Loading...
PB Minutes 20110804-Approved Page 1 of 23 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board August 4, 2011 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, August 4, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Andy Heath, Vice Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Troy Barboza Jane Daughtridge, Current Planning & Zoning Manager Melissa Gott Shawn Ralston, Long Range Planning Manager Dan Hilla Sam Burgess, Subdivision Review Planner Anthony Prinz Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Manager Chris Coudriet, Assistant County Manager Absent: Richard Collier, Chairman Tamara Murphy Vice Chairman Andy Heath opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Chairman Heath reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of the July Planning Board Meeting Minutes Anthony Prinz made a motion to approve the July Planning Board meeting minutes as drafted. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the July Planning Board meeting minutes. Election of Officers Dan Hilla nominated Melissa Gott as Chairman. Anthony Prinz seconded the nomination. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to elect Melissa Gott as Chairman of the Planning Board. Anthony Prinz nominated Andy Heath as Vice Chairman. Dan Hilla seconded the nomination. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to elect Andy Heath as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-911, 08/11)-Request by Michael Edwards to rezone approximately 0.88 acres at 3200 and 3204 North Kerr Avenue from AR airport residential to CD (A-I) Conditional Airport Industrial. Both parcels are identified as Transition on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map. Page 2 of 23 Jane Daughtridge provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Ms. Daughtridge showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and of the surrounding area. Ms. Daughtridge explained the proposal is located in the northern portion of the County’s jurisdiction near the corner of Blue Clay Road and North Kerr Avenue. The current zoning map shows airport industrial zoning directly adjacent and across the street from the proposal. The level of service is not identified for this segment of North Kerr Avenue; however, the level of service for Blue Clay Road is A & B, meaning the traffic moves fairly freely there. The level of service is F for the other extension of North Kerr Avenue, but this particular segment is not identified with a level of service. As indicated in the 2006 aerial photo and a more recent aerial photo, a mobile home is still located on the property and will be removed by the applicant if the proposal is accepted. Ms. Daughtridge state staff felt the rezoning is consistent with the CAMA Land Use Plan, the Wrightsboro Small Area Plan, and the stated intent of the Airport Industrial district. Findings of fact were also positive for the proposal; therefore, staff recommended approval of the rezoning request. She reported a special use permit was required for the use and a site plan was included. Matt Nichols, an attorney with Shanklin & Nichols representing the applicant and property owner Mike Edwards, stated Mr. Edwards and his father, Ronald, are the owners of Precision Cams, a business in New Hanover County that is currently located on Bevel Road off Highway 421. Due to the planned extension of the I-140 highway, Mr. Edwards and his father must move their business. They have owned the property on North Kerr Avenue for many years and feel the property is ideally situated for a conditional district A-I rezoning for several reasons. It is located adjacent to an existing A-I zoned property, is across the street from A-I zoned property, is next to the Optimist ball fields, and is next door to residentially zoned property. Mr. Nichols reported they had spoken with the adjacent residential property owner, Ms. Howell, at their community meeting on June 6, 2011, and she had no concerns with the proposal. He reported they had sent extended notice for the community meeting beyond the adjacent property owners and had received only positive phone calls from area residents. He noted Precision Cams would add minimal traffic because it is primarily a mail and email order business that re-manufactures cam shafts for small engines. He commented that the Edwards, in the spirit of American ingenuity and innovation, essentially take products and make them better, which he feels is commendable and would be a great asset to the County. Mr. Nichols explained the proposed business would be an improvement to the site, which has good access on North Kerr Avenue. The Edwards are proposing to build a new 18’ high, 3,000 square feet facility that will be landscaped. They take great pride in their business and want that to be reflected in the proposed new location with the board’s approval. Mr. Nichols stated Lee Galloway of Tripp Engineering was present to answer questions and respectfully submitted that the proposal met all the criteria of the AI zone and the specific criteria of the special use permit aspect for the proposed use. Anthony Prinz asked what type of delivery vehicles would be entering and exiting the site, commenting there didn’t appear to be much room for vehicles to turn around. He stated if large Page 3 of 23 vehicles would be frequently entering and leaving the site, he would be concerned about them backing out onto Kerr Avenue given the proximity to the intersection with Blue Clay Road. Mr. Edwards stated that regular UPS, FEDEX, and US Mail vehicles would be delivering and picking up from the site because his company does not ship or receive via large trucks. Melissa Gott noted a statement by staff in the findings of fact that “Proposed road improvements required by NCDOT are implemented” and asked if there were any proposed changes that needed to be implemented or should be a condition of the permit. Ms. Daughtridge stated the applicant was not required to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis and will only need a driveway permit to change the use. At that time, NCDOT will evaluate whether the applicant will need to make additional particular changes, but those changes would be minor for that access. Dan Hilla asked if the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority had responded about the status of sewer plans for that area and if the proposed building would require sewer. Ms. Daughtridge stated that CFPUA had not responded to the County’s request. Lee Galloway, of Tripp Engineering, explained there is currently no water or sewer in the area. CFPUA has no plans for future sewer in the area, but does plan to install a water line in the area by the end of 2012. Therefore, the applicant is proposing a well for water and septic for sewer. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning as requested. Troy Barboza seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of rezoning request Z-911 as requested. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit. Troy Barboza seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the special use permit for rezoning request Z-911. Item 2: Text Amendment (A-391, 06/11) -Request by Staff to amend Sections II, IV, V, and VI of the County’s Zoning Ordinance to improve classification of Industrial Uses and to create a Special Use review process for intensive industrial uses. This item was continued from the Planning Board’s July 7, 2011 meeting. Jane Daughtridge stated staff had provided presentations on the proposed amendment at the July 7th Planning Board meeting and at their July 20th work session; therefore, her presentation would concentrate on changes and updates since those initial presentations. She provided an updated timeline reflecting how the amendment had progressed over time. Ms. Daughtridge reported that 23.6% of unincorporated New Hanover County is zoned for industrial purposes as compared with Brunswick County, which has 2% of property zoned industrial. Page 4 of 23 Ms. Daughtridge reported the amendment had been changed immediately following the work session to include language in Section 56.8(i) allowing existing industries to continue, modify or expand operations if the industrial use classification changes to a less intensive classification without a special use permit. She explained staff felt a less intensive use, such as Limited Manufacturing, would not cause any particular problem. The same language was also included in Section 57.8 and 44-1.1. In regard to the review of external effects, the language in Section 57.4.2 was changed to require a “non-binding” narrative to accompany a special use permit application and the language was shortened to reference Section 71 of the ordinance, which further describes the special use permit process. Ms. Daughtridge reviewed several additional corrections and suggestions to Section 56.1, 57.8, and 44-1-1 in response to concerns from board members and Mr. Egerton. First, a typographical error was corrected in Section 56.1, Line 14 to read I-1 rather than I-I. Second, language in Section 56.8 was revised to include existing industrial uses which did not require a special use permit prior to August 1, 2011 instead of on August 1, 2011. Third, to clarify what constitutes an existing industrial use, staff revised the language to make it clear there is a date certain of August 1, 2011, and added an explanation of the term existing industrial uses to be industries in active operation and open for business on a tax parcel zoned I-1 and developed for that particular use prior to August 1, 2011. (Also applies to parcels zoned I-2 in Section 57.8) Fourth, the term evident was changed to met and the phrase are not in evidence was changed to cannot be met. Also in that section, the language was changed to read “The expansion of an existing industrial use is proposed on the tax parcel currently developed for and operating as such use…” Ms. Daughtridge noted the word corporate had been deleted regarding ownership due to concerns about LLC’s and a date certain was added so the sections now read “…if properly zoned and held in the same ownership as recorded for the tax parcels on August 1, 2011…”. Staff kept the language “(including successor corporate ownership by merger)”. Ms. Daughtridge commented staff was aware of one merger currently in process. Ms. Daughtridge stated in the Definitions section of the ordinance attached to the Table of Permitted Uses, staff added “Solar power farms are Electricity generating facilities; however, for purposes of this ordinance they are considered a separate use in the Table of Permitted Uses. In addition in the Table of Permitted Uses, the RA district by special use permit could include Artisan Manufacturing, the Limited Manufacturing by special use permit could be included in the B-2 district to expand those opportunities, and Solar Power Farms would be permitted in I-1 and I-2 because the anticipated impacts of those would be very, very low. Chairman Heath asked if the board members had any questions. Anthony Prinz asked staff to explain the rationale behind the effective date of August 1, 2011, noting the effective date is usually the date an ordinance is approved by the County Commissioners. Page 5 of 23 Jane Daughtridge stated that date could be used as well, but the feeling was if someone was looking for something definitive, there is a date certain. Originally, the director had recommended an effective date of July 1, 2011 because it was the beginning of the fiscal year. Anthony Prinz stated he liked the concept, but he felt the effective date should be determined by the Commissioners if the proposal moved forward. Dan Hilla asked if a special use permit would be granted or denied prior to an industry applying for federal permits, such as air quality permits. Jane Daughtridge stated staff would anticipate the special permit to be granted prior to the industry applying for federal permits because typically federal agencies would ask for a concurrence from the local government as they process permits. Dan Hilla asked if the County would need to use information from the federal permitting process to make the decision to grant or deny the special use permit. Jane Daughtridge explained the County County would not need the information from the federal permit applications to make a determination because it is a Land Use issue so the particulars of an air quality or water quality permit would not be needed. Those agencies would address those very special focus points. The decision makers will have knowledge about those anticipated permits based on the narrative submitted with the special use permit application. She noted the narrative may trigger the Commissioners to ask a question about those permits, but their focus would be to determine if there would be land use conflicts if the special use permit was granted. Anthony Prinz commented he understood Ms. Daughtridge’s remarks to mean the County’s level of environmental review would be that a perspective use would have to comply with all state and federal environmental regulations that are associated with that particular use. He asked if that would be a condition of the special use permit because that type of condition seemed to be linked to Finding of of Fact #1, which is one of the minimum requirements for granting a special use. Ms. Daughtridge explained the standard language stating the applicant has to comply with all state, federal and other local requirements is usually included in the findings of fact and is always included in the order granting a special use. Vice Chairman Heath opened the public hearing. Craig Galbraith identified himself as a senior professor at the Cameron School of Business at UNCW in the areas of entrepreneurship and technology management and the Glaxo Smith Kline faculty fellow in the field of local economic development and spoke in favor of the text amendment for the special use permit. He stated he had written many books and articles in the area of local economic development, is a small business owner and an equity investor in many local and regional high technology companies, is currently Chairman of the Kure Beach Planning & Zoning Commission and has spent over 25 years on various planning commissions, economic development authorities, and military base reuse committees in North Carolina and several other states. He voiced support for the proposed ordinance and expressed surprise the county didn’t Page 6 of 23 already have very strict special use and conditional use permitting processes for both industrial and commercial activities and districts. He addressed the economic argument, noting the proposal will in no way discourage economic development and if implemented will certainly encourage overall economic development within the community. He explained people often get very confused about the drivers of local and regional economic development. Any business has both a potential positive effect and a potential negative effect on local development. The positive benefits stem from whether or not the profits stay in the community, the nature of the labor employment associated with the business and whether or not the inputs to the business are acquired locally versus overseas. Some types of industries have very large positive impacts and some have very small positive impacts on local economic development so not all business is created equal when it comes to regional economic development. Businesses can also have negative impacts on local economic development that include digital signs, billboards, sign pollution, excessive traffic, visual and environmental pollution, offensive smells, etc. that make the area less attractive to leisure visitors and potential other businesses or reduce the value of adjacent or nearby properties. Mr. Galbraith explained some industries such as high technology, research and development, educational institutions, financial services, professional services, and light manufacturing, particularly those that use local input and are owned locally generally have a very large net positive impact on local economic development, while other industries may have a very large net negative impact. He commented from his experience, the power of any planning or zoning mechanism is to reduce the negative externalities associated with certain types of businesses in order to enhance overall economic development within the community. A special use permit is a powerful tool in that practice because it it helps identify potential problems and gives businesses the opportunity to rectify any negative problems or negative externalities in order to get the permit to operate. He stated any business that is not willing to work within the parameters of such special use or conditional use permits will ultimately be a poor economic neighbor and probably doesn’t fit within a master economic vision for the Wilmington region. Kemp Burdette stated he was born and raised in New Hanover County, he and his wife are raising two daughters here, and he is the Executive Director of Cape Fear River Watch and the Cape Fear Riverkeeper. He urged board members to recommend the adoption of the proposed changes to New Hanover County’s Industrial zoning regulations. He commented that New Hanover County is unique among North Carolina counties and is very small and densely populated, wedged between the ocean on the east and two rivers to the north and west. There is no place in the county where we can locate intensive industry where its effects will not be felt by the ever increasing number of families that live around those facilities. Unfortunately, pollution doesn’t recognize property lines and it doesn’t stay where it is made. He stated the current zoning regulations are horribly outdated and were written in 1969 before the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the seminal laws designed to protect citizens from the impacts of air and water pollution. The regulations were also written before the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Since that time, New Hanover County has changed tremendously and tripled in size. He explained the proposed changes to the zoning regulations are far from radical and in fact, 42 other counties in the state with lower population densities already have them in place. While industry representatives and advocates have argued against these changes, their arguments don’t stand up. In response to those who say changing zoning regulations when somebody owns Page 7 of 23 the property isn’t fair, Mr. Burdette stated it also isn’t fair to build an intensive industrial facility that produces enormous amounts of pollution close to existing homes and schools. Mr. Burdette noted that Brunswick County has a special use permit process in place and it hasn’t deterred a new industrial facility from announcing it would like to bring 1,500 jobs to Brunswick County. North Carolina is consistently ranked as one of the most business friendly states in the country and almost half of the state’s counties have special use permits in place so special use permits don’t scare industry. He said as stated repeatedly by the County planners, the special use permit is not a denial process; it is a process for allowing citizens, planners and elected officials a chance to hear what the impact of a proposed industrial facility will be and an opportunity to voice their concerns or their endorsement. Mr. Burdette asked board members to remember that the biggest drivers to the local economy are derived from the beautiful environment that attracts visitors and newcomers to the area. Per the NC Division of Tourism, in 2009 travel and tourism alone generated more than 5,200 jobs in New Hanover County and domestic travel had an economic impact of over $390 million. We need to make sure that we protect our citizens and our environment from industrial bad apples that threaten our community’s future. Mr. Burdette stated the issue is very simple and goes back to the principles that the country was founded upon – a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Every citizen should have the right to know the impacts of heavy industry that builds next to their home, school, or business and should have the opportunity to have their voice heard by their elected officials and their elected officials should have the ability to protect their life, liberty, and happiness. He noted profit margins and corporate bottom lines shouldn’t trump the right of every citizen in the county to breathe clean air, drink clean water and have a voice in their children’s future. In conclusion, Mr. Burdette asked board members to choose wisely and vote to give the citizens a voice in the zoning process by recommending the proposed zoning changes. Dave Thomas, a lifelong resident of the Greenville Sound area, stated he was amazed the current zoning laws for special use permits originated in 1969 and commented about the difference in life in the county during that time when you could walk down the street to Hewlett’s Creek and go out on the water to grab all the oysters, clams and fish you wanted and bring them home to eat because all the shellfish waters were completely open. Mr. Thomas stated he owned a small construction business and he had benefitted greatly from the growth that had come to the area. He had met some incredible, unique, intelligent, prosperous, innovative people through his business, who all said they moved to the area because of it is a beautiful and wonderful place to live and has the beaches and rivers. Mr. Thomas expressed hope the board would vote to continue to protect this wonderful community. Ed Horger, a pediatrician in Wilmington for over 19 years and a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated he has spoken at numerous meetings about heavy industry coming to the area and would continue to speak until the issue was put to rest. He acknowledged he spoke on behalf of at least 200 local physicians that have signed a petition against a particular industry and has collected much data pertaining to heavy industry air pollution and adverse health effects. He cited current policy statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics and Page 8 of 23 the American Academy of Family Physicians stating current guidelines as set forth by the EPA for criteria air pollutants are not sufficient to protect public health and to reduce respiratory and cardiovascular disease and to reduce poor birth outcomes and potentially developmental disability. Data published by the EPA in 2007 shows that more than half of all Americans live in areas where levels of outdoor air pollution exceed health based standards. He commented, based on recent reports, New Hanover County has a very tenuous hold on its air quality because of existing industry. The Clean Air Act mandates the EPA to periodically reassess existing and new science that underlie the regulation of major ambient air pollutants. He stated because existing New Hanover County zoning rules are outdated and don’t take into consideration new data, he would encourage the board to adopt zoning revisions for heavy industry. Dr. Horger concluded by noting the issue is very much an emotional issue for many of the people involved, but the science can’t be ignored and the citizens of New Hanover County are owed that much. Kayne Darrell, a resident of Castle Hayne, thanked the board for reviewing the zoning rules as they apply to intensive industry. She commented the northern part of New Hanover County has been the dumping ground for the County for a long time and the revisions are an essential part of moving toward a better future for the community. She spoke briefly about how the EPA defines environmental justice as fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, nation, origin or income with respect to development implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental or commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local and tribal programs and policies. Meaningful involvement means potentially affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decision making about proposed activities that affect their environment and/or health. N.C. Census data indicates the areas zoned for I-1 and I-2 have some of the highest poverty and minority residents, which raises the question of environmental justice when considering the necessity of adding an extra layer of review and allowing for input from that sector of the community. She expressed the opinion it would be immoral and unjust to deny a population the right to participate in the process of deciding whether the risks outweigh the benefits before certain industries move into their neighborhoods. Since heavy industry zoning has not been reviewed in over forty years, the County needs to consider the population increase and the schools, parks, daycare centers, etc. now located in or abutting those zones. Ms. Darrell noted the citizens of New Hanover County deserve the same rights as those citizens in the 42 counties that require special use permits and the children, resources, health and property values in Castle Hayne deserve the same protections the zoning ordinances afford everyone else in the county. Ms. Darrell implored the board to act in the best interest of all the citizens they serve and consider what is good for the future of the community as a whole. Bob Warwick, Chairman of the Coalition for Economic Advancement in New Hanover County, spoke in opposition to the amendment and stated he had been involved in economic development for fifty years and was involved in the recruiting of most of the major industry in the county. He pointed out only two significant new industries had been recruited to New Hanover County in the past thirty years, which is an average of one new industry every fifteen years, so recruiting new industry doesn’t happen very often here. Page 9 of 23 Mr. Warwick explained that changing the zoning ordinance will not only affect new industry, but will also affect every existing industry and every single acre of industrial zoned land. It will reduce the value of every single acre because new restrictions can’t be imposed without affecting property value. As pointed out by staff, the zoning ordinance will not include review of air or water quality issues; it will only affect land use issues. Mr. Warwick said he is not aware of any industrial property in New Hanover County that hasn’t been zoned industrial for at least forty years and the amount of industrial zoned property has not expanded, but has actually been reduced by about 1,500 acres in the last few years. Mr. Warwick disagreed with the professor who said the zoning ordinance would not affect industry. He stated the board had a difficult job because everybody would like to have a say in what land is zoned for industry. He commented there were people in the room that would vote for no industry and don’t want one more car on the road or one more person to move into the area, but that would not be good for New Hanover County. He stated the need to carefully consider the issue and avoid rushing into something that may be damaging to current industry or to the county’s ability to recruit industry in the future. Bill King, a lifelong resident of New Hanover County, spoke in opposition to the amendment. He identified himself as the site manager at Invista, a large industry in the county and as the Chairman of the Wilmington Board of Industrial Development. He targeted his comments toward the proposed land use and the issues he sees with it. Mr. King stated that existing industry had been given a good chance to articulate some concerns with the proposal and most of the concerns had been addressed around existing industry. He was concerned, however, about Section 57.8.2, which addresses the expansion of an existing industry and the special use permit exemption in the I-2 district. It is also paralleled in the I-1 portion of the proposal. In regard to being held in the same corporate ownership, he commented that his facility had been through seven ownership changes over the course of time they had been a resident of the county. Mr. King encouraged the board to consider including acquisition in addition to merger in the exemption language because companies are bought and sold for various reasons generally driven by economics, which may put an existing industry at a disadvantage because the company purchasing it may consider the requirement as a barrier which makes the company less attractive. Mr. King noted in respect to the earlier comments made regarding air and water quality, companies work with a number of regulatory agencies, including CAMA and DENR and the County and State for land disturbance permits, etc. He stated the special use permit ordinance is specifically for land use and many of the air and water quality permits will not have been filed at the time of application because they can’t be filed without verification that the County has approved a special use permit; therefore, much of the debate won’t happen because most of the information will not be available. Mr. King commented that the special use permit process language is also missing the criteria required to be issued a permit. Most regulatory agencies have very specific guidelines about what must be done to obtain a permit, but the ordinance only seems to address what will trigger the need for a special use permit and has very little information about what will enable a permit to be issued or not issued. He felt that undefined portion of the ordinance represented and created high risks for those looking to grow or locate their company in the county. That risk, as alluded to by Bob Warwick, would also be detrimental to land value. Page 10 of 23 Mr. King explained all industry exists to create value for society. For example, Corning creates fiber optic cable through which data transmission occurs. General Electric makes aircraft engine parts for air transportation. He stated his company, Invista, makes the raw material that goes into drink bottles. At the end of the day, if an industry doesn’t create value for society, it will cease to exist and go out of business due to lack of customers. Mr. King reiterated the issues he has with the proposed ordinance are the lack of definitions, what would cause a permit to be or not to be issued, and specifically the need to add an exemption for acquisitions in addition to mergers. Stuart Egerton, an attorney who has resided in Wilmington for thirty years, noted he represented Progress Energy as he made his comments. He pointed out that the natural gas power plant under construction at Progress Energy’s facility will reduce sulfur dioxide by about 95% of that produced by the coal fired plant and commented Progress Energy is doing their best to help New Hanover County in that regard. He noted he had expressed concern at the July 7th meeting about unintended consequences and the need to avoid them in the zoning amendment process. He explained it is very important to existing industries, including Progress Energy, to avoid becoming a nonconforming use upon adoption of the ordinance because there are many unintended consequences that come by way of that happening. Mr. Egerton cited a letter from Commissioner Catlin to Bob Warwick on May 31st assuring him he would not support changes in the zoning ordinance that threaten the viability of existing businesses in New Hanover County. He then stated they would like to see pitfalls avoided that may come about if the language process isn’t reviewed carefully, not only in the amendments being presented by Ms. Daughtridge and Ms. Ralston, but in the ordinance as a whole through a comprehensive look at the zoning plan, which is mandated upon the board by the NC General Statutes. He commented if just some of the provisions are placed in through amendments in Sections 56, 57, and 44, the County may run afoul of provisions elsewhere in the ordinance. He referred to a letter he wrote on August 3rd to the County attorneys regarding certain things that haven’t been changed elsewhere in the ordinance and he feels will be mutually repugnant to the new portions of the ordinance. He noted Ms. Huffman had done a good job of monitoring the process and communicating with him. He then explained a particular concern involving the sludge processing treatment, which is currently a permitted use in Section 69.5, which is a section that is not being addressed in this amendment. If Section 69.5 is unchanged, when a sludge disposal or processing facility becomes by reason of Section 57.1 or 57.2 an intensive industry and subject to the environmental review process and the special use permit process, it will be designated as a special use rather than a permitted use through the new Table of Permitted Uses; and therefore, would be at odds with Section 69.5 going forward. Mr. Egerton stated appreciation for the staff’s revisions in response to his concerns about “prior to” and the terms “evident” and “in evidence”; however, he still wondered if there was a determinative process for a special use exemption for an existing industry. He wondered how an industry owner could feel comfortable going forward with a planned expansion and feel comfortable that nothing “is evident” or “has not been met”. Mr. Egerton stated his final concern was the use of the term “expand” in sections 56.8 and 57.8 regarding the special use permit exemption for current industry. He commented there are terms of art within the body of law reviewing special use permits, particularly being asked for by non- Page 11 of 23 conforming uses that have been conforming until a zoning change has occurred. He cited the example of a welding company in Asheville that sought to expand one tank on its property. Neighboring people called them on it after they had already built it and it was deemed through the Board of Adjustment, through the Superior Court and through the Appellate Court the company had enlarged or extended beyond the footprint of their original processing plant and an addition to. He concluded by stating he had placed a request in a letter to the County to include the words “enlarge”, “extend”, and “add to” in order to give some definition to “expand” to give the courts guidance rather than confusion. Vice Chairman Heath opened the floor to those in favor for rebuttal. Tracy Skrabal, a resident of New Hanover County and employee of the NC Coastal Federation, stated as an ex-regulator she found it interesting that this level of comment was occurring at this stage in the process when everyone has had six months to review the document. She noted the citizens had met with staff to review the ordinance and ask for language changes and she felt industry representatives had the same amount of time so it appeared the comments were another effort to postpone a necessary decision. Ms. Skrabal pointed out that veterinaries, kennels, marinas, dry stack facilities, communication facilities, convenience stores, entertainment establishments, B&B’s, indoor/outdoor recreation, adult daycares, children’s daycares, hospitals, rehab centers, colleges, fraternal organizations, high density development, some single family developments, cemeteries and retirement homes are all businesses that currently require special use permit applications and reviews in New Hanover County. She stated businesses that currently do not require a special use permit application and review in New Hanover County included businesses that manufacture or process chemicals such as chlorine, corrosive acids or fertilizer, cement, coal, resins, poisons, explosives, paints, petroleum, radioactive materials, businesses for smelting, animal slaughtering, oil refineries, fuel bulk storage, electricity generating plants, and any manufacturing or processing facility which has a high potential for significant negative external impacts on surrounding properties, water resources, air quality or public health. Ms. Skrabal commented if the board didn’t make a decision to pass the zoning change, they were saying it was okay to require small businesses to go through the review process, but were giving a free pass to all of the potentially harmful heavy industries and intensive industries. Mike Giles stated he was a County resident and also worked for the NC Coastal Federation. He noted industry representatives had portrayed those supporting the ordinance as radicals who didn’t want to drive a car, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. They are not anti-industry or anti-growth. They know New Hanover County has changed and the planning process needs to evolve and change change with that growth. Even if an industry comes here and hasn’t applied for their air permits, the County should want an industry that is prepared and knows what they are doing. Most industries already know what permits they will need and what impacts they will have upon the public health and public safety of the community so it is not correct for industrial representatives to portray those industries as not knowing those things. Jamie Walker, stated she was a resident of Castle Hayne, the owner of a small business, and the mother of three beautiful children under the age of six, as well as a gardener and a writer. She expressed belief that New Hanover County needs special use permits to provide an open and Page 12 of 23 transparent process when industries try to locate near homes, schools and daycare centers. She stated as a parent and resident, it was evident to her that industries like hazardous waste incinerators or cement plants should be required to go through this process. When New Hanover County developed its industrial corridor, not only was the County less populated, but the medical and scientific studies indicating the harm to the residents’ health and to the environment didn’t exist. Now that we have that knowledge, we have the power and the responsibility to protect the health of our fellow citizens and our children. Ms. Walker asked the board to vote the proposed revisions into law. No one spoke during opposition rebuttal. Vice Chairman Heath closed the public hearing. Melissa Gott asked for clarification of the language variation in the most recent draft amendment regarding the corporate ownership, noting the language was modified in section 56.8(2), but the same revision wasn’t applied to 57.8(2) under the I-2. Ms. Daughtridge explained the language was intended to be the same in Sections 56, 57 and 44. Melissa Gott also asked about another phrase in that paragraph which read “(including successor corporate ownership by merger)” and noted staff had mentioned a merger currently in process. She asked if the merger kept the same name on the title to the property, they would be grandfathered in and be exempt under the new ordinance. In response, Ms. Daughtridge stated the successor merger is the Duke and Progress Energy merger and whatever name they take will be fine under the new ordinance regardless of whether the title to the property is or is not changed. Ms. Gott asked if it also addressed Mr. King’s concerns about future title changes to businesses. Ms. Daughtridge stated the provision would not address Mr. King’s concerns regarding acquisitions, which are different from mergers. Ms. Gott asked for confirmation that is someone purchased an ongoing business, they would not be included in the exemption. Ms. Daughtridge stated if someone purchased an ongoing business, they could continue on but would not enjoy the exemption that has been provided to those businesses existing today. In response to a question from Ms. Gott, Ms. Daughtridge confirmed the purchaser of an ongoing business would be classified as a non-conforming use, but could request a special use permit to come into compliance. Ms. Gott asked staff to address the apparent conflict described by Mr. Egerton. Page 13 of 23 Ms. Daughtridge stated staff would be happy to discuss and answer the specific concerns Mr. Egerton had mentioned. She commented there would never be perfect language and for that reason, there is interpretive capability in any ordinance and the zoning officers are authorized to make those interpretations. Ms. Daughtridge stated Section 69 contains supplemental standards. For certain uses, there is a set of standards that must be followed whether a special use permit is required or not. Sludge is one of those uses and even as a permitted use, can’t be done unless a particular set of standards is met. She explained in reference to the Mr. Egerton’s letter, sludge was prior classified as a sanitary landfill, which has always required a special use permit; and therefore, wasn’t exempt before and wouldn’t be exempt under the proposed amendment. Ms. Gott requested additional clarification for the particular example of sludge regarding additional requirements above the special use permit requirements the county would be implementing. Ms. Daughtridge stated if staff received a special use permit request for a sludge activity, they would anticipate that the additional set of standards would be part of the requirements, as is already done with marinas, for example. There are some other things in the supplemental standards that sometimes require a special use permit and staff would refer back to those supplemental standards as the major requirements. Ms. Gott asked if staff felt there were other concerns raised in Mr. Egerton’s letter that should be addressed in the proposed ordinance or in other places in the ordinance to make it consistent. Ms. Daughtridge confirmed there were no other concerns raised in Mr. Egerton’s letter that needed to be addressed for consistency and offered to meet with him to review his concerns. Anthony Prinz asked in regard to merger versus acquisition if staff still held to the position of including only the merger language rather than adding acquisition because there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the two, particularly if companies are going to be allowed to merge and change the title of the property. Ms. Daughtridge stated the concern was that the broader the language becomes, the wider the loophole will be and noted we have already been extremely generous in the provisions of exemption we are providing for existing industry. We run the risk at some point of creating almost a monopoly situation for those existing industries where they can do practically anything -sell, trade, move, acquire, merge, etc. and never have any sort of review even though the nature of their business and the corporation can change. She noted the merger language was a concession to the Progress Energy situation, but staff wanted to be careful with the language and not open the door so wide that there is never an opportunity to review anything on a piece of property that is currently operating as an industry. Ms. Gott stated her understanding that the purpose of adding the special use exemption was to protect existing business so long as the business continued at the same level of manufacturing or decreased that use. The special use permit would apply to future business. Page 14 of 23 Ms. Daughtridge responded the concern was that the nature of the use of the land could easily change if the exemption was widened to include acquisition, etc. Ms. Gott asked staff to explain why it would matter if the name changed, particularly since the language had been tightened up regarding the nature of the use by limiting existing businesses to their current use or a lesser use. Ms. Daughtridge noted the name change wouldn’t be a concern; it would be the type of heavy industry. There is a variety of uses that fall under the intensive industry classification and some are more intensive than others and if over time everything about the operation changed, there might be some point at which it would need to be reviewed. Ms. Gott was concerned the provision would circumvent the language and was different than the intention the County was trying to achieve by allowing them to be exempt if they continue at their same level of use or decrease that level of use. She commented it seemed that even if they went to a lesser intense use fifty years from now, a change in the name of their company by one word would put the business outside the exemption. Ms. Daughtridge confirmed Ms. Gott was correct that a name change would put a business outside the exemption. Ms. Gott expressed concern that the County had not explained that fact to the public. Chris O’Keefe added the County was looking at ownership, not necessarily name change; therefore, he thought a name change would be permitted to happen and allow the company to remain under the exemption. The County is concerned about the ownership. Ms. Gott disagreed with a business losing its exemption if the name changed because the company was sold, but understood the requirement for future businesses to go through the special use permit process. She noted that her concern had always been changing the process for existing businesses and cited the example of Progress Energy and Duke Energy selling their company at some point to another company, which would require a change in the property title; and thereby, result in the purchasing company losing the special use permit exemption. Mr. O’Keefe stated staff had gone to great effort to create the exceptions for existing industry, but felt at some point there needed to be a responsible check and balance in place for industries as ownerships change and technology changes and the County needed to have the opportunity to review the use. Anthony Prinz stated the County had told the public the purpose of the amendment was to consider land use consistency, but he felt this provision loses track of the actual purpose. He elaborated that a name change itself doesn’t mean the industry is changing at all and in his mind, the threshold that would require an adjustment to their permitting would be if they changed the type of industry they are operating as. He indicated he has no issue with the acquisition concept. Page 15 of 23 Shawn Ralston clarified that a name change in itself would not trigger anything. The special use permit process would only be triggered by a name change and an expansion. Mr. Prinz felt that the name change is irrelevant; it is the expansion itself or the use itself that is important, not necessarily who owns the business. Ms. Gott agreed with Mr. Prinz and stated if the company was going to a more intensive use, they would need to obtain a special use permit; however, if they were going to a less intensive use, she didn’t feel it was fair to the individual property owner because the County should be encouraging that lesser use. Vice Chair Heath asked for clarification that an existing industry under the same ownership would be exempt and could go forward with an expansion without obtaining a special use permit; however, if an existing business is sold to a new owner who wants to expand the business, the new owner would be required to obtain a special use permit. Ms. Daughtridge confirmed Vice Vice Chairman Heath’s statement was correct. Ms. Gott noted Bob Warwick, who was no longer present, had stated it would greatly deter business if New Hanover County instituted a SUP process. She asked Mr. Egerton if he could comment on Brunswick County’s special use permit process and why it had not deterred business there. Mr. Egerton indicated he had been focusing on New Hanover County’s amendments and could not comment on Brunswick County’s process. Anthony Prinz commented he felt the amendment would bring the County’s zoning regulations into the 21st century and was sorely needed for an urbanizing county. He expressed belief that the County should allow the change of ownership, as long as a change in intensity isn’t partnered with it and stated his support of the adjustments to the ordinance as drafted. Dan Hilla stated he still had some of the same concerns he had at the July meeting and at the work session and noted the land use is the only issue. He was concerned about raising some of the property ownership issues and felt there were still some parts of the proposal that needed to be worked through. He was completely in favor of updating things that make the county a great place to live, such as clean water and clean air, but felt a few things still needed to be ironed out. Vice Chair Andy Heath stated he fully supported the text amendment as written and believed that between the work session and meetings there had been plenty of time to vet the ordinance. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend the Commissioners consider approval of Text Amendment A-391 with the modification that it allows for acquisition and transfer of ownership without the increasing of intensity of use to remain an exempt use under this code. Andy Heath seconded the motion. Page 16 of 23 During discussion, Melissa Gott agreed with the prior comments made by Mr. Prinz and Mr. Hilla and commented the board was headed in the right direction, but she would like for the Planning Board to review the re-drafting of subsection 2 in Section 56.8 and 57.8 regarding ownership before the amendment is sent in its final form to the commissioners. She noted she would like to see a couple of different variations on the drafting of subsection 2 based upon the earlier discussion, but felt the other concerns discussed at the work session had been addressed. Anthony Prinz asked if Ms. Gott felt it would require another month of work to accomplish that task or if the issues could be worked out during the meeting. Ms. Gott responded that she would like to make sure the language was right and give the community an opportunity to review the revisions. She commented the community’s input was important in the process; particularly given there are two very different sides of the issue. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman advised the chairman there had been a motion and a second so the appropriate procedure would be to vote on the motion unless a substitute motion was made. Anthony Prinz stated he supported Ms. Gott’s comments, noting he was agreeable to making sure the text language was 100% correct before forwarding it to the commissioners. He asked other board members if that was the only lingering issue that needed to be resolved. Dan Hilla confirmed the final language was the only issue that needed to be resolved. Following a brief discussion on procedure, Dan Hilla made a substitute motion to table the vote on the Text Amendment (A-391) until next month’s meeting. He explained there would be a full board present at the September meeting to work out the issues with the language. Troy Barboza seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to table the vote on Text Amendment A-391 until the September Planning Board meeting. Vice Chairman Heath announced the board would take a five minute recess. Item 3: Text Amendment (A-395, 08/11) -Request by Staff to amend Section 97-4 of the zoning ordinance to extend the deadline for amortization of non-conforming freestanding signs on Carolina Beach Road. Jane Daughtridge provided a brief overview of the proposed amendment to extend the deadline for amortization of non-conforming signs on Carolina Beach Road and gave an in-depth history of the ordinance. She also presented a map and photos of signs along the corridor. In 2001, a new SHOD (Special Highway Overlay District) was being prepared and put into place in the northern part of the county to try to create standards along the entryway corridors to protect the image of the community. Simultaneous to the SHOD, the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Committee was reviewing the zoning ordinances of the City and County to develop some merged types of language to make the standards somewhat consistent. Several Page 17 of 23 chapters of the ordinance with similar standards were approved by the City and the County. At that time, the UDO Committee looked at the section on signs and recommended large changes to the sign sections for the City and County, which came to the Planning Board at the same time a request was made by a Planning Board member to consider a SHOD for Carolina Beach Road because he felt the corridor did not have the same protections the other entryways had and thought it would benefit the community by encouraging investment and creating appeal. At the time, staff explained that the Carolina Beach Road corridor had somewhat smaller lots and it would be difficult to include all of the SHOD requirements, which involve setbacks, additional buffers, placement of parking and rather restrictive sign regulations. For that reason, the board extracted from the SHOD only the language related to signs and specialized it to the Carolina Beach Road corridor. Part of that language included the amortization of signs. The new standards addressed free standing signs, not all signs and were the same as for the northern SHODS, which are along Market Street, I-40, and I-140. The standards were adopted on 8/6/2001 and stated, “Free standing signs along Carolina Beach Road shall comply with the provisions of this Section except that only free standing ground signs not to exceed six (6) feet in height and a maximum surface area of 150 square feet shall be permitted”. Ms. Daughtridge stated since that time, new signage and substantial change-outs have complied with the 2001 standard, while normal maintenance and repair and panel replacement have been allowed in the non-conforming signs within existing frames. Ms. Daughtridge explained that non-conformity is generally approached in two different ways. A non-conformity can be allowed to exist until it is substantially damaged or changed out or the non-conformity can be amortized and given a specific period of time to come into compliance. The County chose to adopt an amortization schedule, consistent with the City’s non-conforming schedule, which applied to all non-conforming signs. She noted the amortization period for non-conforming, on-premise free standing signs was ten (10) years. She commented the amortization schedule varies for other types of signs, including flashing or animated signs. Ms. Daughtridge stated that a sign survey had been conducted last summer during which photos were taken of signs along the Carolina Beach Road corridor and heights of signs were estimated to determine if they were in compliance with the standard. She reported there are an estimated 48-60 free standing signs that are still non-conforming in the corridor, noting there are provisions in the ordinance which allow some flexibility. For example, if a sign is within 15% of the maximum sign area or within four feet of the maximum sign height or if the only non-conformity is the front setback, the sign can continue to remain in place. She explained most signs are non-conforming because they are too high or there are too many signs onsite. Ms. Daughtridge stated a property owner has two alternatives: 1) request a variance from the standards through the Zoning Board of Adjustments, proving a hardship, which must be particular to the land (An economic hardship doesn’t meet that requirement); or 2) petition to amend the ordinance and eliminate or amend the amortization schedule. Ms. Daughtridge explained the County Commissioners heard a presentation on the Carolina Beach Road sign amortization at their May meeting because a concerned citizen had brought the Page 18 of 23 situation to their attention and expressed concern about the deadline during the current economic situation. Realizing they were not authorized to issue variances and couldn’t change the ordinance without a recommendation from the Planning Board, the Commissioners sent the issue to the Planning Board to review, conduct a public hearing, and make a recommendation. Ms. Daughtridge stated in regard to a question of whether individual notice had been sent to those people in the corridor, staff was unable to find that evidence of any individual notice. Standard public hearing notices were placed in the newspaper indicating there would be a discussion of the SHOD at the Planning Board meeting and a recommendation for those free standing sign standards at the County Commissioners meeting. Per information provided by former Planning Director Dexter Hayes, Ms. Daughtridge reported notification had been sent to sign contractors, but had probably not been sent to property owners. She found no indication in the minutes of those meetings that anyone attended the meetings, although there was a newspaper article after the Planning Board meeting regarding what had been done at the meeting. She noted Mr. Hayes had indicated the sign contractors had attended the UDO committee meeting to express many concerns about the changes in the sign section of the ordinance. Ms. Daughtridge stated since the ordinance was approved, staff had notified sign contractors about the sign regulations each time they applied for a sign permit, but the owners themselves were not notified. In regard to the current proposal, Ms. Daughtridge reported staff had notified all property owners believed to be potentially non-conforming by letter to both their tax address and to their physical property address; however, staff had not been onsite to take measurements or find out who might qualify for some of those provisions for change outs. A reverse 911 notification phone call had also been implemented to everyone within 1,000 feet of the Carolina Beach Road corridor. Mr. O’Keefe filmed a public service announcement about the issue that has been running on the New Hanover County website and information is also posted on the Planning & Inspections website and Facebook page. Staff has conducted tremendous outreach to inform the public that this issue is currently being considered. Ms. Daughtridge stated in conclusion, staff was recommending an amendment to the ordinance to allow a two year extension of the amortization period for free standing on-premise signs. Per a question from Dan Hilla, Jane Daughtridge confirmed the proposal was to extend the ordinance for two additional years as written. Ms. Daughtridge stated she was unable to answer a question from Anthony Prinz regarding how many non-conforming signs had been brought into compliance. She commented that new businesses since 2001 have all complied with the new ordinance and there is a degree of competitive advantage for those businesses with signs that are higher in the air. In response to a question from Vice Chairman Andy Heath, Ms. Daughtridge confirmed the proposal would affect only free standing signs and would not affect signs attached to buildings or other types of signs. Vice Chairman Heath opened the public hearing. Page 19 of 23 Craig Galbraith, a business and restaurant owner, member of the board of directors of a local high technology company, investor in several high tech companies, a professor who teaches Hotel and Restaurant Management in the Cameron School of Business and courses in Small Business, Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, and the Chairman of the Kure Beach Planning Commission said he found the issue very interesting, particularly since Kure Beach has recently changed its sign ordinance. Mr. Galbraith stated business people will say the amortization is unfair and express their need to identify their business. While businesses certainly need to identify themselves, at some point signage becomes distracting from a safety point of view. A great deal of research shows that sign pollution, large numbers of signs and particularly digital signs, is actually unsafe, distracts drivers and creates a safety issue. From an economic point of view, the signage on retail is probably the number one issue that leisure travelers, visitors, and potential business owners find disturbing. Sign ordinances are designed to reduce that. Mr. Galbraith stated that he personally knew several business owners who thought the Wilmington area, and particularly the Carolina Beach Road corridor, was becoming ugly and moved their businesses to other areas, taking jobs with them. He also recounted an instance of an owner of a small high technology company in San Diego that opted not to move here after driving through that corridor because he thought Wilmington was ugly. Mr. Galbraith commented he stopped taking candidates for UNCW faculty positions to Kure Beach for dinner because it’s not an attractive drive and he personally takes the back route through Masonboro to work to avoid the Carolina Beach Road commercial area. Mr. Galbraith stated he had reviewed 100 different sign ordinances and seven years is a typical amortization period of pole signs, while ten years is a long time. Any sign installed prior to 2001 has been fully depreciated on accounting records. The Kure Beach Planning Commission originally recommended seven years, then ten years before finally settling on twelve years for amortization of signs. He stated he was in favor of the two year extension for sign amortization because the County will become consistent with the Kure Beach ordinance by adding two additional years. He also strongly recommended the County consider re-examining and prohibiting the use of digital signs throughout the Carolina Beach Road corridor because research has shown that 40% of people find digital signs unattractive and consistently say they don’t want to move to or do business in areas that allow digital signs. Boyd Knapp spoke in opposition to the proposed sign amortization, stating he had presented a petition to the Planning Board 25 or 30 years ago on this same matter. He stated he believed the ordinance was faulty and doesn’t fulfill its purpose and provided documentation to board members, commenting he wasn’t in support of either option of extending the amortization or allowing it to go into effect immediately. Matt Nichols, an attorney with Shanklin & Nichols, spoke in opposition to the amendment on behalf of several business owners on Carolina Beach Road including Carlene and Mike Schwartz, owners of Island Appliance; Bob French, owner of French’s Restaurant; Mark Simpson, owner of several shopping centers; James Martin, owner of Martin Self Storage; and Mark Hicks with Power Signs. All of those business owners were present at the meeting with the exception of Ms. Schwartz. He said many changes had occurred in ten years because the County does an outstanding job now of providing notice of public hearings and Ms. Daughtridge should be commended for that. He felt the County does much more than a lot of counties and Page 20 of 23 cities to notify the public of changes, including offering workshops. He commented while we don’t always agree on issues, at least people receive notice and are given the opportunity to voice their opinions. Unfortunately, the public wasn’t given the same opportunity to provide input ten years ago, which was most evident because no one from the public spoke at all when the matter was considered as an add-on to the SHOD for the northern part of the county. Mr. Nichols explained that everyone is aware the northern and southern parts of the county are very different. The lot sizes are different, zoning is different, and there isn’t any industrial zoning in the southern part of the county that would be affected. The southern part of the county is also more established with existing businesses and signs. Mr. Nichols stated the business owners would like to discuss the issue at a workshop or similar meeting contemporary with what the county does in 2011, given the fact that some of them had only learned about the ordinance in recent months. He stated they would also appreciate the board’s consideration of the opportunity to re-evaluate the standards, which they feel may result in a better ordinance that would benefit everyone. Mark Simpson, owner of two properties on the Carolina Beach Road corridor, stated beauty is in the eye of the beholder in this situation and he had worked very hard to maintain his properties. He provided photos of the free standing signs located on his properties, noting he represents 25 small businesses which operate in those locations. He constructed two unique and substantial signs between 1998 and 2000, just before the ordinance was adopted. He has a significant investment in the signs, which were designed and constructed to satisfy the sign ordinance and building codes at the time. Mr. Simpson pointed out that the sign at 6132 Carolina Beach Road is on the part of the corridor that has a speed limit of 55 miles per hour and visibility is crucial for businesses located in that speed zone so he couldn’t imagine how one could argue that a smaller sign would be a good idea. There is also an additional sign on the property that is utilized by others for much needed publicity, which would also have to be removed. Mr. Simpson noted he would have setback issues if he had to modify the other sign and would end up with a sign with less square footage than what is allowed minimally by the new code so the unfair advantage argument wouldn’t apply. He expressed concern he will be required to spend a substantial amount of money to replace a perfectly good sign with less square footage that his competitor. He also stated it was difficult to plan for a ten year amortization period to replace signs if you had not received notice that it was in effect. He stated he had been in commercial development/property management/commercial rental for 20 years and could assure the board that commercial property values are determined by vacancy rates and rental income and he could not see how smaller, less effective signs would increase rental income and property values. He acknowledged the current board wasn’t involved in the ordinance ten years ago, but wondered if they could explain why business owners on Carolina Beach Road had been singled out when there are more sign intense areas like South College Road. He summarized the business owners’ dilemma of being asked to spend money they don’t have during tough economic times to replace perfectly good signs. In almost all cases, new signs will be dramatically smaller and less effective due to current infrastructure, translating into less business traffic and less revenue for the already struggling merchants, which ultimately will result in loss of jobs and potential business closures. Stating he is already struggling with vacancies in some locations, Mr. Simpson asked the board to consider how that scenario will beautify the Carolina Beach Road business corridor or increase property values. Page 21 of 23 During the rebuttal period, Craig Galbraith acknowledged it is a very difficult process that will require a collaborative effort by the business owners and the County, but all of the evidence shows that the more beautiful a community is, the greater the economic growth, the more tourists and shoppers come into the area, the more people come into the area to live and start a business and property values go up. He agreed that some signs were certainly more attractive than others, but commented that adding an extra two years would result in a 12-year amortization period, which is the longest amortization for any sign ordinance he had found. During opposition rebuttal, James Martin, owner of the Martin Self Storage Centers, stated he built the property on Carolina Beach Road in 1994 and it won the national facility of the year award in 1995. He designed the site around the sign because signage is very important in the self-storage business, which is very area-specific and is generated by people who see the sign. Mr. Martin showed a site plan of his property reflecting the location around the sign and noted the location of a well house and septic field because water and sewer were not available. He also commented there are very nice trees onsite, which were required by the landscape ordinance. If he lowers his sign to six feet per the new ordinance, his sign will be located somewhere behind the trees and subsequently will not be seen. Mr. Martin stated the sign ordinance would certainly have a negative effect on his business. Frank Taylor, Director of Operations for Go Gas, stated the letter they received on July 22, 2011 was their first notification about a change to the sign ordinance. They were not made aware of the ten year amortization period when the ordinance was passed so it came as a shock to them, given they have recently completed major renovations to their sign on Carolina Beach Road at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars. He expressed concern about needing to invest several thousand more dollars in the next two years for a new sign, which they may or may not be allowed because the road has been widened and the setback has been changed. They are also restricted from locating a sign too close to the gasoline dispensers. Mr. Taylor stated the owners of Go Gas are totally opposed to the ordinance and asked the board to bring the issue up again for a full discussion of the ordinance or to amend ordinance. An unidentified gentleman stated he was a small business owner, who had been in business for fifteen years and faithfully paid his property tax and sales tax, and also expressed concern that none of the business owners had received a notification letter in 2001 informing them they had ten years to comply with the sign ordinance. He stated many business owners he had spoken with had not received notice of tonight’s public hearing and asked if all business owners had been sent the notification letter. Jane Daughtridge explained the County sent letters to those business owners that were believed believed to have non-conforming signs. The notices were sent to both the physical address and the property owner’s address. Vice Chairman Heath clarified that the ordinance is currently in place and if someone wanted to request an amendment to the sign ordinance, it would certainly be within their rights. Unfortunately, the board was only allowed to consider the text amendment request to extend the amortization period for two years and could not consider any other revisions to the ordinance. He explained if the board did not approve the text amendment, the ordinance would remain as is Page 22 of 23 and the ten year amortization period would expire on August 6th. If the board approved the amendment, the amortization period would be extended for another two years, which could potentially provide time for someone to request a change in the ordinance. Anthony Prinz stated he was aware that there is a priority list of parts of the code that staff knows are problematic and need to be updated and asked if this particular highway overlay district had been identified on that list. Jane Daughtridge stated the highway overlay district had not been problematic; however, the sign ordinance does have a high priority on the ordinance improvement list so an extension would provide time for people to formulate changes to the ordinance and apply for a text amendment or for staff to review and make changes to the ordinance after they complete their review of the amendments currently under consideration. Ms. Daughtridge stated business owners should contemplate complying during the next two years if the amortization period is extended; however, there would be an opportunity to interact and potentially make further changes to the ordinance as the ordinance improvement process continues. Anthony Prinz commented he appreciated the professor’s thought that the process needs to be a collaborative effort so if the County is considering modifying the sign regulations within 3-5 years, it may be appropriate to move it up in priority considering the pressure to determine a permanent solution before the expiration of a two year deadline. Dan Hilla expressed sympathy with the business owners’ plight because he understands how expensive signs are and the need for visibility from the street, but noted the business owners would need to offer a text amendment to change the current ordinance because the board could only vote on an extension of the amortization period. He was not opposed to extending the amortization for three years because he doesn’t think two years is set in stone. Melissa Gott stated she agreed with the comments that had been made because if the ordinance is left as is, everybody will potentially be in violation so the board should at least extend the amortization period for twenty-four months. She commented the business owners’ probable remedial action would be to ask Mr. Nichols to draft a proposal for the board’s consideration. Melissa Gott made a motion to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-395 extending the deadline for a period of two years. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-395 extending the deadline for a period of two years. Anthony Prinz commented the board should also look at whether the issue is a high enough priority to participate on a staff level. Chris O’Keefe stated it would definitely come up as the ordinance improvement effort continued, but staff needed to determine where it fit into the time frame with the other ongoing efforts. Technical Review Committee Report (July) Page 23 of 23 Sam Burgess reported the County’s Technical Review Committee met once in July and discussed establishing procedures to review and provide agency information on foreclosed and bank owned subdivision projects that are requested by banks and other interested parties. When a formal request is made on a project, the Planning & Inspections staff would request the latest information from local review agencies that typically review new subdivision site plans. Information would include, but not be limited to water and sewer capacity, certification, project validity, stormwater certification, permit deficiencies, sureties, violations and any other special requirements or conditions that were attached to the project. Agency information would be assembled into a package or spreadsheet by Planning & Inspections staff and be made available to banks and other interested parties on a demand basis. A fee to collect this information would be required by the department. Mr. Burgess stated while the overall concept was attractive to the TRC members, there were some concerns, including the timely accuracy of information, the shelf life of the information itself, change in the status of active permitting, transportation validity, the need for TRC to even meet on an assembled package, and the strong need for disclaimer language if the package or spreadsheet was developed and fee structure. The TRC recommended staff meeting with County Legal staff to discuss concerns and report back to the committee. Mr. Burgess reported that meeting had occurred earlier that day and it was the consensus of the group to develop strong disclaimer language to place on the package, which would be provided on a demand basis only. Chris O’Keefe congratulated new Chairwoman Melissa Gott and Vice Chairman Andy Heath and also expressed appreciation for the fine job done by Richard Collier as chairman. Vice Chairman Heath stated the board needed to designate a board member to serve as the TRC Committee Chairman during the coming year. Sam Burgess explained the duties of the chairman to preside over the Technical Review Committee of the County and encourage dialogue among the members and agencies involved in the review of new projects and new and revised site plans that are considered for approval. Although new project activity had slowed during recent months, he is hopeful there will be more TRC meetings in the future. Jane Daughtridge noted the Planning Board’s bylaws state that the chairman or the chairman’s designee serves as the TRC Chairman. Anthony Prinz offered to serve as the TRC Chairman if Ms. Gott was unable to do so, noting he had several years of experience as a TRC member on the staff level. Melissa Gott thanked Mr. Prinz for agreeing to serve as the TRC chairman, commenting he would be an excellent chairman given his background. In response to Ms. Daughtridge’s request, Dan Hilla volunteered to serve as the Planning Board representative at the September 6, 2011 County Commissioners meeting. Vice Chairman Andy Heath adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.