Loading...
2015-07 July 9 2015 PBM Page 1 of 18 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board July 9, 2015 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, July 9, 2015 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: Edward “Ted” Shipley, III, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning/Inspections Director Donna Girardot, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, PlanningManager Tamara Murphy Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ernest Olds Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Anthony Prinz Jennifer Rigby, Long Range Planner Jordy Rawl Brad Schuler, Current Planner David Weaver Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Chairman Ted Shipley opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Ted Shipley reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of June 2015 Planning Board Minutes Chairman Shipley announced the June 2015 Planning Board minutes would be approved at the August Planning Board meeting. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-942, 7/15) - Request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions on behalf of the Krueger Family Trust, property owner, and Stephen Fasul, contract purchaser, to rezone 3.15 acres located at 7755 Market Street from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District, to develop a mini- warehouse use. The property is classified as Transition according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Current Planner Brad Schuler 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. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report: This is an application for a conditional zoning district. A conditional zoning application has a conceptual site plan attached to it, and conditions above and beyond the requirements of the zoning ordinance may be placed on the district with the applicant’s approval. This application is to rezone 3.15 acres located at 7755 Market Street from R-15 to (CZD) B2 in order to develop a mini-warehouse use. A zoning map of the area reflects the Page 2 of 18 property proposed to be rezoned, which is adjacent to an existing node of commercial and office zoning with uses including general office and retail, and warehouse uses. The area also contains single-family subdivisions and a multi-family development directly across Market Street from the subject parcel. The property is undeveloped. It is currently wooded and may contain areas regulated by the Conservation Overlay District. As this is a rezoning application, staff has reviewed it to determine compliance with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The plan classifies the property as Transition, which is to provide for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The conceptual site plan submitted with the application proposes four (4) indoor climate- controlled storage buildings and one office building. The development will access Market Street and will construct any improvements as required from the NCDOT driveway permit. The applicant has also agreed to dedicate a 20’ pedestrian access easement to the County in order to allow for a future multi-use path to be installed in accordance with the Market Street Corridor Plan. Lastly, there is an existing pond located on the property. Should it be determined that the pond is natural, it would be subject to the standards of the Conservation Overlay District. However, the applicant has been working with an environmental consultant and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and they have made some preliminary findings that the pond is non-jurisdictional and man-made. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following condition: 1) The existing vegetation be preserved within the rear 25 foot buffer yard to the maximum extent practicable. This property backs up to residentially zoned land so preserving that vegetation would help mitigate impacts generated by this development, especially during construction of the development. Mr. Schuler concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. Hearing no questions, Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions and representative of the property owners, Krueger Family Trust, and Stephen Fasul, the contract purchaser, stated the proposal to develop a self-storage facility fits into the concept of putting uses like this along extremely busy thoroughfares as pointed out by Mr. Schuler in the CAMA Land Use Policy update. She noted the properties to the north and south are already zoned for commercial uses. A major topic for zoning along Market Street has been traffic in the past. There are many things that would probably be appropriate for this frontage along Market Street, but a self-storage facility, which has a much lower traffic pattern, would be appropriate right now. Service centers need to be close to the centers they serve. More and more residential facilities are apartments or smaller homes, which don’t have the storage facilities onsite to accommodate all of the residents’ possessions, unless Page 3 of 18 the residents are minimalists. Having these storage facilities close to the residential communities developing in this part of the county seems like the right place for them. She pointed out in comparison to the old facilities that had a sea of pavement and metal buildings with lots of garage doors, the storage facilities being built now are climate-controlled, are much more intensively security oriented, and are much more welcoming businesses in appearance due to the incorporation of architectural design features and landscaping. Ms. Wolf reported that a survey was done of the trees and topography on the site and an environmental assessment was done by a consultant. There is a man-made pond as preliminarily confirmed by the consultant and the Corps of Engineers, although issuance of the final paperwork will take a month or so. The consultant identified obvious slope around the edges which is not very consistent with a natural pond. There is no type of spring or anything of that nature. Mounds of undesirable fill around the perimeter were also identified, indicating that someone had used the area as a borrow pit in the past and created the hole for the purpose of digging out the good fill. Ms. Wolf stated that a representative from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers met with the consultant last week and concurred with that determination via an email. In the email, the USACOE representative concurred that the onsite feature is a non-jurisdictional man-made pond constructed in uplands with no connection to other waters or wetlands and is not subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The formal determination letter will be provided before the project begins the construction permitting phase with New Hanover County. Ms. Wolf stated that at the community meeting, one of the neighbors brought up the subject of a woodpecker in the vicinity. The consultant also confirmed that only the Red-cockaded woodpecker is considered a protected species and there are no potential habitats on this property for that species. The consultant believed neighbors may be seeing a Pileated woodpecker or other common woodpecker, and none of those woodpeckers are considered endangered. Ms. Wolf stated that fencing and a combination of the existing vegetation, supplemented as necessary to provide the required buffer will be along the back of the property and the applicants agree with staff’s recommendation to maximize that preservation for that separation. She presented the exhibit that was provided to the USACOE and confirmed the man-made pond and its non-jurisdictional status, as well as the site plan reflecting the proposed project layout and an exhibit showing the typical architectural style, which will probably be low-country for the two- story management office at the front of the site. Ms. Wolf confirmed the applicant’s agreement with the staff’s recommendation that the proposal is consistent, maximizing effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring that land is available and in close proximity to the markets they serve. Ms. Wolf concluded the presentation and offered to answer any questions the board may have. Vice Chair Donna Girardot stated Ms. Wolf had answered her questions about the pond, vegetation and woodpeckers and asked for clarification on the eight-foot fence. Ms. Wolf explained the buffer will be made up of the fence, the existing vegetation, and any supplementary vegetation that may be necessary if the existing vegetation isn’t sufficient to meet the criteria. Page 4 of 18 Vice Chair Girardot inquired if there had been any further discussion in regard to limiting the hours of operation, which was brought up at the community meeting. Ms. Wolf stated there had not been any additional discussion about limiting the hours of operation. She explained it will be a secure facility with onsite management; however, if the board deemed it necessary to limit the hours, they wouldn’t want to limit the hours more than 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the typical hours of operation for this type of storage facility. Anthony Prinz stated the site plan shows drive aisles between all of the buildings except the building located on the easternmost side. He inquired if there would be units fronting the eastern property boundary and if so, how those units would be accessed. Ms. Wolf explained that the buildings will be climate-controlled so although there are some exterior rooms on occasion, buildings will be laid out in a different manner than the old style. Entry will be gained via six to ten doors all around the buildings leading to interior aisles with climate controlled units. She noted there could be some exterior doors, but those doors would only be located on those aisles with access. Tamara Murphy asked if there was any concern with flooding of the proposal property from the offsite pond that currently drains to the pond that will be filled in. Ms. Wolf explained that the offsite pond doesn’t drain to the onsite pond. Both ponds were apparently man-made ponds for borrow pits that hold water on occasion during heavy rains. She stated there is currently a non-jurisdictional ditch between those two ponds; however, the applicant would be eliminating that ditch. Ms. Wolf also reported that one pond is not higher that the other. Chairman Shipley opened the opposition portion of the hearing. Noting no one had signed up to speak in opposition, the chairman inquired if anyone was present that wished to speak in regard to this particular use. James Outlaw, owner of 7780 Alexander Road, which borders the proposal, expressed concern about lights blaring 24/7 lighting, the hours of operation, privacy, and noise buffers for traffic on Highway 17, as well as the impact on the environment. He stated many deer and rabbits are seen every day in that area, which is probably one of the major wooded spots still left there. He noted there are ducks, turtles, etc. in the pond as well. He reiterated his concerns about noise and lack of privacy due to noisy storage units with A/C units running all day. In response to Chairman Shipley’s inquiries, Mr. Outlaw explained that his property is located on Alexander Road, but abuts the back of the parcel proposed to be developed. He confirmed his attendance at the neighborhood meeting at the park and wondered if realistically an eight-foot tall fence would be any buffer at all from the noise, lights, etc. He noted they can currently sit in their front yard and enjoy it, but afterwards, he will be looking at something totally different, including every car that goes by. Mr. Outlaw also expressed concern about the resell value of his property due the adjacent storage facility. He questioned who would want to live beside a storage Page 5 of 18 facility. He concluded his comments, noting he felt his property value would be decreased by the adjacent storage facility, which may be an eyesore. Seeing no others to speak in opposition, Chairman Shipley opened the rebuttal portion of the public hearing. Cindee Wolf stated the intent of the buffer yard requirements in the ordinance is to protect adjacent property owners from the light and noise of the particular use. She felt an eight-foot fence, along with the existing vegetation, which is fairly high along that property line, and all the additional vegetation should serve that purpose. She noted a sixty foot section of Mr. Outlaw’s property is actually adjacent to the proposal site and is located at the rear of the last building so there will not be a drive aisle in front of his property. Ms. Wolf stated while she certainly understands that everyone wants to preserve wildlife and greenery, it isn’t her client’s responsibility to leave their property green for that purpose of the adjacent property owners. Ms. Wolf commented in regard to property values, there hasn’t been any evidence that property values have been diminished for properties in this type of situation. Mr. Outlaw’s property is technically addressed, accessed and oriented towards Alexander Road, and the proposal site is along a commercial thoroughfare so that is typical and shouldn’t have any adverse effect, particularly if the mitigating circumstances are preserved. She stated lighting overall is addressed in the ordinance so that if there is any problem with lights shining beyond the boundaries of this particular property, the County has the ability to enforce screening it or redirecting the light or mitigating it so that it doesn’t disturb adjacent neighbors. In response to David Weaver’s inquiry regarding the eight-foot fence being a solid wood fence as listed on the site plan, Ms. Wolf confirmed that an eight-foot, solid wood fence would be located along the buffer with residential as part of the buffer provision; however, on the sides which are adjacent to other commercial properties, a security style fence will be installed. Mr. Prinz asked if the applicant would consider accepting a condition to the site plan approval requiring the applicant to use full, cut-off lighting, where lighting from the site is required to stay on the property. It was his understanding that the County could enforce that requirement with the business owner after the construction occurs. Ms. Wolf noted the zoning ordinance specifically states that cut-off lighting or directional lighting is required on the site. Mr. Prinz asked staff if it is a requirement of the zoning ordinance that lighting be addressed before construction begins, and that lighting must be full cut-off and remain on the property. Mr. Schuler confirmed it is his understanding that lighting has to be downcast and shine only on the property. The lighting requirement is reviewed during the building permit application when a lighting plan is submitted and reviewed. Page 6 of 18 Ms. Wolf stated the applicant would accept that requirement as a condition if requested. Mr. Prinz felt it would not be necessary to add lighting as a condition since it is already required by the code. In response to a request by Vice Chair Girardot, Ms. Wolf confirmed the applicant would agree to a condition limiting the hours of operation to 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. with a multi-family and single-family adjacent to the property. Chairman Shipley opened the opposition rebuttal portion of the public hearing. No one from the public spoke during the opposition rebuttal period. Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Lisa Mesler made a motion to close the public hearing. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to close the public hearing. Chairman Shipley opened the planning board discussion period. He stated his first reaction when he saw the proposal for a storage facility was that it would junk up Market Street with more garbage, noting it is a major highway that has seen better days and could be a better thoroughfare for the community. However, based on the renderings and the landscaping presented by Ms. Wolf, he was actually pleased with the project as shown. He stated he is in favor of the proposal based on several factors, including the fact that it won’t junk up our highways. Anthony Prinz stated his support of the proposal is two-fold. First, the project is a low trip generator project. There are already enough congestion and safety issues on Market Street so we don’t want to compound that with a high-volume use along this particular section of Market Street. Second, the property is wide enough that they are actually able to provide their own right turn lane, so deceleration is not occurring in the traffic lane itself and folks are able to get out of the road to decelerate and enter the site in a much safer manner than at many other facilities currently located on Market Street. He expressed the opinion that it is a benefit to see Market Street develop with a development like this proposal, which is eye-appealing, has low trip generation, and will also provide a right turn lane. David Weaver commented it may give the adjacent neighbor some comfort that the proposal will be operated in a manner that is strictly storage so there will not be back-yard mechanics repairing vehicles out of storage units or anything of that nature, which should keep the impact down. He pointed out if the property was developed as residential, there would still be the sound of heat pumps going all the time, but one nice aspect about the proposal is the inclusion of the eight- foot, solid wood fence that should help dampen the sound. Tamara Murphy stated support of the rezoning because with the influx of multi-family developments around this general area, there is a need for this type of storage facility in this location. Hearing no other comments, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion from the board. Page 7 of 18 Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a motion to approve the request for a zoning map amendment of 3.5 acres from R-15, Residential District, to CZD (B-2) Conditional Highway Business Zoning District because as described it is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the “Transition” land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the “Transition” classification allows for future intensive urban development. The subject site is along a major thoroughfare, adjacent to existing commercial uses, and is best suited for non-residential uses. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring that land is available for commercial uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas. Two Conditions: 1. The existing vegetation must be preserved within the rear 25’ buffer yard to the maximum extent practicable. 2. Limit the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Chairman Ted Shipley seconded the motion. Chairman Shipley informed the applicant that the board would consider the proposed zoning application and make a recommendation to the County Commissioners. A recommendation for approval is automatically forwarded to the County Commissioners. A recommendation for denial ends consideration of the application unless the recommendation is appealed. Appeals must be submitted no later than ten days following the decision. At this time, you may ask to either continue the application to a future meeting or to proceed with this board deciding whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. Chairman Shipley inquired what Ms. Wolf would like to do. Cindee Wolf stated the applicant would like to proceed. Chairman Shipley asked if Ms. Wolf had an opinion on the second condition imposed in the proposed motion. Cindee Wolf stated the applicant agreed with the second condition. Chairman Shipley opened the floor for debate or for a motion to call the question and move forward with a vote on the motion. David Weaver made a motion to call the question ad move forward with a vote. Chairman Ted Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to call the question and move forward with a vote on the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the request for a zoning map amendment of 3.5 acres from R-15, Residential District, to CZD (B-2) Conditional Highway Business Zoning District because as described it is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the “Transition” land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the “Transition” classification allows for future intensive urban development. The subject site is along a major thoroughfare, Page 8 of 18 adjacent to existing commercial uses, and is best suited for non-residential uses. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring that land is available for commercial uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas. Two Conditions: 1. The existing vegetation must be preserved within the rear 25’ buffer yard to the maximum extent practicable. 2. Limit the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Item 2: New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan - Planning Staff will present Chapter 3: Framing the Policy of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for hearing and consideration of a motion to recommend adoption by the Board of Commissioners. This item is continued from the June 4, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Long Range Planner Jennifer Rigby presented the following staff report: At the last Planning Board meeting in June, I shared with you Plan NHC Chapter 3: Framing the Policy. This Chapter includes the work of many citizens through theme committees and the work of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, all culminating into 20 broad and overarching goals for our community. One of our Planning Board members asked about a mission and vision statement for the plan. The first chapter of the plan is our Public Engagement Plan where we outline how we would like to approach this project. Our Mission and Vision are as follows: New Hanover County is committed to progressive public policies, superior service, courteous contact, judicious exercise of authority, and sound fiscal management to meet the needs and concerns of our citizens today and tomorrow. We are a vibrant, prosperous, diverse coastal community committed to building a sustainable future for generations to come. We have completed the first chapter, Public Engagement Plan, and second chapter, the Existing Conditions, which includes the demographic information. We are now working on Chapter 3, which has been completed with the Citizen Advisory Committee Recommendations based on the Theme Committee recommendations. This chapter is before the board for consideration and a recommendation and will be followed by Chapter 4, Future Land Use Map and Visioning and Future Scenarios; Chapter 5, the Coastal Area Management Act considerations and Areas of Environmental Concern; and finally, Chapter 6, which includes the Implementation Plan, Strategy Map, and how the County plans to implement this project. Page 9 of 18 Six Themes have been established to be addressed through the Comprehensive Plan according to the American Planning Association standards and best practices. Additionally, this planning effort is intended to update and replace the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Addressing these particular items is consistent with the management topics associated in the CAMA requirements. The management topics are: Public Access, Land Use Compatibility, Infrastructure Carrying Capacity, Natural Hazard Areas, Water Quality, and Local Areas of Concern. The Existing Conditions report outlines we are a diverse and well-educated community. This results in a variety of opinions and perspectives. Our theme committees were excellent examples of civic-minded citizens with varied backgrounds, gathering to discuss complex issues facing our community. This resulted in a citizens advisory committee that also represented a diverse background. All members of the Citizens Advisory Committee agreed to and signed the following statement, “While total agreement was not reached on all goals and strategies, overall consensus was achieved and the diversity of the committee provided broad county-wide representation and input to the staff and the consultant.” This consensus was achieved through compromise and in-depth study and understanding of varied opinions on complex issues facing our community. The Citizens Advisory Committee was bound together with a common bond of providing a framework for future generations. They were essentially responsible for “Charting the Course”, which is our tag line for the comprehensive plan. At the June Planning Board meeting, Planning Board members had several comments regarding additions and/or edits to the goals as presented on behalf of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Chairman Shipley asked Planning Board members to email staff all suggested edits so staff could prepare for the July presentation. Staff received four edits to the goals. At the last meeting there were some questions regarding the process of adoption for Chapter 3. To clarify, the process will be the following.  Staff will present to the Board of Commissioners the unedited work of the Citizens Advisory Committee as a recommendation.  Staff will also present a recommendation from the Planning Board that may or may not be the same as the work of the Citizens Advisory Committee.  Finally, staff will make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners that will result in a request for a resolution for Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan.  Once all chapters of the plan have been completed, which is anticipated later this year, staff will then formally request adoption of the Plan in its entirety. The suggested changes/edits received included an additional implementation strategy to one of the goals, an additional goal and associated implementation strategy, edits to implementation strategies for one goal, and the removal of one implementation strategy from one goal. Page 10 of 18 Ms. Rigby presented a list of the original goals, which are the work of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee and have not received any suggested edits or comments. She explained because the goals are not in order of priority, staff had removed the four goals from the whole to discuss them individually and can add them back to the whole as the Planning Board determines per the Planning Board’s recommendation. Ms. Rigby then presented the four edits received from Planning Board members. (Additions & Changes are shown in red, strikethroughs, and highlighted). Proposed Edit #1: Promote place-based economic development in the region that is tied to our natural resources. • Create and promote a network of greenways, blueways, and trails highlighting environmental assets. • Coordinate and partner with various agencies to develop future public water access points. • Revitalize waterfront parks and public spaces to encourage opportunities for formal and informal social gatherings. • Preserve and conserve beaches, inlets, and waterways which are critical to our quality of life, tourism economy, and coastal environment. Proposed Edit #2:  Actively promote diverse, high quality, educational and cultural opportunities for New Hanover County residents and visitors. Explanation: A multitude of educational and cultural institutions thrive within New Hanover County that directly reinforces the quality of life of residents and visitors alike.  Work with New Hanover County Public Schools as well as community stakeholders and institutions to provide high quality pre-K, primary and secondary educational opportunities and facilities to meet current and future needs of County residents.  Partner with UNCW, CFCC and other community institutions to provide a diversity of educational, recreational, and cultural opportunities for New Hanover County citizens and visitors.  Partner with UNCW, CFCC and economic development stakeholders to develop and promote educational programs that target specific economic development opportunities within New Hanover County. Proposed Edit #3: Preserve and Protect water quality and supply.  Continue to participate in the development of state develop standards to ensure the retention, acquisition and management of natural vegetation and riparian buffers to preserve, maintain and protect water quality.  Continue to participate in the development of statewide regulation of and update subdivision design standards to protect and improve water quality in sensitive areas. Page 11 of 18  Continue to develop and update educational and other strategies to deal with point and non-point source impacts on water quality consistent with the latest state and coastal rules and regulations.  Continue identifying, evaluateing, and prioritizeing an inventory of retrofit opportunities to reduce water quality impacts from stormwater runoff on receiving waters. Proposed Edit #4:  Ensure NHC remains in attainment for air quality, in support of clean air and improved public health outcomes in support of continued growth. Explanation: The EPA places requirements on communities with regards to air quality to protect human health. The built environment has a direct relation to air quality. Protecting our air quality supports public health and enables our community to retain and attract quality development and industries. Implementation Strategies-  Promote compact development, mixture of uses, and infill that minimizes trips and vehicle miles traveled.  Encourage development patterns and neighborhood street designs that are conductive to pedestrian and bicycle use.  Discourage open burning of yard waste and trash in densely populated areas.  Consider a program to monitor and assess cumulative impacts of toxins and pollutants on air quality and attainment. Ms. Rigby concluded the presentation. Chairman Shipley clarified which board member had proposed the changes/edits for the board’s consideration. Mr. Weaver suggested the additional implementation strategy to preserve and conserve beaches, inlets, and waterways. Mr. Prinz proposed an additional goal regarding education and cultural opportunities, and Ms. Girardot proposed the third and fourth edits to the implementation strategies for water quality and air quality. Chairman Shipley stated agreement with the presentation with regard to presenting the county commissioners unedited work, the Planning Board recommendations, and then staff’s separate recommendation if they made one, but noted he felt they should go forward with it as presented. Seeing no one signed up to speak in support or in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan item, Chairman Shipley made a motion to close the public hearing. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to close the public hearing. Chairman Shipley stated he would like to go through the proposed edits in chronological order as presented by Ms. Rigby and vote on each one separately, and then hopefully have a global vote on our edits so the board can reaffirm their recommendations through a vote and put them forward to the commissioners in that manner. Page 12 of 18 Chairman Shipley then stated his support of all four of the proposed edits provided by the Planning Board members, noting he planned to vote in favor of each one unless someone had an edit to an edit. Proposed Edit #1: • Preserve and conserve beaches, inlets, and waterways which are critical to our quality of life, tourism economy, and coastal environment. Jordy Rawl asked if it was technically the responsibility of the county to maintain either the inlets or the waterways. He asked for clarification on the topic as he didn’t know what impact the edit may have on the future recourse of the county in regard to phone calls or requests to do something about this issue. Mr. Weaver explained there are three major pieces of infrastructure – beaches, inlets, and waterways. Beaches are clearly a county responsibility because the County does all the beach renourishment now, acting in cooperation with the beach towns, and a local sponsor is needed to obtain federal funding assistance for beach renourishment. The County is actively involved with the inlets. The County moved Mason’s Inlet, which was threatening Shell Island. If the county hadn’t stepped up and done that, we don’t know what would have happened. There are also other activities occurring, for example, keeping Carolina Beach Inlet dredged for safe recreational boating. In regard to the waterways, the County works more on the periphery, but is actively involved, trying to keep its finger on it and make it an integrated action with beach nourishment and inlet maintenance. Mr. Rawl said he understood and gathered from Mr. Weaver’s comments that it’s not necessarily the responsibility of the County, but from time to time it may become incumbent for the County to step up and preserve those attributes for everybody’s use and enjoyment. Mr. Weaver added there is also a beach renourishment fund that is funded through the room occupancy tax. Hearing no other comments, Chairman Ted Shipley made a motion to approve the language as presented by Mr. Weaver to be added to our edits that will go forward to the county commissioners. Vice Chair Donna Girardot seconded the motion. Hearing no other debate, Chairman Shipley made a motion to call the question. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to call the question and proceed to a vote on the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the language as presented by Mr. Weaver to be added to the Planning Board edits that will go forward to the county commissioners. Page 13 of 18 Proposed Edit #2:  Actively promote diverse, high quality, educational and cultural opportunities for New Hanover County residents and visitors. Explanation: A multitude of educational and cultural institutions thrive within New Hanover County that directly reinforces the quality of life of residents and visitors alike.  Work with New Hanover County Public Schools as well as community stakeholders and institutions to provide high quality pre-K, primary and secondary educational opportunities and facilities to meet current and future needs of County residents.  Partner with UNCW, CFCC and other community institutions to provide a diversity of educational, recreational, and cultural opportunities for New Hanover County citizens and visitors.  Partner with UNCW, CFCC and economic development stakeholders to develop and promote educational programs that target specific economic development opportunities within New Hanover County. Anthony Prinz stated he felt very strongly about education and the impact that high quality education has, not only on the quality of life for our community, but on the economic development potential of our community as well. He stated strong support for the proposed edit and hoped the planning board members would support it as a whole. David Weaver commented that Mr. Prinz’s edits were well written and filled a gap. Vice Chair Donna Girardot agreed with Mr. Weaver’s comments in regard to the proposed edits and made a motion to accept Mr. Prinz’s edits and include them in the Planning Board’s comments or proposal to send forward to the county commissioners. Chairman Ted Shipley seconded the motion. Chairman Shipley made a motion to call the question. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to call the question and vote on the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to accept Mr. Prinz’s edits and include them in the Planning Board’s comments or proposal to send forward to the county commissioners. Proposed Edit #3: Preserve and Protect water quality and supply.  Continue to participate in the development of state develop standards to ensure the retention, acquisition and management of natural vegetation and riparian buffers to preserve, maintain and protect water quality.  Continue to participate in the development of statewide regulation of and update subdivision design standards to protect and improve water quality in sensitive areas.  Continue to develop and update educational and other strategies to deal with point and non-point source impacts on water quality consistent with the latest state and coastal rules and regulations. Page 14 of 18  Continue identifying, evaluateing, and prioritizeing an inventory of retrofit opportunities to reduce water quality impacts from stormwater runoff on receiving waters. Vice Chair Donna Girardot offered the following comments in regard to her proposed edits to the implementation strategies to preserve and protect water quality and supply. First, there are several bills currently in the General Assembly and at least two of those bills have passed both houses and are now in conference. One bill is very likely to pass. These bills will make major changes to the riparian buffer protection program and limit local government’s ability to enact buffers more stringent than those required by the state. For that reason, she offered the first change. Second, Senate Bill 25 was signed by the governor on June 19, 2015 and already addresses zoning design aesthetic control. There is also the North Carolina Building Codes Council. She felt working with the State on those types of things would be much more consistent with where the County needs to be; therefore, she offered those changes. Lastly, Vice Chair Girardot stated she had no problem with adjusting her third comment to include the original wording, “…water quality impacts from stormwater runoff on receiving waters.” She had originally requested that language be struck from the implementation strategy. Proposed Edit #4:  Ensure NHC remains in attainment for air quality, in support of clean air and improved public health outcomes in support of continued growth. Explanation: The EPA places requirements on communities with regards to air quality to protect human health. The built environment has a direct relation to air quality. Protecting our air quality supports public health and enables our community to retain and attract quality development and industries. Implementation Strategies-  Promote compact development, mixture of uses, and infill that minimizes trips and vehicle miles traveled.  Encourage development patterns and neighborhood street designs that are conductive to pedestrian and bicycle use.  Discourage open burning of yard waste and trash in densely populated areas.  Consider a program to monitor and assess cumulative impacts of toxins and pollutants on air quality and attainment. Vice Chair Girardot offered several comments in regard to deleting the last implementation strategy to “Ensure NHC remains in attainment for air quality, in support of clean air and improved public health outcomes in support of continued growth.” She noted that is really a federal program. She had spoken with staff at DENR about it and they had questions in regard to where the County would place monitors and what the County would monitor for. DENR already monitors for ambient air quality standards across the state. The DENR staff also questioned what the County would tell a business looking to relocate here. Would New Hanover County deny that business a permit because we think there is an unacceptable effect on air quality even though they comply with all applicable state and federal rules on air pollution? The other question was whether the County would then spend the money to institute a new department at New Hanover Page 15 of 18 County and hire a scientist. She noted the County doesn’t have the expertise to undertake a program like that. Vice Chair Girardot explained that was her rationale in suggesting that bullet be deleted. David Weaver stated at first he was against the changes on water quality, but Ms. Girardot explained the impact of the state legislation that will limit the local government’s ability to do things. Personally, he doesn’t like to see the State step in to further limit the authority and power of local government to enact programs they feel are appropriate for their local area as opposed to being jammed into a state program where “one size will fit all.” He acknowledged he is bothered by that, but given the fact that the legislation is there, nothing can be done about it. Mr. Weaver agreed that the County doesn’t need to create a department of air quality because we don’t have the expertise and there would be no point in duplicating that. He commented that several years back, the County had an issue with potentially being named a nonattainment area. He would like to make sure that eliminating this implementation strategy will not prevent the County from being able to pursue that type of specific investigation or discussion to prevent the County from being classified as nonattainment when it is really in attainment status. Vice Chair Girardot stated DENR has said there are areas currently that are nonattainment areas within North Carolina and they are working with the State to rectify those situations. She confirmed that eliminating this implementation strategy would not prevent New Hanover County from going forward. Mr. Weaver then confirmed he was fine with eliminating that implementation strategy. Jordy Rawl stated he liked the language changes Vice Chair Girardot had suggested on water quality. As he understood it, it is the State’s responsibility to monitor the quality and the local county or municipality’s responsibility to monitor the quantity. In effect, they are looking at two, ten, twenty-five year storms and the effect that will have with regard to localized flooding, but the state regulations actually monitor the quality of the local waters. Chairman Shipley stated he was in favor of Ms. Girardot’s edits, noting he has reviewed Senate Bill 25 and will be advising a municipality on its effect. He explained that the legislature is consistently taking power away from local governments and putting it in the hands of the State. Whether you like it or hate it, it is the way things are going so the target Ms. Girardot has found here is for the County to participate in the development of state standards. This will not limit the County’s ability to have a voice in this, but does recognize that we are one of 100 counties and we need to be able to speak to the state. We’re not going to have a say in the future on some certain aspects, but we are not going to limit our participation in such. Chairman Shipley stated in regard to considering a program to monitor and assess cumulative effects of toxins, he is very much in agreement on that. He noted the Planning Board had this discussion a year ago in regard to a special use permit. Many times, folks don’t have faith in the state and federal government to do something and believe the local government needs to duplicate their efforts on the local level. It is somewhat counterintuitive, but is also frustrating. He felt there are certain roles that certain levels of government should play and certain roles they Page 16 of 18 should avoid, for instance, the federal government getting involved recently in some zoning regulations or at least participating in some fashion. We also don’t need to be involved with air quality regulation on the county level. It is more efficient for the federal and state governments to be in charge of that. Chairman Shipley stated he was very much in favor of the proposed language simply because it actually puts into perspective what our goals are to be and what our roles are in the future. Anthony Prinz stated complete agreement with the first group of recommendations namely because he despises redundant regulation. He works for the government, but doesn’t like to see government redo things that are already being done. He sees it as unnecessary because the State constantly seems to be updating the stormwater and water quality regulations and so doesn’t see that as a business the County needs to get into any deeper. Mr. Prinz commented in regard to the other recommendation, he does believe a new program is unnecessary, but he pointed out the reason the County had an issue with air quality several years ago was because of how the federal government was monitoring air quality and where those monitoring sites were located, which was directly downstream of an industry that was emitting toxins that could create issues with attainment. If not for the County monitoring the situation, not air quality in general, but how the federal government monitors our attainment status, the County could have been in a very difficult situation as far as air quality regulations. He completely agreed that the condition needed to come out, but suggested that the County still needs to actively monitor how the federal government and state government monitor the County’s air quality status. We should not bury our heads in the sand on this issue, but we don’t need a new county department or new infrastructure to do what is already being done. Chairman Shipley asked the Planning and Inspections Director Chris O’Keefe if the County has any current program to monitor and assess cumulative impacts of toxins in the county. Mr. O’Keefe stated that New Hanover County does not have an air quality monitoring program, but what Mr. Prinz is suggesting is in line with what that strategy is attempting to achieve, in that someone needs to track the cumulative impacts of what is being released into the air. The federal program regulates individual industry by individual industry, then determines when some threshold has been exceeded, and then determines that we are nonattainment. He explained this strategy is attempting to give the County the ability to say we are approaching this nonattainment threshold, therefore, we should take some action. The actions are not described, but to have the ability to say we don’t want to become nonattainment so perhaps this industry needs to implement a better strategy to control air pollutants before we let them set up here. Mr. Prinz clarified that he fully supports the idea of not creating a new program because our air quality is already being monitored. He doesn’t feel that the County needs a new department, new staff, or new infrastructure, but does need to monitor the regulators and monitor the federal government and what they are sampling on a regular basis to ensure that they are being reasonable with us. He reiterated that the reason the County was close to nonattainment previously was because the sampling monitor was in a very poor location. It was not because the overall air quality was bad, but because one specific sampling location was downstream from one specific industry and caused the County to get close to nonattainment. In his opinion, if the Page 17 of 18 County hadn’t been watching how our air quality was being monitored and intervened, it could have been in a nonattainment situation, which would have been very bad from an economic development standpoint. He stated he wasn’t suggesting a new program, but felt someone with the government should be monitoring the regulators and making sure things are reasonable to protect us as a community. It may not need to be in the plan, but does need to be in the background. Mr. Prinz clarified that he does support removal of that specific implementation strategy. Chairman Shipley made a motion to approve Ms. Girardot’s edits as drafted by Ms. Girardot. Lisa Mesler seconded the motion. Tamara Murphy asked for confirmation that the motion includes Ms. Girardot’s suggestion to revert back to the original language in the fourth bullet item. Chairman Shipley clarified his motion included Ms. Girardot’s suggestion to revert back to the original language in the fourth bullet. He inquired if anyone wished to call the question on the current motion. Tamara Murphy called the question on the current motion. Chairman Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to call the question on the current motion and proceed to a vote. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve Ms. Girardot’s edits as drafted by Ms. Girardot, including reverting back to the original language in the fourth bullet. Chairman Shipley stated that each one of the edits had been unanimously passed by the Planning Board; therefore he put forward a motion to approve all the edits as proposed by everyone and approved earlier. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of all edits as presented and as approved earlier. Technical Review Committee Report (June) Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Report: The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once during the month of June and reviewed existing site plan requests. Rockhill Subdivision (Road Re-Designation) Rockhill Subdivision is located in the northern portion of our jurisdiction near the 1900 block of Rockhill Road. The single family residential project was preliminarily approved by the TRC in December, 2014 for 37 lots. As a part of preliminary approval, the site plan included a “public” road network that would be petitioned for NCDOT State maintenance once residency requirements were met. The developer for the project proposed that the roads be re-designated from “public” to “private” with no gates, Page 18 of 18 traffic calming devices, or other obstructions to allow for the road inter-connectivity requirements to be met between Rockhill Road and Oakley Circle. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the developer’s request to re-designate the road network in Rockhill Subdivision from “public” to “private” with the exception of Farmhouse Road that connects Rockhill Road with Oakley Circle. Deer Crossing: Phase 3 (One Year Preliminary Extension) Deer Crossing is located in the southern portion of our jurisdiction near the 6500 block of Myrtle Grove Road. The single family residential project phase contains 39 lots and was preliminarily approved in July, 2013 for two (2) years. The developer for the project requested a one year preliminary site plan extension based on past economic conditions. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved a one year extension to Deer Crossing: Phase 3 with existing original terms and conditions remaining from the July, 2013 site plan. Other Business Chairman Shipley announced that Planning Board Member Lisa Mesler would not be returning to the board in August as her three-year term was expiring. He stated appreciation for Ms. Mesler’s service on the Planning Board and noted the importance of having a banker serve on the board. With no further business, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.