2014-06 June 5 2014 PBM
Page 1 of 24
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
June 5, 2014
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 5, 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:
Tamara Murphy, Acting Chair Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Donna Girardot Kenneth Vafier, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Lisa Mesler Benjamin Andrea, Current Planner
Ted Shipley, III Jennifer Rigby, Long Range Planner
David Weaver Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
Absent:
Chairman Richard Collier
Vice Chairman Dan Hilla
Acting Chairman Chris O’Keefe opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public
hearing.
Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Nomination of Temporary Chair
Lisa Mesler nominated Tamara Murphy to serve as Temporary Chairman. David Weaver
seconded the nomination.
The Planning Board voted 5-0 to elect Tamara Murphy as Temporary Chairman.
Acting Chair Tamara Murphy reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Approval of May 2014 Planning Board Minutes
Ted Shipley made a motion to approve the May Planning Board minutes. David Weaver
seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 3-0 to approve the May 1, 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes.
(Lisa Mesler and Tamara Murphy were absent at the May meeting).
Page 2 of 24
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-932, 6/14) – Request by Michael Shepard to rezone 3 acres
located at 5525 Blue Clay Road from I-1, Light Industrial, to R-15, Residential District.
The subject property is classified as Aquifer Resource Protection Area according to the
2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Benjamin Andrea provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of
service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the
surrounding area.
Ben Andrea then presented the following staff report.
Michael Shepard, applicant and owner, is requesting a rezoning of approximately 3
acres of a 6 acre tract from I-1, Light Industrial, to R-15, Residential District.
The subject property is located in the Castle Hayne area, approximately ½ mile south of
the intersection of Blue Clay Road and Holly Shelter Road.
The property is classified as Aquifer Resource Protection Area according to the 2006
Wilmington-New Hanover County Joint CAMA Land Use Plan.
The area subject to the rezoning request is currently undeveloped, and the remainder of
the parcel outside of the subject area is used for single family residential.
Existing land uses in the area consist largely of single family residential uses along
Berwick and McGregor roads, as well as along Blue Clay Road.
The large parcel directly north of the site is currently undeveloped, and the large
circular area to the northwest is a buffer area for an FAA air traffic control device under
ownership by the federal government.
Existing zoning in the area consists mostly of R-15 to the south, east, and north, as I-1
zoning to the north and west. Further away from the subject area are some areas of I-2,
Heavy Industrial zoning.
Several slides provide a visual depiction of this residentially-oriented section of Blue
Clay Road.
Because this is a general rezoning, future uses of the subject area will be dictated by the
uses allowed in the R-15 district.
The R-15 district is primarily focused towards residential uses, and a rezoning to this
district would be in harmony with the land use classification of Aquifer Resource
Protection Area.
The management strategies for this land use classification are to encourage minimal
intrusion to aquifer recharge, as well as protect the aquifer from land uses that may pose
a risk of aquifer contamination.
The uses allowed by the R-15 zoning district are more supportive of these management
strategies than the current zoning of I-1, which allows for more intensive uses than the
current zoning.
Twenty adjacent property owners were notified by mail about tonight’s public hearing,
and a sign was posted on the property on May 20th.
Staff received one call about the rezoning request, and after an explanation of the
request, no support or opposition was voiced from the caller.
In summary, staff supports the rezoning request and recommends a motion to
recommend approval of the rezoning.
Page 3 of 24
Mr. Andrea concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board.
Hearing no questions from the board, Acting Chair Murphy opened the public hearing and
recognized the applicant.
Michael Shepard, the applicant, declined to make a presentation in regard to the request.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition of the rezoning request.
Acting Chair Murphy closed the public hearing and entertained a motion from the board.
Ted Shipley inquired if there was a proposed use for the property when it was originally zoned I-
1 in 2006 that didn’t develop or if the rezoning was done as a prospect by the developer.
Mr. Andrea explained the previous owner requested a rezoning in 2006 from R-15 to I-1, which
was approved. Because it was a general rezoning no particular use was proposed at that time. In
research of the previous case file, it didn’t appear that any specific use was proposed.
Donna Girardot noted the property is currently served by well and septic, but is located in the
CFPUA service area. She inquired if that meant the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority has
infrastructure there or that future service would be available.
Mr. Andrea stated no infrastructure from the utility authority is currently available to serve this
site; however, because it is in the utility authority’s service area, it is part of their plan to
potentially extend services to that area.
Ms. Girardot commented the Board of Commissioners approved a request to rezone this same
three acres from R-15 to the I-1 Industrial in 2006. Now, we’re being asked to rezone it back to
R-15. Noting the staff report indicates the area surrounding the subject property remains largely
undeveloped, she inquired if there is any industry currently on the subject property.
Mr. Andrea explained the only use on the subject property currently is located outside of the area
subject to the rezoning and that use consists of single family residential.
Acting Chair Murphy informed Mr. Shepard of the consequences of a denial by the board and
inquired if he wished to proceed to a vote on the item or continue the matter.
Mr. Shepard confirmed he wished to proceed with a vote on the rezoning request.
Acting Chair Murphy entertained a motion from the board.
Donna Girardot made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning because the rezoning
would be a less intense use of the property and the subject property is in an area classified as
Aquifer Resource Protection Area and is within the CFPUA service area and is more in harmony
with the County’s Land Use Plan and can support the rezoning request. Ted Shipley seconded
the motion.
Page 4 of 24
The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-932.
Item 2: Special Use Permit Request (S-619, 5/14) (Continued from May 1, 2014) – Request
by Inlet Watch Development Partners to develop a mixed use development on three parcels
totaling 7 acres located at 7261 & 7275 Carolina Beach Road. The property is currently
zoned B-1, Business District, and classified as Transition and Conservation Area according
to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Ken Vafier reported the proposal for a mixed use development was continued from the May
meeting. Staff has been informed that the Inlet Watch Homeowners Association is present to
request a continuance for an additional month. The applicant’s representative has provided
written confirmation of their consent to the continuance request to continue dialogue to address
issues between the applicant and the adjacent neighborhood.
Acting Chair Murphy thanked Mr. Vafier and asked for a motion from the board to continue the
item to the next month.
David Weaver made a motion to continue the item to the next meeting.
Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman asked the Chairperson if someone was present to
request the continuance and recommended that person if present make the request.
Acting Chair Murphy asked the representative requesting the continuance to come forward.
Steven Kunkin stated he represented the Inlet Watch Homeowners Association and expressed
appreciation to the board for working with them.
Acting Chair Murphy explained the board would like a request for the continuance from Mr.
Kunkin for the record.
Mr., Kunkin explained that after meeting with the developer, they realized it was much more
complicated than the board could handle so they hired an attorney, who is unfortunately out of
the country and unable to attend the meeting tonight.
In response to Acting Chair Murphy’s inquiry regarding procedure, Ms. Huffman explained she
thought it best the record reflect that someone asked for the request to be continued. The board
can proceed with a motion and vote on the continuance request. She noted the additional
question was whether the item would be continued to a date certain or just continued.
Acting Chair Murphy again entertained a motion from the board.
David Weaver asked Mr. Kunkin when they might be ready for the Planning Board hearing.
Mr. Kunkin responded that the item should be ready for the July Planning Board meeting.
Page 5 of 24
David Weaver restated his motion to continue the item to the July Planning Board meeting. Lisa
Mesler seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 5-0 to continue Special Use Permit Request S-619 to the July 10,
2014 Planning Board meeting.
Item 3: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (A-419, 6/14) – Request by L.P. Britton, Jr. to
amend Section 62.2-3, Penalty – Withholding of Permits of the New Hanover County Zoning
Ordinance to amend penalties addressing the unauthorized clearing of trees.
Ken Vafier presented the following staff report.
The text amendment proposed by L.P. Britton, Jr. would amend the penalty imposed
upon an applicant when unauthorized clearing of trees is undertaken.
Currently, Section 62.2-3 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance states
unauthorized clearing of regulated and significant trees on any site without first
obtaining a tree removal permit or an exemption letter is subject to a 3-year withholding
of permits on the site or a 5-year withholding of permits on the site if the violation was
willful and intentional. This penalty mirrors NC General Statute 153A-452 and was
adopted into the County’s Zoning Ordinance in 2008 to address clear-cutting of large
tracts which was an issue then during the building boom around the state, as well as
here in New Hanover County.
The applicant has proposed the text amendment in order to provide some additional
measures to atone for tree clearing violations. In particular, the applicant is proposing a
reduction of time for the withholding of permits in certain circumstances.
In addition, staff has added some supplemental recommendations that include fees
should the period of time be reduced. Ultimately, if and when this situation occurs, staff
is trying to offer more options for atonement of the violation rather than a 3-year stay on
permits which can be particularly burdensome on a landowner.
Mr. Vafier then reviewed the applicant’s proposal and staff recommendation.
pplicant’sAProposal (Additions are shown in red. Proposed deletions are shown in red
strikethrough.
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance
62.2-3: Penalty-Withholding of Permits
After the date of adoption of this section, failure to obtain a tree removal permit from
New Hanover County prior to removal of any regulated or significant tree or any
timber harvest on property will result in the following:
(1) A building permit, site plan approval or subdivision plan approval shall may be
denied, subject to the following:
Page 6 of 24
(A) a period of up to six (6) months after the completion of a timber harvest if
the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all regulated or
significant trees from the tract and the harvest was performed by an
independent professional tree removal company hired in good faith by the
property owner or an agent of the owner;
(AB) a period of up to three (3) years after the completion of a timber harvest
if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all regulated or
significant trees from the tract and does not meet the criteria in
subsection 62.2-3(1)(A); or
(BC) a period of up to five (5) years after the completion of a timber harvest if
the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all of the
regulated or significant trees from the tract if the harvest was a willful
violation of County regulations.
(2) This enforcement provision shall run with the land. Therefore, change of
ownership does not alleviate the penalty for unauthorized cutting of trees.
Staff Recommendation (Staff recommended deletions are in red and strikethrough,
recommended additions are in red and underlined.)
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance
62.2-3: Penalty-Withholding of Permits
After the date of adoption of this section, failure to obtain a tree removal permit from
New Hanover County prior to removal of any regulated or significant tree or any
timber harvest on property will result in the following:
(1) A building permit, site plan approval or subdivision plan approval shall be
denied, subject to the following:
(A) a period of three (3) years after the completion of a timber harvest if the
harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all regulated or
significant trees from the tract; or
(B) a period five (5) years after the completion of a timber harvest if the
harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all of the regulated or
significant trees from the tract if the harvest was a willful violation of
County regulations; or
(C) a period of six (6) months after the completion of a timber harvest if the
harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all of the regulated or
significant trees from the tract and an accompanying fine of four hundred
Page 7 of 24
dollars ($400.00) or fifty dollars ($50.00) per inch diameter at breast
height (DBH) for each removed regulated or significant tree; or
(D) a period of six (6) months after the completion of a timber harvest if the
harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all of the regulated or
significant trees from the tract and an accompanying fine of $10,000 per
acre is submitted for payment to the New Hanover County Tree
Improvement Fund if the number of regulated or significant trees
removed cannot be determined.
(2) This enforcement provision shall run with the land. Therefore, change of
ownership does not alleviate the penalty for unauthorized cutting of trees.
In staff’s recommendation, staff certainly agrees that there should be additional
measures of atonement to correct a violation should it occur; therefore, staff is
proposing an accompanying fine of $400 per tree or $50 per inch diameter at breast
height for each removed regulated or significant tree if the time period of the penalty
goes down to 6 months after the completion of a timber harvest. There is a firm
definition of what each of these trees are based on the diameter or caliper of the tree.
The proposed figures are consistent with the figures in the City of Wilmington’s
regulations.
Alternatively, there could potentially be a case where unauthorized clear-cutting is
undertaken and there might not be evidence of what was there in order for the applicant
or staff or forester to provide an evaluation of the calipers or number of trees. In that
case, staff proposes a fee of $10,000 per acre be paid into the New Hanover County
Tree Improvement Fund. Staff arrived at that value as a close approximation of what the
mitigation requirements would be if an applicant obtained a tree removal permit.
Prior to undertaking tree removal, an applicant can obtain a tree removal permit if he
provides mitigation for the trees that were removed or if they pay into the County’s
Tree Improvement Fund at a rate determined by staff in conjunction with the zoning
ordinance and the parks department. That rate is $295 per 3 inches of diameter at breast
height. The zoning ordinance instructs staff to inventory the total calipers, double them
and then plant a minimum of trees at a minimum of 3 inches caliper. To calculate the
value of the replacement trees which should be paid into the tree fund, the total amount
of caliper is doubled, then that number is divided by three and multiplied by $295. Staff
feels $10,000 per acre is a reasonable amount and roughly equates to the cost of
mitigation.
Mr. Vafier concluded the staff presentation and entertained questions from board members.
David Weaver stated while he understood the $50 per inch fee, he was unsure how staff would
choose between the $400 and $50 per inch fees.
Page 8 of 24
Mr. Vafier noted there appeared to be an omission of language. The language taken from the
City of Wilmington’s ordinance language should read “…$400… or $50 per inch, whichever is
greater.” He noted the phrase whichever is greater should be added to the staff’s proposed
language for clarification purposes.
In response to Mr. Weaver’s inquiry, Mr. Vafier confirmed in Section (D) the $10,000 fine per
acre would be prorated and calculated based on the total acreage, for example the fine for one
and one-half acres would be $15,000.
Mr. Shipley stated in regard to the term or following each of the four options seemed to indicate
the options were mutually independent of each other and couldn’t be doubled up. He also asked
who would choose the punishment.
Mr. Vafier confirmed Mr. Shipley’s statement was correct and noted the landowner violating the
ordinance would choose the method of atonement to come into compliance with the ordinance.
The only exception would be when it could be established that the landowner willfully violated
the county regulations. In that instance, staff would hold the landowner to the atonement required
in Section (B). One example of that situation would be if somebody came in, asked for and
received information about the tree clearing process and the discussion was documented by staff;
and then the project was undertaken without obtaining tree removal permits.
Mr. Shipley commented it is pretty much a “go out to pick a switch off a tree in the backyard and
bring it to me” scenario. The person violating the ordinance would be given the option to pick
the least punishment or the one that would be the least harmful to them.
Mr. Vafier agreed, but noted it was staff’s viewpoint they would like to provide some other
options other than preventing the landowner from doing anything on the site for a period of three
years because in almost all cases, this situation occurs because the person violating the ordinance
simply didn’t know what the regulations were. Staff recognizes that preventing a landowner from
doing anything on the site for a period of three years certainly inhibits economic development in
the county, as well as inhibits the landowner’s ability to develop their site.
Ms. Girardot commented she was glad staff had clarified the applicant of the $400 and the $50
fines, but asked where the City of Wilmington got those numbers.
Mr. Vafier stated he wasn’t certain where the City of Wilmington obtained their numbers and
would need to conduct further research.
Ms. Girardot noted on five acres the fine would be $50,000. She then asked for a clarification of
the terms willful violation and in good faith, and inquired who would make those determinations
and if any criteria had been established for in good faith and willful violation.
Mr. Vafier responded that no criteria had been established for willful violation. Acknowledging
Ms. Girardot brought up a good point, he asked to defer that question to the applicant because
that particular language is within the applicant’s proposal.
Page 9 of 24
Mr. Vafier stated in regard to subtle differences between the applicant’s proposal and the staff
recommendation, staff would prefer to retain the term shall and not include the term up to
because those terms bring tremendous subjectivity into the determination. In the scenarios
proposed by staff, ultimately it would be up to the landowner to decide how they atone for the
violation. He explained staff didn’t want to put themselves in the position where they must
decide where a penalty may have to be applied or have to say up to three years, noting they
would be very difficult for staff to apply.
In response to Ms. Girardot’s inquiry, Mr. Vafier confirmed the appeals process would be
through the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Weaver inquired if any of the four scenarios would cover a situation where a person gets a
piece of property, harvests all the timber and finds out later there’s a tree ordinance, but he can
prove that no significant or regulated trees were harvested.
Mr. Vafier explained none of those scenarios would apply because there wouldn’t be a penalty
for that because a landowner can take down trees as long as the regulated or significant trees are
preserved.
Mr. Vafier confirmed Mr. Weaver was accurate that a landowner could show evidence that a
stump survey was conducted proving there weren’t any significant or regulated trees and simply
proceed with his development plans.
Acting Chair Murphy inquired if board members had any questions for staff. Hearing none, she
opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Matt Nichols, attorney for the applicant, Mr. Pat Britton, stated Mr. Britton was also present. He
explained the history behind the text amendment request. Mr. Britton purchased the lots back in
2013 with the idea to sell them or accommodate his son’s business, Eco Express, which is
located across the street on Hermitage. This area of the county is basically zoned industrial and is
in the vicinity of the General Electric in Castle Hayne. Mr. Britton is a semi-retired farmer and
was unaware of the tree cutting permit requirement in the County. He consulted with a reputable
company and obtained references for tree removal from a professional tree removal company,
who came out 3-4 weeks after he purchased the property, but they didn’t mention anything about
permits. Perhaps some of this should be directed toward the companies cutting the trees.
Regardless, the tree removal company then cut the trees without a tree removal permit. When
Mr. Britton’s son, Russ Britton, who was unable to attend the meeting, submitted the site plans
for a lay down yard for their business, it prompted an inspection by the County as the usual
course of business and at that time it was determined that the trees had been cut.
Mr. Nichols said Mr. Britton would like to make things right and is not trying to skirt any
ordinances. He genuinely did not know that he needed to obtain a permit and the penalty for that
violation as it sits now is a mandatory three (3) years. Staff can’t take into account any
circumstances when applying the penalty and that creates real problems for Mr. Britton’s
business, which is trying to expand. This is an example of one of many Wilmington-based
businesses that are the backbone of the economy here. Growth is good. The Britton’s went
Page 10 of 24
before the Zoning Board of Adjustment in February and I accompanied Mr. Britton to a second
Board of Adjustment hearing in March. The ZBA board was very sympathetic to the situation,
but the way the ordinance is written makes it mandatory that it shall be three (3) years and
there’s really no accommodation for the circumstances.
Mr. Nichols stated the Zoning Board of Adjustment did not ever officially rule. They instead
tabled the matter and it remains tabled. The applicant decided to pursue some type of legislative
solution and that is why we are appearing before the Planning Board to change the ordinance,
which seems to be in this instance a rather harsh penalty.
Mr. Nichols distributed several handouts to explain the proposed text amendment. He noted Mr.
Britton had asked him to mention that he is originally from Hertford County, not New Hanover
County. He then explained the first tab of the handout contained their proposal. The second tab
marks staff’s proposed amendment. He noted they were both very similar.
Mr. Nichols pointed out that his proposal is a provision from the NC General Statutes, 153A-
452. The provision that this tree cutting ordinance arises from is located in a strange part of the
statutes, in Section 153A-452. He pointed out the term “may,” noting the statute says a county
may deny a building permit or refuse to approve a site or subdivision plan for either a period of
up to, then it sort of tracks the statute. The first change we suggest is that it seems like the
ordinance should follow the statute and the shall should be may because the General Assembly
probably intended was that you don’t have to do it in all instances, but the way the county
adopted it, it’s “shall” and there is no discretion. That’s why we asked for the word shall to
become may.
Mr. Nichols stated the applicant felt six months was reasonable. For this board’s discretion. You
may think more or less, but essentially what we wanted to create was a good faith innocent
exception. Some people may fall into that category, some people may not. We certainly don’t
want to change anything related to someone who willfully violates the ordinance. That’s not
appropriate in any circumstance, for instance, when someone hires a tree removal company to do
a job, much like we might hire an electrician at our house. While uncertain what should be done
in certain instances, he felt in this case where a professional company consulted to cut down the
trees, no permit was mentioned, and the landowner truly didn’t know about the permit
requirement the ordinance should provide some flexibility to mitigate the three (3) years penalty.
Mr. Nichols felt good faith could be determined. The Board of Adjustment hearing was one
mechanism that determined good faith. There was evidence regarding what the circumstances
were. This amendment is directed at someone who genuinely acts in good faith, not at a situation
where someone hires someone they know or has their own tree company, etc. The second
component staff suggested was the fines. He also questioned where the City of Wilmington came
up with their numbers. Other jurisdictions have these same types of what I would say are fairly
excessive fines. He distributed handout addressing fines in other jurisdictions, noting he had seen
five and six figure fines, which is a lot of money, especially for a small business. The section in
the general statutes talks about a maximum fine of $500. That’s the first page of the second
handout I distributed. New Hanover County’s ordinance, in Section 132, Enforcement of
Ordinances, states this may be enforced by any one or more of the remedies authorized in
Page 11 of 24
GS153A-123. Then it talks about fines and things like that. NCGS 153A-123, references 14-4
and says the maximum penalty is what’s imposed under GS14-4.
Mr. Nichols stated uncertain about the fines, some of which exceed those assessed for petty
criminal events or drug-related offenses. The maximum fines in those cases don’t even
approximate some of the fines I’ve seen in some of these tree cases.
Mr. Nichols then made the board aware of a bill pending in the General Assembly entitled House
Bill 1191, noting he wasn’t sure what prompted the bill, but had heard it was basically a
suggestion that there had been overreaching with regard to tree fines. The actual bill that has
passed a first reading would make it impossible or illegal for any town, city, or county to
regulate the removal, replacement, or preservation of trees on private property. He noted it may
be anecdotal and could be the culmination of these types of endless emails and calls to
legislators. Mr. Nichols stated he wasn’t speaking about whether it’s a good idea or not. He felt
tree ordinances are very good tools and are necessary. We are by no means advocating the
elimination of tree removal ordinances, but I think it puts it in context that there has to be some
middle ground and we’re looking to this board to help us shape that. He noted they have
proposed what they feel is reasonable – six months in an innocent landowner’s defense. But I
think you’ll see more and more of what some may characterize as overreaching. This is what the
result is and this may pass. We don’t know, but it did pass first reading. He noted this could be a
moot point in a few months because there may be no tree ordinances in New Hanover County.
In conclusion, Mr. Nichols stated he was not in favor of that and didn’t think most people are in
favor of that, but pointed out Mr. Britton’s case is another situation because it is located in an
industrial area. This is not an area where it is in a neighborhood. It’s not a business where
landscaping is especially important. It is where people go to work in industrial jobs and provide
industrial type services so the trees are important. We aren’t saying they are not important, but
we ask you to consider our proposal and appreciate your time and consideration.
Acting Chair Murphy thanked Mr. Nichols. No one else from the public spoke in support of the
text amendment. She then opened the opposition portion of the public hearing.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the text amendment.
Acting Chair Tamara Murphy closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the board.
Ted Shipley stated support for the proposed amendment, noting it was very well worded. He
liked the culpability language. He noted he doesn’t like strict liability. He liked the negligence
aspect that is brought in. There are three very distinct levels and no one has to choose a certain
punishment. It is all based on the culpability of the landowner. He noted he has worked with
local municipalities on behalf of landowners, some of whom were simply negligent, some were
based on not a good reading of the contract, and the fines that can come with them. Based on his
experience, the fines in Forsyth County were just ridiculous. The fines in the thousands of dollars
kept building and building and when they reached the $50,000 to $60,000 range, then the local
government would offer to decrease the fines as long as the owner promised to do x, y, and z and
sign on the dotted line. They basically had the owner over a barrel. They are well intended
because they want to protect the trees, but often times they violate people’s property rights.
Page 12 of 24
Mr. Shipley reiterated he felt the text amendment is very well worded and the punishments are
just. Allowing a punishment of up to three years rather than saying a hard line three years gives
some flexibility based on the culpability of the person and the contract. He stated he would move
for approval of the text amendment as soon as the comment period for board members
concluded.
David Weaver stated having been a regulator; he felt the regulator would be put under a real
burden with the inclusion of language like “up to.” He noted it really puts a lot of pressure on a
regulator to make a judgment that a violation was done in good faith or not or was possibly done
willfully so he felt it would be unfair to put staff in that position.
Mr. Weaver then asked the attorney, Ms. Huffman, if the information provided by Mr. Nichols
meant the County can’t have a fine of more than $500.
Ms. Huffman explained the fine of $500 applies to someone who is charged criminally. Mr.
Britton has not been charged criminally so it has absolutely no relevance to this issue.
Mr. Weaver commented he wasn’t talking about Mr. Britton or Mr. Nichols, but wanted
clarification that the County can or cannot charge the amount that is already in the zoning
ordinance.
Ms. Huffman explained the $500 fine that Mr. Nichols referred to is found in the criminal statute
and applies to someone who violates the ordinance and can be charged criminally and then when
they go to court and are in front of a criminal judge and are convicted of a misdemeanor of
violating an ordinance, the most fine the judge can give that person is $500. That fine doesn’t
have anything to do with this discussion.
In response to Mr. Weaver’s query, Ms. Huffman confirmed the fines proposed by staff are legal.
Donna Girardot stated she would like to hear comments from the rest of the board members
because she didn’t like the mitigation option offered by staff. She expressed deep concern about
how the criteria would be measured to decide whether a violation was a willful violation or was
just a mistake. Ms. Girardot noted she did like the way the amendment was written and felt
adding up to three years would provide some flexibility to the ordinance; however, she would
like to hear more input from the rest of the board.
Lisa Mesler agreed with Ms. Girardot and expressed concern about the harshness of the fines,
particularly in a situation like Mr. Britton’s. While she does like the flexibility, she is definitely
a proponent of having ordinances for protection of the trees.
Acting Chair Murphy stated after reviewing the language proposed by the applicant and by staff,
she favored staff’s version based on the fact that it eliminates some of the subjectivity the
applicant has proposed with the terms may and up to. She agreed with Mr. Weaver that it may
place an undue burden on staff to determine what level of atonement the person in violation
Page 13 of 24
would be required to serve. She stated she was in agreement with Mr. Shipley on moving
forward with the amendment as proposed by staff.
Ted Shipley clarified that he was in favor of the text amendment as proposed by Mr. Nichols.
Ms. Girardot asked Mr. Shipley to elaborate on his experience with this type of issue,
particularly on how he handled the subjective part of it and whether it was ever a problem.
Mr. Shipley explained with regard to the subjectivity, they did have some flexibility, which
allowed for settlement, which was good. However, the fines were so high in those cases that you
were pretty much forced into some type of settlement rather than fighting it out and risking them
coming back being perturbed that you had taken it through the appeals process and being
required to pay the original amount. If the statute was $50,000 and you want to contest it rather
than accept their plea deal for $5,000 or some other remediation, part of the appeals process and
you lost, then you are looking at paying the full $50,000. It was nice having some subjectivity
and the ability to settle. If you were saddled with the full $50,000 and unable to have the fee
reduced because of statute, it would be unfair. Being unable to be permitted for years and the
amount not being able to go below a certain threshold also seems somewhat unfair in any
circumstance whether in civil penalties or criminal penalties without having some flexibility for
mitigating factors that would reduce from a threshold what is by statute. That is consistent with
what is in our criminal and civil code. The NC General Statutes state a county may deny a
building permit. The general statutes give flexibility there by not saying shall. He feels it is
inherent in the law that we aren’t going to actually say that somebody who does something
willfully and chops down a thousand acres forest and someone who does something negligently
and chops down one acre are going to automatically receive a three year prohibition. It seemed
outrageous to him.
Mr. Weaver stated in regard to removal of flexibility, it really can be difficult for a staff person
to handle a violation when one person in authority says to give the person a break and another
person in authority says to nail the person to the wall. He felt staff should not be placed in the
position of having to determine how many years for good faith. He noted determining good faith
is a horrible thing to determine accurately. It’s a great concept, but it would be very difficult for a
staff member to tell someone he didn’t think he acted in good faith and hope to have his job the
following month.
Mr. Weaver agreed there may be a way to make the staff’s amendment less onerous, noting
$10,000 per acre could be tough if you made a mistake and cleared five or ten acres, which
would be a $50,000 or $100,000 fine. He reminded board members that it won’t be a problem if
there aren’t any regulated or significant trees on your property that you cleared. In that case, you
can obtain a building permit and move forward with your plans without paying a fine.
Ms. Girardot asked Mr. Nichols if there was a timing factor on this amendment for his client.
Mr. Nichols explained there is and there isn’t. The Board of Adjustment tabled the case for 120
days and that hearing was in March. The next hearing would be up for consideration in July, but
the applicant is certainly amenable to asking the Board of Adjustment for another continuance if
Page 14 of 24
they will grant it. He noted they are requesting the amendment for a specific instance, but he
understands the board must consider the entire county and the ordinance in its entirety.
Ms. Girardot expressed the opinion that she would like to look at other tree ordinances that may
be used as a template if that is acceptable to the rest of the board.
Mr. Shipley stated understanding of the purposes of Ms. Girardot’s comment, explaining he felt
the current is poor. The redraft by Mr. Nichols is an improvement, but basically keeps the law as
it stands now so no re-education or other research needs to be done. It simply makes the
ordinance more fair and flexible. He didn’t see the need to look at other jurisdictions because as
the amendment stands written by Mr. Nichols, it is really complete.
Mr. Nichols added the applicant is certainly fine with the board’s decision to vote on the
amendment or continue the item; however, at some point Mr. Britton would need some finality
in order to have the lay down yard operational. Mr. Britton has always wanted to cooperate with
the county to reach a solution. He noted certainty that the board of adjustment would also not
want the case tabled forever.
Mr. Nichols noted in regard to the discussion about what is or is not good faith and Mr. Weaver’s
point about discretion and the difficulty for someone at the county to determine good faith, those
types of determinations are made in any variety of contexts and there is an appeal process to the
Board of Adjustment. Any person making the determination, the applicant, or the person that
was cited didn’t agree with the decision, they could appeal to the board of adjustments through a
fairly speedy process. He pointed out decisions are made by staff members all day, every day,
that are potentially appealable.
Mr. Shipley asked Mr. Nichols if in good faith was a rather innocuous term that could be deleted
because it is contingent upon a person hiring a professional tree removal service. It implies they
have been hired as your agent and done your due diligence. Removal of that language would
keep the amendment the same because hiring a professional tree removal company puts the
owner one step away from the actual removal; therefore, that negligence should be the least
penalized of all.
Mr. Nichols agreed and noted they struggled with the language. He was thinking of a scenario
where someone was cleverly trying to get around the ordinance by hiring someone they knew to
clear the trees. The thought was ensuring the process was above board with no intent to get
around the ordinance.
Mr. Shipley asked Mr. Weaver if substituting the requirement of an arm’s length transaction for
in good faith would suffice.
Mr. Weaver felt that would make it even worse because there are many fly-by-night tree removal
companies that have no standards applied to them whatsoever and they are not liability in any
way for violating the ordinance even if they are aware of the tree ordinance. An unscrupulous
landowner could hire ABC Tree Company from another county to cut down all of the trees on
their property and there would be no safeguard or retribution at all. He agreed that judgment calls
Page 15 of 24
are made by employees all the time, but it’s always nice to have a specific ordinance with
specific requirements you can point to. Then if someone doesn’t like the way their property is
affected by the ordinance and feels they are being treated unfairly, they can appeal the decision
to the board of adjustment. Mr. Weaver stated it was very dangerous to the employee and can be
dangerous to the business also if an employee is put in the position of having to make judgment
calls.
Mr. Nichols added only one other incident similar to Mr. Britton’s situation has come before the
board of adjustment over the course of a few years. He didn’t think this would situation would be
a common occurrence.
Mr. O’Keefe stated staff would say this is an effective ordinance because this type of situation
has only happened one other time where someone clear-cut their lot without going through the
property process.
Mr. Nichols agreed, but stated the main point is that there is no flexibility in the ordinance. If the
ordinance said “may” or “up to”, this would probably have been resolved at the board of
adjustment meeting. Unfortunately, as the ordinance is currently written, the penalty is simply
three years with no flexibility. Because nothing can be done with the property for three years the
business has to look for other areas to expand. This raises many difficulties for the landowner
and the business. He also stated understanding that there are many issues to be considered by the
county in regard to this ordinance.
Mr. Weaver agreed there should be an ability to reduce the three year penalty to six months and
follow one of the options staff has suggested. He also felt $10,000 per acre was an excessive
fine.
David Weaver then made a motion to recommend approval of the staff’s version of the text
amendment with the following changes: in 1(C) add whichever is greater; 1D. Add or fraction
thereof after acre and reduce the fine to $5,000 per acre.
Mr. O’Keefe stated the ordinance contains a section where the county manager is allowed to
review fines and determine if fines are exorbitant and lower fines. If a reference is added to
Paragraph 1(D) that fines may be reviewed in a manner consistent with Section 132-1.1(F),
which states after a violation has been remedied if penalties have accrued to over $5,000, owners
may request an alternative equitable settlement of penalties through a letter to the county
manager. He suggested that might address the concerns about the exorbitant fines.
Mr. Weaver was amenable to adding that to his motion.
Mr. Shipley stated that still doesn’t address how the four options are awarded or punished against
the person. There is no system by which culpability is a factor. He felt there is a better way to
address the ordinance. He suggested a compromise by eliminating subparagraph (A) in
paragraph 1 of Mr. Nichols text amendment and using may.
Page 16 of 24
Mr. Weaver stated to address Mr. Shipley’s first point; we were told that it would be up to the
person who violated the ordinance to select which one of these four options to go with and what
we could do. He offered to add that explicitly in his motion to clear that up and address that
concern.
Mr. Shipley explained overall the minimums in the amendment, the breast height calculation,
etc. are overcomplicating something that is pretty simple and a pretty easy fix in the law right
now as it is written.
Mr. Weaver offered to add language to his motion to address Mr. Shipley’s concerns.
Acting Chair Murphy commented it seemed there were two competing motions on the floor –
one from Mr. Weaver and another from Mr. Shipley.
Ms. Huffman asked if Mr. Shipley had made a motion.
Mr. Shipley stated he did not make a motion. He thought it was a reasonable compromise in
order to get rid of the controversy surrounding the first paragraph in red to simply change the
threshold so there is some flexibility by staff as to the amount of years under which permitting
cannot happen.
Assistant County Attorney Huffman explained the reason she asked was because she didn’t think
Mr. Shipley had made a motion. Mr. Weaver made a motion that did not receive a second. It
would be appropriate if someone wished to make an alternative motion.
Mr. Shipley stated he would like to make a motion regarding his previous statement and hoped
someone would second it.
Assistant County Attorney Huffman asked Mr. Shipley to restate his motion.
Ted Shipley made a motion to recommend approval of Mr. Nichols’ text amendment, accepting
paragraph one, eliminate subparagraph (A), accept subparagraph (B) except for the reference to
subparagraph (A) and accept in total subparagraph (C). Donna Girardot seconded the motion.
During discussion, Mr. Weaver stated objection to the motion because of the undue pressure it
would place on staff in regard to the up to three years and up to five years language. He also felt
without any other penalties, the amendment would basically gut the enforcement of the tree
ordinance by providing anyone of influence the ability to sidestep the tree ordinance and hire
someone to clear their land of significant and regulated trees and put pressure on staff to reduce
the penalty.
The Planning Board voted 3-2 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-419 with changes
to include elimination of subparagraph (A) and the reference to subparagraph (A) in
subparagraph (B). (Ayes: Shipley, Girardot, and Mesler; Nays: Murphy and Weaver).
Page 17 of 24
Item 4: Rezoning Request (Z-933, 6/14) - Request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions to
rezone 6.9 acres located at 5112 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential District, to
CZD B-2, Business District Conditional Zoning District, for the use of retail, self-storage,
and recreational vehicle and boat trailer storage. The subject property is classified as
Urban and Conservation Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Benjamin Andrea presented the staff summary and provided information pertaining to location,
land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Mr. Andrea also showed maps, aerials,
video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area.
Ben Andrea then presented the following staff report.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions is applying on behalf of AMJB Properties, LLC for a
rezoning of 6.89 acres from R-15, Residential District, to CZD B-2, Highway Business
Conditional Zoning District.
The subject property is located in the southern portion of the county along the 5100
block of Carolina Beach Road, approximately 0.65 miles south of Monkey Junction.
The site is mostly classified as Urban by the Land Use Plan, with some Conservation
Area classification near the rear of the property.
The site features 200’ of frontage along Carolina Beach Road, and is currently
undeveloped aside from an existing residential structure and some accessory buildings.
Existing land uses in the area consist of a modular home park to the southeast of the
property, multifamily residential across Carolina Beach Road called Willoughby Park
and a variety of commercial uses to the southeast around Monkey Junction.
Directly adjacent to the property to the northwest is Monkey Junction Self Storage, the
existing business that seeks to expand onto the subject property with this rezoning
request.
The level of service of Carolina Beach Road is considered an “F” in the vicinity of the
site, with a volume to capacity ratio of 1.03. This information is based on traffic counts
performed by the WMPO last August.
Existing zoning in the area includes areas of both conventional and conditional B-2
zoning. Across Carolina Beach Road from the site is multifamily zoning within the
City’s jurisdiction. Areas of R-10 and conditional R-10 are within the vicinity of the
site. The current zoning of the property is R-15, as well as other areas within the
vicinity of the site.
As mentioned, the petitioner is seeking to rezone to conditional B-2 for the expansion of
the adjacent self-storage business.
The expansion would include three 21,000 SF climate controlled storage buildings, one
covered boat trailer and recreational vehicle storage area, and a 10,000 SF building for
specialty retail use.
Along with the new buildings and storage areas, landscaping, parking, and access
improvements are proposed. Access would be provided by a new driveway to Carolina
Beach Road, subject to an NCDOT Driveway Permit.
An additional access point to the storage areas would stem from the existing ArchMil
Way, which parallels the northwestern property boundary line.
Page 18 of 24
Flood hazard areas are located near the rear of the property, mostly outside of the
rezoning area. Motts Creek transverses this portion of the property, thus the designation
of AE Floodway and AE Flood Zone.
A 20’ wide buffer yard would separate the new development from the existing
residential uses to the southeast.
A 20’ wide buffer area would also separate the new development from the existing
residential land uses on both sides of the property.
The proposed stormwater management area is located outside of the area subject to the
rezoning request.
Across the street is a drive-through convenience store currently under development as a
result of the approval of a SUP in 2012.
Staff recommends approval of the request. Staff feels that the rezoning would allow a
logical expansion of the existing business onto the subject property, which staff opines
is not best suited for residential development. Staff feels that the proposed development
would not diminish the quality of life in the nearby residential areas.
Further, the proximity to the commercial node of Monkey Junction supports Policy 4.3
of the CAMA land use plan.
The proposal mostly avoids development within the flood hazard areas near the rear of
the property, ensuring some degree of hazard mitigation, consistent with Policy 3.9 of
the Land Use Plan.
Finally, the proposal would offer a buffer area between the existing and proposed
development and Motts Creek, which is a tributary that drains to the Cape Fear River.
This would support Policy 3.3 of the Land Use Plan.
160 adjacent property owners were notified by mail about tonight’s public hearing, and
a sign was posted on the property on May 20th.
Additionally, a community meeting was held by the petitioner on April 16, but no
members of the public attended. As a result, no changes were made to the petition as a
result of the meeting.
Staff received one call about the rezoning request, and after an explanation of the
request, no support or opposition was voiced from the caller.
In summary, staff supports this rezoning request, finding it consistent with the zoning
ordinance and supported by several policies in the Land Use Plan. Staff opines the
proposal is not in conflict with any policies within the Land Use Plan or provisions in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Andrea concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board.
Acting Chair Murphy entertained questions from the board. Hearing none, she opened the public
hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf spoke on behalf of the applicant, Monkey Junction Self-Storage, which she has
represented for many years. It has been a successful business since its first phase of construction
was completed in early 2000. Most folks are very familiar with the attractive brick features and
the heavy landscaping along the business’s frontage that has been maintained very nicely over
the years. She noted she had appeared before the board many times over the years for several
phases, economic changes, and some changes in the concept. She happily reported the applicant
Page 19 of 24
is requesting the rezoning because the facility has continued to thrive. It has been an excellent
business and there is no better scenario that an expansion right next door.
Ms. Wolf explained the expansion will mimic the existing facility as far as buildings,
landscaping, and the general architecture. We know that traffic is always somewhat of a concern,
but we agree with staff that this site isn’t best used as residential. If it were developed as
residential it could support 25 residential units and the traffic created by those residential units
would be much more that what it would be for this type of use.
Ms. Wolf noted the retail building in the front is envisioned as something along the lines of the
Blue Moon Gallery on Racine Drive, which is a specialty retail shop with storage behind it. As
you clean out your storage space, maybe you want some consignment. The concept is the type of
building that would have little individual leased spaces where you could sell on consignment or
sell your crafts so it would not be a strip center. It would be a destination type of retail
establishment. People would not be constantly driving in and out to pick up subs or coffee, etc.
which addresses some of the traffic concerns. Overall traffic will still be less than it would be for
single family residential.
Ms. Wolf pointed out the required setbacks are provided. There is a small piece of floodplain that
goes over the back turnaround. None of the buildings are in the floodplain and obviously the
turn-around will be constructed so that it won’t be in the floodplain either.
Ms. Wolf confirmed the owner agrees with staff’s recommendations. She feels the site plan is
fairly well thought out and certainly fits into their management style and the security that they
provide to it. Adjacent properties to the north are basically owned by family so they are leaving
that residential, but their family is certainly in support of the request.
Ms. Wolf offered to answer questions from the board members, noting the applicant believes the
request is reasonable and consistent with New Hanover County’s vision for future plans.
Acting Chair Murphy thanked Ms. Wolf and entertained questions from the board.
Donna Girardot inquired if the project would be built in phases.
Ms. Wolf stated the project would absolutely be built in phases. The three buildings along the
southeastern boundary will most likely be constructed as Phase 1, 2, 3, etc. The covered boat
storage, which will be three sided, may be part of the first phase. The retail in the front would
absolutely be completed in a later phase so that area would remain natural. She also confirmed
the retail building would be staffed on a daily basis.
In response to Mr. Girardot’s question, Ms. Wolf confirmed the buildings along the western
boundary would serve as their own fencing. Fences would be installed between the corners of the
buildings to protect the entire internal site. Standard 20’ buffer yards and not incorporate the
fences as part of the buffer yard so they would just be chain-link style with buffers. Along the
frontage would be the standard brick and wrought iron fence that they’ve been consistent with in
all of their other development.
Page 20 of 24
Ms. Girardot noted she found it very refreshing that the existing facilities had the enclosed
storage in the front and all of the RVs and boat trailers were towards the back of the site, not
along the road frontage. She stated the site plan indicated that is the intention for this site as well.
Ms. Wolf confirmed it was their intention to locate the RV and boat trailers storage toward the
back of the site.
Ms. Girardot asked about the current facility’s hours of operation due to the proposed site’s
location abutting the mobile home park.
Ms. Wolf explained they feel like the operation of the climate control buildings, which abut the
mobile home park, have internal access so they block any type of noise and vision because the
access to those buildings would be through several doors into the internal fronts of the buildings.
In regard to the hours of operation, customers can access the site with a key fob from 6:00 a.m.
to 10 p.m. She also confirmed that an engineer would be engaged for stormwater management.
David Weaver commented he liked the way the site plan is laid out with the RV and boat storage
being insulated from the surrounding residential areas.
Acting Chair Murphy thanked Ms. Wolf and asked if anyone else from the public would like to
speak in support of the agenda item.
Lloyd Bowden stated support for the project, noting he owned the property next door to the
proposed site. He commented he couldn’t ask for a better neighbor than a mini-storage
warehouse. He felt it would be a great neighbor and didn’t foresee any issues.
Acting Chair Murphy then opened the opposition portion of the public hearing.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.
Acting Chair Murphy closed the public hearing and asked for comments from board members.
David Weaver made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request as presented.
Donna Girardot seconded the motion.
During discussion, Ms. Girardot commented that due to the fact this is an extension of an already
established business and there are a lot of significant commercial project there in nature, she
supports the rezoning. She assumed that the lighting would be motion based in accordance with
the county code, which requires directional control lights and the applicant would be respectful
of the adjacent Bowden Mobile Home Park.
Ms. Wolf confirmed the lights would be the lights would also be shielded by the buildings.
Ms. Girardot also noticed a number of significant trees on the side of the property along the
mobile home park and that side of the property. It creates a very lush natural border, almost a
Page 21 of 24
buffer. She noted she would like to encourage the applicant if there’s any possible way to use
that as part of a buffer.
Ms. Wolf explained because it’s a buffer the first 20’ and then a 30’ setback. Other than
maintaining the back side of the building, at least 25’ of that is required to be preserved. The
applicant can’t take that out other than general bush hogging the underbrush. All of those trees
within the buffer have to be saved if they are in the buffer, along with supplementing it to meet
the buffer requirements.
Ms. Girardot stated understanding that NCDOT will require the necessary driveway
improvements and expressed hope they will require the extension of the already current access
road that is there.
Ms. Wolf explained that won’t be the case initially as the front retail will be phased so they
won’t be looking for that front driveway onto Carolina Beach Road, but they are of the opinion
that NCDOT will require the extension of that right turn lane when that part of the project is
developed.
Ms. Girardot noted previous conversations with Ms. Wolf before about signage. She expressed
hope that any additional signage needed will be monument type signage and not a LED sign due
to the distraction to the driving public that would be created by placing another LED sign in
close proximity to the existing LED sign.
Acting Chair Murphy asked if board members had any other comments. Hearing none, she
informed Ms. Wolf of the consequences of a denial and asked if the applicant wished to proceed
with the vote or wished to continue the matter.
Ms. Wolf stated the applicant would like to proceed with a vote on the rezoning request.
David Weaver then amended the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request finding
the rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest.
Donna Girardot seconded the amended motion.
The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-933.
New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan Update
Jennifer Rigby, Long Range Planner, presented the following update on the New Hanover
County Comprehensive Plan.
In November, we presented a timeframe along with a public engagement strategy for you to
approve by resolution and also to our Board of Commissioners to approve by resolution. As
indicated in this public engagement strategy, we held a public launch in February. We also
shared this timeframe with you. We held this public launch in February and we had over 150
people in attendance for that public launch. At that time, an inventory of existing conditions was
presented and an overview of the process and how individuals could become involved within
the comprehensive plan was presented.
Page 22 of 24
We have held two of those meetings to date and we are working on our third round of theme
committee meetings. We are receiving a lot of great comments from these committee meetings.
We have had a lot of good participation in these meetings. Various theme committee meetings
have had varying numbers of participants, but the smallest participation has been twenty
participants involved in these committee meetings.
We continue to remain on our timeframe and on schedule with the plan. In April, we spoke at
the national American Planning Association conference and participated as a pilot community
for the comprehensive plan standards for sustaining places. We are currently working on our
theme committees and we will hold four theme committee meetings
Ms. Rigby stated staff mentioned in regard to our public engagement strategy that we would
have an ongoing review and evaluation of our public engagement strategy to make sure we are
engaging the right individuals and a diverse representation of our community. We do have some
concerns that we have not reached everyone at this point. We are working as staff,
brainstorming ideas to reach the underserved population and we hope to adjust our public
engagement strategy to incorporate those. I will share with you that any suggestions that the
board may have or any recommendations we are open to those and we would like to share those
so if you know of groups or organizations that would like to hear about the comprehensive plan
that we have not reached, please do let us know because we would genuinely like to make sure
we get feedback from everyone.
Ms. Rigby briefly went through the framework that we have received or put together for our
committee. With the Livable Built Environment. Eventually these same committees are going to
be creating policies and then short term and long term recommendations of how we can achieve
those policies. Today we are in a very draft policy framework save so it’s a very exciting place
to be in, we’re starting to see a lot of ideas enlarge and a lot of recommendations emerge so
that’s an existing place to be. We still have some of the policy guidance that we have received
thus far, individuals would like us to preserve agricultural land, sustainable development, invest
in community infrastructure, enhance and protect residential areas, build efficient multi-modal
transportation for all users, create safe, walkable communities and revitalize commercial
corridors.
With our Harmony With Nature policy framework, they have been putting together policy
statements and they want to preserve open space, farmland, natural heritage and critical
environmental areas, link natural habitats, promote the region through natural resources, water
access, quality and conservation, air quality and renewable energy, solid waste and recycling,
and sustainable growth and green infrastructure.
The Responsible Regionalism Theme Committee is working toward is a regional approach to
housing development, a regional approach to economic development, a regional approach to
transportation planning and management and a regional approach to environmental
management.
For the Interwoven Equity Theme Committee, the policy framework they are recommending is
– providing a range of housing types, opportunities and choices, upgrading housing
development with infrastructure, strengthening neighborhoods through redevelopment of
blighted areas and environmental equity, creating opportunities for health care and services to
disperse throughout the community in an effort to equitably reach all New Hanover County
citizens, increase workforce housing and workforce development.
Page 23 of 24
Our healthy community, the policy framework is to create safe walkable spaces and accessible
destinations, increase physical activity and healthy lifestyles, access to healthy food, parks,
recreation, and hospitals and a reduction of crime, and public safety, and a healthy economy.
We want to encourage redevelopment and infill development for commercial corridors, create
unique and special places that attract a variety of uses, look for win-win opportunities and focus
on common interests, create mixed-use nodes, blended with each neighborhood and keep them
vibrant.
There are a lot of overlapping policies. Many ideas merge together in these cross cutting theme
committees and it’s been very interesting to hear the conversations within our community from
individuals and see a lot of the other themes that are starting to emerge.
With this, the next step is the comprehensive plan recommendation committee, which consists
of six individuals appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, along with one
representative from each of the theme committees. Each theme committee will have one
individual to represent their views and thoughts on the comprehensive plan policy
recommendation committee. The comprehensive plan recommendation committee will take all
of the policy recommendations and merge them together, look for duplication and any conflict,
and try to resolve those conflicts such that the policies that move forward to the Planning Board
and ultimately to the Board of Commissioners will be a cohesive document.
Ms. Rigby outlined the next steps of the plan.
Chapter 1: Public Engagement Plan – The public engagement plan has been adopted. We will
maintain and revisit the public engagement strategy to ensure it stays up to date and fresh and
keeps the right individuals engaged in the process.
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Report – We are currently putting the final touches on this
report. This report was presented to the public at the February public launch. Staff expects to
have a final report this summer for the board.
Chapter 3: Policy Framework – Staff expects to share the policy framework with the board in
the fall. The different development scenarios and future land use recommendations will be
prepared over the winter and the final report is anticipated in June of 2015.
Ms. Rigby concluded the comprehensive plan update and offered to answer questions from board
members about the process.
Acting Chair Murphy thanked Ms. Rigby and entertained questions from the board about the
comprehensive plan process. She then thanked staff for working so diligently on the process, noting it is a
huge undertaking which requires a tremendous amount of work and effort.
Technical Review Committee Report (May)
Acting Chair Tamara Murphy reported that the Technical Review Committee did not meet during the
month of May.
Page 24 of 24
With no further business, Acting Chair Murphy entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Ted Shipley made a motion to adjourn the planning board meeting. Acting Chair Murphy seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m.