to provide signatures which correspond to the information on page 1, but this information and these signatures contradict the information on page 1. Michael McCulley: On page 8, Jack Carlisle’s name is handprinted as owner and James Yopp is handprints his name as applicant/agent, and there are two signatures, one purporting to be that of Jack Carlisle and one from James Yopp, and there is an attachment on page 9 with Jack Carlisle’s notarized signature from 2023 naming James Yopp as agent for Hoosier Daddy, LLC, among other entities, and it specifies the developments it applies to, but “Ironwood” is not listed. At first, the attachment on page 9, seems to help Mr. Yopp, but I think it actually does the opposite. First, the authorization does not expressly apply to “Ironwood,” which is the name this application uses for the proposed development in question, and it’s been calling it that since 2023, when the statement was created. You might think this is a minor point, after all, no one really questions whether James Yopp was working for Jack Carlisle and Hoosier Daddy, but there’s actually more to it than that. The Tarin Woods HOA wants nothing to do with Ironwood as it’s been proposed, but there is language in their covenants that purportedly allows Hoosier Daddy, LLC to keep adding to Tarin Woods through forced annexation, and the Planning staff have referred to Ironwood as a proposed expansion of Tarin Woods. So the name of the proposed development matters, despite statements made by the Planning staff to the contrary. But there’s an even more important effort one can reasonably draw from this agency authorization. If James Yopp were actually a manager of Hoosier Daddy, LLC of North Carolina, he would have no need for an agency authorization. So, why attach it here? While he obviously must have thought attaching this document to the application would help; for the reasons stated, I think it really does the opposite, if you really think about it. Thus, this application serves as strong evidence that James Yopp was not a manager of Hoosier Daddy, LLC, and he knew it, even though he’s been signing applications for high density at this site since 2021. Michael McCulley: Going back to page 8, Mr. Yopp lists Jack Carlisle as owner, but Jack Carlisle has never been named as owner before, nor has a Jack Carlisle signature ever appeared in the many prior applications for this site. It was always James Yopp signing as “manager” for Hoosier Daddy, LLC, though I think Lisa Beaman did sign once. So why is James Yopp suddenly needing to list Jack Carlisle as owner and have his signature in the application? The answer, again, based on the evidence cited, is that James Yopp knew it was false for him to sign as manager, so he needed the signature of an actual member/manager like Jack Carlisle. But there are still a couple of problems with that. First, Jack Carlisle is listed as “owner” and purportedly signs this application, but it’s done with no reference to Hoosier Daddy, LLC, so legally it’s not the signature of the owner. Look back at page 7. There, James Yopp writes Hoosier Daddy, LLC and signs his name as owner. Why didn’t he do it that way with Jack Carlisle on the very next page if this is supposed to be Mr. Carlisle signing for Hoosier Daddy? I’m not just being picky here, if you look back at their prior applications, they know how to do this stuff the right way: you always reference the entity you’re signing for, and ideally you reference your… Chair Rivenbark: Sir, your time’s up. You’re welcome to come back for the five minutes of rebuttal and continue. Michael McCulley: Okay. I got winded. Chair Rivenbark: That’s okay, everybody does. Just remember where you were. Vice Chair Pierce: Before you get started, I want to ask you to address the ownership of the LLC. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 678 Corrie Lee (In applicant rebuttal): Yes, ma’am, that’s what I intend to do. Thank you. Preliminarily, we did want to address that Mr. Yopp was authorized to execute that application. Mr. Carlisle did execute it. We recognized that the July application was time-sensitive, and so just to ensure there was nothing missing on that application, there was a signature by Jack Carlisle. However, after he passed away, we were requested by staff to have an updated document reflecting that the current members of the organization authorize the applications to continue moving forward. And so, at that point, we asked Lisa Carlisle Beaman and Michelle Carlisle, both of whom are members of that entity, and I believe also managers, of that organization, to execute an authorization stating that we could continue forward with the application. So, Hoosier Daddy, LLC owns the property. There were signatures on the original application, but given Mr. Carlisle’s death, we did submit a subsequent document through which they ratified both the existence of the application and the fact that it was moving forward. Something that was addressed in the earlier comments was that hearings of this type erode public trust. I am going to take a respectful disagreement with that, because I think hearings of this type actually build public trust. This hearing is evidentiary in nature. You all, as elected officials, didn’t really sign up to be judges, but here you are. Nevertheless, despite what you may think, or feel is right, what you believe, what your business decisions may want you to do, you are obligated today to follow the law. You took an oath as Commissioners that you would follow the law where it leads, and where the law leads today is to granting the SUP. We’ve had five experts who have testified that we have satisfied all the conditions, and there has not been any competent evidence introduced to rebut that information. Therefore, where the law leads you, and what your oath of office as Commissioners demands of you, is that you grant this permit. But I want you to feel good about that, too. I want you to feel like you’re doing something good, because I think that’s important, and I want the public to hear the important aspects of this project. Corrie Lee: Our client, when they complete this project, will have invested millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements to Carolina Beach Road to ensure access. They will have completed the water and sewer loop within that area, adding valuable infrastructure to the public’s economy. We are going to be improving stormwater drainage with a goal of a 100-year storm event, maybe we don’t reach 100 years, maybe we reach 80 years, but our goal is that 100-year storm. We want to improve the living situation for those who live there. We are going to be providing further interconnectivity for current residents and for emergency access. We are going to actually be hundreds of daily trips under our approved TIA at full build-out. We are also providing diverse housing types that do the exact thing this body approved in their resolution at the outset of this meeting. We are providing a diverse set of accessible housing types that provide a variety of options or consumer choices, at a wide range of housing prices, to ensure that seniors and younger members of our community have access to housing that is within their budgets, and that the seniors in our community can age in place. So, we hope that not only will you follow the law, but we want you to feel that this project is a good project because we believe that it is. It’s providing a transitional buffer, it’s satisfying all requirements of your UDO, and exceeding them. We appreciate your time and consideration. We know the challenging role you play this afternoon. We understand there is public outcry and there’s some tendering of your heartstrings this afternoon, but we appreciate you following the law where it leads this afternoon when you serve as those judges, as elected officials. Thank you so much. Chair Rivenbark: Thank you. Mr. McCulley. Michael McCulley (In opposition rebuttal): First of all, I want to address the last-minute amendments to the application. First of all, I consider the written consent that was filed to be inadmissible hearsay. This is an out-of- this-hearing statement being presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The folks who spoke were not under oath, they were not subject to cross-examination, and they clearly have a bias, they are the daughters of Jack Carlisle, the remaining members of Hoosier Daddy, LLC. So, if the applicant wants to point to that and rely on it, I believe it is inadmissible hearsay. Second of all, they redid the application. They cleaned up a mess, because this application is a mess, and they did it without even providing notice to the opposing parties. All they did was post it on their website. When I saw that, it really saddened me. I have a lot more to say about it, but I don’t have time to say it. I saw a video of the October 2 Agenda Review meeting, and I saw how it was characterized, that they were simply trying to respond to public outcry to show there was authority, and that, in light of Mr. Carlisle’s unfortunate passing, that’s all this was about. That is not a fair characterization of the situation. Residents in opposition were questioning the validity of the application and the validity of Jack Carlisle’s signature. Those were disputes that Planning staff were aware of. In fact, Mr. Farrell advised Samantha Bunge that she would need a forensic document examiner to really question Mr. Carlisle’s signature, and guess what? She got one. Okay? I have that report here. I’m not going to try to give it to you right now, because I’m sure opposing counsel will object that it’s hearsay, and she’d probably be right. But I do have Theresa Dean, who is the document examiner, willing to attend this hearing via video conference. We couldn’t bring her here because she lives in Henderson, and quite frankly, we couldn’t afford it. But she did complete a report, it cost $1,500, and if I give her the word, she will call in on my laptop. You can video conference her in; opposing counsel can cross-examine her. She has a Bible, and she can be sworn in. Michael McCulley: I actually don’t think that questioning the signature is absolutely critical. I think the fact that he didn’t sign on behalf of Hoosier Daddy, LLC is enough. But I’ll also tell you, the first time I looked at that signature, it didn’t look right. I also noticed that the handwriting of Jack Carlisle and James Yopp looked like they were written by the same person, it’s all in the same ink. James Yopp is the one who submitted the application. And let me be clear, I’m not trying to say anything nefarious happened here. He’s been signing for Hoosier Daddy for years and years and years. He’s… Corrie Lee (Interrupting): At this point I am going to have to object if the statements continue and the witness is offering... NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 679 Michael McCulley: Can you pause the clock? Because if she’s going to object, she is going to eat up my time. Chair Rivenbark: She’s paused it. Michael McCulley: Go ahead. Corrie Lee: I’m just objecting on the record that the witness is offering testimonial evidence and is not an expert witness. Michael McCulley: And I acknowledge that, I, myself, am not a forensic examiner. I do have the report if you want to see it. But I ask that, if you want to ask questions, if opposing counsel wants to ask questions of Ms. Dean, that you do it after I’m done, because... Corrie Lee (interrupting): At this point Commissioners, this is a rebuttal statement so we would request that... Vice Chair Pierce: Hold on, you can’t speak from the audience. Just hang on. That’s not how this works. Chair Rivenbark: You’ve actually used up all your time. Michael McCulley: I’ll wrap this up as quickly as I can. Commissioner Scalise: I think I should offer something, though. All she is doing is making an objection, the objection is being noted for the record and it will undoubtedly be reviewed at some time in the future. But it’s noted, and I don’t think we need anything more from you other than that you have objected to it. Michael McCulley: Fair enough, thank you. I’m going to try to at least hit my second argument, which is that the proposal itself, even if you put the application aside, has lots of problems. I’m going to skip over... We are very worried in my neighborhood about impacts to the…we have a very lovely, wooded buffer that runs right along our boundary with this property. We don’t want to see anything happen to that. Ms. Lee has given some indication that they feel the same way, that’s not entirely reassuring to me, but I acknowledge that she did say that. The next problem is that this development will more likely than not exacerbate the premature deterioration of the roads in Tarin Woods and Tarin Woods II with the prolonged stream of heavy construction traffic. That would be particularly heinous because James Yopp and Hoosier Daddy were the developers of this property, and the Tarin Woods HOA, whom I represent, recently paid for a study which concluded, among other things, that the roads have started breaking apart prematurely because they were not made to the required thickness. These roads are at most five years old. I do have pictures and the study to support this. The proposed development will also result in further exacerbating crowded roadways, schools, and other infrastructure in our community. Anyone who lives in our community, their traffic study, the one they rely on, was done in winter 2021, and anyone who lives here knows that traffic on Carolina Beach Road in the winter is very different from traffic in spring, summer, and fall. This is a beach town, we have seasons. It will also change the character and feel of our neighborhoods, which are all R-15 and have that noted in the covenants. And last, it will add a tremendous amount of impervious surface to an area that was once classified as wetlands and is already experiencing flooding. Thank you. Chair Rivenbark: Thank you, sir. Tim, were you here just to answer questions, or did you have something to say? County Engineer Tim Lowe: Good afternoon, sir. Tim Lowe, County Engineer. Chair Rivenbark: I saw your name on the sign-up sheet and didn’t know if you had something you wanted to say or were just here for questions. County Engineer Lowe: I’m here if you have any questions. Chair Rivenbark: Okay. Anybody have any questions for Tim? Commissioner Zapple: Actually, I do, Tim. There’ve been a couple of mentioned in these presentations about building to a 25-year storm, with the goal being a 100-year. How does that work? You either have a retention pond and conveyances that meet 25-year standards, or you design for 100, but you can’t just say the goal is 100. It’s a physical standard; it’s one or the other. Have you looked at this, and what’s your opinion? County Engineer Lowe: For this project, we haven’t issued a permit yet, so there’s still some review to be had. The County design standard is a 25-year storm, that’s a 4% chance of a given rainfall total in a 24-hour period. Developers/engineers will often exceed that standard, giving a little extra space in their retention ponds; we do see that regularly. We don’t necessarily prescribe a different probability to it unless they explicitly design to it (e.g., saying they’re using the 100-year versus the 25-year). Commissioner Zapple: But you haven’t seen that yet or studied it for this project? County Engineer Lowe: Not for this project, no. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 680 Chair Rivenbark: Okay. Thank you, Tim. Chair Rivenbark: Okay, anybody have any discussion? Vice Chair Pierce: I have a question for the attorney, our County Attorney. Could you weigh in on the ownership of the LLC and the application submitted? County Attorney Smith: My understanding is the original application had two signatures of the applicant. One was Jack Carlisle, it’s unclear whether he was signing on behalf of Jack Carlisle, individual, or Hoosier Daddy, LLC, of which he was a member of. There’s also a signature from James Yopp, and a document showing he is authorized to submit applications for certain delineated projects, including Tarin Woods. Those are two of the application documents. Since that time, Mr. Carlisle passed away. Staff requested that Hoosier Daddy, LLC submit additional documentation to see if the LLC was still supportive behind the application. My understanding is two remaining members of that LLC did submit that documentation. Commissioner Zapple: If I could follow up, can you shed light on this back and forth between member vs. manager issue and the fact there’s a Hoosier Daddy in South Carolina and a Hoosier Daddy in North Carolina? Can you help clarify that? County Attorney Smith: My understanding is that Hoosier Daddy, LLC of North Carolina is a member- managed LLC, which means any member has authorization to act on behalf of the LLC, so one member could submit an application on behalf of the LLC to my understanding. Vice Chair Pierce: And is the North Carolina or South Carolina the owner of the property? County Attorney Smith: I do not know the answer to that. Vice Chair Pierce: Somebody look it up. And is Mr. Yopp a member of the LLC? Is there documentation showing that? County Attorney Smith: To my knowledge, he’s not a member of the LLC. Vice Chair Pierce: So, is anyone here from the Carlisle family that is a member? I think these are pretty simple questions. Corrie Lee: The application was submitted initially, it’s all been, by Hoosier Daddy of North Carolina, and that is the owner of the property. Jack Carlisle was the member and a manager. The Carlisle sisters, Lisa Carlisle Beaman and Michelle Carlisle, were also both managers. So Jack Carlisle, during his life gave authorization to James Yopp to submit applications, which he did; and Mr. Carlisle also submitted applications on his own behalf. After Mr. Carlisle’s death, staff notified us, I know that it has been represented to you, some issues were raised by the citizens, but actually Mr. Farrell has reached out to us very shortly in time after Mr. Carlisle’s passing, and requested an updated agent authorization from the Carlisle sisters, given that Mr. Carlisle had passed, again, as Mr. Smith indicated, to ensure continuity of the application. Mr. Farrell and the Planning staff were clear that without that further authorization, the application could not move forward. And that is how this series of events has played out, that Mr. Carlisle passed away; we obtained the subsequent authorization from the sisters; and that was submitted to the County. Vice Chair Pierce: Was that in the form of a power of attorney, or in the form of an email? Corrie Lee: It was a resolution of the managers that authorized not only the current action, but also all actions up to this point. It was executed, and I personally received the executed copy from both Lisa Carlisle Beaman and Michelle Carlisle. I was in personal communication with them. Is that helpful? Commissioner Walker: I have a follow-up. So, it was presented that James Yopp was the person who submitted the application on July 31. Is that correct? County Attorney Smith: I’ll try to answer those questions to the best of my ability, Planning staff is probably the best, but my understanding is that the original application contained two signature submission forms: one from James Yopp and a second from Jack Carlisle. Commissioner Walker: Okay. Corrie Lee: So there were two within one application. It was a sort of “belt-and-suspenders” approach, if you will. In trying to avoid confusion, it appears that we may have created some. Commissioner Walker: Does it matter if James Yopp is not a managing signatory on the LLC? County Attorney Smith: I believe if there’s authorization for someone to act on behalf of the LLC, that’s sufficient. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 681 Commissioner Walker: Would you have to have something, like an email or affidavit, to provide that authorization? County Attorney Smith: I’m going to ask Planning staff to come up here. It’s my understanding that it’s common to see applications from a corporate entity, whether a corporation, an LLC, or another type, signed by an individual representing that entity and not expressly stating they’re doing it on behalf of a corporation. That’s what was done here. Staff said that’s consistent with general practice. They don’t have the resources to vet out whether a person signing for an LLC or corporation is formally authorized. Rebekah, is that consistent with your understanding? Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth: Correct. For any development project, the applicant is confirming by signing the application that everything they are submitting is accurate to the best of their knowledge. And we require, as part of the submittal, that if the owner of the property, if it's different from the applicant, provide authorization that the applicant has the authority to move forward with the request. That determines whether or not an application is considered complete, that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the information is valid. Generally, those determinations are made by the final decision-making body. Staff doesn’t sit there and decide who can or can’t move forward, because we’re not attorneys and not necessarily the decision makers in this type of application. Vice Chair Pierce: I agree with you 100 percent. It really should be the legal department deciding whether an application was proper to move forward with. I’m not a lawyer, but if someone passes away, does their estate have to be settled first? We have to make sure the person who owns the property is the one who wants to develop it. County Attorney Smith: Vice Chair Pierce, the UDO has tasked the Planning Director authority to make a number of interpretive decisions about complete applications. We always work closely with staff on those, but the UDO is a legal document interpreted and enforced by the Planning Director. I’m not trying to throw anyone under the bus in any way, but it’s not my responsibility to make all of those judgment calls under the UDO. Commissioner Walker: Right, it just feels unusual. Commissioner Scalise: I’ll offer some comments and try to tease this out to the best of my ability. I’ve got a couple of things going on here. As the opponent noted at the beginning of his presentation, y’all can go ahead and sit down, I’m going to talk for a little while. This special use permit (SUP) process that has brought us here today is no longer something available to subsequent applicants for this type of application, we made a motion, that was unanimously carried by this Board to do away with it, and to handle rezonings in a different manner, outside this quasi-judicial process. The outset of the opponent’s comments about the latent fairness or unfairness of the SUP process are noted, and in fact, I think that’s what brought us to the position of changing the law here in New Hanover County, to say that they are no longer going to be allowed. However, the law said that this could not be retroactively applied to this applicant and the applicant did, in fact, beat the clock whenever it came to submitting their SUP prior to us changing the law. So, we have to separate our current feelings about the sufficiency or appropriateness of the SUP process and recognize that the law was not changed until after this application was made, and as a consequence, we have to follow, the SUP process established under the law whether we like it or not. I would also offer that much of the opponent’s time was primarily spent addressing that point as well as the legal sufficiency of the applicant and the ownership status. But here’s the reality, as I see it, is that our Planning staff, said, right, wrong, or indifferent, that the application was complete. Just said it during this hearing. So, the sufficiency of determining whether or not legally our Planning staff has made the proper analysis, I don’t think we are going to be able to do that up here today. I don’t know where that is going to bring us to. Commissioner Scalise: But we have to make a few notations: Number one, as I said at the beginning, the SUP process is the one we have to follow. Number two, our Planning staff has said that the application was complete. And the opponent has provided any number of reasons why we should consider denying this application, but the law makes clear, and I am a lawyer, I did previously serve as a judge, I am trying very hard to be dispassionate in my analysis. Whether I want something to happen on an emotional level want or not, I'm going to try my best to follow the law as I see it. And the law, as I see it today, was that the applicant provided competent evidence of the four required conclusions, and the opponent did not provide rebuttable evidence to dispute that. Such that we would be able to do anything different than to allow this application. I understand that may not be popular, and I understand that there are going to be any number of people who are going to object with my legal analysis, but I don’t think that we have a choice legally to do anything other than to approve this application. The Board may disagree with me, and I respect that, if so. That’s why we have five people up here, not one. Chair Rivenbark: Tell what happens we turn it down. Commissioner Scalise: Well I mean, that’s the reality, Mr. Chair, we just had another SUP, there was an SUP that was represented on two sides, you had the lawyer who represented the applicant, and a lawyer who represented the opponent and that situation included the opponent in my estimation, putting on competent evidence that allowed us to rebut the presumption of the sufficiency of the application. That was a different situation, we denied that one, we just did that three weeks ago. I don’t see the facts and the law being the same in this situation. And again, separating out my own personal feelings on this matter, I have got to look at the evidence of record, and let me be again clear. I am not saying that this Board has to do what I say, you will clearly vote the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 682 way you think is appropriate and I will respect that. I am just trying to provide my analysis of the facts and the law as I see them. Commissioner Walker: I have a technical question about the traffic analysis. Is there a legal precedent for how long those studies last? I know there’s an update letter, but I don’t understand how long, I mean this analysis was done in June 2022, that was four years ago now. I know there’s a letter here, but I feel like that's a long time. How long do those studies stand? Caitlin Cerza: Technically, there’s no ordinance that has a set limit. As Mr. Chase Smith mentioned, they came through, we evaluate it every week, we have a development review meeting between the WMPO, NCDOT, and County Planning staff, where we discuss all of these requests. When it had come through again, we looked at it, there’s a significant reduction in trips, so there was no additional analysis or anything like that, and we believe the recommendations and the required improvements still stand, and they have agreed to do those or build those out. Commissioner Walker: Because I don’t know, when you do a traffic study like that, it’s a point-in-time study, right? So, is that accurate, or not? Caitlin Cerza: So you’re typically studying existing conditions when you take traffic counts, and whatnot, as well as then there is a background growth rate as well as factoring in adjacent approved developments in the area to factor in all of those incoming trips, as well as additional just standard population growth types of trips that are just going to occur in this area if that makes sense. So, it’s not a singular point in time, it’s analyzing the existing conditions, the future conditions without the development as well as then the conditions with the development and with improvements, and how it has alleviated any issues that came up in that analysis. Commissioner Walker: So, tell me if I’m wrong, basically, you’re saying there’s nothing that says an analysis can’t last for a decade? Caitlin Cerza: No, I would say as it comes through. This is why we have those weekly meetings, is to discuss all of these, as things can change; development schedules, construction may be delayed, and so we are not going to require existing development to go through additional analysis, when between the WMPO, NCDOT, and County staff that there is not a reason for it, or some kind of crazy change in the conditions out there. Commissioner Walker: Thank you. Commissioner Zapple: Hold on. Could you please introduce yourself? Caitlin Cerza: Yes, sorry, I’m Caitlin Cerza, with the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO). Commissioner Zapple: So, Caitlin, you’re not part of the development team? Caitlin Cerza: No. Commissioner Zapple: I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Can you tell me, Caitlin, who is “Ironwood”? Caitlin Cerza: That’s just the name of the development, as far as... Commissioner Zapple: That’s who the TIA was done for? Caitlin Cerza: Yes. In my mind, that’s the development name. I believe our letter is addressed to the traffic engineer. Commissioner Zapple: Yeah, I hear you, but it’s confusing. How does Ironwood fit into Tarin Woods? One, Two, or what was also named as Three? A lot of confusion. In your 2022 analysis that you did for Ironwood, did you consider the new Target store immediately adjacent to this property? Caitlin Cerza: I believe that if it was already on the books, as something that was in the proposed/approved development or approved plans, that it would have been as well as we do usually have a conservative background growth rate to account for things that may not be, at the time of the analysis, known. Commissioner Zapple: So, 1% background rate? Caitlin Cerza: Yes. Commissioner Zapple: I didn’t see any reference to the Target store, so that’s why I asked. It’s just now being finished and about to come online. Also the new road that connects to Carolina Beach Road, has that been approved? Caitlin Cerza: The Site Access 1, at the north end of the property? NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 683 Commissioner Zapple: I think so, yes. Caitlin Cerza: Yes, I believe that was studied in the condition. I believe that one is called Site Access 1, and that was I believe there were requirements on stem length, etc., which is where it would meet Carolina Beach Road in that document. Commissioner Zapple: Has it been approved by NCDOT? Caitlin Cerza: I’m not aware of the current driveway permit status at this time. Commissioner Zapple: Looking at it, and I know the area well, it enters on a curve on Carolina Beach Road. I was wondering if you had an opinion or if you studied the fact of, as a layperson, it seems like a fairly dangerous area to bring in a new road. Caitlin Cerza: That’s part of NCDOT’s driveway permitting process. They evaluate that section of roadway and how a new road and the different trips and travel expected from this development will interact at that intersection. Ultimately, NCDOT decides whether to approve the driveway permit and can impose additional conditions or reevaluate as needed. Commissioner Zapple: So, we don’t have a driveway permit? Caitlin Cerza: Not that I’m aware of, that’s handled by NCDOT. Commissioner Zapple: And if it were denied, we’d only have the current entrance into this from Manassas Drive coming down Sweet Gum, coming through Tarin Woods II, is that correct? Caitlin Cerza: I believe so, unless the additional connection, was it Rosa Parks?, is approved. Commissioner Zapple: Unless that’s not approved either. Chair Rivenbark: Yeah, the conditions, it doesn’t get approved. Vice Chair Pierce: Mr. Chair, can I tag onto… Multiple Commissioners: You didn’t, understood. Thanks; I appreciate that. Commissioner Zapple: I understand that. Yeah, thanks, Bill. Yeah, I appreciate it. Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair. Vice Chair Pierce: I know you’re on the spot here, but just for some clarity: what year was that TIA done? Caitlin Cerza: So, the initial, like, I guess the initial approval letter was dealt, was originally approved in 2022 so that analysis would have began shortly before then, and throughout... Vice Chair Pierce: Could you speak up just a little bit, I’m sorry. Caitlin Cerza: Yep. So, the original kind of TIA, the analysis was approved in 2022 so that's when the initial traffic studies and all of the analysis was performed. Vice Chair Pierce: Was it 2022? Caitlin Cerza: Yes. Vice Chair Pierce: And do they expire? Do they have an expiration? Caitlin Cerza: No, not, no. Vice Chair Pierce: So, they are good forever? Caitlin Cerza: Yeah, I would typically say again, that's kind of why we it's like, kind of that engineering judgment, as well as, like, the local knowledge and stuff like that of what has changed or remain the same. To decide if supplemental analysis or a TIA needs to be redone. You know, the applicant and traffic engineer Chase Smith came a couple months ago to kind of speak with WMPO, NCDOT and County Planning staff at our weekly meeting, where, at that time, no one felt we needed an additional supplemental analysis to provide that revised approval letter from the end of August. Vice Chair Pierce: Yeah, I guess that's my first concern. It is three years old, and while things have changed on that area and developed and been approved in that area since 2022 and I want to just go back to what Commissioner Zapple was saying about it looks to me like that. That would be a one way in, one way out of the development. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 684 Caitlin Cerza: The Site Access One out of Carolina Beach. I believe it's right in, right out, proposed, but yeah, so it's right in, right only, so no left turns or conflicting movements from the southbound traffic. Chair Rivenbark: Can they use Manassas Road? Caitlin Cerza: I believe so connects through their neighborhood there as well as I believe there's some U- turn bulbs just north and south of there. Chair Rivenbark: Because you wouldn't have everybody coming out, Rose Parks Lane. Caitlin Cerza: I do not believe so. Commissioner Zapple: Just to be clear, Mr. Chair, can I ask another question here? Chair Rivenbark: Yep. Commissioner Zapple: Thank you. Just to be clear here, I think the point I was trying to make that the concept plan shows a new access to the north, which has not been approved yet by the NCDOT, nor does it have a driveway approval or permit as of here. If it were to be denied by the NCDOT, this project would only have one way in and one way out that's being through Manassas Drive. Would you agree with that? Caitlin Cerza: Yes. Commissioner Zapple: Also, there's a conflict in the material we received about the overall trips that this new phase will bring. It says on some of the literature that was just brought up today, 3,025 cars on a daily basis. Yet the material we receive says 3,058 cars. And I know that seems like a small difference, but why are we receiving two different numbers? Caitlin Cerza: I'm honestly I'm not sure. Was it from the I guess I don't know. Was it from our numbers or from the applicants, like their table that they presented? Commissioner Zapple: From our Planning Department is the one that said 3,058 and then there was another document that we received here that came out today. I just happen to know some thought, That's why there seems to be some flexibility in the numbers. I was just trying to sort out if it's changing there is it changing in other areas too? Caitlin Cerza: Not, not that I'm aware of. I think in general, with the proposed of what's been brought forth today has, overall reduced the original, I guess, studied number of trips, and that's kind of more focused on, that those AM and PM peak hour trips Commissioner Zapple: I see, yeah, that is your focus. I know that. Caitlin, thank you. You been incredibly calm under... Caitlin Cerza: Thank you. Vice Chair Pierce: Don’t leave yet, just one more thing. I was actually just looking back because I thought I read this somewhere. The traffic collection date was actually September of ‘21 and December ‘21 even though it was approved in ’22. Caitlin Cerza: Yes. So, every TIA is just... Vice Chair Pierce: So, that was just off of COVID and…. Caitlin Cerza: I would imagine I didn’t work for the WMPO, so I don't know that the exact details of when they were, but I will say that, yeah, part of it, though, too, is the TIA process does involve quite a bit of review period on our end, as well as like kind of dialog between the WMPO, NCDOT, and County staff, as well as with the applicant, just to make sure we're accounting for everything and that their document, you know, the signed, sealed engineering document that TIA kind of meets all of our standards and requests and that we're mitigating any traffic issues. Commissioner Zapple: One follow up thing, yeah, I noted in the information you brought forward that currently, Carolina Beach Road, in that area, right there, is running about 47,145 point in time, WMPO, cars per day, the capacity of Carolina Beach Road is 41,000 so that puts it currently, or back in 2021, I guess when these numbers came, 6,600 cars over capacity, and that was four years ago. Caitlin Cerza: Yes, I believe from the staff report, those numbers were from last year. From… Commissioner Zapple: I see there was an update of that number. Caitlin Cerza: Yes, the WMPO, we collect traffic counts every year, so that that number from the WMPO would have been from last year. I'm not sure on the month, but… NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 685 Commissioner Zapple: But still, 6,000 more than the capacity of the road. And we're proposing putting another 3,000 on the on that road at that point. Just want to make sure that I got the numbers right. Caitlin Cerza: Yes, that’s correct. Commissioner Zapple: Thank you. Chair Rivenbark: I believe the lawyer, Ms. Lee, Commissioner, wanted to say something. Commissioner Zapple: Sure. Corrie Lee: Regarding the differences in the traffic count, I know this has been a question, one point Ms. Pierce and Commissioner Zapple. I think both of you had asked why there was no inclusion of Target as part of these traffic counts. So, and I'm glad to bring up our traffic engineer, Mr. Smith, to testify to this point, that TIAs, they layer on one another, and so the TIA for the Target development layered on top of our existing approval. And so rather than our traffic having to consider theirs, their traffic had to consider the full build out of ours. And so hopefully that provides some helpful information, and then our traffic engineer can speak to the differences in the numbers. In essence, at the initial time of approval, the applicable ITE trip generation manual was the 10th edition, whereas at this point, the appropriate addition to be using is the 11th edition. And so, in order to update our TIA, we had to use the most recent iteration of the ITE trip manual. But to the extent that you have further questions for our traffic engineer, he is here to testify to that matter. Commissioner Zapple: Let me ask you just a basic question. Corrie Lee: Yes, sir. Commissioner Zapple: it's kind of a yes or no, because you're really good at words, Corrie, I mean that. Corrie Lee: Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Commissioner Zapple: Does this current TIA, the numbers we are looking at? Does that include Target? Corrie Lee: Yes, it does. That would be our position, given the fact that Target’s TIA had to layer on top of ours. Yes, we would. We would say the fact that our TIA has been updated in August, that Target’s TIA was approved previous to that update, and that ours has been determined as valid, that all of those TIA is taken together consider the appropriate traffic generation from all of those developments. Commissioner Zapple: Thank you. Michael McCulley: I’d just like to note, I’m not entirely sure how this works, but I feel like the applicant has had quite a bit of speaking time. Chair Rivenbark: Well, this is Board discussion, and we get to ask questions. Michael McCulley: Understood. But I there is multiple things that then said that I could absolutely clarify very quickly. Commissioner Scalise: I’m in favor of allowing you sir, to offer additional comments. I think it’s fair for you to clarify some of those points. But I’m only one of five, we should poll the Board to confirm. Commissioner Zapple: I agree, Commissioner Scalise, there are a lot of dangling threads in my mind, so… Commissioner Walker: I do, too. Commissioner Scalise: So, there you go, sir, you can speak again. Commissioner Walker: Just talk into the mic, if you don’t mind, whenever you do so. Michael McCulley: it was mentioned that you could be authorized to sign on behalf of the owner on this form, expressly states the form must be signed by the owner of record. It's on the form, it's expressed, if James Yopp was not a member, then he couldn't sign as owner, and he's been doing that since 2021 and if you don't think that's an issue, I don't know what to tell you. I will also tell you I have an email from Cheryl, I think, Karen Richardson, the county attorney, where she said that the Planning Department is required not only to see if things, if they have all the information and not check the accuracy. They're also supposed to check the accuracy, and that only makes sense, because these quasi-judicial hearings require a lot of effort, a lot of time, a lot of money. Shouldn't they look a little harder at these things? Okay, and let me think, what else, the folks in Tarin Woods did a road study. Their roads are falling apart, and they're only five years old. They did a study that found that they were made too thin. I have pictures of that. They look like spider webs. So, imagine all additional construction traffic going through there. That's a big deal. Also, this is going to be forcibly annexed into Tarin Woods. The HOA doesn't want it, because they've been dealing with Hoosier Daddy, and they've been having trouble getting common areas maintained. They also, you NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 686 know, let me think what else I could clarify on, and I appreciate you giving me this opportunity. Yeah, I will also mention the new road they're talking about that's, I think, in a later phase. So initially, all that traffic will be coming in and out of Manassas. I don't know when they propose to actually build that road, but one suggestion made at the Planning Board was that it ought to be conditioned to put that road in first and use that road exclusively. That was going to be one of the conditions I asked that you impose if you seriously consider approving. You know. I want to talk about the water. Commissioner Walker: Can I ask a question? Can I ask a question about Manassas? Is it HOA-owned, city, or county? Is it DOT? Michael McCulley: I don’t know. On this main thing, it's 25 feet off of the rear property line, right next to me and my neighbor. Okay, climate change is predicted to create worse and worse storms of precipitation. That area used to be wetlands. They're going to put tons of impervious surface in there. That is a real concern. I wish I could have gotten to more of my arguments about the proposal itself. I suppose that's my own fault. I could give you a written statement that I was reading from, if you have any interest. I probably should have done that right off the bat. I thought I'd be able to get through it. It seems like I did. Some time was spent when I was walking up and when I put my exhibits out. You guys are the ones that decide whether this application was complete. You decided at the last hearing that it was incomplete, even though they said it was so please keep that in mind. Vice Chair Pierce: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Zapple: Another question I'd like, I guess Corrie, maybe you can answer something here. Or Rebekah, you may get here. It's been brought up several times about the overall conceptual plan of the different types of housing that are going in the attached to the multifamily. Corrie Lee: Yes, sir. Commissioner Zapple: And also, I thought it was a good use of using detached housing that would go closest to the areas that where there is the existing neighborhoods there. Yet a plan that was put up here in the one we had received here, there's no detached housing. So, has there been a change in the plan? I just can't find the detached housing. Corrie Lee: I believe this plan is entirely single family attached and some multifamily. So, it's lower density towards the eastern portion of the property that's going to abut the existing single family. But there is no single family detached, as was a part of the previous application. Commissioner Zapple: In our narrative we have here, it includes single family detached so you’re saying that's wrong? Corrie Lee: Not wrong, but that we have the option to modify housing types. As Mr. Farrell mentioned, if, for example, we decide rather than 291 units, we want to build 280 units, and we want to condense some and build single-family on that portion, we have the option to do that, if that’s what the market demands. Is that helpful? Commissioner Zapple: Oh, yeah. Corrie, you explain it is good as always. Although the plan in my mind has changed some from what I had there, the obvious choice you had made somewhere along the line you're shifting from that is using the detached housing up against the existing single family detached housing that's already there. That's no longer the issue. You're now looking at putting attached housing there. Corrie Lee: We are looking at putting attached I believe in our previous application, all of the single family detached were toward the southern portion of the province. The property which abutted to existing single family attached so but it does provide that flexibility within the application. Commissioner Zapple: And you also mentioned in your earlier comments about the benefit of the housing types. Have you established price points? Corrie Lee: Yes, sir. We’re looking in the $300,000 to $500,000 so this really is going to be a diverse housing product with a variety of options within this development area, again, in the hopes of achieving attainability for the market. I mean, as many of you know, there is a housing pricing issue within New Hanover County, so we want to accommodate for that. Commissioner Zapple: Yeah, it’s some expensive housing. Corrie Lee: Yes, sir, and I'm glad to pull up renderings, to the extent that that would help you to visualize some of what we're discussing. Commissioner Zapple: As always, you’ve answered the question, Corrie. Thank you. Corrie Lee: Thank you, Commissioner Zapple. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 687 Commissioner Scalise: Mr. Chair, I’d offer that this might be an appropriate time to close the hearing and move to a vote, in some variety or another. Chair Rivenbark: Everybody good? Chair Rivenbark: Okay, the hearing is now closed. It's time to vote. Anybody want to make a motion? Commissioner Zapple: Mr. Chair. I’d like to make a motion to deny the permit, because the Board finds that the use will materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed for the following reasons: traffic, an incomplete... traffic and overcrowding of schools that will be caused. I know we didn’t talk a lot about it, but it’s clearly an issue in my mind. And also, the application, I guess that would fall under number b or number two, that the use does not meet all required conditions, specifications, that the application is incomplete. That’s my motion. Vice Chair Pierce: Second. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice Chair Pierce to deny the permit because the Board finds that the use does not meet all required condition and specifications for the reasons of traffic, overcrowding of schools, and the application is incomplete. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 3 – 2; Chair Rivenbark and Commissioner Scalise dissenting. A copy of the evidence submitted by the applicant and opponents is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 18.6. The order denying the Special Use Permit and listing the findings of fact is scheduled for approval at the Board’s regular meeting on October 20, 2025. BREAK: Chair Rivenbark called for a five minute break from 5:57 p.m. until 6:10 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Rivenbark stated that 17 individuals had signed up to speak during public comment and invited them to share their remarks. Roger Shew, resident of Park Avenue, Wilmington, NC, thanked the Board for its recent conservation efforts and urged full preservation of Sledge Forest, citing its national ecological significance and vulnerability to flooding and development pressures. He expressed concern about density calculations including wetlands and recommended revisiting the UDO and TRC processes, as well as considering an environmental commission to guide future discussions. Lisa Peck, resident of Tall Oaks Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated her opposition to the proposed 4,000-home Hilton Bluffs development, stating it conflicts with the area’s rural agricultural zoning and would increase traffic, flooding, and environmental risks. She cited local flooding concerns, research on clear-cutting impacts, and a petition with more than 14,000 signatures urging the Board to stop the project. Cindy Sue Gallardo, resident of Springview Drive, Wilmington, NC, urged the Board to protect Sledge Forest and surrounding green spaces. She cited health concerns among nearby firefighters, the area’s environmental and spiritual significance, and called on County leaders to put lives and sustainability before profit. Stephen Axthelm, resident of Sweet Fern Row, Wilmington, NC, spoke about an April 14, 2025 notice of violation issued to developer Wade Miller of Charlotte for unpermitted activity in a flood zone and area of environmental concern. He cited multiple UDO violations and questioned the developer’s credibility, referencing a related WECT report on an unpermitted floating structure. Caroline Conolly, resident of McDougald Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated her concerns about the proposed Hilton Bluffs development, citing the strain it would place on already overcrowded New Hanover County schools. She noted that within ten years, schools are projected to exceed capacity by 11% countywide and 105% in the Castle Hayne area. She urged the Board to consider the long-term impacts of rapid growth, citing the developer’s prior violations and calling for responsible planning that prioritizes existing residents and equitable education for all students. Liam Simms, a resident of Campus Cove in Wilmington, NC, was not present when called to speak. Robin Morgan, resident of North Wright Street, Burgaw, NC, commented on the importance of community assets such as public transit, libraries, forests, and clean air. She urged the Board to protect Sledge Forest as an irreplaceable natural resource, warning that associated growth from the project, including traffic, new schools, and commercial development, would lead to its destruction. Kayne Darrell, resident of Castle Lakes Road, Wilmington, NC, presented a petition with more than 13,000 signatures opposing the Hilton Bluffs development. She urged the Board to stand with residents in protecting Sledge Forest, stating that the community’s health, safety, and environment should take precedence over a developer’s by- right project. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 688 Adrianne Garber, a resident of Red Heart Drive, Wilmington, NC, encouraged the County to partner with the New Hanover Community Endowment to acquire additional green space for parks and recreation. She said parks enhance residents’ health and quality of life and suggested incorporating more green space and fewer high-density developments in the updated comprehensive plan. She also urged the County to consider preserving Sledge Forest if it becomes available for purchase. Kevin Culotta, Coastal Christian High School, Wilmington, NC was not present when called to speak. Robert Parr, resident of Falcon Point Road, Wilmington, NC, expressed opposition to the proposed Hilton Bluffs development, citing major traffic concerns. He said the project’s site plan would generate about 27,000 daily trips and force nearby Castle Hayne neighborhoods to bear unsafe and preventable traffic impacts. Comparing it to Landfall, he noted that well-planned communities connect to multi-lane, signalized roads, while Hilton Bluffs relies on narrow residential streets ill-suited for heavy traffic. th Lyndan Jones, resident of North 19 Street, Wilmington, NC, declined to speak. Andy Wood, representing Coastal Plain Conservation and SaveSledgeForest.org, Hampstead, NC, commended the North Carolina Land and Water Trust Fund for denying Copper Builders’ grant request, calling the proposal misleading and harmful to a nationally significant natural area. He urged the Board to close zoning loopholes that allow unbuildable wetlands to count toward development density and to prioritize long-term conservation over short-term development interests. Wade Miller, founder of Copper Builders, Charlotte, NC, spoke about the Hilton Bluffs project to clarify misconceptions and outline a revised plan. He said the development area is primarily managed timberland, not old- growth forest, and no wetlands would be developed. He stated that more than 60% of the property, about 2,000 acres, would be preserved through third-party conservation and community open space, reducing density and eliminating a planned golf course. He invited the County to partner in the conservation effort. Sam Franck, attorney for Copper Builders, Wilmington, NC, asked the Board to maintain an open dialogue and stated that much of the public concern about the Hilton Bluffs project is based on misinformation. He stated the property is privately owned timberland used for farming and hunting, not old-growth forest or public land, and that the project complies with the UDO’s performance residential subdivision standards, which promote clustered housing with preserved open space. He emphasized that Copper Builders shares the community’s goal of protecting Sledge Forest while developing responsibly within the law. Natalie English, President and CEO of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, Wilmington, NC, expressed support for the Hilton Bluffs project, stating that the community needs more housing near major employers. She stated the development would provide quality homes close to GE Vernova and other job centers, helping the local workforce live near where they work, and noted the developer’s commitment to conserving surrounding property. Robin Wood, representing Cape Fear Audubon, Wilmington, NC, stated his opposition to the Hilton Bluffs project, urging the Board to prioritize long-term environmental protection over short-term financial gain. He stated the project exploits a loophole equating wetland and upland acres, warned that building on the floodplain would worsen flooding and insurance costs, and called for preserving Sledge Forest for the health of the community and its natural heritage. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS There were no additional items of business. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Rivenbark adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kymberleigh G. Crowell Clerk to the Board Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners meeting. The entire proceedings are available online at www.nhcgov.com.