Loading...
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.