2016-06 June 2 2016 PBM
Page 1 of 18
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
June 2, 2016
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 2, 2016 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 Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Tamara Murphy Jennifer Rigby, Senior Planner
Ernest Olds Dylan McDonnell, Long Range Planner
David Weaver Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney
Absent:
Jordy Rawl
Edward “Ted” Shipley, III
Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing.
Ken Vafier 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 the final
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for hearing and consideration of a motion to recommend
adoption by the Board of Commissioners.
Senior Planner Jennifer Rigby presented the following staff report.
Plan NHC is a nearly 3-year comprehensive planning effort for New Hanover County
focused on providing a framework of goals and implementation strategies for future
growth and development of New Hanover County. Plan NHC has focused on establishing
the appropriate balance of interests in our growing community and has studied the
relationships between land uses, transportation, utilities, economic and industrial
development, recreation, housing, and natural resources. Extensive Community
Engagement has guided and shaped this process into the final draft version presented
today; which is focused on utilizing mixed use development as a way to accommodate
significant growth and balance interests.
Staff held approximately 54 public meetings throughout this process including the general
public, stakeholders, and a Citizens Advisory Committee appointed by our Board of
County Commissioners and selected through a public process; resulting in a significant
amount of input and meaningful engagement. This engagement established the key
components of the Comprehensive Plan – 21 Broad Goals for New Hanover County (found
Page 2 of 18
in Chapter 3 of the report); a Future Land Use Map to guide and enhance development
patterns (found in Chapter 4); and a detailed implementation plan (found in Chapter 5).
Consistent with the County’s commitment for transparency and engagement, the Planning
Board has made recommendations and the Board of County Commissioners have adopted
resolutions of validation for various parts of the plan. This presentation will walk through
those sections of the plan, one new section, address the prologue and appendix, and request
that the Planning Board provide one final recommendation to the New Hanover County
Board of Commissioners.
The Plan Includes a Prologue, a Public Engagement Plan, an Existing Conditions Analysis,
Framing the Policy (goals), Visualizing the Future (Future Land Use Map), Building the
Future (Implementation), and an appendix.
Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 were presented to the Planning Board. The Planning Board
recommended the Board of Commissioners validate Chapters 1-3, which they did. Chapter
4 was also validated with a modification. Chapter 5 has been presented and discussed with
the Planning Board at three separate work sessions with stakeholders at the table. This
final version represents the changes that were made based on those work sessions. The
prologue and appendix frame the document with an introduction and supporting materials.
Community consensus has not been reached in regard to two of the seven Exceptional
Resources Maps located in Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan. This report will provide
a brief background on these maps; including staff’s perspective on these maps, action taken
on these maps, concerns staff has heard regarding these maps, and a recent development
with new information.
Staff’s perspective on these maps has always been and continues to be that they are
intended to supplement the Future Land Use with information regarding our natural
systems. They are not intended to prevent or regulate development.
The Exceptional Resources Map was originally one map with seven natural resources
illustrated. When this section of the report was presented to the Planning Board,
representatives from CAMA were called in to provide additional information about CAMA
rules and guidelines that were in the process of changing. The Planning Board
recommended removing the Aquifer Recharge Area from the one map, placing it on a
separate map, and showing all of the recharge areas. This additional map was presented to
the Board of Commissioners, along with a memo from the Planning Board and CAMA
representatives were available at the Board of Commissioners meeting to answer
questions. After much discussion, the Board of Commissioners approved a motion to
validate “Visualizing the Future” as the fourth chapter within the Comprehensive Plan and
to include the breakout of the Exceptional Resources Area Map into six separate maps for
each of the categories in the Exceptional Resources Areas. In response to the Board’s
action, staff prepared six additional maps, totaling seven with the appropriate disclaimers
and definitions regarding the text. Those maps are included in the draft version currently
before the Planning Board.
Page 3 of 18
Staff has continued to hear concerns from the development community regarding two of
these maps - the Potential Wetland Areas Map and the Aquifer Sensitivity Map.
Aquifer Sensitivity Map: In September staff requested the State Hydrologist provide an
opinion of validity on the Aquifer Recharge Areas delineated in the Aquifer Management
Program report prepared by Henry LeGrand. The opinion that this information was
accurate was given and this information was illustrated on the Exceptional Resources
Maps. After hearing continued concerns on that particular map, staff reproached the State
Hydrologist to confirm the validity of the aquifer sensitivity map. Staff was recently
informed that while the State Hydrologist originally favored the information on the
Legrand report, that opinion has changed. This further validates the need for a ground
water study and potential ordinance. Staff has placed this in the short term implementation
initiative section of the Annual Action Plan and the Planning Department will request that
this study be performed soon. As a result of this new information, staff recommends
removing the Aquifer Sensitivity Map from the Comprehensive Plan and recommends
amending the text about the aquifer. Because the plan is intended to be a "living
document," staff recommends information on the aquifer be included once a study has
been performed.
Potential Wetland Areas Maps: There have been concerns regarding the accuracy of this
information. The information is provided by the National Wetlands Inventory. This
information is intended to be used for educational and informational purposes only, and it
is accurate for those purposes. It is not accurate for construction purposes, as it does not
offer official delineations of wetlands. The Corps of Engineers does not maintain a
database that includes a comprehensive map of wetlands that have been officially
identified.
Staff’s position on these maps remains that they are intended to provide information during
the development process and staff continues to believe this is a best management practice.
However, consistent with the County’s goal of encouraging public and stakeholder
engagement, staff would like to make you aware that consensus on this map has not been
achieved.
The final section of the plan, which has not been approved, is the strategy to implement the
comprehensive plan. This is one of the most important elements of a comprehensive plan.
The comprehensive plan is not the end of a process; it is the beginning of a long intensive
series of actions to create a better community that truly represents the citizens of New
Hanover County.
One of the major concerns staff heard from the community during the planning process
was the desire to overhaul the 1969 Zoning Ordinance into a Unified Development
Ordinance, resulting in predictably and clarity for the development community, citizens,
staff, and decision makers. With this in mind, staff created a two pronged approach to
implementing the comprehensive plan - Implementation Initiatives (programs or projects)
and Implementation Guidelines (a guide for development decisions). The initiatives will be
tied to New Hanover County’s budget process through an annual action plan. The
Page 4 of 18
guidelines will become the framework or guidance for a new Unified Development
Ordinance.
Consistent with the County’s commitment to public engagement, the Planning Board
hosted three work sessions open to the public for individuals and stakeholders to actually
sit at the table with them to review, edit, modify, and improve the implementation
strategies outlined in this section. Staff received great input from the community on th at
effort. Consistent with the County’s mission, staff categorized each of these initiatives and
guidelines with the adopted New Hanover County Strategic Plan and is confident the
vision established in this plan can be achieved because of the time and dedication given to
the implementation section of the plan.
Finally, Ms. Rigby addressed the editing process used with the plan. Because the
comprehensive plan document has been prepared over the course of nearly three years with
multiple authors, staff developed a process for editing the document that includes two
types of edits. The first is Editorial Changes, which involved a thorough review of the
document by the Communications and Outreach Department for punctuation, spelling,
grammar, and typos. Those changes are in the process of being completed and will be
included in the final plan. The second type of edits is Content and Clarification Changes,
which includes a review performed by planning staff and comments from Planning Board
members and members of the community that seek to clarify language within the plan.
Those changes include the following:
• In Chapter 2 on page 18, staff clarified language in the text as it referred to the Urban
Services Boundary. It was listed in the Existing Conditions report as a part of the 2006
CAMA Land Use Plan. Staff altered the language to reflect the new policy shift of
removing the USB.
• In Chapter 3 on page 13 and 15, staff added language to include walking and biking to
school opportunities for students. Prior language only included walking.
• In Chapter 3 on page 15, staff added language to include a drinking water study in
conjunction with the groundwater and aquifer protection ordinance recommendation.
• In Chapter 4 on page 19, staff updated language to provide clarification on the intent
of the Exceptional Resources Maps. It states, “These maps are intended to be a source
of information used in conjunction with the future land use map by New Hanover
County’s planning staff, Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners.
• In Chapter 4, staff adjusted the shading on the ERA Maps to make the natural features
brighter.
• In Chapter 4 on page 27, staff adjusted the disclaimer on the wetlands map to state that
“On-site, field investigation/delineation and agency verification are necessary to
comply with Federal, State, and Local requirements.”
• In Chapter 5, on page 11, Guideline X.B.4 – add language “where practical.”
On behalf of County Staff, Ms. Rigby thanked the citizens, stakeholders, Citizen Advisory
Committee members, Planning Board Members, Board of County Commissioners and the school
children for their time, dedication, and commitment to the comprehensive planning effort. She
noted the community has held some very important conversations and some very difficult
conversations over the past 2.5 years. We have been fortunate to have an engaged community
Page 5 of 18
that has actively participated in “Charting our Course” for the future. While our community has
had many differing opinions and thoughts about how we grow in the future; there has remained a
common vision for creating economic success while preserving the integrity of our natural
resources. She stated she is proud of the hard work and dedication given to the effort and
believes the plan will help us further accomplish our mission.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing.
Tyler Newman of the Business Alliance for a Sound Economy stated he works with the
Wilmington Chamber of Commerce and Homebuilders Association on public policy issues in
New Hanover County. They have participated in the comprehensive plan process over the last
several years and their overarching concern throughout the process has been predictability and
clarity of regulations on the back end. There are some big ideas in this comprehensive plan and
to bring them forward, the county will have to have investors and developers that want to come
and build these mixed use type projects and invest in New Hanover County. They are going to
need predictability and consistency in regulations and understanding of what the process is to
want to come here to build those types of projects. He noted he had emailed a couple of small
concerns previously. He commented he was under the impression that the maps were going to be
changed to the Natural System Maps. One small item is located in Chapter 5 that hasn’t been
talked about before by the Planning Board. He noted there are also issues in the back with
stormwater regulations. The State is currently rewriting the coastal stormwater rules and
ensuring whatever is in the comprehensive plan is consistent with those rewrites. There is a
minimum design criteria coming out and ensuring those things are consistent is important to his
organization. In regard to the maps, Mr. Newman reported they fully support the state
recommendation that the aquifer map be removed. He thought their interest is in having the most
accurate information, especially something as complicated as the aquifer. The aquifer does not
just fit under the orders of New Hanover County if you’re talking about withdrawing water or
recharging water that’s super complicated natural system. There are folks at the beach towns get
their water from the aquifer. The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority uses the aquifer to store
treated water. It is used for a lot of different things. Mr. Newman thought the City getting all the
folks to the table understanding what the state regulations are on groundwater regulations and
what we can do as a community to ensure that we have water resources for the future is
important. Instead of cherry picking a map from 1982 and putting in a plan on the wetland maps,
it’s the same with accurate information. The areas in New Hanover County can be wetlands and
the National Wetlands Inventory doesn’t serve as a good information source as to what is
actually a wetland. He noted there was a unanimous decision in a Supreme Court case earlier in
the week that said that jurisdictional determinations even done by the Corps of Engineers can be
challenged in court. He noted in his mind that takes the wetlands map another step away from
actually being an effective tool. In the end, they are looking forward to continued prosperity,
protection of quality of life in southeastern North Carolina and looking for New Hanover County
to continue to be a great place to grow and invest.
Karen Dunne with the North Carolina Coastal Federation thanked the board for opening up the
process over and over again to provide the opportunity for public input. She stated she has done
some research on the other nineteen coastal communities in regard to their natural resource maps
and wanted to share that information with the board. She explained virtually all of the twenty
coastal communities have an environmental composite map. On the back of the handout, classes
Page 6 of 18
1, 2, and 3 are listed and that is the information included on the composite maps. It seems like
wetlands although it may not be accurate, it is for educational purposes and they are generalized
areas where wetlands may be found. Of the twenty counties, ten have a wetlands map; and every
one of the counties has a composite map. Ms. Dunne said she thought what is being proposed
and presented by the County is best management practices along the twenty coastal counties.
Ms. Dunne provided a handout of proposed changes. Ms. Dunne said she had also reviewed the
aquifer system language and the North Carolina Coastal Federation would like to suggest
including a placeholder for this map that reflects the need for a revised aquifer study to
adequately assess the aquifer resources which will provide that information that is necessary for
an update to the aquifer map; and protection and management strategies that will incorporate the
projected growth of the county. She noted the USGS is currently conducting a groundwater
availability assessment for the entire southeast coastal region, which will provide a
comprehensive model of the resources with suggested management strategies. That study will be
completed in 2018. In addition, the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality is conducting a
water resource study as mandated through the EMC by the legislature. That bill was sponsored
by Representative Rick Catlin and that report is due to be completed and submitted to the EMC
next year. These two efforts are intended to provide a comprehensive look at our groundwater
and surface water resources and will incorporate a projected growth of the region. Ms. Dunne
stated she had sent an email of proposed changes to board members late in the day, but also
distributed a hard copy of those suggested proposed changes to board members at the meeting.
Ms. Dunne provided specific recommended language to be added to the placeholder and also
added to the natural resource area maps or exceptional resource area maps, whatever they will
finally be called.
In the first paragraph, the Coastal Federation recommends including language with other
withdrawals, not only the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority withdrawals, that would include
industrial, agricultural withdrawals, which are some of the biggest users of water. .
In the fourth paragraph with regard to ensuring water quality, over pumping of water resources,
which include mining, industrial, and agricultural withdrawals, and sea level rise. The Coastal
Federation recommended that language be added because those are some of the most impacting
conditions on the aquifers. In conclusion, Ms. Dunne stated those are the Coastal Federation’s
requests and proposed language additions and offered to answer any questions the Planning
Board may have.
Chairman Girardot inquired which wetlands maps the other ten counties included and if it was
the Fish and Wildlife map or the GIS map. Ms. Dunne responded that has all of the various
county maps, but didn’t bring those with her to the meeting. She noted they have wetlands shown
on the map, and many of them use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers designated areas, which is
the National Wetland Inventory maps. Ms. Dunne offered to send the board members all of the
links to all of the various counties as well.
David Weaver asked if the groundwater availability assessment of southeastern North Carolina
study would provide site specific data or at least geographically specific data so that if the county
wanted to it could develop an aquifer protection ordinance. Ms. Dunne responded that she
believed it would provide that data, and noted that Chris O’Keefe, Gary McSmith, and a number
Page 7 of 18
of others are now on a water task force and they will be working with the USGS to determine the
specifics of that study.
In response to Mr. Weaver’s inquiry, Ms. Dunne explained that Rick Catlin has sponsored a bill
requesting a study of the aquifers and surface waters of the region, but it hasn’t been adopted yet.
It is still under study and is supposed to be completed by next year. Ms. Dunne stated she didn’t
know the differences between the two studies; however, Mr. Catlin’s proposed study will not be
as comprehensive as the USGS study, which will take into consideration a much larger area from
Georgetown, SC up beyond North Carolina.
Mr. Weaver stated he felt groundwater in New Hanover County is an extremely important
resource; therefore, he was concerned about whether the proposed large-scale study
encompassing parts of South Carolina, North Carolina and beyond would provide any
information that would be useful for New Hanover County to protect its aquifer. Ms. Dunne
replied she thought it would be very thorough, but she couldn’t speak to that concern at that time.
Noting the USGS has offered to come and speak with the Planning Board and the Board of
Commissioners to provide a lesson in Groundwater 101 as discussed in previous meetings, Ms.
Dunne deferred to someone from the USGS to respond to Mr. Weaver’s concerns.
Vice Chair Anthony Prinz offered insight into the aquifer issue based upon his experience in
Onslow County, noting the issue isn’t limited to New Hanover County. He explained it is a
nationwide issue, water quality and water supply, whether it be groundwater, surface water, etc.
Approximately four years ago, it became a big issue in Onslow County because of water coming
from aquifers under the base, waters coming from aquifers under the city, and waters coming
from aquifers under the county and the result of each one of those organizations operating
independently from one another and their use and replenishment of the aquifer. It was his
understanding there is some really high quality water there, although he noted he is by no means
a hydraulic expert. Their intent is to preserve those aquifers and sustain them to the best of their
ability. Vice Chair Prinz further explained they have spent over a million dollars studying those
aquifers under the base, the city and the county in Onslow County and they are just now getting
the answers they need to be effective in managing that groundwater. He explained it isn’t as
simple as taking a regional study that the State or some other entity is doing and saying it will
give us the strategies we need to effectively manage water quality. He felt they would have to
work with all of their partners and dedicate some serious resources into studying the aquifer and
determine the current status, the historical status and project forward based upon the needs of the
development community, the environmental community and everyone else involved in order to
answer those questions. Vice Chair Prinz pointed out he didn’t think either of the two studies
would give New Hanover County exactly what it needs. He felt the County would have to put
some resources into a very detailed study to get those answers, which will involve drilling
hundreds and hundreds of monitoring wells as they did in Onslow County to evaluate water
withdrawal, salt water intrusion, etc.; therefore, it may be more complicated than piggy-backing
off a regional study.
Karen Dunne commented that one of the requests from the USGS during a scoping meeting
approximately two years ago was in regard to partnering with communities to do the saltwater
intrusion study. The USGS doesn’t have the money for that study, but if counties will help fund
the study they will include that in the overall three year study.
Page 8 of 18
Chairman Girardot expressed concern about the discussion getting too deep in the weeds because
this is merely the framework. In 20-1, the goal has been adopted and in 20-2, a performance
matrix has been adopted, so we’ve come to the conclusion that it will be done. We don’t need to
get too specific in the narrative because we need to have some wiggle room as this is a long term
goal in the framework.
In regard to the Coastal Federation’s suggestion to include a placeholder for the map, David
Weaver asked Ms. Dunne to clarify if the recommendation was to keep the current map, put in a
blank page or change the text and leave the map out of the plan. Ms. Dunn explained that a
placeholder wouldn’t be the existing map because it would be confusing, but it could be a blank
page with a narrative that indicates that the aquifer is currently under study and the importance of
it.
Chairman Girardot commented that staff has provided a placeholder in lieu of the map and Ms.
Dunne has simply enhanced it.
Vice Chair Prinz asked if the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) had a position on the
issue of the aquifer protection map. Jennifer Rigby replied the CFPUA did not have a position on
the aquifer protection map.
Vice Chair Prinz commented it would be up to CFPUA to implement many of the policies that
may be identified through additional study, etc. Ms. Rigby said if the county elected to put any
performance measures on the aquifer or anything of that nature, CFPUA would be exempt
because they are a user of the aquifer.
Vice Chair Prinz stated if our goal is to make the aquifer sustainable, CFPUA will have to be on
board with whatever policy the County decides to implement in order to be successful. The same
goes for the City of Wilmington, the Town of Wrightsville Beach, and all the other communities
that draw water from the aquifer. Ms. Rigby agreed, noting they would all be stakeholders in a
future study and certainly the County would reach out to them and encourage their participation.
Vice Chair Prinz commented that the issue is much more complicated than whether or not we
have a map and a document.
Chairman Girardot agreed and continued the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Hal Kichen of 2902 Hydrangea Drive commented having reviewed Ms. Dunne’s proposed
changes to the staff’s proposal on the aquifer language, he wasn’t aware of the process the
County had gone through to date involving a lot of information that would substantiate claims
regarding over pumping of water resources, mining, industrial, and agricultural withdrawals; and
he certainly didn’t think they had really gotten into the sea level argument here so he would urge
the board to be careful about adopting additional language over and above what the staff has
proposed, given that we probably do not have complete information about what does impact our
aquifer in a major way. It sounds like there are studies being done now and maybe we’ll have
more information in the future. We may even need to do our own study as suggested by Mr.
Prinz. Mr. Kichen stated the second point he would make was in respect to the wetlands map,
noting they all understood the importance of wetlands and have a sense of how regulated those
Page 9 of 18
are on the state and federal levels. He commented by way of anecdotal evidence when he
downloaded the GIS shape file for wetlands maintained by the county and zoomed into his own
home, he found that his own house is located in the middle of wetlands according to those maps,
when in fact, he is fortunate to basically live on top of an ancient sand dune and even has a
basement in his house. He thought there were other examples of that as well. Mr. Kichen stated
while those maps may possibly be helpful on a macro level, he wasn’t sure they really add much
to the discussion when a developer, for example, comes before the planning board to request a
rezoning and the board pulls out the comprehensive plan to determine whether the rezoning
would be consistent with it. He didn’t think the wetlands map could be used in a productive way.
Cameron Moore, Executive Officer of the Wilmington-Cape Fear Home Builders Association,
echoed the comments of Tyler Newman and Hal Kichen. He thought it came down to
perspective. Two years ago, several people in this room had a conversation with Mr. Davis from
CAMA about comprehensive land use plans. Many different municipalities have land use plans.
The problem with those land use plans is that they were outdated. They had to go through proper
determinations, but we found that they didn’t have the funding to go through the proper
determination and updating and those plans sat on the shelf collecting dust. They were used in
regulatory control by planning boards and the plans and the maps were found to be outdated. All
the quality controls that everybody on both sides is looking for when developing a project, as
well as when we are trying to live, work, and play within New Hanover County. Mr. Moore
stated that was a big problem; CAMA recognized that problem, made some changes and is still
making changes. Again, it comes down to perspective. We have a chance here to move forward
on good, quality data. Mr. Moore thought staff had done a phenomenal job of really hearing the
stakeholders, the planning board, and the community; and suggested they take that information
and move forward with the good plan in place. He commented that enhancing on the fly is scary
and going down the rabbit hole of sea level rise, etc. is also scary. Mr. Moore stated it is a fact
that CAMA has acknowledged over the course of the last fifteen years that their plans are
outdated. He urged the planning board to take the opportunity not to do the same.
Seeing no other speakers, Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and entertained
comments and questions from the board.
Vice Chair Prinz asked Tyler Newman to comment on the stormwater concerns.
Mr. Newman commented it was great from a government public policy standpoint that the
sections in Chapter 5 were reorganized within the framework of the Commissioners’ strategic
plan. He stated their concern with stormwater is that the legislature has passed a recommendation
to move forward with minimum design criteria for stormwater so x, y and z can be done and one
could get through the process quickly. A workgroup worked on that minimum design criteria and
at the same time started rewriting sections of the coastal stormwater rules. That rule making is
going in front of the Environmental Management Commission potentially in July. Mr. Newman
stated his concern is that whatever is in the comprehensive plan will need to be able to
accommodate minimum design criteria, which includes information on buffers, etc., to ensure
clarity of regulation and encourage investment.
Chairman Girardot asked Ms. Rigby to further address the stormwater issues.
Page 10 of 18
Jennifer Rigby said Mr. Newman brought up a great point and clarified the comprehensive plan
is not regulatory. The County is setting guiding principles and aspirational goals within the
comprehensive plan, not regulations. To ensure the County did not have goals that were in
conflict with new state standards and state regulations, staff reached out to the environmental
engineer for the Stormwater Division of NCDEQ, who has confirmed he has looked over the
guidelines and they look sound to him. He also does not anticipate any of the guidelines would
need to be modified as a result of DEQ’s current stormwater rule making efforts. For that reason,
staff felt comfortable with that determination.
Vice Chair Prinz asked Ms. Rigby to point out where that information is addressed in Chapter 5
for board members. Ms. Rigby stated the goals have been reorganized according to the Strategic
Plan. The guidelines start on page 4. There are 21 overarching goals and the specific goals
related to stormwater start on page 13 as 13-G1 and 13-G2. These goals are: 13-G1) Encourage
stormwater management systems that mimic the predevelopment hydrology of the site; and 13
G-2) Continue to ensure drainage from land use activities has a rate of flow and volume
characteristics as near to predevelopment conditions as possible.
Vice Chair Prinz commented that those goals are relatively general and inquired if Mr. Newman
had concerns about any other goal. Mr. Newman stated the next one H-1 related to buffers and in
13-L1 and 13-L2 related to discharging the stormwater, surface waters, and waters from
roadways. For example, in G1, the design matters because the size of the pond matters and all
those things will be dictated potentially by the new minimum design criteria. In response to Vice
Chair Prinz’s inquiry, Mr. Newman confirmed his concern was both the specific language and
the potential regulatory impact once the County begins rewriting the zoning ordinance. Mr.
Newman stated he had made the suggestion that a caveat be added on the back end of those
sections to ensure they are consistent with the updated coastal stormwater rules and minimum
design criteria.
Chairman Girardot stated the procedure for the state stormwater rules is to go to the EMC on
July 14, 2016, and if they are approved by the EMC, go to the rules review potentially in
September. They probably wouldn’t go the General Assembly again until 2017.
Mr. Newman responded the folks he had spoken to were trying to work the process through the
Environmental Management Commission to get the rules situated there.
Ms. Rigby added in regard to the state standards, any regulations would be addressed in the new
unified development ordinance. Standards within it would obviously need to be consistent with
the state standards and would be addressed at that time. In regard to putting into the
comprehensive plan “consistent with state standards,” it is staff’s opinion that the County
shouldn’t limit itself in any area of making recommendations to the state on legislation that is in
the best interest of New Hanover County. If there is something within the comprehensive plan
that the state is taking action on, the staff would want the flexibility to advocate for changes to
state regulation. For that reason, staff would hesitate putting ‘consistent with state standards” in
a document that is not regulatory, but is more of a vision document for twenty five years for New
Hanover County.
Page 11 of 18
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Ms. Rigby confirmed the staff had reviewed the
goals in the comprehensive plan and was comfortable with them and if something should change,
the goals could be rewritten. She noted it would also be incumbent upon the County when
writing the new zoning ordinance to ensure compliance with all state statutes and regulations.
David Weaver offered some comments in regard to wetlands. After being informed by Chairman
Girardot earlier that day about a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, he had spoken with someone
knowledgeable about wetlands regarding the case. The Supreme Court case didn’t say that the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not good at determining wetlands as much as it said that a
developer, who gets a 404 delineation they don’t agree with, can short circuit the present process
and go forward to appeal directly to the court as opposed to having to get a permit first.
Therefore, that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the validity of the National Wetland
Inventory. Mr. Weaver thought everyone present knew that the National Wetland Inventory isn’t
worth much on a site specific basis. It is strictly what staff has said is in in their recommendation.
They are to inform development not to prevent or to regulate development and sharing this
information in the form of maps is considered a best management practice. For that reason, he
sees the value for wetland maps as a public education tool. He said that no developer who has a
bank account is going to rely on the National Wetland Inventory maps to make any kind of
decision and he felt everyone knows that so he didn’t see the problem with leaving the wetland
maps in the comprehensive plan. There is disclaimer after disclaimer in the text and on the map
itself that the maps are not to be used for any site specific regulatory matters.
Mr. Weaver stated in regard to the aquifer, he didn’t recall anything in the letter from Matt
Wilson, the state hydrologist, that questioned the validity of how the map delineates the recharge
area for the Pee Dee aquifer or that says the County should remove the existing map.
Ms. Rigby explained that staff did not ask Mr. Wilson’s opinion on whether the map should or
should not be included in the comprehensive plan, but did ask Mr. Wilson to confirm the validity
of the map. When we went through this exercise in September, Mr. Wilson told us that the
information was still accurate as far as the recharge areas are concerned and that it was the best
available information. After further study, additional questions and continued stakeholder
concern about these maps, staff approached Mr. Wilson again with these additional studies we
had been made aware of in order to obtain another opinion on whether this map is still the best
information. Mr. Wilson stated in his email response that he had favored using the Legrand map,
which was the source of the aquifer sensitivity map, and it might be satisfactory to assess the
Castle Hayne aquifer areas of recharge, but he didn’t think it would help protect the Pee Dee
aquifer recharge areas very well. He suggested using the USGS maps and cross-sections to make
a better map for both purposes. Mr. Wilson also addresses the technology that was used for the
Legrand maps, noting it is different from the technology used today. Ms. Rigby stated in light of
that information, staff realized the complexity of the issue and the importance of a groundwater
study; therefore they changed their recommendation even though a groundwater study is outside
the scope of a traditional comprehensive plan.
Mr. Weaver agreed with Ms. Rigby’s statements, but noted that groundwater data and any data in
the land use plan, including population data, are not perfect and can always be improved on.
Groundwater is probably some of the most difficult data to determine on an accurate basis
because it is out of sight and out of mind. Mr. Weaver asked at what point the County would
Page 12 of 18
have enough good data to protect this resource and expressed concern that the county was simply
saying we don’t have good enough data now to really nail down these aquifer recharge areas so
consequently we’re going to delay doing anything to protect the aquifer, for example no
wellhead protection ordinances and no permitting of withdrawal for large amounts for whatever
reason. Mr. Weaver stated the County is playing a dangerous game by saying if we can’t define
exactly what we want to protect, then we shouldn’t protect it at all. He noted he was concerned
when he heard that the studies being done aren’t going to give us the information we need to
answer the questions being discussed now and it seemed the County was not going to address the
issue anytime. Mr. Weaver asked Ms. Rigby if Mr. Wilson’s suggestion to create something
from a couple of USGS maps was something that could be done quickly and easily.
Jennifer Rigby explained she didn’t think Planning staff wanted to attempt to do that quickly.
She said she heard Mr. Weaver’s concern regarding the fear that nothing will happen regarding
the groundwater study. Staff believes that an intensive unbiased study needs to occur and so in
the implementation section of the comprehensive plan staff has outlined in their annual action
plan in the short term that a detailed unbiased groundwater study is needed. Staff is also
concerned about whether the studies currently being done will provide the information needed.
Staff doesn’t know the scope of those studies or the scope of those services or projects, but feels
like it is an important investment that New Hanover County will need to make at some point. By
including it in the annual action plan, staff can tie it to the annual Planning budget and make a
recommendation to allocate funds for the study.
Mr. Weaver commented as pointed out earlier by Mr. Prinz, this study can get expensive for the
county. He knows that for a fact because when the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA)
was formed and the county decided to go with a groundwater treatment plant, th ey paid many
hundreds of thousands of dollars for a detailed groundwater study for New Hanover County that
addressed whether or not such a plan would succeed or not. Mr. Weaver said this turnabout by
Matt Wilson had come up fairly quickly so he would like to delay the approval of this one area
on the groundwater and aquifer recharge until they could ask Mr. Wilson exactly what kind of
study and what kind of data would be needed to correct this. He felt that the studies referenced
earlier by Ms. Dunne wouldn’t do that. He commented the County has enough trouble coming up
with money to plant flowers at the parks, much less spend a million dollars for a groundwater
study to correct a problem that hasn’t happened yet. For those reasons, he would personally like
to keep the wetland map in place because it is a simple public education tool and he can’t see
how it would hurt anyone to leave it in place. He noted staff recommended leaving it in there
according to the agenda cover page. In conclusion, he In conclusion, he pointed out that a lot of
questions had arisen that very day in regard to the aquifer recharge area that need to be addressed
until some magical study is funded umpteen years down the road.
Vice Chair Prinz said we are concerned about water quality and water supply on both sides of the
issue. From a development standpoint, we need to have adequate and safe water in order to build
houses and bring people here to further the economy and from a conservation standpoint and
environmental quality standpoint, that is fundamental. He commented we should all agree and
the comprehensive plan should be very direct in the point that we are all concerned about water
quality and sustainability, and not taking positions on who is doing what, what the root causes
are, and what data we need to use. The comp plan needs to recognize this is an issue larger than
the comp plan itself. This is a high level document that is supposed to identify issues that we
Page 13 of 18
need to work on and be considerate of, initiatives that we need to be doing in the future like a
groundwater study, etc. Vice Chair Prinz said he thought the plan also needed to recognize that
New Hanover County alone is not going to solve the problem if there is a problem. It is a
regional issue that needs to be addressed so if we’re looking for a million dollars to pay for a
groundwater study, it’s unfair to go to the county commissioners and ask them to pay for it
because everybody in the region is going to benefit from that study once it is done. He
recommended they just address those three points in the comprehensive plan and call it a day.
Ernest Olds stated he thought the comprehensive plan speaks to the goals in an excellent way and
that staff had done a fabulous job. Constituents and stakeholders involved offered their opinion
and we’re in a really good place. He agreed with Mr. Weaver that it is very important, but he
thought they had enough language in the current plan to move forward with it, realizing they
have to take it seriously. He commented he wanted to be careful not to worry about regulatory
hops either. If someone comes to the county with a huge water draw industry, it will get some
attention. It won’t just pass by Planning because the map is missing. We’re going to give it a lot
of serious attention. Mr. Olds said he trusts the county in terms of the aquifer and he is in favor
of having it as a placeholder until we have better information. In regard to maps in general,
particularly wetlands maps, they are a communication tool and people make generalizations
about the maps they see and form opinions and those opinions grow over time. If we have a case
that comes before the board that is on the wetlands map and we don’t bring the map up, the
public will wonder what is wrong with these people and ask why we aren’t looking at the map.
They don’t have the sophistication of the developers so he thought it would put bad information
in front of the public, particularly with the wetlands map. Mr. Olds stated the wetlands map is so
bad that it’s not worth being in the comprehensive plan. He agreed with an earlier speaker,
noting on a number of sites he has worked on, it was amazing how much is wetland on the map
that isn’t and the reverse is also true. He thought that map is just too old and doesn’t work
anymore and suggested they get rid of the map for now. If a better map comes up, they can deal
with that later.
Mr. Weaver stated he agreed with Mr. Olds on the wetlands map. On the aquifer recharge area, if
an industry came in tomorrow to locate in I-2 and it was a mining or extraction industry that
required a lot of groundwater, even though we know it might not be the right thing for the
county, we couldn’t do anything about it. There is no special use permit condition that says we
have to review groundwater or that a groundwater permit is required. Chris O’Keefe explained
that Mr. Weaver was partially correct in that there is no specific language in the ordinance that
addresses water quality, but the plan certainly talks about water quality, health, etc. Anything
that relates to water supply for the public can be brought up at a public hearing and can be acted
upon by the planning board or county commissioners.
In response to Mr. Weaver’s inquiry regarding the need for a special use permit for every
extractive industry or heavy industry located in I-2, Mr. O’Keefe stated most of those are
classified as intensive and would require a special use permit even in I-2 zoning.
Chairman Girardot commented she had originally planned to work through staff’s request for
changes and then build up to the maps so she would begin there. She suggested the board review
all of staff’s requested changes and vote on them as a group.
Page 14 of 18
Staff’s Clarifying Changes:
Chapter 2:
• Page 18: “The urban services boundary is was a tool that is was used to help New
Hanover County decision makers determine possible development and the cost of
providing infrastructure such as water and sewer. The need for the urban services
boundary has been studied through this planning process and a new Future Land Use
Map has been created to replace the 2006 CAMA Land Use Map. Refer to Chapter 4 of
the plan for additional information.” Land within the USB is identified as either having
urban services or land that may receive urban services if developed. New Hanover
County does not intend to extend urban services to land outside the USB.”
Chapter 3:
• Page 13: “Work with school district and DOT to allow and encourage students to walk
and bike to school safely”
• Page 15: “Consider establishing a groundwater and aquifer protection ordinance in
conjunction with a drinking water study.”
• Page 15: “Encourage siting of schools in the community allowing for students to walk
and bike, while considering traffic impacts.”
Chapter 4:
• Page 19: “These maps are intended to be informative a source of information used in
conjunction with the future land use map by New Hanover County’s planning staff,
Planning, Board and Board of Commissioners during the decision making process.”
• Shade the land use portion of the ERA Maps and make the natural features brighter.
• Page 27: Potential Wetland Areas Map Disclaimer: “Wetlands shown are classified by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and used for the National Wetland Inventory. The
NWI does not attempt to define the proprietary or jurisdictional boundaries of Federal,
State, or local agencies. but does include all categories of special aquatic sites identified
in the EPA Section 404(b). The Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
does not constitute a classification system, it only provides a basis for determining if an
area is a wetland for the purposes of Section 404.” On-site, field
investigation/delineation and agency verification are necessary to comply with Federal,
State, and local requirements.”
Chapter 5:
• Page 11, Guideline X.B.4: Add the language “where practical.”
Chairman Girardot stated she would also like the board to consider the following changes:
Chapter 4:
• Page 32: Remove the aquifer sensitivity area maps as suggested by staff.
• Page 27: Remove Potential Wetlands Map
Chapter 2:
• Page 32: Remove Potential Wetlands Map Appendix
Page 15 of 18
Other Changes:
• All maps included in the plan and appendix should be educational and not for regulatory
purposes.
• Each map in the comp plan be clearly dated and sourced.”
• Include the Wetlands and Aquifer narratives in Chapter 4.
Chairman Girardot stated her justification for removing the wetlands maps, noting she respected
everyone’s opinion and thought they had very valid points. She explained the Fish and Wildlife
map is not a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers map because there is not one, and the Corps of
Engineers is the only entity that has the authority to issue delineations. The Fish and Wildlife
map is not current. Her concern is that using that map would have a negative impact on
individual property owners and on individual economic development prospects or projects that
are out there. She noted the words “potential” or “possible” wetlands themselves make the hair
on the back of her neck standup because they define inaccuracy. Whenever you say to someone
this is potential wetlands or possible wetlands, you are saying this map is not accurate. People
have addressed this issue to the chairman, citing the recent example of the homeowner in Pender
County who got flooded because no one told them they were building their home in a possible
floodplain or were in a flood zone. They felt the County has a responsibility to tell people where
floodplains or possible wetlands are, and therefore, even the Fish and Wildlife map would have
been better than nothing. She felt most people would agree that the Fish and Wil dlife map is not
accurate and not up to date even though we are saying wetlands are possible. For every person
who checks this map and may be led to think his property is in a possible wetland or may be in
danger of flooding, there is the individual whose land is erroneously labeled, the individual
property owner with a lot that took his 401k or child’s college education fund and is not able to
sell it because it is erroneously labeled as being in a wetland. She asked if he doesn’t also have a
right to have an accurate map. She also cited the individual or the company that comes in to
relocate to New Hanover County and we never know they’ve been here because they relocated
somewhere else due to that mislabeled map. She inquired where the County’s legal responsibility
begins and ends for ensuring accurate information and whether the County wanted to be in that
position. She wondered if the County was really in the business of protecting us from our own
bad judgment and bad decisions. Chairman Girardot stated she has a problem with putting in an
inaccurate map, noting in the narrative that staff has provided as a placeholder, we have an
excellent narrative in Chapter 2 on wetlands, as well as a narrative in Chapter 4 that contains
hyperlinks to maps. She felt that was a good place to start and that the county could do more with
their website to make maps more available to the general public. Chairman Girardot stated there
is a responsibility to have good source material out there for the public that we don’t have to this
date, but she didn’t think the comprehensive plan was the proper place to put inaccurate
information. For those reasons, she will be making a motion to remove the wetlands map from
the comprehensive plan. She commented that she would be remiss if she didn’t say in the final
step of the comprehensive plan that the comprehensive plan shouldn’t be delayed anymore
because there have been many meetings, many drafts on the various chapters have been
reviewed, many people have come to the table, and many different groups have contributed to
this plan. She expressed her gratitude for the dedication and work put in by the citizen advisory
committees and the educational representatives and development leaders, the environmental
experts, civic organizations, and hundreds of citizens that have come to the meetings and shared
their recommendations and input into this plan. She was also grateful to the staff for shepherding
Page 16 of 18
the board as they narrowed down the process, and the stakeholder groups that have come to the
table, the county commissioners for their guidance, and most of all, to her fellow planning board
members who dedicated long hours and countless meetings and endless drafts and rewrites
Chairman Girardot stated with all documents like the comprehensive plan and many writers,
there has been give and take, but the meaning of compromise is an agreement by concession.
What the board adopts may not be exactly what each board member wanted or anticipated, but
hopefully each board member can support it going forward and can say it is a good plan.
Chairman Girardot reminded board members that the comprehensive plan is a living document
that can be changed and updated as the need arises and expressed hope that the comprehensive
plan would be moved forward to the county commissioners.
Vice Chair Prinz stated he agreed with everything Chairman Girardot had said with a couple of
exceptions. One is the fact that Chairman Girardot deserves a significant amount of the credit for
getting the board to where they are today. Several months ago the planning board couldn’t have
been any further apart on a lot of these issues, but Chairman Girardot had put in hundreds of
hours into getting the board to a point where they are down to a couple of yes or no questions on
which direction they want to go from a policy standpoint. Vice Chair Prinz said he felt very
strongly that the board should refer to the drinking water study as a regional study to reflect the
fact that it is not only New Hanover County that needs to take that project on. The County will
need to partner with the other stakeholders to fund, develop and implement the recommendations
of that study. Vice Chair Prinz also noted a small error in the misspelling of the word “leak.” In
conclusion, Vice Chair Prinz restated his support of Chairman Girardot’s recommendations.
Chairman Girardot asked Ms. Rigby to keep track of the motions, noting she would like to
include another edit to rename the “Exceptional Resources Map” to “Natural Systems Map.”
Chairman Girardot then added all of staff’s recommendations, except the one on Page 27 of
Chapter 4. She also noted a few misspellings in the Aquifer Systems language. The word
“throughout” should be one word and the word “an” was omitted before the word
“understanding” in the last paragraph.
Ms. Rigby explained that the language had not gone through the full editing process yet as it was
distributed to the board on a relatively quick and swift fashion. Staff will make sure all editorial
comments are addressed.
Chairman Donna Girardot made a motion to recommend the Board of Commissioners approve
the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan PLAN NHC with the following additions and
changes as specified:
1. Remove the Potential Wetlands Maps in Chapter 2, Chapter 4, and the Appendix.
2. Remove the Aquifer Sensitivity Map and replace it with the attached language in Chapter
4.
3. All maps in the comprehensive plan shall be clearly dated and sourced.
4. The drinking water study in Chapter 5 needs to be a regional study.
5. Include the Aquifer narrative in Chapter 4 as proposed by staff.
6. Include the Wetlands narrative in Chapter 4 as proposed by staff.
7. The name Exceptional Resources Map should be changed to “Natural Systems Map.”
Page 17 of 18
8. Include all of Staff’s content changes except for the one referencing the potential
wetlands map.
Vice Chair Anthony Prinz seconded the motion.
During discussion, David Weaver stated he would vote for the motion because he agreed that the
plan would not meet one hundred percent of anyone’s expectations; however, he felt the board
was missing the boat on the Aquifer Protection Map and on the Wetlands Map. To move forward
with the comprehensive plan, he would gladly support the motion. Mr. Weaver also thanked
Chairman Girardot for getting the comprehensive plan through the process.
The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan with edits.
Technical Review Committee Report (May 2016)
Planning Manager Ken Vafier stated the Technical Review Committee met once during the
month of May and reviewed three residential plans totaling 116 new buildable lots in New
Hanover County. In addition, a privacy gate request was approved, as well as a road right-of-way
design modification. The full details of the meeting and projects are located in the Planning
Board meeting package.
In response to an inquiry from Ernest Olds, Mr. Vafier stated the volume of development has
been increasing slightly, averaging 116 new units per month. An annual report is published each
year in January detailing the number of lots approved by the Planning/Zoning Division and the
Inspections Division maintains data on the number of building permits issued. At Vice Chair
Prinz’s inquiry, Mr. Vafier agreed to prepare an interim report on the number of lots approved
for the board’s information.
Approval of Minutes for March 2016 and April 2016
Vice Chair Anthony Prinz made a motion to approve the March 3, 2015 Planning Board meeting
minutes. Ernest Olds seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to approve the March
3, 2016 Planning Board meeting minutes.
Tamara Murphy made a motion to approve the April 14, 2016 Planning Board meeting minutes.
Ernest Olds seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the April 14, 2016
Planning Board meeting minutes.
Approval of the May 5, 2016 Planning Board meeting minutes was postponed to the July
meeting due to the lack of a quorum present at the previous meeting.
Other Business
Page 18 of 18
Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director reported that at the request of the Chair, he had
worked with Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman to prepare an amendment to the Planning
Board Rules of Procedure, which would require that Planning Board hearings mimic the format
followed by the County Commissioners and operate as quasi-judicial proceedings, and
specifically require that petitioners and speakers at quasi-judicial hearings, which are the special
use permits and conditional use matters, be sworn in, and any exhibits provided by witnesses be
provided to the County Attorney to be incorporated into the record.
Vice Chair Anthony Prinz made a motion to adopt the proposed rules of procedure for the
Planning Board. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to adopt the
proposed rules of procedure for the Planning Board.
Planning & Inspections Director Chris O’Keefe announced that Planning staff hoped to have a
text amendment ready for consideration by the Planning Board at their July meeting, which
would update the language in the zoning ordinance that refers to the existing CAMA Land Use
Plan and Land Classification Map, which will no longer be used when the new comprehensive
plan is adopted. The goal of the text amendment would be to be policy neutral.
With no other items of business, Chairman Girardot thanked everyone for their work on the
comprehensive plan and adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.