Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-20 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 20, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 742 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met on January 20, 2026, 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 LeAnn Pierce; Vice Chair Dane Scalise; Commissioner Bill Rivenbark; 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 Pastor Mark Tippett, The Refinery Church, provided the invocation, and Vice Chair Scalise led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Pierce requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Rivenbark requested that Consent Agenda Item #5: Approval of Bank Authorization for Live Oak Bank be pulled for further discussion and made a motion to approve the remaining Consent Agenda items. MOTION: Vice Chair Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the remaining Consent Agenda items as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes – Governing Body The Board approved the minutes of the December 11, 2025 Agenda Review and the December 15, 2025 Regular Meeting. Approval of 2026 Appointments of County Commissioners to Various Boards, Commissions, and Committees – Governing Body The Board approved the finalized list of New Hanover County Commissioner appointments to various boards, commissions, and committees for 2026. A copy of the 2026 appointment list is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit XLVII, Page 1.1. Approval of the Order of Approval for Special Use Permit (S25-06) – County Attorney The Board approved the order approving Special Use Permit S25-06 as required by North Carolina General Statute 160D-406. The order approving Special Use Permit (S25-06) is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and the listing of the findings of fact is contained in SUP Book IV, Page 105. Approval of New Hanover County Monthly Collection Report for November 2025 – Tax The Board approved the November 2025 tax collection reports for New Hanover County, New Hanover County Debt Service, and New Hanover County Fire District. The tax collection reports are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 1.2. 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: HHS – Social Services: 26-024 STAR Capital Project: 26-025 The budget amendments are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 1.3. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Award of Bid for the Purchase of Two (2) 2026 Chevrolet Tahoes to Modern Chevrolet for $107,814 – Finance The Board adopted a resolution approving the award of the bid to Modern Chevrolet for the purchase of two (2) Chevrolet Tahoes in the amount of $107,814. The resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 1.4. Discussion on Consent Agenda Item #5: Approval of Bank Authorization for Live Oak Bank – Finance NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 20, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 743 Commissioner Rivenbark stated he is not supportive of the matter. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction. MOTION: Vice Chair Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Walker to approve Consent Agenda Item #5: Approval of Bank Authorization for Live Oak Bank, an entity authorization for Live Oak Bank, a Wilmington-based commercial bank. The Board’s approval of this authorization will provide the County with another option for banking services and allow the County to diversify its cash balances. All deposits held at the bank will be FDIC-insured and/or subject to the North Carolina Treasurer Office’s collateral requirements. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 1; Commissioner Rivenbark dissenting. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF NATIONAL DAY OF RACIAL HEALING PROCLAMATION Commissioner Rivenbark read the resolution into the record, recognizing Tuesday, January 20, 2026, as “National Day of Racial Healing” in New Hanover County. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Walker to adopt the resolution recognizing Tuesday, January 20, 2026, as “National Day of Racial Healing” in New Hanover County. Commissioner Walker thanked the members of the New Hanover County African American History, Heritage, and Culture Commission for their service. Vice Chair Scalise stated he had a substitute motion as he opposes the proclamation being presented, noting that he also spoke against it when it was introduced last year. He explained that the proclamation originated with the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and expressed concern about the County adopting proclamations developed by external political advocacy organizations with no local presence. While he stated that some elements of the proclamation were not objectionable, he disagreed with the broader worldview associated with the originating organization. He asserted that it is not the proper role of county government to endorse such proclamations. He emphasized that the Board should remain focused on its core statutory responsibilities, including the delivery of public services. He then proposed a substitute proclamation, drafted by him, affirming individual dignity and respect, and read the proposed substitute into the record. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Chair Scalise MOVED to adopt the following substitute proclamation: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION AFFIRMING DIGNITY AND RESPECT FOR “WE THE PEOPLE” WHEREAS, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners affirms that WE THE PEOPLE of the United States have inherent value, regardless of race, religion, or creed; and WHEREAS, dignity and respect are not granted to WE THE PEOPLE by government but are the unalienable rights of every such person; and WHEREAS, the ultimate recognition of human dignity and respect lies in honoring the unique worth and value of each individual member of WE THE PEOPLE; and WHEREAS, WE THE PEOPLE, both as individuals and as fellow citizens, deserve dignity and respect regardless of immutable characteristics. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, that New Hanover County supports, recognizes, and affirms the dignity and respect due to WE THE PEOPLE and encourages all of its citizens to live in harmony together, because our strength comes from a shared commitment to each other and this Great County and Country we call our home. Discussion ensued about the matter. Commissioner Zapple stated that the proclamation read by Commissioner Rivenbark was brought forward by a County-appointed committee and reflected the values of New Hanover County citizens, and that it did not originate from or involve the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Vice Chair Scalise questioned that assertion, noting that the W.K. Kellogg Foundation created the National Day of Racial Healing and that similar proclamations had been proposed nationally through that organization. Commissioner Zapple responded that there had been no communication between the Foundation and the Board and that the Board was considering a locally developed proclamation submitted by its committee. Vice Chair Scalise stated that he had a philosophical disagreement with the proclamation and offered an alternate version based on constitutional principles, explaining that his intent was to express his perspective to the public while acknowledging that his position was unlikely to prevail. Commissioner Walker stated she had served on the Commission when the initiative began and was unfamiliar with the Kellogg Institute. She stated the Commission’s work then and now addressed local community matters. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce asked if there was a second to the substitute motion. With no second being received, the MOTION FAILED FOR A LACK OF A SECOND. Chair Pierce then asked for Board direction on the original motion. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 4 TO 1; Vice Chair Scalise dissenting. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 20, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 744 Nadira Nash, Chair of the New Hanover County Commission on African American History, Heritage and Culture, thanked the Commissioners for the adoption of the proclamation. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 1.5. PRESENTATION OF CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY (CFPUA) ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2025 CFPUA Executive Director Ken Waldroup presented the CFPUA 2025 annual report as follows:  Year in Review:  May: The CFPUA Board approved the organization’s Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) operating budget, which totals $129.35 million, a 7.8 percent increase over the FY25 budget  August: UNCW’s Cameron School of Business’ Executive MBA International Residency presented its findings to the CFPUA Board. The project, in partnership with the University of Surrey, UK, studied CFPUA’s business practices during a summer residency.  September: The Utility Consolidation between CFPUA and the Town of Wrightsville Beach went into effect, with the Town’s 2,800 water and sewer customers becoming CFPUA customers  October: CFPUA received the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) 2025 Platinum Award for Utility Excellence  November: CFPUA broke ground on the Southside expansion and replacement project  Serving CFPUA customers:  Infrastructure conveyed: $14,155,492  Water meters installed: 1,147  Rate affordability: 1.63% of median household income (MHI):  Brunswick County: 2.03%  Fayetteville PWC: 2.45%  Onslow County: 2.56%  Source: NC Water and Wastewater rates affordability dashboard  Wrightsville Beach consolidation:  Consolidation in effect as of September 30, 2025  Completed after years of negotiations between CFPUA and the Town of Wrightsville Beach (TOWB), as well as approvals from the Local Government Commission (LGC), the City of Wilmington, and New Hanover County  Consolidation designed to pay for itself, with long-term savings for TOWB customers:  State’s 2023 Appropriations Act: $17 million to CFPUA for regional consolidation; $8 million to TOWB for consolidation  Significant improvements to aging infrastructure in the TOWB, with over $23.5 million in planned investments  November: Work begins on Intracoastal Waterway Crossing Project for redundant water and sewer lines  Southside replacement:  Ground broken: November 14, 2025  Southside will be fully replaced with an expanded, modernized plant  Wastewater treatment capacity increased from 12 to 16 MGD  The new plant will be built above the 500-year floodplain, decreasing the risk of inundation and storm damage  Adding Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) treatment technology, already in use at the Northside Plant  Total project costs: $400 million  AMWA Platinum:  CFPUA wins 2025 AMWA Platinum Award  Based on the Ten Attributes of Effective Utility Management and the Keys to Management Success in the Effective Utility Management Primer  Awarded just three years after CFPUA won AMWA Gold  Other recent winners: Orange County Water District (California), Seattle Public Utilities, Houston Water  Other major projects:  Parallel Raw Water Main:  What: Installing 10 miles of a 54-inch raw water main parallel to the existing 48-inch raw water main to provide security of supply and additional water capacity for future growth  Project timeline: February 2023 - May 2027  Cost: $60.2 million, costs shared between Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (LCFWASA), CFPUA, Pender County, and industrial customers on US 421  Bayshore area water main interconnections project:  What: This design-build project will extend 16-inch water mains through the Bayshore area to increase connectivity between the Richardson Water Treatment Plant and the Porters Neck elevated tanks  Project Timeline: October 8, 2025 - December 2027 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 20, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 745  Cost: $12 million  Finances: In response to questions, Mr. Waldroup explained that CFPUA follows a long-standing policy that growth pays for growth through system development charges and through water and sewer line extensions funded by the development community and dedicated to the utility. He reported that in the current year, $14,155,492 in infrastructure had been provided to customers, nearly $3 million more than the prior year. He stated that CFPUA currently maintains slightly over 80,000 water and sewer meters, approximately 76,000 of which are active and billed monthly. Addressing concerns about upstream contamination, Mr. Waldroup stated that CFPUA has installed some of the most advanced water treatment technologies in the nation, including granular activated carbon filtration, biologically active filters, and ultraviolet disinfection. He reported that the utility has spent nearly $90 million since 2017 to address contamination issues and continues to pursue responsible parties through litigation. He emphasized that customers can be assured their water is safe at the tap and that the utility remains committed to holding polluters accountable rather than placing that burden on ratepayers. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce thanked Mr. Waldroup for the presentation. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY JONATHAN WASHBURN, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF JOSEPH BURKE “BURKE” FREEDLAND WITH HBD PARTNERS AND DOROTHY “DOTTY” FREEDLAND WITH MARKET STREET PARTNERS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR THE USE OF CAMPGROUND / RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) PARK IN A R-15, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 27.32 ACRES LOCATED AT THE 8600 BLOCK OF STEPHENS CHURCH ROAD (S25-05 – BIG APPLE RV PARK) Chair Pierce stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and before the hearing is opened, the deputy county attorney will provide an overview of the hearing procedures. Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards stated that there are four criteria or elements that must be stated clearly on the record when a decision is made on this matter: 1) will this project materially endanger public health or safety, 2) does the project meet all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance, 3) will this project substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, and 4) will the project be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan for New Hanover County. Staff has compiled information in the staff report that may or may not support these criteria. However the Board decides, it must state on the record the reasons why the application does or does not meet the four criteria. If the Board determines that any one of the criteria cannot be met based on the evidence, that alone may serve as the basis for denial; the Board is not required to find more than one. The Board has the authority to determine whether the application should be approved or denied based solely on the competent, material evidence presented at today’s hearing. Although the Planning Board did not hear from the public when this item was previously considered, the Board may impose any conditions on the SUP it deems appropriate for the project as presented. Deputy County Attorney Richards requested that any individuals wishing to testify tonight approach the podium to be sworn in by the Clerk. Chair Pierce opened the public hearing and announced that because the SUP process requires a quasi- judicial hearing, anyone wishing to testify must be sworn in. She asked that all people who signed in to speak and wish to present competent and material testimony please step forward to be sworn in. Amy Doss Galen Jamison Caitlin Cerza Burke Freedland Jim Chandler Robert Farrell Rebekah Roth Jonathan Washburn Doty Freeland John Wall Chair Pierce further stated that a presentation will be heard from staff, then the applicant and any opponents will each be allowed fifteen minutes for their presentations, followed by an additional five minutes for rebuttal. She asked Mr. Beil to provide the staff presentation. Development Review Planner Amy Doss presented the staff report, stating this is a Special Use Permit for an RV campground in an R-15 district. As can be seen by the aerial imagery, the properties are vacant and located NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 20, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 746 off Stephens Church Road with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) conservation land to the southwest. The parcels were originally zoned R-15 in 1972. There is R-15 zoning to the north and west, CZD Office and Institutional to the east, and a highway to the south. The site has full access onto Stephens Church Road, which is located off Market Street. The County’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) contains standards pertaining to minimum space sizes, setbacks, requirements for open space, and facilities in Section 4.3.4.E.2. Upon entering the RV park on the one-way lane, the manager’s office is on the right, along with parking. Next is the pool. Ms. Doss noted the location of the amenity center and parking on the site, as well as the required open space. The proposed stormwater is located on the southern boundary of the property, utilizing the existing pond. Continuing through the RV park, there are protected wetlands, and a sewage dumping station located near the exit. A Type A 20-foot-wide transitional buffer is required to be adjacent to the residentially zoned property along the northern and western boundaries. The applicant has satisfied parking requirements. The applicant has proposed one condition that the park have a 50-foot wide tree retention buffer along all property boundaries. The 50-foot tree retention buffer is intended to protect all trees located within 50 feet of the property line to preserve the natural aesthetic and character of the RV park. No trees within this buffer will be cut down. The project is not estimated to generate more than 100 AM and PM peak hour trips, which does not trigger the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). This proposed development would result in a decrease in estimated traffic compared to what could be developed by-right on this lot under its current zoning. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan) designates this property as Community Mixed Use, which encourages recreational and commercial uses. The applicant has proposed a condition to retain an undisturbed tree save area within the area labeled as a 50-foot-wide existing tree retention buffer along all property lines, as shown on the site plan. Ms. Doss stated that as a reminder, when the Board of Commissioners evaluates the request for approval during the quasi-judicial hearing, they must determine that the following four conditions are met:  The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved;  The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO);  The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or the use is a 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 for New Hanover County. Staff have 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 public hearing. The compiled facts may or may not support the Board’s ultimate conclusion:  Findings for conclusion 1 address: Connection to public water and sewer, fire service, access, the capacity of Market Street, parks, and conservation resources.  Findings for conclusion 2 address: existing zoning, building height, number of spaces and standards related to the spaces, drainage, road design, bathroom facilities, swimming pool regulations, water and sewer, open space, fire hydrants, refuse, and maintenance of a register in the park office.  Findings for conclusion 3 address: existing conditions and impacts to nearby land uses.  Findings for conclusion 4 also includes existing conditions, and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Doss concluded the staff presentation by stating that staff have received no public comments. Chair Pierce opened the floor to Board questions. In response to questions from Commissioner Zapple, Ms. Doss explained that the “8B” notation in the zoning designation refers to the original zoning map and identifies the map area; if the map is amended, that designation would be reflected accordingly. Addressing the discrepancy in the staff summary regarding allowable dwelling units, staff acknowledged that the reference to 108 units was a typographical error. Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth confirmed that the traffic generation analysis was based on the correct figure and that the accurate number of potential single-family dwelling units under the current zoning is 79, as shown in the traffic generation chart. Chair Pierce thanked Ms. Doss for the staff presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Jonathan Washburn, applicant, on behalf of Joseph Burke “Burke” Freedland with HBD Partners and Dorothy “Dotty” Freedland with Market Street Partners, LLC, property owners, stated that the property is called the “Big Apple.” He stated that it is near Lowe’s Home Improvement in the Porters Neck area and that it includes a pond. He stated that it is right across I-140 and that there is a little bit of increased size and expansion. He stated that none of the boundaries currently have any occupancy and that they are vacant land. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 20, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 747 Mr. Washburn presented the site plan and stated that he would discuss it in more detail. He stated that it is a 27-acre tract of land and that 89 sites are planned. He stated that the criteria for an RV resort would allow far more than that and that more than 200 sites could be developed on 27 acres, but that this was not the intent. He stated that wetlands areas were highlighted and that upland areas were also identified. He stated that wetlands were shown in yellow and uplands in green. He stated that no wetlands mitigation was proposed and that they were not trying to maximize development. He stated that wetlands were intended to remain as an amenity. Mr. Washburn stated that less than one-tenth of an acre of wetlands would be impacted because a road crosses the wetlands. He stated that all roads would be one-way to take up as little land as possible, except for one area at the end of the site that would be two-way because of the possibility of connecting to a neighboring property and for other design reasons. Mr. Washburn stated that the property is zoned R-15 and showed the zoning map. He stated that the property is designated Community Mixed Use, which allows a special use permit. He presented a map showing development applications in the area and stated that one neighboring property had not made an application but had investigated several options. He stated that he had spoken with that property owner and anticipated working with them if helpful. The proximity of water and sewer lines was important, and he has already spoken with CFPUA. He stated that everything was expected to work fine and that one or two lift stations might be needed. Mr. Washburn stated that the project is an RV resort and not a mobile home park. He stated that he could estimate operating costs and potential revenue, but could not estimate how many people would come because that depends on whether the project is desirable. He stated that the location allows travel from California, New York, and Florida on divided highways until turning onto Stephens Church Road, and that RVs would not travel through residential neighborhoods before reaching the site. Mr. Washburn stated that there is variation in RV parks and that the Planning Board asked him to identify other RV parks. He stated that many RV parks exist, but not many in this area. He identified parks in Nevada, Myrtle Beach, Asheville, Wilmington, Carolina Beach, Snow’s Cut, One Tree Hill, and Bolivia. He stated that the site is well located and that proximity to beaches, amenities, and attractions would be a marketing tool. Mr. Washburn stated that the special use permit requires four conditions to be met. He stated that the first condition is whether the project would endanger public health or safety, considering traffic, utilities, soil erosion, and sedimentation. He stated that a four-acre pond would be used for stormwater retention and that swimming would no longer be appropriate, although canoeing and kayaking might occur. He stated that the project would be constructed so that there would be no detrimental impact on water quality or safety. The second condition is whether the project meets the requirements of the UDO. He stated that Timmons prepared the site design and provided technical information. He stated that he could not repeat all of it, but that staff had reviewed the project and indicated that it met the requirements. The third condition is whether the project would injure the value of adjoining property. He stated that it could enhance the value of adjoining properties, which are becoming desirable, but may be subject to wetlands-related development restrictions. He stated that he had not heard from anyone who was concerned that it would hurt them. He stated that a 50-foot buffer would be provided and that no adjoining properties are currently occupied. The fourth condition is whether the project is in harmony with the area. He stated that the project would blend in and would add to the mix of compatible uses. He stated that it could support nearby businesses, tourism, and activity. He stated that the four-acre pond is adjacent to a 20-acre NCDOT parcel subject to restrictive use and that the I-140 access ramp is on the other side. He stated that these features limit development in those directions. He concluded by identifying members of the ownership group and stating that Ms. Dotty Freedland would be the decision-maker if disputes arose. He then asked Ms. Freedland and Burke Freedland to provide any additional comments. Ms. Freedland stated that her husband, Irv Freedland, and she have been involved and have worked with Jonathan for many, many years on investments and also as an attorney, a friend, and a partner. This particular site has been nurtured for more than a decade. Irv died suddenly in June 2024, and she knows Irv would want to continue with the vision he had for this RV resort site at Stephens Church Road. So that is the plan. They want to create the finest example of natural design possible for New Hanover County and coastal North Carolina. This project is an investment, but it is also a memorial, or monument, to Irv. He was born and raised in Wilmington. His family had a business on Castle Street, and his grandfather did as well. Irv took a lot of pride in being from Wilmington. Burke Freedland stated he is the middle of three sons of Ms. Freedland. He stated that he has known Mr. Washburn since he was born, as long as he can remember, and many times he remembers him coming over to the house and talking about real estate projects with his dad. His dad always enjoyed working with Mr. Washburn. He talked about when they first met and started doing deals together in Wilmington, and he was always excited to work with him, but nothing really got him as excited as this project. He stated that he witnessed that firsthand. It’s something that his dad involved the entire family in, and he and Mr. Washburn spent a lot of time thinking about the project and building the vision. They spent time out at the site. The selfies that were shown by Mr. Washburn were just a few of the thousands that he and his dad took out there, and Mr. Washburn would send them to everyone when they went out to the site. They are really excited about the project and are here to do something high quality. His dad always said, “If you’re going to do something, do it right the first time,’ and that’s certainly what they intend to do.” Mr. Freedland stated that his dad passed, unfortunately, about a year and a half ago, but it’s something that NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 20, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 748 they have taken responsibility for. They feel like it was his vision, and they want to see it through. He concluded by stating that he shares the same passion that his dad had for real estate, so he is here for the project for the long haul. They are the owners, not sellers. He hopes the Board can see the vision that they do. Chair Pierce thanked Mr. Washburn for the applicant presentation, stated no one signed up to speak in favor nor in opposition, and opened the floor to Board discussion and to ask staff questions. In response to Commissioner Zapple’s questions about the traffic counts, Mr. Washburn stated he cannot really speak to a future traffic count. There is no known development plan for Stephens Church Road that has been submitted or reviewed that he is aware of, other than the current plan and this project. There is also a subdivision that has been underway. At Commissioner Zapple’s request, Ms. Doss added clarification that in the packet information, the left column is Stephens Church Road, and those capacities are not available. The right column is Market Street; however, there is a page break, and she believes the numbers referenced are for Market Street. In response to Commissioner Zapple’s questions about parking, Mr. Washburn stated that there will be assigned places for parking beside each of the annex buildings. The people who are there will have parking for their own location, so they’ll park their RV and then park their other vehicle beside it. The two bathroom areas, which will be called Grand Central, will have additional parking spaces for visitors. He is hoping to attract more people to some events and may want to put more parking in, because he might want to have a square dance night and let neighbors bring visitors. So they might want more parking. They have plenty of uplands, non-wetlands area where they can add additional parking, but they don’t want to put a bunch of impervious surface, so they’ll figure that out. But they have the required number of parking spaces and may have to add more if needed. While he does not have the information available, he thinks each of the buildings has eight visitor spaces, and there are a couple of spaces, maybe four, by the bathrooms. Most of the residents will be walking to those bathrooms and other areas. So they’re probably going to have eight, eight, and four, so 24, but he can’t tell Commissioner Zapple the exact number. There’s the parking area up by the amenity at the end of the T, and the parking area there by the Grand Central. He thinks it’s about 24. He has counted it before, and he believes that’s right. But it can go up. It won’t go down, but it can go up. In response to Commissioner Zapple’s questions about the driveways, Mr. Washburn stated that John Wall with the Timmons Group could provide answers, but it has been discussed having one driving and then having another exit ramp, and he wanted it one way. He does not want RVs competing with each other. With the wetland situation, they put it at a site that seemed to be appropriate. It could have certainly been moved farther down. At one point, he asked if they could join up with the entrance road across the street, but they did not want a big traffic jam. John Wall, a professional engineer with the Timmons group, stated there was a reason for the separation. They were trying to avoid as many impacts on wetlands as possible and trying not to compete with other entrances. They will have to get NCDOT driveway permits, and they will adhere to all the conditions of it. Jim Chandler with Timmons Group added that they are preliminary with NCDOT for the driveway permit. What would be required, NCDOT does allow a modified island with one driveway. They could configure it as one driveway with 26-foot lanes on either side, island-divided, so that could be a solution. One in and out. They are not opposed. They can get a permit to cross the wetlands if needed. They are trying to avoid additional impacts to environmentally sensitive issues. However, if NCDOT had a concern and wanted to make it two and separate them, he thinks they can make that work. They would just have to get additional permitting from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As to the turning radius, they have run some templates on the typical vehicles that would be seen and are not foreseeing any issues. They can work with the client on vehicles once the client knows more about what to assume as they definitely do not want to create situations. At this stage of the design, Mr. Chandler feels that, based on everything that has been given to the Timmons Group, it looks like it should work fine. In response to Commissioner Zapple’s questions about the entrance and signage, Cailtin Cerza, transportation planning engineer with the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO), stated that the WMPO has looked at it, and she spoke to NCDOT this morning about it. She raised some of those similar safety concerns that were shared in the public comments and whatnot, so they are aware. She does not think that there are concerns at this time. She thinks, with some different conditions as well, that it definitely can be done, and they didn’t have any kind of immediate reaction to say no or anything like that. She thinks there is an additional entrance off Stephens Church Road about a half mile further north as well. That would provide an additional option for larger vehicles to turn right to go southbound on Market Street. As to signage, she knows that, as a NCDOT road, signage is something NCDOT pretty regularly tries to evaluate to eliminate any confusion and potential traffic conflicts or turning conflicts anywhere on the roadway. She doesn’t have any specific plans, but she does know that it is something NCDOT regularly takes into consideration during driveway permits, as well as when they receive complaints or anything like that. In response to Commissioner Zapple’s questions about the length of stay, Mr. Washburn stated that there may not be a maximum length of stay in what is currently proposed, but they are planning a 30-day max, well, 31 if it’s a month stay, will be their maximum. He has talked to other RV people, and they have started going for these year-long leases. That is not what they’re after. They stay for a month-long visit and then go to Martha’s Vineyard and come back here next year, that kind of thing. That’s what they’re looking for, and they would be willing to impose that. In fact, there’s a new one he just saw that made a great plan. They have a 30-day, or one-month stay. That is their plan. It could even be imposed as a condition. As to there being a rule about how long RVs have to be away before returning for another 30-day stay, he is not sure that RV resorts that do that make that the condition. He thinks the main condition for wanting somebody to have a 30-day maximum is that they don’t want visitors to put NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 20, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 749 the clothesline and their picnic table; the facility will have a picnic table, but they don’t want them to move in with all their outdoor accessories and stuff. It is a temporary stay. They cannot start fixing it up like it’s their trailer home. And if they have to move out, they move out and come back, but not to that spot. They don’t want stuff anchored in. They’re bringing their concrete steps and stuff. That’s not what they’re after. They’re after RVs like Don Madden and his Class A bus, that’s what they’re looking for. If language is imposed, and they would honor that, but he hadn’t planned on doing that, because he knows that some people, his goal is to not have a moved-in and anchored-in spot. He doesn’t want any permanent residency. If someone wants to come there and they need to stay another month because their grandkids just got something, they’ve got to move somewhere else. They’re not making it a permanent residence. But if there are some other requirements stricter than that, it’s not going to interfere with what the general concept is. He is not opposed to the condition that if the Board going to do it, a straight-out condition, maybe 30-day stay in one site and followed by a 30-day stay at another. But that’s going to be so rare. It’s not going to bother him if the Board doesn’t do it. It’s rare that somebody asks for a special situation, and he doesn’t expect it to be common. So, either condition is fine. Mr. Washburn added that he is going to be moving into the manager’s apartment on the top half of Grand Central Station. He retired from law. He’s going to be living out there. He’s going to be on site. He’s not necessarily going to sit at the front desk, but yes, he is going to be out there. Commissioner Rivenbark added that he was thinking all the RV parks that he sees don’t have any special turning. The KOA location on Carolina Beach is just a road. In response to Commissioner Walker’s questions about using the stormwater pond for recreation, Mr. Washburn stated that he absolutely hopes to have kayaks, and he absolutely hopes to have little electric remote- control boats so they can go out there and play with them. He absolutely wants to allow people to enjoy that as an amenity, but he doesn’t want them swimming in it. As a matter of fact, his younger brother said, ‘Jonathan, there’s no body of water in North Carolina that doesn’t have a snake in it or an alligator.’ He doesn’t want to swim in it, and he swims a lot, but he does want to go boating. Galen Jamison, chief project engineer with County Engineering, stated that his research with the NC Department of Environmental Quality does not say anything directly related to recreational facilities and activities in stormwater control measures, such as a wet pond. The ponds are intended to treat nutrients, remove nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen, E. coli, and some other large, 75-cent words, but generally, water treatment systems are not intended for recreational use. As to whether there is a specific law against it, Mr. Jamison stated he was unable to find anything against it in the general statutes and via reaching out to the NC Department of Environmental Quality. In response to Chair Pierce’s questions about posting “No Swimming” signage, Mr. Washburn stated that they will probably have no swimming if it turns out to be not changed, and that’s their water storage area, so they will post no-swimming signs if it’s not going to be swimming. He will also immediately say, "Let’s not have any boating" if it turns out there are any health effects. But he had sort of assumed that, since there was no restriction against it, that it would be a nice place to go out there on a summer afternoon. And he is kind of looking forward to it, sure. In response to Commissioner Walker’s further questions about the stormwater pond, Mr. Washburn stated he is anti-fishing. Just start there. The hooks end up in the water, the lines end up in the water, and the bait ends up all over the shore. He’d soon not have it. He’s already told everybody that, but he’s not sure he’s won them over. But he’s not going to see a lot of fishing out there. As to boating, he thinks the pond just wants him to come boating on it. But cleanliness is going to have to be constantly evaluated. Things may change, but right now it seems to be clean, and even with stormwater, it should be okay for boating. Ms. Roth added that just to clarify, staff did check with Environmental Health about whether or not there would be any concerns. What they specifically said was that swimming would be an issue. So based on staff’s understanding, the health risks may not be there for other types of recreational uses, maybe liability issues, maybe other types of safety considerations, but nothing from an Environmental Health standpoint that they provided to staff. If it’s amenable to the applicant to have some sort of signage posted, that would be something that would be easy for the department to check on as part of the site plan review process. Mr. Washburn added that he already wanted no-fishing signs out there. So, to say they are required would be easier on him. And if it’s no swimming, that’s, he wouldn’t. He swam in college. He doesn’t want to swim in that pond. He has walked two feet in, and that’s as far as he wanted to go. There are alligators right there, he is sure. He has never seen one. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce closed the public hearing and asked for Board direction. Motion: Vice Chair Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Chair Pierce to approve the permit as the Board finds that this application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Report and additional evidence presented at the public hearing with the following conditions:  No stay longer than 31 days;  No swimming in the water;  No fishing in the water; and  Approval is subject to the applicant signing an agreement acknowledging the applicant’s consent to all of the following conditions agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant does not provide a signed agreement within seven (7) business days from the date of approval, then the special use permit is considered denied. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 20, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 750 A copy of the evidence submitted by the applicant is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 1.6. The order approving the Special Use Permit and listing the findings of fact is scheduled for approval at the Board’s regular meeting on February 16, 2026. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Appointments to the New Hanover County Adult Home Care Community Advisory Committee Chair Pierce reported that two vacancies exist on the New Hanover County Adult Home Care Community Advisory Committee, with one applicant eligible for reappointment and one applicant available for consideration. Commissioner Zapple nominated Annamarie Atwood for reappointment and Anne Banks for appointment, seconded by Vice Chair Scalise. Hearing no further nominations, Chair Pierce asked for a vote on the nomination on the floor. Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to reappoint Annamarie Atwood to the New Hanover County Adult Home Care Community Advisory Committee for a three-year term, with the term to expire January 31, 2029 and to appoint Anne Banks to the New Hanover County Adult Home Care Community Advisory Committee for an initial one-year term, with the term to expire January 31, 2027. Appointments to the New Hanover County Cooperative Extension Advisory Council Chair Pierce reported that two vacancies exist on the New Hanover County Cooperative Extension Advisory Council, with two applicants available for consideration. Commissioner Zapple nominated Katrina Harris and Michael Taylor for appointment, seconded by Vice Chair Scalise. Hearing no further nominations, Chair Pierce asked for a vote on the nominations on the floor. Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to appoint Katrina Harris and Michael Taylor to the New Hanover County Cooperative Extension Advisory Council for three-year terms, with the terms expiring on December 1, 2028. Appointment to the New Hanover County Health and Human Services Board Chair Pierce reported that a vacancy exists on the New Hanover County Health and Human Services Board in the Licensed Nurse Category. One application has been received and is available for consideration. Commissioner Zapple nominated Roberto Ramirez for an appointment in the Licensed Nurse category, seconded by Vice Chair Scalise. Hearing no further nominations, Chair Pierce asked for a vote on the nomination on the floor. Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to appoint Roberto Ramirez to the New Hanover County Health and Human Services Board in the Licensed Nurse category to serve an unexpired term, with the term to expire July 31, 2027. Appointments to the New Hanover County Hispanic-Latino Commission Chair Pierce reported that two vacancies exist on the New Hanover County Hispanic-Latino Commission, with six applicants available for consideration. Commissioner Zapple nominated Loreanne Jacob and Maria Vandebovenkamp for appointment, seconded by Vice Chair Scalise. Hearing no further nominations, Chair Pierce asked for a vote on the nominations on the floor. Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to appoint Loreanne Jacob and Maria Vandebovenkamp to the New Hanover County Hispanic-Latino Commission to fill unexpired terms, with the terms expiring on April 30, 2027. Appointment to the New Hanover County Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee Chair Pierce reported that one vacancy exists on the New Hanover County Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee, and one application is eligible for appointment. Commissioner Zapple nominated William Harden for appointment, seconded by Vice Chair Scalise. Hearing no further nominations, Chair Pierce asked for a vote on the nomination on the floor. Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to appoint William Harden for an initial one-year term, with the term expiring January 31, 2027. Parks Conservancy of New Hanover County, Inc. Board of Directors Chair Pierce reported that a vacancy exists on the Parks Conservancy of New Hanover County, Inc. Board of NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 JANUARY 20, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 751 Directors with five applications available for consideration. Vice Chair Scalise nominated Lo DeWalt for appointment, seconded by Chair Pierce. Hearing no further nominations, Chair Pierce asked for a vote on the nomination on the floor. Vote Results: The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to appoint Lo DeWalt to the Parks Conservancy of New Hanover County, Inc. Board of Directors to serve an unexpired term, with the term to expire June 30, 2028. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Pierce stated that no one was present to speak during public comment. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS In response to questions, County Manager Coudriet reported that staff will be meeting with Emergency Management toward the end of the week to get a more detailed weather assessment, which will be shared with the Board, the organization, and the community closer to the weekend. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Pierce adjourned the meeting at 5:24 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.