Loading...
2015-11 November 5 2015 PBMPage 1 of 17 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board November 5, 2015 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Donna Girardot, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Anthony Prinz, Vice Chairman Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Tamara Murphy Jennifer Rigby, Long Range Planner Jordy Rawl Dylan McDonnell, Long Range Planner Ernest Olds Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Edward “Ted” Shipley, III David Weaver Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Item 1: New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan - Planning Staff will present Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for hearing and consideration of a motion to recommend adoption by the Board of Commissioners. Long Range Planner Jennifer Rigby provided the following staff presentation on the development of the fourth chapter of the comprehensive plan. Process: The process includes an explanation of how the Future Land Use Map was created, what staff is trying to accomplish with the map and where we are trying to accomplish that, why it is important, and how the map will be used, and most importantly, how the community has been involved in the process and has shaped the final project. Population Growth: First, population projections were created in the second chapter of the plan, which show there are currently 214,000 citizens in New Hanover County. Growth of 123,000 people is anticipated over the next 25 years, reaching a population of approximately 337,000 by 2040. To put it into perspective, that is approximately a 2.5% annual growth rate and will be like adding another city the current size of Wilmington to New Hanover County. Available Land Area: The map reflects the undeveloped land, as well as the historic 2006 Urban Services Boundary. Currently, New Hanover County is 60% built-out or developed and approximately 47% of New Hanover County is considered in conservation through either a deed restriction or covenant. Page 2 of 17 Existing Zoning: Our zoning ordinance was created in 1969, with a significant focus on the separation of uses common during that period of time. It was designed to protect communities from polluting industries and businesses, but it led to a pattern of development where stores, housing, and schools were often placed so far apart they could only be reached by vehicle or car. That created a lot of traffic congestion, which is one of the main complaints heard by staff today in the development review process. Since that time, environmental regulations and private sector innovations have improved significantly over the past fifty years eliminating much of the need for the strict separation of uses. Vision Statement: Staff also reviewed New Hanover County’s vision statement created out of the Strategic Plan for New Hanover County, which is “We are a vibrant, prosperous, diverse coastal community, committed to building a sustainable future for generations to come.” Accommodating growth that allows and encourages us to be vibrant, prosperous, and diverse is the underlying theory of the new Future Land Use Map. Further, creating a community that is sustainable for generations to come is our responsibility and our privilege. Mixed Use Development: The introduction of the concept of mixed use development, which is mixing land uses, such as commercial, residential, recreational, educational, etc. to create a vibrant and diverse community resonates considering the county’s vision statement. Some of the benefits of mixed use developments are:  Reduction of air pollution from vehicles  Reduction of impervious surfaces from parking lots and roadways, which reduces stormwater runoff  Walking proximity to shops and stores creates healthier lifestyles  Increasing the number of people on the street can enhance the security of an area.  Economic and financial benefits – increased property values, increased tax revenues, increased retail lease rates, retail sales, and hotel occupancy rates  Reduced transportation costs and barriers for elderly and disabled persons The market has proven that Mixed Use Development can create many win/win opportunities. Map Uses: The Future Land Use Map will replace and update the 2006 CAMA Land Use Map. It will be used as a guide similar to the 2006 Land Use Map for development decisions, such as rezonings, subdivisions, special use permits, and so forth. Further, it will also be used as a framework to create new and/or update existing zoning classifications and districts in the new unified development ordinance (UDO). The map will also help determine areas that need further study through small area plans. Examples of small area plans include the Northeastern portion of the County, Seabreeze, Carolina Beach Road Corridor Study, etc. Future Land Use Map – Place Types: The Future Land Use Map outlines the general development guidelines. Specific restrictions will come later through the zoning ordinance. An important disclaimer is denoted on the Future Land Use Map, which is an item requested by the Planning Board at the last work session. The disclaimer explains that the Future Land Use Map is not legally binding like the New Hanover County Zoning Map. It is intended to be a general Page 3 of 17 representation of the 25 year vision of New Hanover County created by the citizens who were involved with PLAN NHC and will be used as a guide for future development decisions. Through this process, different Place Types have been developed, which are similar to land use classifications. These Place Types are intended to be general patterns of development or intensities of mixed use and will be helpful to staff, the planning board, and the board of commissioners in determining the appropriate zoning categories for future development. Place Types range in intensity from General Residential to Commerce Zone and offer different types of mixed use categories to classify development. These are intended to be the framework. Further, the term “Activity Centers” has been changed to “Growth Nodes” based on the comments at the last work session. Growth Nodes are identified as areas where higher development and densities will be encouraged. This will create opportunities to connect with public transportation, such as park and ride, bus rapid transit, or another method. Exceptional Resource Areas (CAMA considerations): These delineations are carried forward from the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan and help bring that data up to date. Historically, these areas were combined into land use classifications that restricted development. In an effort to encourage sustainable development practices, preserve natural resources, mitigate damage to life and property, and accommodate projected growth, staff has carefully pulled this data from existing sources to identify the unique features. This allows us to tie best management practices to each feature in the zoning ordinance or other applicable management document rather than a blanket restriction on this area. While these areas are already under state and federal regulations and requirements, staff will encourage clustering development and low impact development practices in the development review process to preserve the integrity of these environmental features. At this time, regulations have not been created for these areas, but staff anticipates this being a topic of discussion for the updated zoning ordinance. A disclaimer has been added to the map that states, “Environmental features shown are off-site or general representations and are for informative purposes only. True delineations must be field verified by site experts.” One of the comments received was a concern about the wetland areas. Those are potential wetland areas as opposed to true delineated wetlands, so the map has been changed to reflect that verbiage and to be more accurate. Public Meeting Overview: Through this process, there has been a tremendous amount of public input, which has shaped our map and helped refine it to the map presented today. Nine public meetings were held and there was a tremendous amount of coordination between the city’s comprehensive planning effort and the county’s comprehensive planning effort. While each jurisdiction has different state enabling legislation, for example, the city can own and operate and maintain streets, whereas the county cannot, and so need different plans, the city and county have been working together to make sure particularly in the fringe areas that we have similar goals and values in those areas. Individual Meetings: Meetings were held at elementary and middle schools, and polling places to make sure we could get around the county and that all citizens could participate in this process. Through that, staff learned that a number of folks wanted us to come specifically to them as opposed to going to a larger public meeting so staff held a lot of one-on-one meetings Page 4 of 17 with individual groups, neighborhood associations, and so forth, and we were able to get very authentic and very candid input that way which was helpful to our process. Public Comment: Ms. Rigby presented the versions of the maps, from January through the public input process, resulting in the final draft today. There are a number of differences between the maps, which are all reflective of the public input heard over the course of the past year. Some of the topics that were discussed and ways they were addressed are as follows:  Buffers Between Uses: (Particularly buffers between industrial uses and mixed-use or community mixed uses): As stated previously, environmental regulations have improved such that the need for strict separations is not as necessary in these areas as it once was, however, the large area of mixed-use developments, particularly in the northeast portion of the county, warrants the need for a detailed area plan, which will be included in the upcoming implementation matrix. During this process, a use-buffer could be identified. With mixed-use, we would anticipate the more intense uses near the industrial or commerce zone area and the less intense uses buffered by that.  City/County Coordination: We have differing priorities and state enabling legislation, but a great amount of coordination has already been done. Staff would recommend and anticipate a tremendous amount of coordination when any future zoning ordinances are created. The City is currently looking at updating their zoning ordinance as the County is, so additional coordination will be important.  Urban Services Boundary: Another item discussed was the Urban Services Boundary. The County has eliminated the Urban Services Boundary from the 2006 CAMA Land Use Map. That will encourage public water and sewer throughout the county, which will help protect the County’s water quality by encouraging the use of public water and sewer as opposed to septic and wells. The County has a tremendous opportunity in the northeast portion of the county to get development right and it will be important to ensure our zoning codes are updated to produce this mixed use development and sustainable development practices instead of sprawling development patterns that have many adverse impacts.  Mixed Use Developments and Appropriate Densities: There has been much give and take between the development community, planning staff, and financial institutions, banks and lenders to determine the appropriate density for each of these place types, and how we can package these place types so they can be successful. With the great amount of public input received, staff feels the place types as presented have been fully vetted through the development community and financial lending institutions to ensure we have the appropriate number of rooftops to support commercial development and that these will pencil out to be real world projects.  Wetland Areas: Language has been adjusted on the Exceptional Resource Map to include a disclaimer and the “Potential for Wetland Areas” gives the community a more accurate representation of the need to further field verify those areas.  Limited Cul-de-sacs: One of the place types talked about limiting cul-de-sacs. Comments were received about making sure cul-de-sacs would not be prohibited in the county. At this stage, cul-de-sacs would not be prohibited. With these place types, staff is trying to set the County up for vehicle connectivity. One way that can be accomplished Page 5 of 17 is to encourage a more grid-like street pattern and use limited cul-de-sacs. Obviously, there will be site constraints and reasons why cul-de-sacs will need to be allowed in order for development to occur. If given the opportunity, staff would prefer to have that connectivity.  Activity Centers (now Growth Nodes): The “Activity Centers”, which have been changed to “Growth Nodes”, are areas where densities should be encouraged to create nodes that could link to public transportation, for example, park and rides, buses, etc. Ms. Rigby stated the next step in the comprehensive plan process is the Implementation Matrix, which is the final chapter of the plan. It will detail how the County will accomplish the goals from Chapter 3, and design guidelines and recommendations for the new zoning ordinance. Staff will then request adoption of the entire comprehensive plan. The chapters of the plan have been adopted by resolution one at a time; and the County Commissioners will adopt the entire plan by ordinance in one final approval. Staff wanted each chapter to be adopted by resolution so the planning board, board of commissioners, and public had clear expectations for what was in each section of the plan. The next item will be the creation of an RFP, request for proposals, for the unified development ordinance. Then, the County would begin that process. Ms. Rigby concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. Chairman Girardot inquired in regard to whether the County had made every possible effort to combine their comprehensive planning effort with the City Wilmington’s effort , if it was true that a member of the City’s staff was on the County’s committee and a member of the County’s staff served on the City’s committee. Ms. Rigby confirmed Chairman Girardot was correct and explained she had served on the City’s comprehensive plan steering committee and that a number of City staff members had participated on the County’s theme committees. She noted the County and City had also held a fair amount of joint meetings for the public to see how the City and County have coordinated. Chairman Girardot commented some board members and staff who lived through the effort several years ago to create a combined unified development ordinance (UDO) with the City and County may remember that it took five years to combine the planning documents and ordinances, etc. and it didn’t last very long because everyone came to the realization that t here are special things specific to the City that are more relevant to city uses, and there are more things that are County specific. She thought the current process was a much better approach to the whole effort so the County has answered the first comment very well. Chairman Girardot inquired if planning board members had any comments or questions for staff. Vice Chair Anthony Prinz commented there had been a lengthy discussion about growth nodes at the workshop and the board had struggled with the concept of what a growth node is. He inquired if staff had been able to better define “Growth Node” so that someone seeing this fresh would be able to understand what we are trying to accomplish in those areas. Ms. Rigby stated that “Growth Nodes” will be identified on the map as areas where higher densities and development will be encouraged. This will allow opportunities to connect public transportation, whether it is park and ride, bus rapid transit, or other methods. Page 6 of 17 Vice Chair Prinz expressed concern that the growth nodes are very finite on the map, but the County intends for them to be flexible and enigmatic in shape. He suggested the County may want to reflect that information in the final text of the plan, and stated he was otherwise comfortable with the term “growth node.” David Weaver said in regard to the Exceptional Resource Area Map that was passed out, several categories are listed on the map that are not found anywhere on the map, for example, “Outstanding Resource Waters,” which is really a very important water quality classification. In looking at a printed copy of the map, you would think there are no outstanding resource waters in New Hanover County. He noted he wasn’t sure how to solve that issue without making the map look garbled. He added staff had explained the interactive map, which he felt was a great concept; however, there may need to be a note on printed maps similar to the note regarding environmental features on the map. He felt the printed map gives the impression that there are no outstanding resource waters, coastal waters or inland waters located in New Hanover County. Ms. Rigby felt Mr. Weaver had made an excellent point. She noted she hadn’t highlighted the story map in the presentation, which was discussed at the workshop. She explained the Future Land Use Map is being presented online, which has enabled the County to present a tremendous amount of information to the community in a very concise and organized format. The County’s IT Department has been instrumental in creating the interactive map, which is New Hanover County’s version of a map app. She noted many communities are now using these map apps. Ms. Rigby commented due its small size, a notation or disclaimer on the printed map may be appropriate stating, “For a more detailed version, go to our online map app.” Mr. Weaver agreed he would like to see a note specifically stating these resources on the printed map. He noted it would be better and clearer to take the Outstanding Resource Waters classification off the printed map than to leave the classification on the printed map, indicating there are no outstanding resource waters. Ms. Rigby agreed staff will determine how to handle Mr. Weaver’s suggestion related to the printed map. Vice Chair Prinz commented he felt the story map was an excellent resource and encouraged folks to go to the County’s webpage and look at it. He noted it provides the ability to drill down and get a better understanding of what the map is recommending in specific areas. The printed map gives a good context of the whole county, but if you want to see how the plan applies in local areas, the online story map is great. Vice Chair Prinz inquired if the County would continue to maintain and update the online story map over time into the future. Ms. Rigby confirmed the County would continue to update the interactive story map into the future as the plan is updated. She noted the County has an application which provides a way to add information to the interactive story map when the County has a new zoning ordinance and new zoning classifications. This will allow individuals to see the old zoning classifications, the future land use map, the exceptional resource areas, and any new zoning classifications. Page 7 of 17 Ernest Olds stated the mixed-use category in the northeast corner is probably the biggest colored piece we have added to the map, noting there was a lot of discussion at the workshop about what that meant. When people look at residential or industrial areas on maps, they understand those are relatively homogenous areas; but mixed use is anything but that. He was hopeful that as that area develops, the Military Cutoff Road connector is built, and a small more intense node develops, if the map is adjusted to reflect those land use patterns, the diversity will be reflected on the map. He saw that corner as very diverse and made up of many different densities and noted that information is stated in the literature, but it is difficult for people to understand when they look at the map. It would be helpful if that could be emphasized. Mr. Olds commented this is a different way of looking at land use than the County had before so he would encourage staff to continue the challenge of explaining that to everyone. Chairman Girardot stated she was very happy to see the Urban Services Boundary go away, noting she didn’t look at it as a way to combat sprawl, but as an artificial means of controlling the marketplace. She felt the market determines growth and the consumer determines growth. Chairman Girardot noted one of the questions being asked is related to the aquifer recharge area, identifying wetlands. Although we say on the map “probable wetlands”, she has heard from the development community that they have been through a traumatic time of five to seven years of recession and have worked with their banks and loan officers, and have outstanding loans. She explained although the disclaimer is on the map, the question is will identifying the probable wetlands and having the aquifer recharge area on it take the place of the urban services boundary. She asked if the County is setting itself up for another artificial line that will harm the development community in regard to loans or resale value for their property or assessment. In regard to the presentation statement, “Staff will encourage low impact development,” Chairman Girardot asked Ms. Rigby to clarify whether it would be an enforceable encouragement or just an encouraging request. She noted that board members will be asked those questions. Jennifer Rigby explained that the zoning ordinance language will determine if the development community will be required or encouraged to use low-impact development. She explained she doesn’t have an answer to that question now because much study and thought will go into creating the ordinance and what is required versus what is encouraged. Ms. Rigby stated in regard to whether the aquifer recharge area identifying probable wetlands will become the next Urban Services Boundary, the purpose of the boundary line was to prohibit the extension of urban services, water, sewer and so forth. That line has been removed to achieve one of the goals in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan, which is to encourage the extension of public water and sewer in an effort to improve water quality throughout New Hanover County. Through our water quality sites, we have learned we have a lot of contamination due to failed septic tanks, etc. so ensuring public water and sewer is one way to improve water quality. As far as potential for wetland areas, all of the information on the exception resource map comes from different data sources already available to the general public. Staff has simply consolidated that information into one map to make it easier for everyone moving forward with the development review process to have access to the same information and to utilize it to make the best decisions Page 8 of 17 possible. She added these are potential wetland areas which have already been identified through different data sources that are public. Chairman Girardot asked Ms. Rigby to address the steps taken to prevent downzoning, which is also an issue that has been put forward. Ms. Rigby explained at the beginning of the process, the County looked at the existing zoning map. She noted the concept of mixed use creates more opportunities for these different zoning categories and staff has not seen anywhere where a piece of property would be downzoned. She reiterated that simply by the nature of mixed use, additional opportunities for different zoning will be added for those properties. Vice Chair Prinz commented this is not a zoning map so nobody’s zoning will be changed by this map. This map creates a vision for the future. What the County does in the future will be determined through zoning, which may result from rezoning or a unified development ordinance. This shouldn’t change the specific regulations that are on somebody’s property today. If the Board of Commissioners were to adopt it tomorrow, the people who have development plans should be able to develop their property just as they had planned the day before. Chairman Girardot agreed, but felt people deserved to hear the answers to the questions being put forward and to be comfortable with those answers. Vice Chair Prinz agreed. Chairman Girardot then asked for clarification on the term “community mixed use.” Those areas along Castle Hayne Road, Market Street, and Carolina Beach Boulevard are wide enough to accommodate an actual mixed use, although they look very, very narrow on the map. She thought it was incumbent upon the Planning Board to hold true to those to make sure they don’t become commercial strip malls or storage units or whatever else. Ms. Rigby agreed with the Chairman’s statements. They do look small on the map, but typically staff looked at 500 feet off of the center line of the road as the delineation so most of those areas are large enough to accommodate a mixed use community type development. Ernest Olds then asked Ms. Rigby to speak about the vision for the rural residential development, noting his concern if the county went to a ten, twenty, or even five acres minimum lot size in the undeveloped areas, it wouldn’t take many families to gobble up hundreds of acres resulting in a spread out subdivision. Water and sewer services would be extended for only a few people, and police and fire protection would be driving down long lanes to reach only two or three families. Ms. Rigby explained they had received much community input on the rural residential area. Residents in the Castle Hayne area really want to preserve the character of that area, which is more of an agricultural use. The County has promoted preserving that character and also allowing for clustering of subdivisions in the rural residential area so essentially there would be a cluster subdivision that would preserve some of the open space with more density of homes in a particular portion of that area. Page 9 of 17 Jordy Rawl commented in looking at the New Hanover County Exceptional Resources Area map, he would echo some of the other board members’ concerns for what the intent is of the map. He noted the primary aquifer recharge area runs basically through the heart of the City of Wilmington where one could argue the most density in town is located. Items are listed on the key that aren’t shown on the printed map. He wasn’t sure why the flood zones highlighted in the northern part of the county are included on the map. He believed some of the data being collected may be out of date coming from different sources. He commented FEMA is in the process of redrawing the flood lines for this county and for several other areas. Mr. Rawl stated for those reasons he was worried if the map is printed that there may be some misconceptions by the general public. He asked Ms. Rigby to comment if possible as to why the County had decided to include these different areas on the map. Ms. Rigby explained these areas are part of the CAMA requirements for the Coastal Area Management Act Plan so staff has pulled these areas from that and are showing them on this map. She noted Mr. Rawl’s point about some of the data being out of date is relevant. The flood maps are being updated. One of the benefits of the story maps and the digital version is that as they are updated, it will be a quick and easy update for staff to pull the new data and put it in. Unfortunately, we are in the situation where we don’t have the most up-to-date information today for our future land use map, but as it becomes available, we can put it in there. Ms. Rigby noted in regard to the aquifer recharge area, staff has worked closely with the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA). She acknowledged Mr. Rawl was correct that a lot of that area has been developed. Staff has learned from CFPUA that this area, which is under conservation, is the very important area for the utility authority because it is their wellhead area; therefore, preserving that area, putting that conservation classification on that area, such that we can preserve that area for water quality is very important. She commented it is just a piece of that information so staff wanted to make sure all of the information was on the table for everyone to consider. Vice Chair Prinz stated understanding certain requirements must be shown on a CAMA compliant map and inquired if one of those requirements was the Primary Aquifer Recharge Area because he was struggling with the value of that information. He noted it is on the map, but we don’t really know what it means and it runs right through the heart of the urbanized area of our county. Vice Chair Prinz inquired how the aquifer recharge area would shape staff’s recommendation if someone intended to develop a property within that area and needed a rezoning and how might that impact the ultimate result. Long Range Planner Dylan McDonnell explained there are actually many aquifer recharge zones under New Hanover County that extend beyond the reaches of the county. There are secondary, third and fourth aquifer recharge areas that not shown on the map. The primary recharge area you are seeing has the greatest percentage of recharge in the county. As you mentioned, it goes through the heart of the county like the other recharge areas. The entire county is one large recharge area. He elaborated that because the primary aquifer recharge area has the greatest percentage of recharge and because it is over the wellhead, which is the primary source of groundwater for the county, staff decided to include that and show that on the map. Mr. McDonnell said the study that details these recharge areas shows that while there is little Page 10 of 17 influence of stormwater runoff to degradate the groundwater, it is the County’s intention to discourage heavy industrial areas that either use or produce toxic substances. That is also evident with the place types that staff has used in these areas. He added it is a further enhancement of the conservation area for the wellhead, as well as a discouragement of those heavy industrial areas. Jordy Rawl asked if there was a particular reason that the aquifer recharge area is the only indicated key on the map shown within the city’s boundary. Mr. McDonnell acknowledged there are others. Staff could easily clip that out to show that it’s there, but we haven’t shown other place types within the city boundary. Again, staff could clip it out to make it more informative that it is not just in the county, but it is true with all of the exceptional resource areas. They are countywide, and in fact, region wide, and thus the County has left them on the map. Mr. Rawl asked if the City was showing those areas on their maps, noting he wasn’t necessarily indicating he thought it should be removed. He simply thought it was rather intriguing that everything within the city limits was basically left blank except for the aquifer recharge area. Ms. Rigby stated one of the differences between the City’s and County’s comprehensive plans is that the City is not seeking CAMA certification for their comprehensive plan so they don’t include the aquifer recharge area on their maps. The City doesn’t have an Exceptional Resource Area map in their comprehensive plan, but the County does. Vice Chair Prinz asked for clarification that counties are required to have a CAMA plan and cities are not required to have a CAMA plan. Ms. Rigby explained the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan was a joint City-County plan between the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County. The City of Wilmington has used that plan and anticipates continuing to use that 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Vice Chair Prinz inquired if the City of Wilmington would be maintaining two plans – a CAMA Land Use Plan and a Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Rigby replied she was not sure how it would work logistically. Vice Chair Prinz asked if it was accurate that for the plan to be CAMA compliant, this area has to be identified on the map and we don’t really know how that will impact recommendations for rezoning except maybe for heavy industrial type uses. It might result in recommendations for lower impact development or cluster subdivision, etc. but this adoption has no regulatory authority. It would simply be another consideration that goes into writing a staff report and into making a decision on a rezoning. Mr. Rawl said the planning board had witnessed it in a case scenario with a rezoning plan that came before the planning board a few months ago. He commented he remembered that secondary aquifer recharge area being a point of contention, and if nothing else, used as a buzz word to insinuate it would contaminate groundwater if that plan was approved and more density was added to the area. He noted he had heard the word “toxic substances” used a few times and Page 11 of 17 was having a tough time understanding exactly what that correlates to and how this being on the map will impact future development. Noting he isn’t biological expert, Mr. Rawl suggested it may be helpful for the County to engage someone of that nature to present a more thorough, in- depth investigation on what this recharge area actually is and how it is affected by development, as well as how it is affected by groundwater and runoff. Vice Chair Prinz stated Mr. Rawl made a good point, but he also believed it is part of the Planning Board’s responsibility to help interpret what that means and how it should be implemented within the community. Staff will always have their position and the developers will have their position. It is up to the Planning Board and the County Commissioners to decide what it means and how to navigate those conflicting interests. David Weaver commented there is a lot more to aquifer protection than what is provided by the delineation of this primary recharge area on the map. Noting Planning Board members were asked for an educational suggestion on the recent survey, he felt they would all benefit greatly by someone giving them an educational presentation on the topic of Groundwater Hydrology 101, with a description about how the aquifer basically works in New Hanover County. He noted the aquifer is out of sight and out of mind, but it is one of the most valuable environmental and economic resources the county has. It is the future of the County’s drinking water to a great extent as the County invested millions in building a drinking water plant a few years ago. Mr. Weaver stated the County also needs an aquifer or groundwater protection ordinance to really protect the groundwater. Other communities that are dependent on aquifers have those ordinances and the requirements can be easily integrated into a development plan. They are critical to have especially for a community like New Hanover County where lots of clean groundwater is available to use. He commented he would rather see that pumped up as an implementation strategy with a higher priority than a unified development ordinance because having gone through the previous UDO experience he wasn’t sure how valuable it would be to do it again. Planning & Inspections Director Chris O’Keefe stated there is a difference between the unified development ordinance staff hopes to create once the plan is done and the effort the County previously went through. Previously, “unified” meant that in unity the City and County were going to develop an ordinance that unified all of their development ordinances. He explained the new proposal means the County will unify all of its ordinances so the task will be different. The County isn’t duplicating the previous effort or setting itself up for the same type of struggle experienced during that effort. Vice Chair Prinz clarified in that sense, unified doesn’t mean city and county, it means an agglomeration of all of the County’s development ordinances under one cover, including subdivision, zoning, stormwater, etc. encapsulated in one document. Chairman Girardot noted it also means the County has coordinated with the City so we are aware and try to be simpatico with the City around the edges. She expressed some concern with the County having so much say over people’s property with the aquifer recharge area designation on top of this. Page 12 of 17 Mr. Rawl stated he was concerned as well. He felt it was important that Ms. Rigby said it was a requirement for the CAMA certification for the County’s Land Use Plan. He explained he was having a difficult time understanding the CAMA requirements, why it’s on the map, what it is, and how it affects drinking water, as well as why CAMA wants it on the County’s land use plan in order to be CAMA certified. Mr. Rawl inquired if there was anyone from CAMA who could address these questions about the aquifer area and its importance in the land use plan for board members. Ms. Rigby explained staff’s liaison, Mike Christenbury, has been working closely with staff on the Exceptional Resource Areas information. She offered to set up a training session for the Planning Board with Mr. Christenbury to address the CAMA requirements, which have been going through some changes and adjustments over the last two years. She reported that Mr. Christenbury had been very supportive of the process shared with him so far and she saw no reason the County would not be certified as CAMA compliant. Ms. Rigby said she would also be glad to include in the implementation strategy the thought of an Aquifer Protection Study and/or ordinance where the direct correlation and best management practices associated with protecting the county’s groundwater could be determined. Mr. Rawl stated his appreciation, noting it seemed to be a hot button issue for this map in general based on input received from the public and people in various industries. Therefore, he would like to have a better understanding of what it is and gain as much knowledge as possible in order to comment on the issue at forums. In response for Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Ms. Rigby stated it was her understanding the Aquifer Recharge Area must be designated on the County’s map for it to be CAMA compliant. Vice Chair Prinz stated a majority of the board had expressed concern about whether or not that area belongs on the map so he felt they should deliberate on it as they move through the planning process, but wouldn’t consider it a solid, foregone conclusion for inclusion in the final plan. Vice Chair Prinz then recommended the planning board adopt the map as is because it has to be on it for compliance issues; however, noted before putting an implementation strategy in the action plan saying the County needs to write an ordinance, the board should have an education session to learn what we are getting ourselves into and why. Chairman Girardot agreed. Mr. Weaver asked if CAMA requires the primary aquifer recharge area to be delineated on the map because there are a lot of counties where the whole county is a primary aquifer recharge area. He wondered if the actual wording was Aquifer Protection Area or Well Head Protection Area or something along those lines, noting technically the primary aquifer recharge area encompasses more than the single band that is present there as shown in the original studies. Mr. McDonnell explained that CAMA has their core land use map, part of which is public water supply and under that public water supply would be the groundwater. Page 13 of 17 Mr. Weaver stated in his mind that is much different than Primary Aquifer Recharge Area. Public Water Supply could be more along the line of a reservoir with a buffer area around it, or maybe a well head protection area, which he would like to see the CFPUA delineate. He commented it may be worth looking into what it is that CAMA requires to be delineated. Mr. Weaver wasn’t sure he had seen a primary recharge area delineated on a map. Vice Chair Prinz mentioned that the Wilmington-New Hanover County 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan Classification Map has an Aquifer Resource Protection Area on it. In response to Mr. Weaver’s inquiry, Vice Chair Prinz said the Aquifer Resource Protection Area looks more extensive on the 2006 CAMA Land Use Map than it does on the current map. Mr. Weaver commented that it’s very hard to put a boundary on something like this. There are two ways to protect the aquifer. You have the well head protection area based on a cone of withdrawal or based on the pumping rates for that well. That would be a well head protection area. An aquifer protection area is much more loose or general, but is critical too. If industries come in and withdraw huge amounts of water, it will damage the well field even if the industry is in the far reaches of the county. In regard to the protection from pollution, the way the aquifer is structured in New Hanover County, it is much more sensitive to potential pollution in the band in the northwestern part of the county as opposed to this area. Long Range Planner Dylan McDonnell explained the blue or purple color on the current 2006 CAMA Land Use Map is actually where the Secondary Aquifer Recharge Area is located. Based on the geomorphology and the Cape Fear Arch, which is a pretty unique underlying feature, the secondary recharge area is actually where the aquifers are closer to the surface and have the potential for degradation based on some type of substance – petroleum, chemical, etc. to degrade the water quality. Staff has chosen to show the Primary Aquifer Recharge Area, which currently isn’t on the map, because of where CFPUA currently has those well areas in the northeast part of the county and because it is where the Primary Aquifer Recharge Area has the greatest percentage of recharge based on soil type and for the ability for the water to permeate and actually recharge the aquifer. Chairman Girardot asked Ms. Rigby to comment on the ownership of the conservation areas. Ms. Rigby explained the Conservation place types on the Future Land Use Map, which is not meant to be confused with the Exceptional Resource Map, are the green areas shown on this particular map and are held in conservation through deeds or some sort of restriction. They are the wetlands mitigation banks held by the Department of Transportation or the open marsh lands that are not developable. The ownership is that they have been preserved in some fashion by deed or restrictive covenant, such as the Coastal Land Trust, CFPUA, or the County. Chairman Girardot entertained questions, comments, or a motion from the board. Mr. Weaver asked if a public hearing was required for Chapter 4. Page 14 of 17 Deputy County Attorney Huffman stated it may not be a legal requirement, but it is the County’s intent that the comprehensive plan item be staged as a public hearing so if there is anyone present who hasn’t signed up, they should be given the opportunity to speak in regard to the item. The planning board is not adopting this chapter of the comprehensive plan. The board is asked to make a recommendation that the county commissioners validate this particular chapter of the future comprehensive plan. Seeing no one from the public present, Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and entertained a motion from the Planning Board. Vice Chairman Anthony Prinz made a motion that the Planning Board recommend the Board of Commissioners validate Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future as the fourth chapter of PLAN NHC and accept it by resolution. Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. During discussion, David Weaver asked what was meant by validation and whether it meant approval of the map in its entirety. Deputy County Attorney Huffman explained that validation basically means it is the board’s recommendation that the commissioners accept the chapter by resolution. The Commissioners approve many things by resolution. The Planning Board is publicly stating their support for this particular chapter and recommending the county commissioners accept it by resolution. Mr. Weaver felt there were things that needed to be changed on the map. While one could argue about the Aquifer Recharge Area, the biggest inaccuracy is that the map indicates there are no outstanding resource waters in New Hanover County. That’s not true so that should either be corrected or a note should be added to the map stating one should look at the story map or elsewhere. Vice Chair Anthony Prinz amended the motion to include that public coastal waters, public inland waters, and outstanding resource waters be clearly identified on the exceptional resource area map or that a notation be placed on that map referencing the digital map online where those details can be seen. Jordy Rawl seconded the amended motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Chapter 4: Visualizing the Future of the Comprehensive Plan. Approval of October 2015 Planning Board Minutes Vice Chair Anthony Prinz made a motion to approve the October Planning Board minutes as drafted. Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the October 1, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes. Approval of 2016 Agenda Review and Regular Meeting Schedule Chairman Girardot entertained a motion to approve the 2016 Agenda Review and Regular Meeting Schedule. Page 15 of 17 Mr. Shipley noted the 2016 regular meeting schedule also includes agenda review meeting dates and inquired if those dates would be used to review the agenda for the regular meetings. Chairman Girardot confirmed the purpose would be to review the agenda for the upcoming meeting and noted it had been discussed at the work session. She and the vice chair didn’t feel they had enough time to drive the sites and do homework upon receipt of the agenda packages so they asked if a pre-agenda briefing for more complicated issues might be possible. Staff has set up those dates prior to the meetings for board members to ask questions and get resource information before the regular meetings. Mr. Shipley said he had noted in his survey that he liked to receive the packet the weekend before the meeting and it was delivered on Friday. He commented that driving to the government center seemed burdensome and he didn’t want to double the number of meetings without some forethought, particularly given he works downtown and works many hours. Vice Chairman Prinz agreed and explained the agenda review meetings will be completely optional and no action will be taken at the meetings. It will be an informal arrangement and a meeting would only become formal if it became a workshop. Chairman Girardot explained if a board member is comfortable with the agenda package, he/she doesn’t need to attend. Vice Chair Prinz said it might become a drop-in session between 4pm and 5pm for board members to ask questions and leave at their convenience. David Weaver made a motion to accept the 2016 Planning Board meeting dates as proposed. Ernie Olds seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the 2016 Planning Board agenda review and regular meeting dates. Technical Review Committee Report (September 30 and October 2015) Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Report: The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once for a special meeting on September 30th and once during the month of October to consider two (2) performance residential projects. Hanover Reserve: Section 3 Hanover Reserve is located in the northeastern portion of our jurisdiction near the eastern end of Murrayville Road and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The 82 lot development will be served by private roads with primary access from Rabbit Hollow Drive in Courtney Pines subdivision. Site Plan Data  Zoning District: R-15 Residential (limited to 2.5 units per acre) Page 16 of 17  Water/Sewer Service: Public (CFPUA)  Road Network: Private (HOA responsible road maintenance)  Lots: 82  Acreage: 33.81  TIA: Required (final approval pending)  Land Class: Wetland Resource Protection  Access: Rabbit Hollow & Eastbourne Drive  Conservation Resources: None  Schools Impacted: Eaton & Murrayville Elementary (over-capacity) Murrayville Middle (over-capacity) Holly Shelter Laney High (over-capacity) In a vote of 5-0, the TRC preliminarily approved the 3rd installment to Hanover Reserve for a total of 82 lots with six conditions, which are detailed in the planning board package. The Grove The Grove is located in the southern portion of our jurisdiction near the 6100 block of Myrtle Grove Road (SR-1492) and is classified as Watershed Resource Protection on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The 25 lot development has one primary access via Myrtle Grove Road. The road network is private. Site Plan Data  Zoning District: R-15 Residential (limited to 2.5 units per acre)  Water/Sewer Service: Public (CFPUA)  Road Network: Private  Lots: 25  Acreage: 10.10  TIA: Not Applicable  Land Class: Watershed Resource Protection  Access: Myrtle Grove Road (public)  Conservation Resources: None  Schools Impacted: Codington & Bellamy Elementary (over-capacity) Murray Middle (over-capacity) Ashley High (over-capacity) In a vote of 4-0, the TRC preliminarily approved The Grove for a total of 25 lots with three conditions, which are included in the Planning Board package. The TRC granted three waivers for cul-de-sac length, road inter-connectivity, and road pavement width based on the geographic nature of the property and adjacent 404 wetlands and recorded lots of record. Vice Chair Prinz stated Mr. Burgess periodically gives the board an evaluation of development trends in New Hanover County and inquired if he could email the board that report within the next month reflecting the last 2-3 years. Page 17 of 17 Mr. Burgess explained staff typically bases trends on the calendar year. A quarterly report is provided to planning staff by the Planning & Inspections Department. He will email the information to board members. Other Business Mr. O’Keefe reminded board members to return their surveys to planning staff as staff wishes to ensure the planning board has all the information they need to make recommendations that serve the county well. He commented that staff is preparing a Ten Year Construction Activity Report that provides a ten year history of construction trends, which will be distributed soon. Vice Chairman Prinz entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ted Shipley made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Jordy Rawl seconded the motion, which was approved 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7: 25 p.m.