Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-06 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 816 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met on April 6, 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 D. Evan Grizzle, Apostolic Tabernacle Wilmington, provided the invocation, and Commissioner Walker 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. Vice Chair Scalise requested that Consent Agenda Item #6: Adoption of Resolution Supporting State Funding for Road Improvements be pulled for further discussion. Chair Pierce requested that Consent Agenda Item #12b: Adoption of Local News Day Proclamation be pulled for further discussion. MOTION: Chair Pierce MOVED, SECONDED by Vice Chair Scalise 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 March 10, 2026 Special Meeting, the March 12, 2026 Agenda Review and Budget Work Session, and the March 16, 2026 Regular Meeting. Approval of the Order of Approval for Special Use Permit (S25-07) – County Attorney The Board approved the order for Special Use Permit (S25-07) in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 160D-406. The quasi-judicial hearing was conducted and voted on February 16, 2026. The order approving Special Use Permit (S25-07) is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and the listing of the findings of fact is contained in SUP Book V, Page 2. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Opioid Litigation Settlement – County Attorney The Board adopted a resolution approving the opioid litigation settlement and authorized the County manager or county attorney to execute any documents necessary to participate in the settlement. These settlement funds would be used only for approved opioid remediation activities but, because the state of North Carolina is not participating in this settlement, would not be subject to the North Carolina Opioid Memorandum of Agreement. The resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 4.1. Second Reading: Approval of Solid Waste Franchise Agreement for Waste Industries LLC DBA GFL Environmental – County Attorney The Board approved the second reading to authorize the issuance of a solid waste franchise agreement to Waste Industries LLC DBA GFL Environmental. A copy of the franchise agreement is on file in the legal department. Second Reading: Approval of Solid Waste Franchise Agreement for 2940 Capital LLC DBA Vavia Dumpster Rental Wilmington – County Attorney The Board approved the second reading to authorize the issuance of a solid waste franchise agreement to 2940 Capital LLC DBA Vavia Dumpster Rental Wilmington. A copy of the franchise agreement is on file in the legal department. Adoption of Fair Housing Proclamation – CDBG-I Funding Compliance Requirement – Planning and Land Use The Board adopted the proclamation designating April as Fair Housing Month in support of New Hanover County’s compliance obligations under the Community Development Block Grant – Infrastructure Program grant awarded for the Scotts Hill Water Main Extension project. The proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 4.3. Adoption of National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week Proclamation – County Manager The Board adopted a proclamation recognizing April 12 - 18, 2026 as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week in New Hanover County. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 817 The proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 4.4. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Transfer of Property: “Wilmington Waterfront Model” to Battleship North Carolina – Museum The Board adopted a resolution approving the transfer of property, the diorama “Wilmington Waterfront Model”, to the Battleship NORTH CAROLINA. The resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 4.5. Approval of (1) Donation for Accession into the Museum’s Permanent Collection – Museum The Board approved the donation of the Greater Sports Hall of Fame collection to the Cape Fear Museum’s permanent collection. Approval of the February 2026 Tax Collection Reports – Tax The Board approved the February 2026 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 4.6. Adoption of Budget Amendment – Finance The Board adopted budget amendment (BA) 26-036, amending prior BAs 26-034 and 26-035 to appropriate an additional $16,901 in overtime reimbursement revenue from the FBI Task Force and U.S. Marshals Service Task Force for July through December 2025. The budget amendment is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 4.7. Adoption of Resolution Recognizing the Efforts of The Greater Wilmington Chamber Foundation through the Leadership Wilmington Program – Governing Body The Board adopted the resolution recognizing the efforts of The Greater Wilmington Chamber Foundation through the Leadership Wilmington Program. The resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 4.9. Discussion and Adoption of Resolution Supporting State Funding for Road Improvements – County Manager In response to Vice Chair Scalise’s request to provide an overview of the request, District Traffic Engineer Stoney Mathis with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) explained the proposal for the intersection of Myrtle Grove Road, Masonboro Loop Road, and Grissom Road, including signalization and a left-turn lane from Masonboro Loop Road onto Myrtle Grove Road. It also includes signalization at the existing Piner Road and Grissom Road intersection. In response to questions, he confirmed that state funding is available to move forward with these improvements. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce asked for Board direction. MOTION: Vice Chair Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve Consent Agenda Item #6: Adoption of Resolution Supporting State Funding for Road Improvements as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 4.2. Discussion and Adoption of Local News Day Proclamation – Governing Body Chair Pierce read the proclamation recognizing April 9, 2026 as Local News Day in New Hanover County. The Board thanked WECT Anchor/Managing Editor Frances Weller for bringing the request forward and expressed appreciation to local news organizations for their efforts to keep the community informed. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce asked for Board direction. MOTION: Chair Pierce MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve Consent Agenda Item #12b: Adoption of Local News Day Proclamation as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 4.8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF LINE WORKER APPRECIATION DAY PROCLAMATION Vice Chair Scalise read the proclamation into the record and invited Duke Energy District Manager of Government and Community Relations Pam Hardy to make remarks. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 818 Ms. Hardy, on behalf of Duke Energy and the line workers present, expressed appreciation for the partnership with the County and recognized the men and women who serve during daily operations, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. She also expressed Duke Energy’s commitment to continuing that partnership. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce asked for Board direction. MOTION: Vice Chair Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to adopt the proclamation as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 4.10. CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2026 SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Emergency Management Director Steven Still and ESP Associates Senior Project Engineer Jim Iannucci provided a brief overview of the 2026 Southeastern North Carolina Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan). Mr. Iannucci stated that the Plan includes New Hanover, Pender, Brunswick, and, since the last update, Onslow counties, along with participating municipalities. He explained that federal law requires an update to the Plan every five years to maintain eligibility for federal funding sources, including hazard mitigation, flood mitigation assistance, and FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grants. He noted that the effort involves multiple County departments and regional partners and focuses on prevention and response. He further stated that the Plan addresses a range of risks, including natural hazards, cyber threats, terrorism, and infectious disease, and includes mitigation strategies specific to the County and the broader southeastern North Carolina region. He highlighted ongoing efforts such as stormwater and structural mitigation projects, stream gauges, and other preparedness measures, and noted that 170 survey responses helped inform the Plan. He concluded by requesting the Board’s approval and offering to answer questions. In response to questions, Mr. Iannucci explained that the Plan identified electromagnetic pulse events as a lower-risk threat in light of evolving concerns such as cyber warfare and other emerging hazards, while flooding and coastal erosion remain among the County’s highest-risk issues. He also confirmed that federal law requires the Plan, that it must be updated every five years to maintain eligibility for programs such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and BRIC funding, and that it provides both local and regional benefits. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce asked for Board direction. MOTION: Chair Pierce MOVED, SECONDED by Vice Chair Scalise to adopt the 2026 Southeastern North Carolina Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan and take such other official action as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVII, Page 4.11. PRESENTATION ON 2026 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DESTINATION 2050 STAFF UPDATE Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth provided the following update:  2026 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) – Destination 2050 Update:  Role of the Plan:  Emphasizes natural hazard risk and infrastructure capacity  Reflects county authorities and tools  Considers market influences and land constraints  Provides clear policy directions  Establishes a framework for continuous planning  General timeline of update:  Spring – Summer 2024: Existing conditions and public engagement:  Gather baseline existing conditions data  Broad public engagement  Joint Meeting to identify Plan goals and priorities  Fall 2024 – Fall 2025: Identify and analyze alternatives and strategies:  Additional studies (housing needs assessment and survey)  Ongoing public engagement  Development and analysis of scenarios  Identification of strategies and tools  Joint Meeting and final direction on concepts and strategies  Fall 2025 – Winter 2026:  Preparation of initial drafts  Public review of initial draft materials  Planning Board Public Hearing  Board of Commissioners Public Hearing  Update on activities since the February 16, 2026 public hearing:  Commissioners’ feedback: technical comments and policy-related considerations NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 819  Public comments: additional comments from public comment portal  Public comments – overview:  Clear and proactive plans to support housing affordability  Protect and identify land for long-term industrial and flex space  Focus on community character and existing neighborhoods  Prioritize tree retention  Commissioners feedback – overview:  Technical comments: clarification of data (housing, land classifications, etc.) and language  Policy feedback: transitional elements, residential in Corridor Commercial if part of mixed use, and infrastructure capacity  Policy feedback – current status:  Transitional elements:  Plan policies:  Community Mixed Use recommendations  Corridor Commercial recommendations  Transitional Elements outlined in Additional Planning Considerations and incorporated into Quality of Place policies  Action items:  Immediate term action item to develop standards to allow for adaptive re-use of existing structures for commercial services  Short-term action item to update development standards to address the impacts of corridor commercial development on adjacent residential development  Residential in corridor commercial areas:  Plan policies: Place type description specifies no residential uses  Current ordinances: Current residential zoning along corridors would allow residential development at by-right densities  Infrastructure capacity:  Plan policies:  Considered in recommended Place Types – Infill Residential limits density increases where roadway connects not possible; Community Mixed Use encourages master planning of public facilities  Roadway priority project and bicycle and pedestrian priorities maps  Future street recommendations  Policies that support multi-modal transportation options, coordinating infrastructure and public facilities planning with future land use patterns are incorporated  Action items:  Short term plan to work with the WMPO to develop a future roadway network plan for the unincorporated county  Public comments – current Plan elements:  Housing:  Plan focuses on diversity of housing in master planned developments  Programs recommended to support rehabilitation of existing housing and providing services to residents  Industrial and commercial support: refined place types support retention of land for non- residential uses  Community character:  Plan recommendations around where higher intensity uses and structures are encouraged, transitional elements  Focus on trees through both Quality of Place and Environmental Stewardship & Resilience goals  Options for draft refinement:  Clarify existing Plan language  Recommend additional post-adoption studies  Expand recommended partnerships  Outline code and development process updates  Identify program and capital investments  Modify draft plan policies or add new plan components  Next steps:  Board direction on any policy modifications to draft plan  Update the draft plan document and post for public review  Second Board of Commissioners public hearing Board discussion ensued about the matter. Vice Chair Scalise emphasized the importance of allowing ample time and public input when developing a long-range plan and stated that keeping the process open for continued comment has been appropriate and in the public interest. He noted that, based on prior experience and ongoing conversations with community members, additional time helps ensure the public has a meaningful opportunity to weigh in on the plan. Ms. Roth agreed and stated that staff wants to ensure anyone who wishes to participate can do so and that the Board is comfortable moving forward with the plan. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 820 In response to questions, Ms. Roth clarified that staff understood it would provide the requested redline and comparison materials when the item returned for a second public hearing. She stated that staff can provide side-by-side comparisons showing the prior and revised versions, including highlighted changes where a traditional redline may not clearly capture more substantive revisions, and can follow up with the Board on timing based on its direction. Commissioner Zapple stated that the comparison materials would help avoid duplicative comments and agreed that the community remains actively engaged in discussion of the plan. He also asked how the public could continue submitting comments. Ms. Roth stated that the public may continue submitting comments through the comment portal on the Planning and Land Use webpage. She noted that Destination 2050 comments will remain open until the public hearing so the Board can receive feedback as close to real time as possible. In response to questions, Ms. Roth explained that if the Board wished to hold a second public hearing in May, staff could likely provide updated materials by the end of the following week so they could be released for th public review before the hearing is advertised. She noted that a May 4 timeline would be feasible if the revisions are limited to minor technical changes reflecting the Board’s intent, but broader policy changes would require additional drafting time before the plan could be presented for further public comment. After further Board discussion, County Manager Coudriet stated that staff understood the matter was not to be placed on either May agenda for a public hearing. He confirmed that staff would continue providing side-by- side comparisons and updates for the Board’s review and feedback. He added that, once the Board determines the draft is in the proper form, staff will outline the public hearing process from that point forward. The Board agreed with this plan. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce thanked Ms. Roth for the update. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF ROBERT PERKINS WITH 6144 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO MODIFY THE EXISTING 3.19 ACRE (CZD) B-2, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LOCATED AT 5301, 5307, AND 5311 CASTLE HAYNE ROAD TO ALLOW MORE USES INCLUDING GENERAL RETAIL, VEHICLE SALES, AND OTHER LIMITED USES, PROVIDE A SHARED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND EXPAND THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS (Z17-05M) Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell presented the request to modify the existing Conditional B- 2 zoning district for three parcels located at 5301, 5307, and 5311 Castle Hayne Road. He reviewed the zoning history of the site and noted that the northern parcel is the former location of Fire Station 13, while the other two parcels are vacant. Mr. Farrell provided an overview of photographs of the property and examples of general retail and contractor office uses. He then reviewed the 2017 approved concept plan, noting that the northern parcel allowed only government buildings, the middle parcel did not allow future development, and the southern parcel allowed a contractor office with outdoor storage, stormwater, and a septic system because public water and sewer are not available in the area. He noted that the applicant also provided a public access easement along Castle Hayne Road. The proposed modification includes a new shared stormwater system, a new outdoor storage area, retention of the public access easement, and additional conditions, including a solid fence on the eastern side of the storage area facing the road. The project does not propose changes to the northern parcel and includes only minor changes to the southern parcel related to the relocation of stormwater infrastructure. One of the larger changes is an expanded list of lower-intensity allowed uses intended to provide greater flexibility for future development. Mr. Farrell reported on recent area activity, including a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for a gas station south of the roundabout and other nearby rezonings. As to site access, Mr. Farrell stated that the former fire station parcel would retain existing access through Prince George Avenue and right-in/right-out access, the southern parcel would have full access onto Garden Place Drive, and the center parcel would not have direct access onto Castle Hayne Road. The project would approximately double estimated trips but remain below the threshold requiring a TIA. Mr. Farrell further stated that, if approved, the request would support the Strategic Plan objective for Workforce and Economic Development. He added that the proposal is compatible with the area because it would broaden permitted uses to include retail, personal services, and other neighborhood-supporting commercial activities intended to serve nearby residents, require only one additional septic system, and include existing and proposed conditions intended to mitigate impacts on neighboring properties. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan) designates the area as Community Mixed Use. At its March 5, 2026 meeting, the Planning Board considered the request and recommended approval (7-0), finding it generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest. The recommendation included conditions related to buffers, exterior lighting, the public access easement, building design elements, visual buffering for the outdoor storage area, limited uses for each parcel, and additional stormwater requirements, including construction of the stormwater system to the 100-year storm standard. Chair Pierce thanked Mr. Farrell for the presentation and invited the applicant to present. Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant on behalf of Robert Perkins with 6144 Carolina Beach Road, LLC, stated that the subject site includes the former fire station and garage as well as two vacant parcels. She explained that the entire site is already zoned (CZD) B-2, Regional Business District and that the primary purpose of the request is to expand the limited list of permitted uses for the existing buildings and proposed building. Ms. Wolf NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 821 stated that the revised plan includes a stormwater management pond to address requirements associated with additional surface coverage across the site and noted that the original buffer yard conditions remain in place to mitigate impacts on residences west of the site. She added that the proposal includes an opaque decorative fence along Castle Hayne Road to improve the appearance of the laydown yard area. Ms. Wolf also requested a modification to Condition 7 to add wholesaling as a permitted use, explaining that it was inadvertently omitted and that the use is consistent with warehousing, sales, and distribution activities. She stated that the applicant agrees with the staff and Planning Board recommendations for approval and contended that the request is consistent with adopted growth policies, the Community Mixed Use place type, and the proposed Corridor Commercial designation in the 2050 Plan because it would support accessible shopping and service destinations along major roadways, improve the form and function of an underutilized site, maximize land use efficiency, and provide an economic development opportunity for the County. Chair Pierce stated that no one signed up to speak in favor nor in opposition. There being no further comments, Chair Pierce opened the floor to Board discussion. In response to questions, Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant would not object to removing the animal shelter verbiage as a permitted use. Regarding outdoor storage, she stated that the applicant had not identified a specific end user, but the intent is to allow flexibility for potential users, such as general contractors or wholesaling operations that may require storage of equipment and materials. She added that the proposed opaque fencing is intended to visually screen the storage area from the roadway. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce closed the public hearing and asked Ms. Wolf whether, based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Ms. Wolf responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce asked for Board direction. MOTION: Vice Chair Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Walker, to approve the proposed rezoning. The Board finds it to be consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses are generally encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type to serve nearby residential development. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the modification would expand the ability for future development on the site and the following proposed conditions, with the removal of animal shelter as a proposed use and the addition of wholesaling for 5307 and 5311 Castle Hayne Road, would help mitigate potential impacts on nearby residential development: 1. An eight-foot-high wood screening fence, with a double row of evergreen shrubs, will be installed along the common property line of 5301 and 5307 Castle Hayne Road with the residential lots to the west. 2. Exterior lighting, including luminaries, shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward in compliance with Figure 5.5.4.C Full Cut-off Fixtures of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 3. A 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be recorded along the frontage parallel with Castle Hayne Road for future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. 4. An open porch shall be built on the eastern side of the building at 5301 Castle Hayne Road as shown on the concept plan. 5. A minimum six-foot-tall solid privacy fence shall be installed along the western side of the outdoor storage area at 5307 Castle Hayne Road. The fence or visual barrier cannot be a chain-link fence with slats. 6. Land uses for 5301 Castle Hayne Road shall be limited to: a. Wholesale Nursery b. Business Service Center c. Repair Shop d. Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities e. Instructional Services and Studios f. Personal Services g. Retail Nursery h. Contractor Office 7. Land uses for 5307 and 5311 Castle Hayne Road shall be limited to: a. Wholesale Nursery b. Community Center c. Food Pantry d. Emergency Services Facility e. Government Offices and Buildings f. Indoor Recreation Establishment g. Business Service Center h. Repair Shop i. Contractor Office j. Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities k. Instructional Services and Studios l. Personal Services m. Retail Nursery NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 822 n. Retail Sales, Building and Construction Supplies o. Retail Sales, General p. Boat Dealer q. Equipment Rental and Leasing r. Farm Implement Sales s. Vehicle Rentals t. Vehicle Sales u. Vehicle Service Station, Minor v. Warehousing w. Wholesaling 8. The project shall obtain state and county stormwater permits, to include any required downstream analyses and the stormwater management will be designed for the 100- year storm attenuation. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA CASTLE HAYNE OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED July 1, 1985, is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section CASTLE HAYNE, Page 42. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF JOSEPH JACOBUS WITH CH R PROPERTIES, LLC AND WRIGHTSBORO BUSINESS PARK, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 8.36 ACRES LOCATED AT 3508 HARNETT AVENUE FROM B- 2, REGIONAL BUSINESS AND AR, AIRPORT RESIDENTIAL TO A (CZD) B-2 DISTRICT FOR RETAIL SALES, CONTRACTOR OFFICE, AND OTHER LIMITED USES (Z26-03) Development Review Planner Ryan Beil presented the request to rezone approximately 8.36 acres located at 3508 Harnett Avenue from Airport Residential and B-2 to a Conditional B-2 Regional Business District to allow expansion of the existing Castle Creek Business Park. In reviewing the property’s zoning history, Mr. Beil stated that the site was initially zoned Airport Residential in 1976, and the southern portion was rezoned to B-2 in 1988. He added that the existing Castle Creek Business Park is under construction immediately south of the subject property and that the subject site contains a vacant single-family home on a wooded lot. In review of aerials of the property and the applicant’s concept plan, Mr. Beil noted the location of Castle Hayne Road, Castle Creek Lane, Harnett Avenue access, a gated emergency access, parking areas, two proposed stormwater ponds, three warehouse buildings of approximately 5,000 square feet each with adjacent loading areas, and six proposed flex space buildings totaling 43,500 square feet. The buildings along Harnett Avenue are proposed to be oriented perpendicular to the road to reduce the development’s visual impact, and a proposed condition would require street yard landscaping along Harnett Avenue to help screen the business park from adjacent residential properties. Mr. Beil also showed examples of warehouse and business park development. Mr. Beil reported that a substantial portion of the property lies within an AE Special Flood Hazard Area and explained that commercial construction within that area must either be floodproofed in accordance with ordinance requirements or elevated to the applicable base flood elevation standard. He stated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) indicated there may be stream tributaries on the property and that, if the request is approved, the developer would be required during the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process to coordinate with the Corps to determine whether impacts to waters of the United States exist and whether permitting is required. Mr. Beil stated that the Castle Hayne Road corridor has experienced similar rezonings from residential to commercial. The proposed development is estimated to generate approximately 88 a.m. peak hour trips and 98 p.m. peak hour trips, which are below the threshold requiring a TIA. The proposal shows primary access from Castle Creek Lane, along with a secondary full access and gated emergency access onto Harnett Avenue. Mr. Beil noted that one condition would require legal access to Harnett Avenue before TRC approval. A northbound right-in deceleration taper and turn lane is being constructed as part of the first phase of the Castle Creek Business Park. Although the Castle Hayne Road corridor has trended toward commercial development, the application includes additional conditions intended to mitigate impacts on adjacent residents. The proposal aligns with the County’s Strategic Plan objective for Workforce and Economic Development, and the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as split between the Employment Center and Community Mixed Use place types. Because the site is located near the boundary of those place types, development consistent with either may be appropriate depending on site-specific conditions and surrounding development patterns. The Planning Board reviewed the application at its March 5, 2026 meeting and recommended approval (6- 1), finding the request consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest. Mr. Beil stated that the recommendation for approval is based on the Comprehensive Plan, zoning considerations, and technical review, and includes four conditions related to permitted uses, lighting restrictions, legal access to Harnett Avenue, and street yard landscaping distribution. Chair Pierce thanked Mr. Beil for the presentation and invited the applicant to present. Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant on behalf of Joseph Jacobus of CH R Properties, LLC and Wrightsboro Business Park, LLC, stated that the subject property represents an expansion of her client’s holdings within the existing Castle Creek Business Park. She explained that extending the project with flex-type commercial NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 823 uses is a logical transition and noted that the tract is bordered by airport commercial zoning to the east, toward Blue Clay Road. Ms. Wolf displayed the master plan for the existing Castle Creek Lane warehouse project and stated that, although TRC approved the plan in early 2024, only four buildings are currently under construction because development has proceeded cautiously in response to market conditions. She noted that access is already established from Castle Creek Lane to Castle Hayne Road, that first-phase NCDOT permitting included a deceleration taper and right-turn lane improvements, and that Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) is providing water and sewer service, which the proposed rezoning would extend. She reviewed the concept plan and stated that Castle Creek Lane is included in the conditional rezoning to ensure through access and implementation of the overall master plan as the site transitions from warehousing to flex-style development. She further stated that an existing ditch crosses the site, that a public drainage easement would be dedicated to the County to address off-site water flow, and that stormwater management would be required for all new impervious surface on both sides of the ditch. She added that environmental consultants determined the east-west ditch is not Waters of the United States, while the north-south feature is Corps-eligible and will require a permit for a single crossing already accounted for in project planning. She also noted that the site provides good vehicular circulation, that the secondary access to Harnett Avenue is located across from an existing commercial operation, and that nearby landowners expressed positive feedback during the community information meeting, including discussion of possible cooperation related to Harnett Avenue and extension of public water and sewer. Ms. Wolf concluded by stating that the applicant agrees with the staff and Planning Board recommendations for approval and contends that the request is consistent, reasonable, and in the public interest because it supports business development goals, encourages infill development, and improves an underutilized site. Chair Pierce stated that no one signed up to speak in favor nor in opposition. There being no further comments, Chair Pierce opened the floor to Board discussion. In response to questions, Ms. Wolf stated that the proposal does not include a 100-year stormwater system because the site has an identifiable drainage outlet and instead would use the required 25-year stormwater system consistent with the master plan ponds. She stated that stormwater drains through the existing system toward Ness Creek, a tributary of Smith Creek, and expressed confidence that the proposed ponds would meet applicable state and county requirements, satisfy pre- and post-development standards, and adequately manage runoff. She also stated that she was not aware of any recorded flooding along the drainage feature through the site and noted that the two existing buildings in the area have remained in place for many years, including during Hurricane Florence, without known flooding issues. In response to questions, Ms. Wolf stated that Castle Creek Lane is intended to serve as the primary access point, including for semi-trailers, and that the site design includes internal circulation and turning radius based on truck-turning templates. She stated that Harnett Avenue is an older paved private right-of-way with access rights reflected in the deed and that documentation of legal access can be provided during the TRC process, as required by a proposed condition. She added that Harnett Avenue access is intended primarily for emergency use, although one driveway was originally proposed for regular access because it connects to an already paved section of the road across from an existing business, and that the applicant would not object to gating the access and limiting it to emergency use only. Ms. Wolf also stated that the tract is currently zoned residential and could be developed at approximately 2.5 units per acre, but she contended that commercial development is more appropriate given the site’s proximity to Castle Hayne Road and nearby airport commercial districts. She further stated that any confirmed Waters of the United States impacts to the north-south drainage feature would require wetland permitting but would not prevent development of the western portion of the site, and that the anticipated crossing would likely qualify for a nationwide permit. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce closed the public hearing and asked Ms. Wolf whether, based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Ms. Wolf responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce asked for Board direction. MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Walker to approve the proposed rezoning. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the rezoning allows for the types of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use and Employment Center place types. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because it allows for an expansion of an existing business park that will offer more opportunities for local businesses to provide goods and services to New Hanover County residents and with the following proposed conditions: 1. The list of approved uses shall be limited to: a. Indoor Recreation Establishment b. Business Service Center c. Repair Shop d. Contractor Office e. Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities f. Instructional services and studios g. Personal services NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 824 h. Retail Sales, General i. Retail Sales, Building and Construction Supplies j. Boat Dealer k. Equipment Rental and Leasing l. Farm Implement Sales, Vehicle Rentals m. Vehicle Sales n. Vehicle Service Station, Minor o. Warehousing 2. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent properties, neighboring areas, or motorists. 3. Before TRC approval can be granted, the developer shall provide documentation to New Hanover County Planning and Land Use demonstrating the project has legal access from Harnett Avenue. The documentation must be reviewed and verified by the New Hanover County Attorney’s Office. 4. Required street yard landscaping must be distributed across the entire street yard area to reduce the visual impact of the development on residential properties across Harnett. 5. Access onto Harnett Avenue shall be gated for emergency access only with a Knox box system approved by the Fire Marshal’s Office. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 10A OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED July 1, 1974, is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 10A, Page 64. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY ANGELA ROSEMAN WITH SMI DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF OHNMACHT PROPERTIES, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.58 ACRES LOCATED AT 7037 MARKET STREET FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL TO B-2, REGIONAL BUSINESS (Z26-02) Mr. Farrell presented the request to rezone approximately 0.58 acres on Market Street from the R-15 Residential district to a general use B-2 Regional Business district. He stated that the request is a straight rezoning and explained that, because no concept plan is associated with the application, no conditions can be added to the request. He provided an overview of the property’s zoning history and stated that the site was originally zoned R-15 in 1971 and that, over time, properties to the south have been rezoned to B-2 and higher-density residential districts. Mr. Farrell reviewed aerial photos noting that a detached single-family home formerly located on the property has been removed and stated that the site is bordered by existing homes to the north and by an apartment complex and commercial development to the south. He noted the presence of significant and specimen live oak trees on the property. He explained that the R-15 district was established to provide areas for low-density residential development and noted that it is the County’s largest zoning district and was often applied to areas already developed residentially. He also reviewed the B-2 district and stated that it is intended to provide for the appropriate location and design of auto-oriented uses that meet the needs of the motoring public or rely on passing traffic, and that it allows a wide range of civic, recreational, retail, and office uses. Although the UDO permits a variety of uses in the B-2 district, additional requirements apply to commercial development adjacent to residential property, including a 30-foot side setback, a 35-foot rear setback, Type A transitional buffers along those property lines, and a landscaped street yard along Market Street. He provided examples of development that could take place on the property, given the ordinance restrictions and the size of the site. Mr. Farrell noted nearby developments and roadway improvements, including the Market Street improvements to the north and the Gordon Road widening project to the south. He stated that, due to the Market Street improvements, the site would be limited to right-in, right-out access onto Market Street, with a U-turn opportunity available to the south at the Military Cutoff interchange. He further stated that, because this is a straight rezoning, staff prepared a traffic estimate based on the highest-intensity use that could reasonably be accommodated on the site and noted that, although a restaurant with a drive-through would require a TIA, any future development would be evaluated to determine whether a TIA is required. Mr. Farrell also stated that the property is one of the few remaining R-15 parcels along this portion of the Market Street corridor, near other commercial development and the Nixon Apartments, and that additional commercial development would be consistent with the character of the area. Mr. Farrell stated that the proposal would advance County strategic goals related to Sustainable Land Use and Environmental Stewardship and Workforce and Economic Development. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Urban Mixed Use, which promotes a mix of residential, office, and retail uses at higher densities. The Planning Board considered the request at its March 5, 2026 meeting and voted to recommend approval (6-1), finding the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed district would allow uses aligned with the Urban Mixed Use place type and could provide services to nearby residences. Chair Pierce thanked Mr. Farrell for the presentation and invited the applicant to present. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 825 Dave Spetrino with PBD Design and Build, on behalf of Angela Roseman with SMI Development Services, applicant, and Ohnmacht Properties, LLC, property owner, stated that the site is small and that efforts had been made over time, without success, to obtain additional access from the north and south to create a larger site and improve access. He stated that he had prepared a development concept for the property to evaluate what could be accommodated on the site, although he acknowledged that the Board could not consider that plan as part of the current request. He also noted five significant live oak trees on the property, including one measuring approximately 60 inches in diameter, and expressed support for preserving them. Mr. Spetrino further stated that, although a conditional rezoning would allow greater specificity, preparing such a proposal would require substantial additional effort before bringing the matter forward. He stated that, without first knowing whether the County would support retaining the R-15 zoning or allowing a more logical commercial designation such as B-2, he believed it was appropriate to proceed initially with a direct rezoning request. In response to questions, Mr. Spetrino stated that he did not propose specific uses because the site remains at a conceptual stage and he is seeking flexibility to determine the most appropriate infill use as planning advances. He stated that he prepared a concept plan to illustrate the site’s limitations, including surrounding R-15 zoning, required buffers, access constraints, and several large live oaks, but acknowledged that the Board could not consider that plan as part of the straight rezoning request. He stated that the concept contemplates a building of approximately 5,000 square feet with parking occupying much of the site and designed around the existing trees, which he views as an asset, although he noted the tree near the center of the site presents the greatest challenge. Mr. Spetrino further stated that he did not pursue a conditional rezoning because the site is only about one-half acre in size, and the cost and uncertainty of preparing a more detailed proposal at this stage would be significant. He stated that he initially expected the site to support retail or personal service uses, but that changing conditions in the area suggest a small office or similar business use may be more appropriate. He added that a more restrictive rezoning could require repeated amendments and stated that retaining flexibility would improve the likelihood of developing the site in a thoughtful manner consistent with surrounding infill activity. In response to questions, Planning Board member Clark Hipp stated that the Planning Board voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the request and that members supporting the rezoning viewed the site as suitable for retail or similar commercial use. He stated that he cast the dissenting vote because the straight rezoning did not provide enough specificity about the proposed use and because a conditional rezoning could have imposed limits on future development, including building size and tree preservation. In response, Mr. Spetrino acknowledged those concerns but stated that the Comprehensive Plan and staff review already guide appropriate development. He argued that undesirable uses are unlikely on such a small, high-visibility site and that requiring greater upfront costs and certainty for small infill parcels could discourage thoughtful redevelopment. He stated that he was not willing to pursue a conditional rezoning without clearer direction from the Board on the type of development it would support. In response to questions, Mr. Spetrino stated that he intends to remain involved with the project and has no plans to sell the property. He stated that he became involved to help identify a viable use for the site and that his goal is to create a project that adds value to the community, improves the Market Street corridor, and increases the tax base. He further stated that efforts to acquire additional adjacent parcels were unsuccessful and that planning therefore moved forward based on the land currently available. Mr. Spetrino stated that the live oaks on the site are required to be preserved, emphasized that he intends to retain them, and described them as central to his vision for the project. He added that infill redevelopment of underutilized properties will continue as the community grows and expressed confidence that he would deliver a thoughtful project that the Board would not regret supporting. In response to questions, Mr. Farrell stated that, if the property is rezoned, specimen trees on the site could not be removed unless the Board of Adjustment approved a variance. He further stated that significant trees could be removed only if properly mitigated and noted that most of the trees on the site appear to qualify as specimen trees, although he believed the twin live oaks may instead qualify as significant trees depending on measurement. Mr. Farrell also explained that, under the current R-15 zoning, parcels under one acre are not subject to the tree removal permit requirement and, therefore, the existing trees could be removed without the same protections. Mr. Spetrino added that, as the ordinance is currently structured, the site could be developed residentially and the trees removed under the existing zoning, and he contended that rezoning the property would provide greater assurance that the trees would be preserved or mitigated in accordance with ordinance requirements. Chair Pierce stated that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition and opened the floor to Board discussion. Discussion ensued regarding the request. Commissioners expressed concern about approving a straight rezoning without conditions because the full range of B-2 uses would remain available and the request does not include a specific development plan. At the same time, some Commissioners supported the request because they believed the site is likely to transition to commercial use and that rezoning offers greater protection for the existing live oaks than the current residential zoning. It was also noted that the site is small, no public opposition was presented, and Mr. Spetrino stated on the record that he intends to remain involved and pursue a quality project. Some Commissioners noted that although they were willing to support this request, straight rezonings are not their preferred approach and should continue to be considered cautiously on a case-by-case basis. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce closed the public hearing and asked Mr. Spetrino whether, based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, he would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Mr. Spetrino responded that he wanted to proceed with the vote. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 826 Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce asked for Board direction. MOTION: Vice Chair Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the proposed rezoning. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the B-2 zoning district would provide uses that are in line with the Urban Mixed Use place type that could serve existing and future businesses and residents. The Board also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed district could provide services to nearby residences. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 8B OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED July 7, 1972 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8B, Page 93. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY JONATHAN YATES, WITH HELLMAN YATES, REPRESENTING OPTIMA TOWERS IV, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF CHRISTOPHER DALE, PROPERTY OWNER, FOR THE USE OF OTHER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES INCLUDING WIRELESS SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS IN A R-20, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 3.91 ACRES LOCATED AT 3516 ANGUS DRIVE (S26-01) Chair Pierce stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and before the hearing is opened, the county attorney will provide an overview of the hearing procedures. County Attorney Smith stated that this is a quasi-judicial hearing and that the Board must base its decision on competent, material, and substantial evidence presented at the hearing. He stated that, to issue the special use permit (SUP), the Board must conclude that the applicant and project satisfy four standards: first, that the use will not materially endanger public health or safety; second, that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance; third, that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity; and fourth, that the use, if developed as submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it will be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan. He stated that the Board must conclude all four standards are satisfied and that failure to satisfy any one of them is sufficient grounds to deny issuance of the SUP. He further stated that nothing from the preliminary forum held before the Planning Board may be considered and, therefore, no Planning Board member is present to speak on the matter. He then asked that all persons planning to speak approach and 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. Zach Dickerson Galen Jamison Caitlin Cerza Scott Holmes Robert Farrell Rebekah Roth Jonathan Yates Kieth Powell 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. Dickerson to provide the staff presentation. Senior Planner Zach Dickerson presented the staff report, noting that it is a SUP for a wireless support structure in an R-20 zoning district. The site is on Angus Drive, a private road accessed off Chair Road. He showed an aerial image of the site that shows the site in reference to I-140 to the west, Chair Road, and Castle Hayne Road to the east. An aerial photo of the site, along with images of the property from different angles, shows the current lot, Angus Drive, and the rural setting. There is a large power easement that crosses the site. The power lines can be seen in the image to the left. Wireless support structures are allowed in the R-20 district with a SUP. In addition, support structures are required to demonstrate compliance with use-specific standards, which include setbacks equal to the height of the tower, landscaping, fencing, and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) compliance verification, among other items. While local governments can regulate several aspects of wireless towers, the FCC and North Carolina General Statutes prohibit local governments from regulating or restricting towers based on radio frequency emissions. The parcel was originally zoned R-20, Residential in 1974. It is surrounded by R-20 zoning. The area to the northwest is the River Bluffs Planned Development, and the pink to the northeast is the Moore’s Crossing Planned Development. The site is accessed off Angus Drive, a private road which connects to Chair Road. The applicant showed the proposed driveway for the tower, with an access and maintenance easement. The tower’s fall zone is the outermost circle noted here with a gated enclosure surrounding the proposed 185-foot wireless tower. The site plan also notes a large easement for electric infrastructure, which includes the leased area for the tower on the site. The site plan shows a 25-foot landscape buffer around the equipment enclosure, as required by the UDO. Mr. Dickerson then provided an overview of the fenced equipment compound and the wireless tower detail. The proposed tower is 180-feet tall with a five-foot lightning rod, and equipment to serve up to four wireless carriers. The UDO requires wireless support structures in residential areas to use faux tree stealthing except where a structure is proposed in an area containing such dense existing tree clusters that the structure is not visible from residential uses. The UDO allows the Board of Commissioners to grant an exemption to this requirement. The applicant has not proposed any faux tree stealthing on the tower and is requesting this exemption from the Board NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 827 of Commissioners. Wireless support structures generate a minimal amount of traffic, averaging a couple of trips per month for maintenance. Mr. Dickerson stated the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designates this property as General Residential. General Residential areas focus on lower density housing and associated civic and commercial services. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the location of wireless support towers, it does aim to support business success, workforce development, and economic prosperity- items which are addressed by new wireless infrastructure. Mr. Dickerson then stated that 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. He reported that staff compiled a set of facts provided in the application and identified them 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 conclusion.  Findings for Conclusion 1 address utility connections, fire service, access, and roadway capacity.  Findings for conclusion 2 include setbacks and FCC requirements, signage, landscaping, and height of the tower, FAA standards, visual impacts to nearby areas, and monopole construction, screening of the tower.  Findings for Conclusion 3 address conditions on the site and nearby land uses.  Findings for Conclusion 4 address harmony with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which also encompasses nearby land uses and existing conditions. Mr. Dickerson concluded the staff presentation stating that one public comment was received for this request, which has been included in the agenda packet. Chair Pierce thanked Mr. Dickerson for the staff presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks. Scott Holmes, attorney with Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC, Wilmington, NC, stated that the applicant believes the project is a good one and that it would address a poor coverage area that had also been discussed during the planning process. Before beginning the presentation, he requested to enter into evidence a copy of the application and an appraisal report that arrived too late to be included in the agenda packet. He provided the documents to the county attorney for distribution. Mr. Holmes then stated that, given the length of the meeting, he would turn the presentation over to Jonathan Yates and Keith Powell. Jonathan Yates, applicant, with Hellman Yates, representing Optima Towers IV, applicant, on behalf of Christopher Dale, property owner, stated that the request involves wireless infrastructure intended to address what he described as a present deficit in wireless coverage in that area of the County. He stated that the proposed facility is a monopole designed for T-Mobile and three additional broadband carriers. He stated that the applicant identified a property in the location where T-Mobile wanted to be and described it as an appropriate site because of the heavy tree cover and the existing utility corridor running through the property. He stated that Chris Dale owns two adjoining properties totaling approximately 12 acres and that the proposed facility would be located on the four- acre tract. He stated that, in the wireless industry, utility infrastructure is preferably located with other utilities and described wireless as what many now consider a fourth utility. Mr. Yates stated that the facility has been reviewed and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, which made two findings: first, a determination of no hazard to air navigation; and second, that illumination and marking are not required. He stated that the site is located approximately 3.2 nautical miles from Wilmington International Airport and approximately 2.4 nautical miles from the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office heliport. He stated that the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the facility and found that it would have no adverse effect on historic resources. He further stated that, because the carriers would operate under federal licenses, the facility was also reviewed by the Prairie Island Indian Community, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Catawba Indian Nation. Mr. Yates stated that the facility produces no noise, odor, lights, vibration, fumes, or glare. He stated that construction would typically take about 60 days, much of which would involve installation of the foundation, and that the tower itself would be stacked in a day. He stated that the facility would operate primarily through remote monitoring from national operations centers, and that carriers would likely send a technician to the site only about eight or nine times per year to check equipment. He stated that the facility would not increase traffic on Angus Drive and would not cause harm on Angus Drive. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 828 Mr. Yates stated that the request complies with the Unified Development Ordinance except for a requested waiver related to the faux-tree requirement. He stated that faux trees are not effective camouflage and that, in his view, a faux tree would stand out more than the proposed tower. He stated that the applicant instead selected a property with dense woods, mature tree cover, and an existing utility corridor. Regarding property values, Mr. Yates stated that the ordinance requires a finding that the use will not have a substantial adverse effect on the value of adjoining or abutting properties or that the use is a public necessity. He stated that wireless service has become a public necessity because many people no longer maintain landline phones and rely on wireless access not only for phone and internet service, but also for 911 access, first responders, and emergency alerts such as ReadyNHC. He also referenced an appraisal prepared by John Palmer, which he stated concluded that similar towers did not diminish nearby property values. He added that some homebuyers may view wireless service as a benefit and that there is an argument that it can add value. Mr. Yates further stated that page 43 of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan identifies higher-speed broadband internet connection and greater cell phone coverage as two major community demands. He stated that the proposal would address those needs and contended that the applicant solved the problem in the best possible way by selecting a site with substantial tree cover and adjacent utility infrastructure. Chair Pierce thanked Mr. Yates for the applicant presentation. Vice Chair Scalise stated that Mr. Yates had referenced T-Mobile as well as other utilities and asked for clarification. He stated that his understanding is that one cellular carrier or an independent entity may construct the tower and then lease space on it to other carriers, and he asked Mr. Yates to elaborate on that arrangement. Mr. Yates responded that T-Mobile would serve as the anchor carrier for the proposed facility and that the tower is designed at 180 feet with space below for three additional broadband carriers. He further stated that the site plan includes a 60-by-60 equipment compound with sufficient ground space for at least four carriers. He stated that the facility, therefore, provides space both on the tower and on the ground for three additional carriers when and if they are ready to serve the area. Vice Chair Scalise stated that it is important to note that, to the extent the facility is utilized, the benefit would not be limited to T-Mobile customers. He stated that other carriers, including Verizon and AT&T, would also have the opportunity to use the facility to expand their footprint and improve service in the area. Mr. Yates responded that he hopes additional carriers will choose to use the facility. He stated that carriers typically wait until a tower is approved before evaluating whether to collocate and that, if approved, he intends to contact them to encourage further interest in the site. Chair Pierce stated that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition, closed the public hearing, and opened the floor to Board discussion and to ask staff questions. Vice Chair Scalise stated that, under the SUP process, evidence must be presented and considered. He stated that evidence had been presented in support of the request and that no evidence to the contrary had been offered. He further stated that, as a legal matter, he was not sure the Board had much flexibility under those circumstances, although he noted that no opposition had been presented. Commissioner Zapple stated that the proposed facility would address a coverage issue in that part of the County and thanked Mr. Yates for the information he provided. He stated that the proposal would help improve service in an area that needs that level of coverage and expressed interest in learning which additional carriers may ultimately locate on the tower. He noted that, if T-Mobile is experiencing difficulty in that area, other carriers likely are as well, and stated that the facility could expand service options for County residents. Commissioner Zapple also noted that, although one letter had been received, no opposition was presented at the hearing. Chair Pierce stated that communication service is important and noted that everyone wants reliable cell phone coverage. She stated that the proposed site appears to be a good location that would not intrude on others and added that, if there had been opposition, the Board likely would have heard it, but no opposition was presented. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Pierce closed the public hearing and asked for Board direction. Motion: Vice Chair Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple 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 condition: 1. The wireless support structure is exempt from the faux tree concealment requirement as outlined in UDO Section 4.3.3.C.6.c.5. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 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 4.12. The order approving the Special Use Permit and listing the findings of fact is scheduled for approval at the Board’s regular meeting on May 4, 2026. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 829 PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Pierce stated that fifteen people signed up to speak and invited them to make remarks. Caroline Bogart, resident of White Cliffs Drive, Castle Hayne, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, stated that a traffic engineer’s memorandum found the 2025 Hilton Bluffs traffic impact study understates impacts and proposes an unsafe access plan that would route substantial traffic onto quiet residential streets without sidewalks. She stated that the report found only Phase 1 could be supported absent a different access plan connected to appropriate collector and arterial roads. Kimberly Rushton, resident of Marathon Avenue, Castle Hayne, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, stated that her family chose the area for its quiet, safe, rural character and that the proposed Sledge Forest development would destroy that way of life. She referenced her prior opposition, the strong opposition of nearby residents, and the project’s conditional approval by the TRC, and urged the Board to take any lawful steps available to stop the development. Marian Kreh, resident of McDougald Drive, Castle Hayne, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, stated that the proposed Hilton Bluffs development in Sledge Forest would harm old-growth forest, wetlands, wildlife, and the rural character of northern New Hanover County. She stated that the area lacks the infrastructure to support a project of that size, cited traffic and flooding concerns, and urged the Board to consider any available opportunity to help protect the community. Michael Reed, resident of McDougald Drive, Castle Hayne, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, stated that the area lacks the infrastructure to support a project of that size, raised concerns about traffic, and urged the Board to take any available action to help protect the community. Scott Gallagher, resident of Flowery Drive, Castle Hayne, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, expressed opposition to the proposed development, stating that Castle Hayne Road is already heavily congested and cannot support existing growth along with 4,000 additional homes. He also raised concerns about permanent damage to the forest and the long-term impacts on the community. Lisa Peck, resident of Tall Oaks Drive, Castle Hayne, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, showed a video of the neighborhood roads proposed to serve the development and stated that residents, children, pedestrians, and cyclists use them daily. She expressed concern about the safety risks of adding substantial traffic to narrow roads without sidewalks, referenced a petition signed by more than 14,000 residents opposing the plan, and urged the Board to take any lawful action available to stop the development. Claudia Campese, resident of Tall Oaks Drive, Castle Hayne, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, stated that the proposed bridge and development would add substantial traffic to narrow residential roads that cannot safely support it, especially during peak hours. She stated that the added traffic would directly affect her property near the proposed bridge, worsen congestion on Castle Hayne Road, and permanently damage riverfront land and wildlife habitat. Andy Wood, resident of Hampstead, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, expressed opposition to the proposed development in Sledge Forest, stating that it would harm a significant natural area while shifting long-term infrastructure and environmental costs to taxpayers. He urged the Board to protect Sledge Forest and preserve its natural resources for future generations. Robin Morgan, resident of Willard Street, Wilmington, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, stated that Sledge Forest is not vacant land but an irreplaceable natural resource with long-established forest systems, native species, and important biodiversity. She urged the Board to protect the forest because of its environmental, community, and long-term climate value. Elizabeth Farquhar, resident of North 4th Street, Wilmington, NC, stated that the proposed Hilton Bluffs development would place high-density housing in Sledge Forest, which she described as a unique, environmentally important, and flood-prone habitat. She stated that the site is unsuitable for large-scale residential development and urged additional environmental review before the project moves forward. Emily Brazik, resident of Marathon Avenue, Castle Hayne, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, stated that the proposed development would threaten the area’s rural character, including farms, pastureland, animal welfare, and the safe use of nearby roads. She stated that increased flooding and traffic would create hazards for children and horse trailers on narrow two-lane roads without sidewalks and would disrupt the farming-based character of the community. Sam Shores, resident of Nutt Street, Wilmington, NC, and representative of Save Sledge Forest, stated that Sledge Forest contains significant natural resources, including old-growth trees, bald eagles, river otters, and other rare species that would be harmed by the proposed development. He also raised concerns about flood risk, evacuation safety, and added traffic on already congested roads. Wade Miller, representative of Hilton Bluffs Development, stated that the proposed 1,800-home plan would place homes on previously disturbed timberland rather than in the old-growth portions of Sledge Forest. He NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 APRIL 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 830 stated that the revised clustered plan reduced the original scope and would conserve about 1,200 acres within the project area. Sam Franck, attorney with Ward and Smith, P.A., Wilmington, NC, and representing Hilton Bluffs Development, stated that major road improvements typically occur through private development or after conditions worsen enough for DOT action, and argued that this project would help drive needed infrastructure upgrades. He stated that the revised 1,800-home clustered plan reduced the original proposal, preserves more open space, and places homes as far as practicable from the old-growth forest. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS Chair Pierce thanked the public comment speakers for their input and stated that the Board had received and read the public’s emails and comments. She clarified that no aspect of the project had come before the Board for a vote and stated that the matter was proceeding through the staff review process as a by-right development. She also encouraged continued communication among the parties involved. Commissioner Walker wished everyone a “Happy Moon Day,” noting that astronauts had returned to the moon for the first time in about 50 years, and encouraged everyone to watch the event. Vice Chair Scalise thanked those in attendance for sharing their views and stated that he had heard the concerns raised by members of the public. Commissioner Zapple thanked the public and the Hilton Bluffs development team for their ongoing civil engagement on the Sledge Forest matter, stated that the Board had heard their concerns, and said it would take whatever lawful action it could. He also encouraged residents to enjoy Azalea Festival events and noted progress on the County’s redundant raw water line project. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Pierce adjourned the meeting at 6:59 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.