2014-02 February 6 2014 PBM
Page 1 of 25
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
February 6, 2014
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting.
Planning Board Present: Staff Present:
Richard Collier, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Dan Hilla, Vice Chairman Shawn Ralston, Planning Manager
Lisa Mesler Kenneth Vafier, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Tamara Murphy Sam Burgess, Senior Planner
Ted Shipley, III Benjamin Andrea, Current Planner
David Weaver Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney
Absent:
Andy Heath
Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing.
Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Richard Collier reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Approval of the January 2014 Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Vice Chair Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend approval of the January Planning Board
minutes. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of the January 9, 2014 Planning Board minutes.
Item 1: Special Use Permit Request (S-617, 1/14) (Continued from January 9, 2014) –
Request by ACI Pine Ridge, LLC to develop a mixed use development on a 37.9 acre parcel
located at the 100 block of Porters Neck Road. The property is currently zoned B-1,
Business District, and classified as Transition and Wetland Resource Protection Area
according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Benjamin Andrea provided the staff summary, including information pertaining to location, land
classification, access, level of service and zoning. Mr. Vafier also showed maps, aerials, video,
and photographs of the property and the surrounding area.
ACI Pine Ridge, applicant and owner, is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit to develop
a mixed use development on a 37.9 acre parcel located in a B-1 Business district.
The subject site consists of seven parcels and is located near the intersection of Market Street
and Porters Neck Road, in the northern portion of the county.
Page 2 of 25
Existing land uses in the area consist of the Lowes store to the east, a shopping center to the
south and southeast that hosts the Food Lion grocery store and a variety of commercial uses,
including several developed outparcels.
An apartment complex known as Cypress Pond Apartments lies southwest of the site. The
northern portion of the site is bordered by interstate I-140, and to the west are the undeveloped
parcels that compose the Greenview Ranches subdivision.
The subject site is zoned B-1 as a result of the approval of a general use rezoning from R-15,
approved in 2005. Adjacent to the east is a conditional B-2 district hosting the Lowes store and
some areas of B-1 and B-2 to the southeast, south, and southwest. The remainder of the
surrounding zoning is largely R-15.
Access to the site is provided by a stub to the existing Porters Neck Road segments that were
installed to serve the 2007 Porters Neck Crossing concept, which was envisioned as a very large
retail development with no residential uses.
A Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted in 2007, which led to the access improvements to the
Market Street intersection that are present today.
Utility and stormwater infrastructure was installed to serve the initial project concept, and can
be utilized for the current proposal.
Other than those improvements, the property is undeveloped.
No known historical resources exist on the property, however, the site does contain
approximately 26 acres of wetlands.
The Special Use Permit request is for residential uses within the B-1 zoning district as part of a
mixed use development. Residential uses are allowed by Special Use Permit in the B-1 zoning
district provided that the project meets the standards of Section 72-38 of the zoning ordinance.
This section requires that such dwelling units be part of a mixed use development, with
emphasis on integrating diverse but compatible uses that are unified by distinguishable design
features, as well as amenities and walkways that encourage pedestrian activity.
273 multifamily residential units are proposed within 13 buildings, along with four residential
parking garages, and a clubhouse with amenities for the residents. The 13 apartment buildings
would be in the northern part of the site between two large areas of wetlands. No wetland
disturbance is proposed.
The proposal also features 40,000 square ft. of nonresidential uses, including a mixture of retail,
restaurants, a hotel, and other shops within 5 separate buildings located on the southern portion
of the site.
The two existing stormwater ponds will accommodate some of the site’s runoff, and an
additional pond is proposed at the very northwestern corner of the site.
Section 72-38 of the Ordinance requires that residential dwelling units in a B-1 district be part
of a mixed use development that integrates different uses in a manner that encourages
pedestrian activity. To demonstrate that a project meets this standard, a pedestrian facilities
plan is required. That plan has been provided by the applicant.
The conceptual site lighting plan required for this type of Special Use Permit request indicates
the typical site lights to be used in the residential and commercial areas of the project.
A building elevation profile was also provided as required by the ordinance. Thirteen 3-story
residential buildings totaling 273 units are proposed.
To note, the 2007 TIA was updated to reflect the current proposal. The updated analysis was
approved by NCDOT and the WMPO, and indicates that peak traffic generation from the
current proposal is significantly less than the traffic that was to be generated from the original
proposal, and no additional improvements will be required.
22 adjacent property owner notifications were mailed out to provide notice of the public hearing
and a sign was posted on the property on January 17. Additionally, notices of the request and
the public hearing were sent out to the email list of residents of the Cypress Ponds Apartments
Page 3 of 25
by the property manager. He acknowledged and thanked Angie Wyatt for her assistance in
distributing the notice.
Staff received no inquiries regarding the special use permit request.
Mr. Andrea stated the Staff Summary included in the agenda package overviewed the request’s
consistency with the County’s Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Plan and offered to elaborate on
the information contained in that report. He noted the evidence submitted as part of the Special
Use Permit application demonstrates that the project is consistent with the policies in the 2006
Wilmington-New Hanover County CAMA Land Use Plan, as well as the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Andrea reported a condition for approval was recommended in the staff summary included
in the agenda package; however, upon further consideration, staff now recommended a motion
for approval of the special use permit without any conditions. He offered to answer questions
from the board.
Chairman Collier noted a traffic study was not required in this case, but he saw that the MPO had
done some traffic counts in 2013. He asked Mr. Andrea to explain why a traffic study was not
required.
Mr. Andrea explained the traffic analysis was updated by the applicant and approved by the
MPO and the NC DOT. The approval indicated the existing egress and ingress can accommodate
the current proposal so no additional traffic improvements will be required.
Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Matt Nichols, attorney with Shanklin & Nichols, spoke on behalf of the applicant ACI Pine
Ridge, LLC. He introduced Brantley White, a representative of the applicant and also Rick
Hopkins and Lynn White of ACI Pine Ridge; civil engineer Neil Shepard; transportation
engineer Lyle Overcash; and real estate appraiser Bill Batuyious. He stated the staff had done an
excellent job providing an overview so to expedite the process, he would have the civil engineer
review the site plan and then he would follow up with any questions from the board.
Neil Shepard of Blue Ridge Engineering and project engineer for the Porters Neck Crossing
project stated the board was discussing Phase II of the project tonight. Phase I which included
the Lowes Home Center was completed several years ago. In regard to the traffic improvements,
a traffic impact analysis for Phase I and Phase II was conducted several years ago and in 2009,
when the project began all of the recommendations in the TIA for Phase I and Phase II were built
during Phase I. Highway 17 was widened and the entrance into the center was constructed,
which consists of 6 lanes entering the site. At the same time, the sewer extension was made to
the site to accommodate Phase I and Phase II. In addition, the water mains were also extended
into the site for Phase I and Phase II, along with the installation of the stormwater management
ponds for all of Phase I and a portion of Phase II. The Lowes Home Center opened in 2010. The
original plan for Phase II was for an entirely commercial project. The 37.9 acres was rezoned to
B-1 and the wetlands disturbance permit was issued for the original commercial project planned
for Phase II. New Hanover County was involved in the original Phase II process and supported
the commercial concept.
Page 4 of 25
Mr. Shepard reviewed the proposed mixed use site plan for Phase II consisting of 40,000 sq. ft.
of commercial retail and restaurant space and 273 multi-family residential units. The site has
been redesigned to avoid any wetlands impacts in the mixed-use portion of the property.
Mr. Shepard also provided examples of other projects they have developed, including Raeford
Crossing in Fayetteville, Heritage Gardens in Wake Forest, and Valentine Crossing in South
Carolina.
Mr. Nichols stated the board must consider the potential impact on property value when
reviewing a special use permit request. He asked Bill Batuyious, the real estate appraiser, to
speak to that aspect of the project.
Bill Batuyious stated he is a state certified real estate appraiser and has been appraising
properties in southeastern North Carolina for twenty years. At the request of ACI Pine Ridge
LLC, the owners of a 37.9 acres tract located at 163 through 188 Porters Neck Road, Mr.
Batuyious provided information on what if any effect the proposed mixed-use development
would have on the surrounding property values. He visited the site and inspected the subject
property, as well as the surrounding area. As a result of his research, Mr. Batuyious was able to
determine the proposed use would not substantial injure the value of surrounding properties. He
was also able to determine that the proposed use was typical, compatible, and in harmony with
properties in the area.
Mr. Nichols concluded the presentation, stating the applicant respectfully contends they meet the
criteria in Section 72-38 of the ordinance and feel the staff report supports that assertion. The
Land Use Plan and the general trend of planning techniques over the last few years encourage
mixed use. Mr. Nichols stated the applicant felt that having the residential component
complement the commercial aspect would be a great use of the property. He then thanked the
board for consideration of their request.
Chairman Collier opened the opposition portion of the hearing.
Dr. Elizabeth Bauereis of 416 Black Diamond Drive spoke in opposition to the request citing
concerns about the mixed use development that go back to 2005. She noted 300 residents had
attended that county commissioners meeting and encouraged the traffic improvements at Porters
Neck Road and US 17 for the new Lowes. They are concerned about the proposed development
of the apartment complex. While the project meets the criteria for the special use permit, she felt
the board should be aware there are already 3 sizeable apartment complexes in the Porters Neck
area, including the Parks at Three Oaks, Amberleigh Shores, and Cypress Ponds, consisting of a
total of 751 units. The proposed 273 additional apartments will result in over 1,000 apartments in
the Porters Neck area, which doesn’t even have bus service. Although a commercial
development would result in traffic from 10am to 9pm, an apartment complex with families and
kids would add to the morning and evening rush hour which is already pretty bad on Market
Street. Residents felt the development should at least have an additional entry into the property
off I-140 before adding to the development. She also expressed concern about the flashiness of
the runoff to the wetlands, noting the area is a recharge area for Futch Creek, which is the last
clean creek in New Hanover County. She stated they are very concerned because anything that
Page 5 of 25
diminishes the water quality in Futch Creek is not good for anybody. Dr. Bauereis then provided
written documentation of their concerns to the county attorney.
Dick Elmer, head of the advocacy committee for the Porters Neck Homeowners Association
located at the east end of Porters Neck Road, stated their concerns were related to traffic. He
noted the three apartment complexes, a Walmart, and a plan to put an easy zone with no left
turns, grass, trees, and other beautification there. They are concerned about adding 280 more cars
during rush hour to the already jammed traffic. Mr. Elmer agreed that another way out of the site
was needed. The Military Cutoff bypass will eventually provide some relief in 2017 and later. He
urged the board to redo the traffic study during rush hour with four apartment complexes and the
Walmart factored in. He felt the LOS would be an E or F.
Bill Utz of Caldwell Banker, manager of the shopping center with the Food Lion and the four
parcels owned by Dean Scarafoni, stated they are not necessarily opposed to the project, and
actually support it because it will be beneficial for the shopping center. The limitations they see
in the current plan are that there is a traffic island there and the green forested development
parcel only has a right-out or traffic must go out through Lowes to exit at the end. If that parcel is
sold, there will be many illegal U-turns to come back to Highway 17 due to the left only into
Porters Neck Shopping Center. There is no viable access for the green forested development
parcel so it needs to be reworked. He expressed concern about all of the apartment residents
going straight on the loop road that runs through the middle of the shopping center, which is very
narrow and restricted as it goes through the center. He pointed out a blind corner on the edge at
the Sports Clips. There is also a lot of cross traffic from the Food Lion and people blow through
the stop sign. He felt a better traffic plan was needed. He also expressed concern about traffic
that may choose to go around the back of the shopping center where semi-trucks are unloading
materials. Mr. Utz stated Mr. Scarafoni would like the opportunity to work with the developer to
assess the traffic issues and come up with a viable solution to offset that demand. He reported
they also feel the design of the island at Porters Neck needs to be reworked to be functional for
all of the properties.
Chairman Collier closed the opposition portion of the hearing and opened the rebuttal period.
During the rebuttal period, Matt Nichols stated appreciation for the comments made during the
opposition portion of the hearing. He noted at the 2007 hearing the room was overflowing with
residents expressing concerns about traffic; however, to his knowledge those concerns never
materialized. He remarked that ACI Pine Ridge also developed the Lowes, which is a great
development, and demonstrates the level of quality development they are striving for in Phase II.
Lyle Overcash, Managing Director for GHB Engineering, stated the traffic impact analysis (TIA)
performed in 2006 recommended several improvements to the intersection at that time to
accommodate the full build-out of the all-commercial site. Those improvements, along with
others were built through negotiations with the neighbors and NCDOT and improved the level of
service (LOS) above the minimum of “D”. The roadway currently operates at a LOS of “C”.
The traffic analysis was updated based on traffic counts from the US 17 retail site, the Walmart
site, and the phasing analysis was run with the new plan. The traffic volumes currently proposed
with apartments and retail are 60% less on a daily basis than the volumes proposed in the
Page 6 of 25
original plan. He noted it is unusual to conduct a new traffic analysis when the traffic count has
declined so much. The new phasing analysis includes a 3% background growth rate projected out
to 2020 and also includes all the traffic projected out from the retail site, approximately 10,000
cars per day, and also includes the Amberleigh Shores development. With current conditions on
the site, the LOS goes from “C” to “D”. With the proposed site, the LOS stays at “D” and moves
the needle one second on average at that intersection so the intersection will remain acceptable
due to the traffic improvements made in Phase I. Mr. Overcash stated 15% of the traffic from the
development was sent toward the shopping center, which is a right-in, right-out for safety
reasons. The median at Porters Neck extension was also installed for safety; therefore, he
wouldn’t recommend modifying either of those medians and didn’t think NCDOT would support
it either.
No one from the public spoke during the opposition rebuttal period.
Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and opened the board discussion.
Ted Shipley commented the most important issue was traffic impact and he didn’t see a way
around the current proposal on the concept plan. He would like to see an outlet road to the west
or northwest, but there are wetlands in that path. He doesn’t see any alternatives for a third
entrance option. He asked the traffic engineer if there were any alternatives besides pouring
traffic out onto Market Street.
Mr. Overcash stated there is allowance in the site plan for the road to be extended to the west. It
dead ends currently. An extension of the road to Plantation Road wasn’t well received by NC
DOT or the County so the developer doesn’t have that ability.
Mr. Shipley stated he doesn’t see a problem with the current traffic if there is no other
alternative. He felt the traffic was suitable at this time.
Vice Chair Dan Hilla stated he liked the project and felt that mixed-use was suitable for the
location. He asked staff why no connection to Cypress Pond was presented. He noted he believed
in interconnectivity to all these neighborhoods.
Ben Andrea stated there was no discussion about that connection with the applicant team;
however, to his knowledge, there was no impediment to that option.
Mr. Shepard stated all alternatives were evaluated at the very beginning of the project. Making
all possible connections was a condition for the project. The connection into the Food Lion was
the route chosen for the secondary access and was included in the original traffic study.
Vice Chair Hilla inquired if the applicant would be opposed to the connection to Cypress Pond if
the neighborhood was agreeable.
Mr. Shepard stated without much consideration they wouldn’t know exactly what they would be
agreeing to; however, with specifics they would be open to discussions.
Page 7 of 25
David Weaver felt it would be a great idea, but he saw some obstacles from a pragmatic basis.
He expressed concern about the secondary access behind Food Lion that cuts across the parking
lot. He wondered if that might become a cut through for the apartment dwellers to go through the
shopping center to access a right onto Market Street. He asked if the design of the secondary
access road could be altered to minimize that issue, such as the addition of speed bumps.
Lyle Overcash stated there are currently speed bumps on that road, which is narrow. He stated
the fastest way for residents to exit the property is to proceed to the signal due to the large
amount of capacity on that route.
Mr. Shepard clarified the road shown on the proposed mixed-use plan was constructed during
Phase I of the project to accommodate both Phase I and Phase II.
Lisa Mesler stated she also liked the project and was in agreement with Mr. Shipley that there
didn’t seem to be an alternative in terms of the traffic patterns. An access from Cypress Pond
might be beneficial for the residents of that neighborhood to access the new retail space, but she
felt the residents of the new development would go out to the intersection and take the right. She
noted familiarity with that area and the location of the speed bumps. That section of the road is
minimally used so she didn’t feel it would be an issue.
Tamara Murphy agreed with Ms. Mesmer’s and Mr. Shipley’s comments regarding the traffic.
She didn’t agree with interconnectivity to Cypress Pond because she didn’t see what purpose it
would serve. She felt the proposal was a good project and was supportive.
Chairman Richard Collier commented he liked the mixed-use version rather than the full-
commercial version. For the adjacent neighbors, apartments may potentially have a little higher
traffic in the AM and PM peaks; however, on the whole, it would be more difficult with the full
build-out of commercial in the original plan. He liked the small compact areas of retail up front
with the hotel back by the stormwater pond. He felt the traffic circulation was as good as it can
be with multiple access points into and out of the property. The new alignment in 2009 was very
well done from a traffic volume standpoint at Porters Neck and has helped tremendously, along
with the improvements by NCDOT. He commended the developer for building the roads in
Phase I rather than Phase II. He felt the presentation demonstrated the proposed plan build-out
would result in less traffic. Chairman Collier noted he was glad the traffic plan update has been
reviewed and approved by NCDOT and the MPO, and for that reason he is in favor of the
project. He would not be in favor of extending the road through the wetland to Plantation Road
although it may have some long term benefits. It would create a tremendous amount of
environmental impacts and result in a somewhat undue burden on the applicant at this point. He
felt the project had come together very well.
Chairman Collier then notified the petitioner that a special use permit which is denied may only
be resubmitted at the discretion of the planning director. He stated the petitioner may ask to
continue to the matter or may ask the board to continue to a vote. He asked the petitioner which
option they would choose.
Attorney Matt Nichols responded that the petitioner would like the board to continue to a vote.
Page 8 of 25
Chairman Collier acknowledged staff had recommended removal of the condition contained in
the staff report and asked if Mr. Nichols was comfortable with the condition if the board chose to
keep the condition.
Matt Nichols stated the petitioner was in favor of removing the condition in the original staff
report, noting they were concerned about including in the permit a requirement that an easement
be granted in the future. He commented he wasn’t familiar with that requirement being part of
the special use permit process. The applicant team also felt the plan was environmentally well
done. In addition, the stormwater plan exceeds the state requirements. Mr. Nichols felt the
condition may potentially take away some flexibility in the future.
In response to a question from Chairman Collier, Mr. Andrea clarified there was not an open
space requirement for this type of project; however, due to the amount of density in the project,
staff had seen it as a safeguard to ensure the density wouldn’t increase over time. However,
because this is a special use permit request, any proposal to extend the project would constitute a
major revision and would be required to come back through the special use permit process
anyway. For that reason, staff felt there was no reason to include the condition.
David Weaver made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit request as
presented striking the motion as written by the staff. Lisa Mesler seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit Request S-617 without
conditions.
Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-930, 2/14) - Request by Todd Woodard of SiteTech Systems
on behalf of Hilton Properties Ltd. to rezone 63.02 acres located at approximately 3901
Castle Hayne Road from RA, Rural Agricultural, to CUD (I-2), Heavy Industrial
Conditional Use District, for High Intensity Mining. The subject property is classified as
Wetland Resource Protection and Conservation Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land
Use Plan.
Benjamin Andrea provided the staff summary, including information pertaining to location, land
classification, access, level of service and zoning. Mr. Vafier also showed maps, aerials, video,
and photographs of the property and the surrounding area.
Todd Woodard of Site Tech Systems, applicant, on behalf of Hilton Properties Limited
Partnership, is requesting to rezone 63.02 acres located at approximately 3901 Castle Hayne
Road from RA, Rural Agricultural to Conditional Use District I-2, Heavy Industry, for High
Intensity Mining.
The subject site consists of one parcel and is located in the near the intersection of Castle Hayne
Road and interstate I-140, in the Castle Hayne area.
Nearby landmarks include the GE Hitachi facility to the southeast of the site, and the Invista
facility and County landfill along the US Highway 421 corridor, across the Northeast Cape Fear
River from the subject area.
The 63 acre subject parcel was divided from a larger 4000+ acre parent tract, and both currently
remain under the same ownership.
Page 9 of 25
The closest residential use is located approximately one mile from boundary of the subject
parcel.
The parcel is currently zoned RA, as are the areas to the east, north, and directly west to the
subject site. He pointed out some areas currently zoned I-2. Across Castle Hayne Road are some
areas of R-20, B-2, and I-1.
The site is served by an existing private gravel road known as Sledge Road, which has an
existing driveway onto Castle Hayne Road. Sledge Road borders some existing residential uses
that are on Berg Lane and Dekker Road. Other parcels are directly adjacent to the access road.
The property survey shows the existing topography as well as a stream feature in the eastern
portion of the tract.
An image provided by the applicant shows the boundary of the mining area compared to the
parcel boundary line.
The request is a conditional use rezoning request to I-2 to mine sand from approximately 49
acres of the 63 acre site. Because of the acreage, the proposal is considered High Intensity
Mining per section 72-42 of the zoning ordinance.
The sand would be mined from high ground from a peak height of approximately 40 feet above
sea level down to a minimum elevation of sea level. No dewatering is proposed, and the mining
area excludes the areas classified as Conservation Area by the CAMA Land Use Plan.
The proposal would not impact any jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters, according to a
statement issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
General Electric also issued a letter in response to the proposal, indicating that they do not
object to it. The letter went on to further state that portions of both the GE property and the
subject property are under an ongoing groundwater monitoring and natural attenuation effort.
As of February 5, 2014, a mining permit has been issued for the project. Mr. Todd Woodard is
prepared to go over the details of that permit during his presentation.
The zoning ordinance requires that a community information meeting be held prior to the
submission of an application for a conditional use rezoning. That requirement was sufficed by a
community meeting that was held on December 20, 2013. A report on the meeting was
included in the application package.
Staff has received several calls and contacts about the request, with similar concerns raised
about the community meeting, specifically the time, location, facility, and information provided
at the meeting. Some callers had questions about the effect that the project might have on any
groundwater resources.
A petition with 61 signatures in opposition to the proposal was submitted to our office on
January 27, 2014. Staff also received one call from the area that supported the project.
Only two adjacent property owners were required to be notified by mailings per the Zoning
Ordinance, those were Hilton Properties Limited Partnership and Joint Conversion Company
Incorporated.
A sign was placed at the entrance to the property on Castle Hayne Road at Sledge Road on
January 17, 2014.
The Staff Summary included in the agenda package provided a detailed review for consistency
with the County’s Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Plan. Mr. Andrea offered to elaborate on
that information.
At this time, evidence submitted as part of the Special Use Permit application demonstrates that
the project is consistent with the policies in the 2006 Wilmington-New Hanover County CAMA
Land Use Plan, as well as the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff
recommended a motion to recommend approval of the request without conditions.
Page 10 of 25
Chairman Collier informed the public that the item which is a conditional use district rezoning
will consist of a rezoning vote to go from RA to I-2 and will also require a vote on a special use
permit. The rezoning and the special use permit must be placed together. He clarified that
information to make it clear the planning board would have to vote on both items if the request
moved forward. Chairman entertained questions from members of the board for staff.
Hearing none, Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Todd Woodard spoke on behalf of the applicant, Hilton Properties Ltd and acknowledged the
presence of two of the five owners, David Fort and Steven Magenbaur; as well as the mining
consultant for the project, Floyd Williams, president and founder of Williams Environmental and
Geological Services. Prior to founding his business, Mr. Williams served as a regional engineer
for 33 years with the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources and most recently
as a mining specialist overseeing all of the mining operations for the State of NC for the last
seven years. He announced two representatives from GE-Hitachi, Diana Hart and Christopher
White, were also present.
Mr. Woodard stated the Hilton property is a 4,083 acres tract in northwestern New Hanover
County and abuts the GE-Hitachi plant and the Cape Fear River, as well as some other
residential parcels to the east. He recapped the applicant is requesting to rezone 63 acres of the
4,083 acres to allow them to excavate and mine the sand. The target area selected for mining is a
very remote section of the property and is over one mile from the nearest residential property.
Additionally, the balance of the land will be used for timber, recreation and conservation. The
soils maps reflect that the Kenansville fine sands are concentrated only in the area designated to
be mined on the tract. For that reason, any concerns about scope creep into a larger mining
operation are unfounded. The soil surveys do not support it.
Mr. Woodard reported over the last eighteen months, they and Mr. Williams have worked with
many state and federal agencies, which have conducted very extensive due diligence review of
the land for the permit. Throughout this process, they have worked with the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the Division of Water Resources, the Land Quality
Division, the Water Quality Division, the Habitat Conservation Program, the State Historic
Preservation Office, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Woodard stated the applicant
has received final approval of the sand mine permit from the State of North Carolina.
Mr. Todd Woodard provided the following highlights of the project to address concerns raised.
The permit as outlined very clearly specifies no dewatering activity will occur on the site.
All drainage from any affected areas should be directed internal into the excavation so there
will be no real impact to wetlands or groundwater.
Adequate barriers will be provided to prevent any sediment from discharging onto the
adjacent surface areas of lakes, wetlands, or any other natural water course.
Sufficient buffers will be maintained around the wetlands and around the adjacent property
owners.
The owners have also posted a reclamation bond and a reclamation plan for full reclamation
of the property.
The permit as issued by the State of North Carolina is good for ten (10) years.
Page 11 of 25
The reclamation plan submitted restores the mine excavation to a lake area and grades and
revegetates the adjacent disturbed areas. The lake area must have a minimum depth of four
(4’) feet. Additionally, affected land should be graded to pre-defined slopes. A revegetation
plan will be enacted and the owners will engage and consult with the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission for any type of post project wildlife habitat for the area.
Finally, various procedures in regard to safety, noise, and dust control have been
established. These are common concerns related to sand excavation.
1) The owners will be partnering with an established, experienced, licensed, insured,
and bonded company to operate the sand excavation. The excavation will occur in a
remote area on the property over one mile from the nearest home so any type of
noise will be buffered by distance and trees in the forested areas.
2) A speed limit of 15 miles per hour has been established along the private road
access which has homes along it. This road is located along Highway 133.
3) Two locked gates secure the property and the excavation site. These gates will
remain locked during non-business hours to prevent unauthorized use and persons
from entering the property.
4) Appropriate dust control procedures will be implemented, including but not limited
to using a water truck and other similar watering techniques to minimize any type
of dust. The owners will be amenable to working with homeowners in the area to
ensure the residents’ concerns related to trucks and dust are minimized.
Mr. Floyd Williams, project consultant, stated he applied for the mining permit 18 months ago
and submitted all required documentation. At that time, fifteen adjacent property owners were
notified as required by the mining law. The County was also notified. Mr. Williams stated the
proposed mine is typical sand mine. There are over 581 sand mines in the state of North Carolina
out of approximately 850 permitted mine sites classified as sand. Gravel mines are under the
same criteria. That permit requires a fifty feet (50’) undisturbed buffer between any wetlands and
disturbed areas, as well as a 20 feet (20’) unexcavated area to work within. The mining permit
has numerous conditions that must be met during the mining operation and during the
reclamation activities. The site will be monitored by the NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources by the mining program staff. Mr. Williams offered to answer questions from
the board.
No one from the public spoke in support of the request.
Chairman Collier then opened the opposition portion of the public hearing.
Meri Battles of 124 McDougald Drive in Dutch Acres in Castle Hayne, the neighborhood located
adjacent to the subject property spoke in opposition to the request. She read information prepared
by the N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program based on documents and feedback provided by the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program and the N. C. Coastal Land Trust.
Ms. Battles reported the Sledge Forest area lies within the Northeast Cape Fear River floodplain
natural area, a high quality natural area consisting of over 4,068 acres that the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program considers to be of national significance. The Sledge Forest contains one of the
largest occurrences of the Peatland Atlantic White Cedar forest, with mature canopy trees up to
60 feet tall and diameters reaching up to 16 inches. Pond Pine Woodland also occurs at the
Sledge Forest area. This community occupies the majority of the habitat surrounding the Long
Page 12 of 25
Leaf Pine uplands Sledge Forest, a rare old growth occurrence of the non-river swamp forest
natural community is one of several communities found only at the Sledge Forest in the
Northeast Cape Fear River floodplain. It contains Cypress trees dated to more than 350 years of
age and some are estimated to be 500 years old. The Loblolly Pine is estimated to be more than
300 years old. Isolated sandy ridges at Sledge Forest support three Long Leaf Pine community
types. The Northeast Cape Fear River floodplain serves as one of the largest and most important
landscape connections in the Southeastern part of the state. Floodplain habitat is used by many
neo-tropical migrant and breeding birds and is the primary habitat for the rare Southeastern Bat.
Aquatic habitat supports many species of water birds, fish and reptiles, including the federally
and state threatened American alligator. The Northeast Cape Fear River floodplain natural area
contains one of the best examples anywhere of the Tidal Cypress Gum Swamp community. Ms.
Battles stated rezoning of this property is not in the best interest of the residents of Dutch Acres,
nor is it in the best interest of southeastern North Carolina. You can turn on the news anytime
during hurricane season and see what happens when we destroy the natural woodlands and
wetland barriers to the community. We are a coastal community and we need those natural
barriers. The residents of Dutch Acres moved there for the peace and quiet and the wildlife, not
for a mining operation.
Mike Roncone of 5826 Dekker Road in Wooden Shoe subdivision pointed out that a 22 acres
horse ranch was developed abutting the road that leads into this project that more than
establishes that this is an appropriate residential/agricultural area. The owner spent a lot of
money to put a horse ranch on that property and establish it as agricultural. He noted there would
be 100 trucks per hour entering and leaving the sand mine, which is one truck almost every forty
seconds. He also stated there is a sweeping curve at that location where numerous accidents have
occurred, including some fatalities. Mr. Roncone didn’t feel that traffic and a parking plan had
been addressed adequately. He noted the applicant had merely stated a traffic impact study was
not necessary. The application is not complete unless that question is answered. Mr. Roncone
pointed out the Corps of Engineers had concluded no jurisdictional waters or wetlands would be
impacted by the mine; however, it didn’t address the impacts to the water table that supplies the
wells to our homes that our kids drink from. It struck him funny that the representatives
conducted a water impact study without knowing where the water table was. They were unable
to answer that question at the meeting. Mr. Roncone pointed out inconsistencies in the
applicant’s statement that the sand had not been tested given the statement by GE that a
comprehensive site assessment was performed and noted the groundwater extending into the
proposed mining property was impacted and the property owner was notified that low levels of
constituents from the former storage areas remained above N.C. groundwater standards in a
limited area beneath the subject property. He contended the owners do know what sand studies
were done. The statement from GE states uranium and multiple compounds in that ground
remain above the N.C. water table standards and have been studied and tested by GE and those
results have been presented to the owner and to the State of North Carolina. Mr. Roncone
reiterated that his community is on wells and the road to the project comes right by their
development and their homes.
Marion Kreh of 127 McDougald Drive in Castle Hayne adjacent to the proposed sand mine
expressed concern about rezoning the property from rural agricultural to industrial, as well as the
lack of appropriate notice. She stated she learned of the community meeting scheduled by Hilton
Page 13 of 25
Properties through the Star-News approximately four days prior to the meeting at 9:00 a.m. on
December 20, 2013, just prior to Christmas when most families are on holiday or working. It
appeared that the intention was to limit attendance. Hilton Properties representatives were unable
to answer many questions at that time. She noted some of those questions had been answered
earlier during the public hearing. Ms. Kreh stated that most people who attended the community
meeting had called for a more informed meeting that would include representatives from GE and
the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Hilton Properties indicated they
would try to hold another meeting; however, she had seen an announcement in the newspaper
about another meeting. When canvassing her neighborhood, most people were not aware of the
community meeting held in December, the pending rezoning from rural agricultural to heavy
industrial or the sand mine. Many neighbors had questions about the well water, the noise from
heavy machinery, the dust, the wildlife, their property values and their quality of life. Many are
worried if the change is allowed there will be more industrial growth in the immediate area. She
expressed concern about the traffic not only on the Sledge dirt road behind their houses, but on
the impact and possible danger of traffic on that already dangerous section of Castle Hayne
Road. She stated they were also worried about the groundwater effect because according to the
letter from GE the groundwater impact was identified in the late 1990’s adjacent to the proposed
mine due to the disposal practices in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Mrs. Kreh and her neighbors
questioned how the vibration from the truck traffic will affect that plume and their groundwater
since the identified plume is off site of the GE property and extends onto the proposed mine area.
Ms. Kreh collected over sixty signatures opposing the rezoning request in less than two weeks
and asked the Planning Board not to move forward with approval of the rezoning request until a
more informed community meeting was held and the questions related to the GE plume are
investigated and answered.
Waylon Webbon of 5823 McDougald Drive, Castle Hayne, expressed concerns about the traffic
impacts of the proposal, noting the traffic outlet from the proposed sand mine is only 250 feet
from McDougald Drive. McDougald Drive has been the subject of a number of accidents due to
the speed up and visibility issues in the transition to the curve and reduction from four lanes
down to two lanes from the GE plant. Drivers have been rear ended when attempting to turn onto
McDougald Drive and at least one fatality and one permanent disability have resulted recently.
Mr. Webbon stated it was hard to imagine that trucking on the proposed facility exit only 250
feet away would not exacerbate an already difficult traffic situation at McDougald Drive,
resulting in more accidents and possibly fatal accidents.
Mr. Webbon questioned what mitigation was proposed to address the traffic concerns or whether
the problem had even been assessed. He noted the petitioner is supposed to provide that
information on the application; however, their only answer was “to operate in accordance with
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Energy Mineral and Land
Resources mining permit, to operate during normal business hours with less than 100 truck trips
per hour, and to operate round any state or county road projects requiring night work. Mr.
Webbon pointed out there are no limitations imposed by the mining permit that directly mitigate
the traffic concerns. He questioned how the operation of 99 truck trips per hour would not be a
traffic and health hazard on McDougald Drive less than 250 feet away, as well as how the
rezoning petition could be approved without even a rudimentary traffic study to determine the
Page 14 of 25
effects on neighborhood safety. He proposed that the Planning Board delay the approval of the
rezoning request until a traffic study could be done.
Timothy Cotton, a resident of 5701 Dekker Road in Wooden Shoe subdivision since 1989, stated
it had been very peaceful through the years; however, if the sand mine is allowed, Wooden Shoe
will not be the same. He believed the mine would result in noise problems and lower property
values for their neighborhood. He felt that a 10-year lease for a sand mine would cause a great
deal of damage to their area, particularly their wells. Mr. Cotton stated total and complete
opposition to the proposed sand mine.
Steve Vosnock of 3324 Marathon Avenue stated the community meeting was held in a building
with no address. He spent an hour the day before trying to locate the site. He called the media,
who indicated they had not been notified and had no idea how to find it. Mr. Vosnock stated he
and others made a sign and placed it by the road so that others could find the meeting location.
He felt it was clearly the intention of the Hilton Properties owners not to meet with anyone. They
were blind-sided by the attendance because they had only five packets containing little to no
information to hand out. He noted Hilton Properties stated at the onset of the meeting, but did not
include in their minutes the statement that they were not sure there would ever be a sand mine
there, but they just wanted to change the zoning. That being the case, why change the zoning of
63 acres in a 4,000 + acres tract. Due to the location of the property, the only adjacent property
owners are themselves and GE, allowing them only to notify GE. When the property and health
of numerous residents is obviously in harm’s way, numerous questions as to the scope of the
project were asked. When asked how much sand is onsite, how deep the mine would be, if the
limestone would be mined after the sand is removed, if there is contamination in that area, and
will the sand be checked for contaminants, the owners stated they did not know. He felt many of
those answers were proven false by a letter from Diana Hart of GE Hitachi dated April 24, 2013
possessed by Hilton Properties and later give to the New Hanover County Planning and
Inspections Department. The letter clearly stated that contamination from the GE site had
leached over onto their property.
Chairman Collier asked Mr. Vosnock to continue to another point as the letter information had
already been presented. He apologized, noting the need to be fair to others that may wish to
speak on both sides of the issue.
Steve Vosnock stated the owners had been aware of the contamination since 1999 so the
residents felt they had been lied to at the meeting. He asked the board to reschedule the item to a
later date or deny the request, as the Castle Hayne area has been subjected to enough industrial
zoning. Every one of these sites has had a negative impact on the community. The residents
vehemently oppose any zoning change of the already zoned areas or any other areas in the Castle
Hayne area to Industrial. This is an agriculture, horse farm, family area. Expressing concern that
the sand mine would morph into a worse industrial pollutant, he asked the board to consider New
Hanover County’s liability and responsibility to the citizens. He noted as harmless as the sand
mine sounds, very dangerous chemicals lie beneath it and the surface water people in the
surrounding area need to eat, drink, bathe, cook and water their gardens.
Page 15 of 25
Mark Hommes, owner and operator of Castle Hayne Farms, stated it was established in1933 and
is the last remaining fresh cut flower farm of the Castle Hayne heritage. He stated he was not
sure what the mine would do to his farm and neighboring properties. He found out about the
Planning Board public hearing that morning on the radio. He was not informed of the first
hearing or of this hearing. Mr. Hommes explained he irrigates by ponds which are fed by a well
and he depends on the groundwater table where it is now because their farming is adapted to it. If
the applicants dig a 63 acres hole, it will fill up with water. He is concerned about what that will
do to his farm. Mr. Hommes wants to be able to raise his plants. If his ponds dry up, that is a big
concern for him. He inquired if the applicants would line his ponds for him.
Kayne Darrell, a resident of Castle Hayne, pointed out the effects of exposure to several
contaminants:
Vinyl chloride, a colorless gas with a benign sounding name, is a known human carcinogen
that can have adverse effects on the heart and blood vessels, the liver, developing organs,
and the immune system. Chronic, long-term exposure to vinyl chloride includes liver
damage, central nervous system effects, including dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, headache,
visual and hearing disturbances, and sleep disturbances, as well as peripheral nervous
system symptoms, increased incidents of birth defects, decreased male sexual performance,
testicular damage, and decreased male fertility. Vinyl chloride has also been shown to
increase the risk of a rare form of cancer called angiosarcoma. It is one of the toxins found
in the contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a colorless liquid with a somewhat sweet odor. Breathing small
amounts may cause headaches, lung irritation, dizziness, poor coordination, and difficulty
concentrating, while breathing large amounts can cause impaired heart function,
unconsciousness, and death. Drinking large amounts may cause nausea, liver damage,
unconsciousness, impaired heart function or death. Drinking small amounts for long periods
can cause liver and kidney damage, impaired immune system functions, and impaired fetal
development in pregnant women. The National Toxicology Program determined it is
reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.
Uranium – Most people know the results of exposure to it.
Chromium, is a Group A known human carcinogen which occurs in two states, trivalent and
hexavalent chromium. It can when inhaled result in effects on the respiratory tract that
include perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary
function, and pneumonia, as well as complications during pregnancy and childbirth.
Ms. Darrell explained all those toxins, as well as several others, are lurking on a back corner of
the GE property in Castle Hayne as indicated by the environmental impact statement. She noted
there was no map of the toxic plume to show how large it is. She stated she wouldn’t be
swimming in the lake the developer was planning. There also wasn’t a map reflecting all the
extraction wells and the sumps that are out there in an attempt to keep those toxins from seeping
into the drinking water. GE has been pumping approximately 565,000 gallons of water every day
to keep that plume contained. That plume has extended off the GE site and over onto private
property and now the owners want to mine that land that has chromium, uranium,
trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride lying just beneath the surface. She wondered if anyone
really thought it was a good idea to disturb that property that is a hazardous site.
Page 16 of 25
Ms. Darrell asked if anyone knew how much of the area outside of GE is actually contaminated
and if there are safeguards and oversight in place now and in the future once the contaminated
area is zoned for intensive industry. She questioned who would take responsibility if these
contaminants do leach into the groundwater on the private property side of the plume and
whether it would be GE or the private property owner. She asked if the sand that is mined would
be tested for contaminants. Ms. Darrell also questioned how a special use permit could be issued
for this project when the SUP is currently in the process of being amended. She urged the board
to get the answers to all of the questions posed by her and the other concerned citizens prior to
making a decision that could have a major and potentially devastating impact on the Castle
Hayne community. She asked the board to use caution and do everything in their power to
protect the community and its citizens, particularly in the wake of the chemical spill disaster in
West Virginia, the water contamination in Camp Lejeune, the coal ash spill in the Dan River, and
the sewage spill in the Hawe River. She respectfully asked the board not to approve the rezoning
request and work with others to determine what can be done to monitor and contain the toxic
mess GE has created and actually clean it up.
Karen Bell, a resident of Dekker Road, offered her perspective on the owner’s statement that the
sand mine would be located one mile from the nearest residence. She noted that her property line
is located less than 25 feet from Sledge Road so her property will be impacted by those trucks
going down Sledge Road to the mine.
Chairman Collier opened the floor for rebuttal from the applicant.
Todd Woodard stated in regard to the natural area, the owners of Hilton Properties pride
themselves on being extremely good stewards of maintaining their property. They opted to
impact only 63 acres of their 4,083 acres and have taken the extraordinary measure of filing a
forest management plan with New Hanover County to manage the timber and conservation land
within the 4,000+ acres. In regard to the private road, they will also take every measure they can.
There is currently traffic on the road today, including timber trucks and other trucks. The owners
will enforce a 15 mph speed limit, which a lot less than the current speed limit. Appropriate dust
control measures will also be taken. Mr. Woodard felt the information in regard to the
anticipated traffic was misinterpreted. Traffic will actually be minimal and will not require a
traffic study because there will be under 100 peak trips per hour. Mr. Woodard asked the
representatives of GE Hitachi to address the questions related to their site.
Christopher White of GE Hitachi clarified that GE Hitachi neither supports nor opposes the
proposed operation. He explained their only concern is with it having no impact on their
mitigation plans. GE has had a State and Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved mitigation
plan in place for more than fifteen years and they have been carefully monitoring the plant
ensuring that it is working according to plan. In most cases, it is actually working better than
anticipated. There are no environmental impacts on the two separate areas. On the eastern area
that abuts Wooden Shoe subdivision, they are pumping water back and are using a great majority
of that water in the cooling systems and in the manufacturing processes. He stated they have very
closely monitored that area and were continuing those mitigation efforts until there is no more
need to do so.
Page 17 of 25
Mr. White stated on the northwestern part of the site which is closer to the sand mining area, GE
has done studies with several agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They
have found that natural attenuation is the best course of action so leaving it and letting it lie. As
proposed, they do not anticipate that the plan would impact their plans in any way.
Chairman Collier opened a shorter rebuttal period for the opposition due to the extended
opposition period earlier in the meeting.
Meri Battles asked the board to consider their own families residing in a home that abuts Sledge
Road when they make their decision on the rezoning request.
Chairman Collier stated the board does that into consideration for every case they consider and
they will continue to do so.
Karen Bell confirmed that timber trucks do use Sledge Road, but not very many. She noted those
trucks are disruptive to her home, creating much dust and noise. Putting additional trucks on that
road would disturb the residents and also decrease property values.
An unnamed gentleman stated it is not natural attenuation if water is moving from one site to
another. He felt the depth should not be allowed to go down to zero feet of elevation because it
would result in the water table being dropped too far.
Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and asked for comments or motions from the board
members.
Ted Shipley asked Mr. White (GE Hitachi) to describe the monitoring during the mitigation
process and the location of the wells on the property.
Mr. White deferred to the GE expert, Diana Hart, to answer that question.
Diana Hart explained that area on the GE property was used for storage in the 1960s and 1970s.
At that time, leaks occurred that contaminated the surface level groundwater. She noted there is a
deep aquifer where the drinking water comes from and there is a shallower aquifer that is not
used for drinking water. GE began decommissioning that area during the 1990s under their NRC
license. A comprehensive evaluation of the area was required at that time. GE identified
contaminants in the soil and worked with both the NRC and the State of North Carolina to
mitigate and clean up the area. The end result was that starting in 1999 GE had an approved
natural attenuation plan for the residual contamination in the area. That plan was approved and
the Sledge family was notified because contamination was identified on their property. For that
reason, GE has monitoring wells all over the GE property and the Sledge property. She stated she
was unsure of the exact locations and number of wells, but GE continues to monitor those wells
to ensure that no contamination goes beyond the bounded area. Wells in which no contamination
has ever been seen are used for bounding. She explained the wells they find contamination in are
expected, but they are seeing that natural attenuation is working and the breakdown of the TCE
eventually to the vinyl chloride, which is what you want, off gases and that is how the
contamination basically disappears.
Page 18 of 25
In response to Mr. Shipley’s inquiry, Ms. Hart reported the wells are monitored monthly.
Mr. Shipley asked if the levels of TCE or chromium had at any time been higher than the
acceptable levels.
Ms. Hart stated this area was not subject to any chromium contamination. She believed the
contamination originally was identified as Uranium 235, some calcium, and TCE. GE has not
found any radionuclides located off of the GE property. That part was pre-released and approved
by the NRC. GE found TCE and vinyl chlorides on the Sledge property.
In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Hilla regarding the contaminant levels, Ms. Hart
explained that the monitoring wells on the Sledge property do indicate TCE and the breakdown
of the TCE to the vinyl chloride. The levels of those contaminants are decreasing, but they are
above drinking water standards.
David Weaver stated he was familiar with General Electric’s efforts to monitor and treat the
groundwater and GE had done an incredible job doing it. He expressed confusion about the depth
of the proposed mine and asked staff to confirm if one of the conditions of the mining permit was
to allow the mine to go down to sea level.
Ben Andrea stated that was the level he had heard prior to the submission and prior to the
approval of the mining permit. He noted Mr. Woodard might be able to clarify that issue.
Mr. Weaver stated the letter from GE states their understanding that the excavation activities will
be limited to removal of sand above the water table and dewatering the mine below the water
table is not planned. He expressed difficulty determining where the water table is in relation to
sea level because he knows the water table is going to be higher than sea level. He asked how
the owners will know how far down they can mine before they go below the water table. Mr.
Weaver stated he knows the water table will fluctuate from year to year, but it would be nice to
have an idea of the range of the water table above sea level. The reclamation plan indicates the
site will become a lake with a minimum water depth of four feet. Mr. Weaver stated he wasn’t
sure how they would create a lake if they aren’t going to mine materials below the water table.
Mr. Weaver also asked for a clarification of the line in the letter that states GE supports the mine
assuming that no sand is taken below the water table.
Ms. Hart stated again that GE Hitachi is neither supporting nor opposing the project as long as
the project does not impact their monitoring and continued attenuation plan. Their understanding
from initial discussions with the Sledge family and the Hilton Properties was that the project
would not impact the GE facility. Ms. Hart affirmed upon pressing from Mr. Weaver they would
not object to the proposed activity assuming excavation does not go below the water table.
Upon affirmation from Ms. Hart that she and her staff drafted the GE letter, Chairman Collier
inquired if there was a plume plan that shows how far the plume extended at some point.
Page 19 of 25
Diana Hart stated a publicly available document was filed with the State of North Carolina. It is
GE’s attenuation plan which is approved by the State. GE is required to submit reports to the
State on the activities and the levels of contamination. The State also provides inspections and
oversight to GE.
Chairman Collier asked if Ms. Hart could per her best recollection draw the location of the
plume on the map showing where it extended.
Ms. Hart explained she couldn’t recall the actual shape of the plume, but located the general area
of the plume on the map. She commented in regard to the question about pumping, there are
other sites where GE is pumping; however, this area is not actively pumped. In response to the
chairman’s question about which way the groundwater was migrating, Ms. Hart pointed out the
direction on the map they believed the groundwater migrated, noting the groundwater would
eventually go back to the river.
Chairman Collier asked how far out on the site GE had seen the levels of TCE’s exceeding the
standards.
Ms. Hart responded she couldn’t state that from memory and would have to provide that
information at a later time. She was unable to estimate without looking at the readings for each
well.
Tamara Murphy stated most of her concerns were answered regarding the contamination, the
shape and size of the plume, and the other items already touched on so she did not have any
additional questions for Ms. Hart at that time.
Chairman Collier asked if Ms. Hart had any guess about the elevation of the groundwater.
Ms. Hart responded that the contamination is in the surface groundwater level so she would
estimate the groundwater to be 10-12 feet down below existing grade.
Lisa Mesler had no additional questions at that time.
Chairman Collier thanked Ms. Hart for answering the board’s questions.
Vice Chair Hill inquired of the owners what efforts would be made to reduce the noise from the
road that runs directly behind the neighbors’ homes on Dekker Road. He asked if any berms or
other mitigation efforts were planned.
Todd Woodard stated they would be open to any suggestions and noted they had looked into the
possibility of fencing their right-of-way. The location of Sledge Road probably would not allow
the construction of a full earthen berm because the base would be too wide. Vegetation screening
could be added. He added they would like to work with the residents any way they can.
David Weaver asked if the owner was willing to relocate the road or whether that was even
possible from a pragmatic point of view.
Page 20 of 25
Mr. Woodard stated there was a fairly narrow right-of-way coming in off the highway so
relocating the road wouldn’t be a possibility.
Chairman Collier asked Mr. Woodard to explain the information on the traffic impact worksheet
for the benefit of the residents present.
Mr. Woodard deferred to Mr. Williams, the mining consultant.
Floyd Williams responded the peak maximum trucks on the road would be 20-30 trucks per hour
on the upper end.
Per another inquiry from Chairman Collier, Mr. Williams explained the State of North Carolina
does not regulate the traffic or the noise for a mining permit.
In response to Mr. Weaver’s inquiry about normal business hours, Mr. Williams stated normal
business hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Ms. Murphy stated agreement with Mr. Hilla’s comments about buffering or fencing to mitigate
the noise for the residents bordering Sledge Road. She suggested that a condition be added to any
motion proposed that the applicant continue to work with the adjacent residential properties to
find a happy medium for the buffering between the residential and the access road.
Lisa Mesler asked if the number of trips anticipated included the trips for the timbering efforts on
the property as well; and if not, how many trips the timbering efforts would result in.
Mr. Woodard stated the timbering efforts were completely separate from the truck trips stated by
Mr. Williams and were not included in the anticipated number of trips.
Mr. Woodard stated at peak during harvesting, the average logger would haul forty (40)
truckloads per week. He noted some operators run a much higher volume of loads per day than
others.
Vice Chair Hilla asked if staff had taken into consideration the plume during review of the
application.
Ben Andrea explained that no information pertaining to the plume was submitted with the
application. Staff did not take that into consideration. The requirements set forth for a high
intensity mining don’t require staff to evaluate the potential contaminants of the material to be
mined.
David Weaver asked the applicant if they could specify how deep the groundwater table is and
how they intend to excavate materials. He explained if there is an issue with the excavation
affecting GE’s efforts, it would be a major issue.
Mr. Williams stated the condition in the mining permit regarding the four feet average water
depth is a boiler plate requirement in all permits. This mine may not go down to the water table.
Page 21 of 25
It may just go down five feet below. The fill is on an eleven foot elevation and the sufficient
water table around it is around five feet below it. The mining operation may not go below eleven
feet elevation. Mr. Williams didn’t think it would be hitting the water table on average.
Mr. Weaver asked if the applicant would be amenable to a condition preventing them from
taking material below six feet above sea level. He noted such a condition would satisfy GE’s
concerns about not taking material below the water table.
Chairman Collier stated he was not opposed to a mine. Typically, on a 4,000 acre parcel with a
63 acres mine in the center of the property a mile away from residential, he would tell the
applicant to buffer everything along the road and work with the neighbors to buffer the noise and
the dust because those things can be bad for the neighbors and won’t be easy to deal with at all.
He explained, however, the issues with any groundwater or soil contamination concern him more
than the dust and the traffic. He commented GE has done a tremendous amount of work on their
property, but he doesn’t know how much work the applicants have done on their property to
know if it is moving or is not moving and that concerns him. Even though it is a mile from the
nearest neighbor and he understands natural attenuation, there is still a chance. It does concern
him if the contamination gets into the groundwater. Chairman Collier stated his position that
more information is needed on groundwater to ensure the board that in the area to be mined,
which has the potential for groundwater contamination, the monitoring wells have been sampled
and tested and additional soil samples have been done. There may be a small portion of the site
that couldn’t be mined because it is contaminated and some portion that could be mined;
however, at this point, no information has been provided to confirm the mining area is or is not
contaminated. He explained he thinks the proposed sand mine is in a reasonably good location,
but he doesn’t feel comfortable pushing the project forward given the possibility of danger due to
contamination. He noted there may be none. He commented he is aware that the NRC stringently
monitors the GE site, but the applicants need more of that documentation on their site for him to
push the project forward.
Todd Woodard clarified that GE does have monitoring wells on the applicant’s property that are
monitored by GE.
Chairman Collier explained the applicant needed to supply the well monitoring data for their site
to the board to support their case and ensure safety. He noted the applicant should work with GE
and Ms. Hart to obtain the well monitoring data. He explained the letter from GE stating no
opposition to the proposal provided the sand mine doesn’t go below the water table is an opinion;
however, it doesn’t provide the supporting documentation needed.
Vice Chair Hilla echoed the chairman’s concerns, noting the discussion had raised more
questions for him. He stated he is not opposed to a mine site. He commented he didn’t feel he
had enough information to make a decision at that time and would also like to see the neighbors’
backyards addressed.
Chairman Collier read the official statement regarding the consequences of a denial and asked
the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote on the rezoning request, move for a
continuance, or withdraw the request.
Page 22 of 25
Todd Woodard stated the applicant would like to move for a continuance in order to provide the
information asked for by the board. He did not wish to state a specific time frame, but indicated
they would work with staff and GE.
Ted Shipley suggested it would be helpful for the applicant if the board provided specific
expectations of the information to be presented at the next public hearing. The requested
information included:
The depth to which sand would be mined;
The location of the water tables on the property;
The number of monitoring wells on the subject property and on the GE property;
The readings of those wells, including which potential toxins have been monitored. If it
can be established that the amounts of those toxins monitored fall below the acceptable
levels, that would be sufficient for the board;
The plans to address the entrance roads, including the determination of the anticipated
range of the number of trucks and working with the neighbors on buffering options to
lessen the impact of the truck traffic on their properties;
A delineation of the plume, including location and size in relation to the mine site.
David Weaver stated in regard to the pollutants and plume information, he would rather trust
GE’s opinion as to whether they were willing to sign off on the proposed operation brought
forward because GE will suffer the severe consequences if there are problems off the site. He
didn’t feel qualified to determine toxic chemicals in groundwater levels, etc. He expressed
definite support for information on the groundwater levels.
Mr. Weaver requested a definition of “dewatering,” noting it means pumping it out and pumping
it somewhere else. He asked if dewatering would also include cutting a ditch through the
property to drain to a lower elevation given the topography of the site.
Chairman Collier stated the board would like to know if the studies show the levels are
decreasing and are below the thresholds outlined and in place. He commented if the applicant
doesn’t meet with and share those levels with the neighbors, the same debate may be heard at the
next meeting because they don’t have the information.
Mr. Weaver suggested the applicant provide specifics on the proposed buffer along Sledge Road,
for example, a fence, wall, etc.
Chairman Collier told the applicant he thought the board liked the project and didn’t want to
unduly burden them, but they wanted to make sure they were making the right decision.
Vice Chair Dan Hilla made a motion to continue the rezoning request for up to sixty days. David
Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to continue Rezoning Request Z-
930 for up to sixty days.
Page 23 of 25
Item 3: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (A-418, 2/14) - Request by Staff to amend
Section 23: Definitions, Section 61.4: Traffic Impact Analysis, Section 121: Filing and Notice
for an Appeal, Section 122: Powers and Duties of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to address
inconsistencies in the ordinance as a result of legislation passed during the 2013 North Carolina
Legislative Session.
Ken Vafier provided the following staff report.
This item consists of amendments to 6 separate provisions in the zoning ordinance that are
necessary as a result of 2 laws, HB 74 and HB 276, passed during the 2013 NC Legislative
Session, that affect planning and zoning regulations.
Mr. Vafier thanked and gave credit to Ben Andrea for adapting the School of Governments
analysis of the legislative changes to all of our land use documents to determine what exact
changes had to be made.
As mentioned the goals of this amendment are to achieve consistency with laws passed during
the 2013 session, specifically HB’s 74 and 276.
The first change is a revision to the definition of “fraternities/sororities” which results from HB
74, often referred to as the “regulatory reform act.” (Cite highlighted notes). Thus, we propose
to strike the clause in our current definition referencing this sanctioning for compliance with
this statute.
The remaining changes stem from HB 276, which is an act to clarify and modernize Zoning
Boards of Adjustment.
One provision in this bill creates a uniform notice requirement for hearings on quasi-judicial
matters, requiring notification to the appellant in addition to all adjacent property owners, as
well as requiring on-site notices. Thus, we will amend Section 121-3 to accurately describe
this.
A separate provision of this bill adds a uniform time to file an appeal to the BOA, in this case
30 days. Typically NHC has allotted 14 days, so we will amend section 121-1 to comply with
this provision.
Similarly, we will revise our time period for appeals regarding TIA’s from 10 days to 30 days in
Section 61.4.
A change to Section 122-1 of the ordinance is necessary to comply with a change in the law that
now requires only a simple majority for board decisions on appeals, as opposed to 4/5ths of the
votes. This provision also clarifies that vacant seats or members not eligible to vote (i.e., in the
case of a conflict) do not count toward this calculation.
Finally, the ordinance Findings of Fact need to be amended as the bill states applicants are no
longer required to show that no reasonable use could be made of the property without a variance
being granted.
Mr. Vafier concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board.
Chairman Collier entertained questions for staff from the board members. Hearing none, he
opened the public hearing.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition of the proposed zoning text
amendment.
Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and entertained a motion from the board.
Page 24 of 25
Tamara Murphy made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment as written. Vice
Chair Dan Hilla seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment A-418.
Technical Review Committee Report (January)
Sam Burgess presented the following report.
The County’s Technical Review Committee met twice in January to review two
preliminary site plans.
Wilmington Development Division (Conventional Plan)
Wilmington Development Division (aka Walmart) is located near the 8100 block of
Market Street (US Hwy 17 Business) near the Porters Neck Community and is
classified as Transition on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The engineer for
the project submitted a preliminary site plan displaying eight (8) parcels supported by
44.68 acres. The property was rezoned by the Board of County Commissioners in
August, 2013 to CZD (B-2), Conditional Zoning District Highway Business. The
approved Master Plan included a Walmart Supercenter, several outparcels, multi-use
path along Market Street and median treatments. The purpose of the proposed division
was to covey the property owned by the YMCA and New Hanover Regional Pension
Trust to the new owners.
Public water and sewer will serve the site along with a public collector road known as
Hays Lane. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the Wilmington Development Division
for eight (8) commercial parcels. Conditions attached to the plan included a temporary
turn-around at the northern terminus of Hays Lane and a NCDOT Driveway Permit. A
performance bond was also required for the construction of Hays Lane prior to final plat
approval.
Wendover South: Phase 2 (Performance Plan)
Wendover South is located in the Middle Sound Community near the 7300 block of
Darden Road. The area is classified as Watershed Resource Protection on the County’s
adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The developer for the project submitted a preliminary site
plan displaying nine (9) single family residential lots. Public water, sewer, and streets
were presented as public.
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved Wendover South: Phase 2 for nine (9) lots. No
significant conditions were placed on the site plan.
Mr. Burgess reported the next scheduled meeting of the TRC would be February 12, 2014. Five
items are slated to be reviewed on the agenda – three new cases and two re-approval cases based
on plans approved in 2006-2007 with interested buyers. If all five projects are approved, they
will total over 800 lots.
Page 25 of 25
Shawn Ralston reported the January 31st Planning Board Work Session was cancelled due to
inclement weather and inquired if board members were agreeable to rescheduling the
meeting in order to discuss the conservation overlay district text amendment and to provide
the board with a preview of the existing conditions analysis of the County’s growth over the
last 20 years prior to the upcoming public launch of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Ralston
invited all board members to attend the Comprehensive Plan Launch on February 27, 2014
from 3pm to 5pm.
After a brief discussion, the Planning Board Work Session was re-scheduled to Friday,
February 21, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Shipley will be unable to attend the meeting.
Mr. Weaver asked if it would facilitate the process to include an agenda item to receive
comments and ask technical questions about the special use permit.
Mr. O’Keefe thought it might be beneficial to distribute the comments received since the last
meeting during which the special use permit was discussed; however, it may be better to
receive public comments at the next public hearing, which will be more widely advertised.
Mr. Shipley felt it would be in keeping with the process to receive the revisions to the
special use permit in the next week or two and then address the issue at the meeting in
March.
Chairman Collier commented that the work session would become a public hearing if
advertised; therefore, he felt it would be better to receive the information and comments
early and call staff for clarifications.
Ken Vafier asked the board to designate a planning board representative for the March 10,
2014 County Commissioners meeting, which will begin at 6:00 p.m.
Lisa Mesler agreed to serve as the Planning Board representative at the March 10, 2014
County Commissioners meeting.
Mr. O’Keefe reported Vice Chair Dan Hilla, the Planning Board representative at the
February County Commissioners meeting, was called to the stand and his testimony was
very helpful. He expressed appreciation for the board members attendance at those meetings
to provide witness of the process of the planning board.
Chairman Richard Collier thanked Mr. Hilla and adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.