Loading...
2016-09 September 8 2016 PBM Page 1 of 16 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board September 8, 2016 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, September 8, 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 Ernest Olds, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Paul Boney Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Jordy Rawl Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Edward “Ted” Shipley, III David Weaver Absent: Allen Pope 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. Approval of August Planning Board Meeting Minutes Jordy Rawl motioned, seconded by Ernest Olds, to approve the August 4, 2016 minutes. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the August 4, 2016 Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request (A-425, 9/16) – Request by Planning Staff to amend Zoning Ordinance Section 70, Section 71, Section 23, and Section 50 regarding Special Use Permit Requirements and the Table of Permitted Uses. Planning & Inspections Director Chris O’Keefe presented the staff report. Mr. O’Keefe stated at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, staff was asked to amend the special use permit language to add clarity and predictability to the process. Staff was also directed to enlist the expertise of LSL Planning, a consulting firm which is also working with the County and City on their separate unified development ordinances. At the County’s request, LSL has provided feedback on the process that staff provided to them and has provided recommendations on the County’s Table of Permitted Uses in transition to using NAICS codes. Page 2 of 16 The draft language includes the base document referred to as the staff proposal. The proposal also has the recommended changes provided by the consulting firm and whether those changes are also recommended by staff. Finally, the document also includes the changes that were discussed by the Planning Board at their August 30th work session. Also included in the agenda package are the community comments received prior to the agenda deadline. Those comments include suggested changes to the staff draft that were provided by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, as well as he special use permit text amendment that was considered by the Board of County Commissioners in 2014. That text amendment includes a Table of Permitted Uses which utilizes the NAICS codes, the industrial classification system codes, to identify specific manufacturing uses. Tyler Newman, President of the Business Alliance For a Sound Economy (BASE), requested that item be included in the package. Mr. O’Keefe reviewed the staff proposal, going through the items and relevant changes that are included. He noted that the changes represent a complete reorganization of the existing text; therefore, a red-line version comparing the existing text to the proposed text is not available. Section 70 combines all the information pertaining to obtaining a special use permit into one section, then the section is laid out in logical order about how you would proceed through the process. Subsection (C) describes the application process. He noted that the deadline is increased from 20 days to 35 days before the Planning Board meeting. It includes a list of requirements before the application can be considered complete. At the workshop, the Planning Board added language requirements for intensive industries, and also language allowing staff to waive certain application requirements that are deemed not necessary. Section 70-3 describes how an application is reviewed. Staff is allowed up to five days to notify an applicant about whether the application is complete or incomplete. All applications that are complete are to be placed on the agenda for the next scheduled planning board meeting. Staff is responsible for posting complete applications on the county’s website so interested parties can read about the proposal to determine if they want to provide evidence regarding that particular proposal. The posting timeline includes the ten-day deadline. Sections 75 and 76 describe how the public hearings are held. The sections emphasize the quasi - judicial nature of the hearings and how it is determined the Findings of Fact are met., as well as the ability of each board, the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board, to ask for additional information that may be necessary to meet one of the required Findings of Fact. These sections explain that the burden of proof is on the applicant to present evidence about each required element and that if that burden is met, the board must grant the special use permit. It also explains that the board may add conditions which if implemented will lead to an application meeting those required Findings of Fact. Section 70-7 was not one of the sections reviewed at the work session given the time available, but that section presents the four required Findings of Fact that must be met to merit granting a special use permit. The findings are the same as they are listed in the ordinance today, but in addition to the findings, staff has included considerations which will help applicants identify and address the items that may be relevant to their project. Those considerations could include traffic, the availability of public, private, or community water supply; water quality; noise; relationship of a proposed use to a surrounding community. These items will not be necessary for all applications Page 3 of 16 and it will be up to the applicant to decide which issues are important for them to address in the application package, but these considerations can also be used by the commissioners and planning board in determining if the Findings of Fact can be met. Section 71 reorganizes all the information about what happens to the process after the special use permit is granted or denied. Mr. O’Keefe reported that staff was also asked to look at the Table of Permitted Uses. LSL Planning was used to provide recommendations about the Table of Permitted Uses provided to them by staff. They were given the table that was part of the 2014 package that the County Commissioners considered, but was not able to pass. LSL Planning provided some general observations about the table of uses. They reviewed first what uses are appropriate in which zoning districts, and second, whether those uses should be permitted by right or subject to special use and review. Based on their review of the uses, LSL Planning submitted different ch anges that are in the table that was part of the planning board package. General observations included that there are a number of uses that are within the I-1, the Airport Industrial, and the B-2 districts that are either too intense or are, in their impression, inappropriate for those districts based on the stated intent of the district. 2. In all of the districts, there are permitted uses that should either be subject to the special use permit approval or not allowed within that particular district, but may be more appropriate in a different district and 3. Residential uses are inappropriately allowed in both the I- 1, Light Industrial district and the I-2 district. The consultant also pointed to the land area that the industrial districts and the commercial districts encompass, noting that the I-1 district and the B-2 district are both relatively small districts and they are located more centrally in the county where they could be closer to incompatible uses. They also noted that the I-2 district is a very large district and it is situated in sections of the county that have not been or are not necessarily close to residential areas. In the end, the recommendations contained in the Table of Permitted Uses are based on LSL’s extensive experience in other areas working on other ordinances and the stated intent of our zoning. They did have considerable time constraints as they were on a thirty-day time schedule so they were not able to meet with stakeholders here locally, nor were they able to conduct detailed surveys to aid them in making their recommendations. Their recommendations to some degree are academic in nature. Considerations that have come up in discussion over the last few years included should there be any prohibited uses at all, and if so, what should those uses be. That is a topic that was not addressed by the consultant, nor addressed in staff’s proposal. Also, as part of the ordinance should the county develop additional standards for certain uses. That would be if we were to grant a special use permit would we have requirements in the ordinance that would make that use more compatible with the county and the surrounding uses. Mr. O’Keefe concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions. Page 4 of 16 Ted Shipley asked Mr. O’Keefe to clarify that the staff draft as presented was submitted by staff and the other two versions mentioned have not had an application fee paid to have them considered by the planning board. Mr. O’Keefe confirmed that Mr. Shipley’s statement was correct. Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing. She stated she would recognize the first person on the sign-up sheet in support and then the first person on the sign-up sheet in opposition. Karen Dunne of 622 Atlantic Boulevard, Wrightsville Beach, stated she represented the North Carolina Coastal Federation and her comments are in regard to the Coastal Federation version provided to board members. She reviewed the methodology used to create that version, noting she had taken the staff’s 425 version and accepted all of the staff’s recommendations or what they were in favor of. In that Federation version, the black text accepts all of staff’s recommendations and the green text reflects the Coastal Federation’s recommendations based on a memo submitted by Commissioner Zapple on August 24th. Ms. Dunne reviewed how they got there as she thought they would have traditional planning board members that may not be familiar with the two-year collaborative process. The Coastal Federation, a 14-member project advisory team, has been refining that version over the last two years. She presented a chart showing the Coastal Federation’s recommendations and the specific section in the Coastal Federation’s version. For example, the established review time frames, which are found in that version A-425, Section 70-2 and that was a 35 business day for SUPs and 45 business days for passes with an asterisk, which represents Intensive Industries. She stated she thought everyone in the room agrees that there needs to be specific timelines. The next recommended change is a Comprehensive Checklist, which is mentioned in Section 70-2 (3), which is a checklist that is extremely comprehensive and if there are intensive industries there are additional requirements, such as a citizen information meeting, a project assessment report, and an extended timeline for review of intensive industries of 45 business days as opposed to the 35. The community information meeting would be a requirement up front prior to the planning board meeting, which you will find in Section 70-4(2). The project assessment report is part of the checklist, but is also mentioned in Section 70-4(3). In Section 70-7, the planning board and the board of commissioners now have the right to ask for additional information to make decision s and recommendations; however, this codifies it as part of the ordinance. Another recommendation is to limit depth of mining and high intensity mining. It is in the current zoning ordinance in Section 72-42 and that mirrors the 35 foot limitations in Brunswick County. Ms. Dunne explained they have extracted Industrial Uses only from the LSL Planning Table of Permitted Uses and from those industries they have identified the intensive industries that would comply with the intensive or S* requirements of a CIM and also the project assessment report. She stated there are sixteen identified out of a total of 103 industrial uses and that is really what the Federation’s version is focusing on. Tyler Newman, President and CEO of Business Alliance For a Sound Economy (BASE), stated they are a regional business advocacy group. Mr. Newman said he had sent an email earlier that day, which was a joint position statement from BASE, the Wilmington-Cape Fear Homebuilders Association, the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, Wilmington Business Development, and the Coalition for Economic Advancement. He stated their concerns are rushing through a process and Page 5 of 16 creating bad public policy on the back end. He noted they participated in the work session last week and expressed their concerns. There are several overarching concerns regarding special use permits. One, our ordinance is from 1969 and there are uses in the zoning ordinance that are permitted by right with a “P” or others that require a special use permit, which has a “S” designation. When you tinker with the “S” designations, you are tinkering with hundreds of existing special use permits that exist in New Hanover County today, which include churches, convenience stores, cell towers, mobile homes, and day cares in residential districts. Mr. Newman stated you can’t fine tune the changes that were just discussed without impacting all of those other uses so it is important to remember that. Second, the County just moved forward and adopted a comprehensive plan, which sets forth a path for the next thirty years. The consultant has been hired to totally rewrite the development ordinance. Tinkering with the special use permits in the old ordinance seems like putting a Band-Aid on top of a Band-Aid when we have another fix that is in process and money has been paid to hire a consultant and we’ve moved forward with that. Mr. Newman stated their focus has been on the LSL Planning and staff findings version. The challenge with that, as mentioned by Mr. O’Keefe earlier, is that you don’t have a red-line version. You have an existing ordinance you can find online at Municode. Then, you have the staff version with the LSL changes and some of those conflict with each other. Mr. Newman said what we don’t have is a straight up red-line of what is actually being changed and that is needed before you can have any real discussion about understanding unintended consequences. He also commented that the Table of Permitted Uses provided by the consultant has some major flaws. Mr. Newman noted it has office uses that aren’t allowed in the Office and Institutional District, which seems like a pretty big challenge and it doesn’t create any certainty for businesses that exist in New Hanover County now and have invested in the county. Mr. Newman stated a complex permitting process is a major deterrent to expanding business and future jobs. He stated if changes to the special use permit are put forth, they would encourage the board’s support of revisions which facilitate clarity and predictability in the process. Bob Philpott of 5614 Chancery Place, Wilmington, NC, stated appreciation for the board and staff’s patience and hard work for the community. He stated while they may have some disagreements, he was appreciative of the opportunity to speak and respects them all. Mr. Philpott said our community is growing and is a beautiful community. We do need development and we need jobs, but we also have to protect what makes this county special. Decisions have to be made in the interests of all citizens and not keyed toward development. He explained this is not anti- development and anti-growth, but just to require intelligent growth and he believes that the special use permit proves that overview that allows us to make intelligent decisions. Mr. P hilpott stated he supports the special use permit model from The Coastal Federation, which provides a systematic and consistent way to evaluate industry, particularly intensive industry, and fast tracks low impact industries, which are the kind of industries that provide the jobs that we need in our area. He stated it provides transparency and it seems like everyone is talking about the community information meeting. It also meets a need for urgency. He commented that they all know our aquifers are stressed. It provides flexibility in that the Planning Board and County Commissioners can exercise sound judgement. In regard to the discussion on the checklist at the meeting last week, Mr. Philpott stated he didn’t understand why there was any objection to the checklist. He noted that if you have a phone in an airplane, have a big military shipment underway or even in a hospital in a surgical suite, there are checklists. They provide a systematic way to make sure you aren’t forgetting Page 6 of 16 something and are efficient. He said it would be a great thing to have as a tool when you evaluate proposals. Mr. Philpott asked why kick the can down the road when we can evaluate this proposal. He noted there have been discussions for a couple of years now, but we have a tool now and it is time to present it to the Board of Commissioners for approval. Cameron Moore, Executive Officer with the Home Builders Association, stated to draw some distinctions here that the ordinance that you currently have in place as far as the zoning ordinance is from 1969. There have been many Band-Aids on top of Band-Aids on top of Band-Aids. The planning staff understands that and has worked very diligently to come before the board with a new comprehensive plan. The Planning Board recommended and the County Commissioners adopted that comprehensive plan. Stakeholders on both sides were part of that discussion. That’s the proper process. He stated he is obviously talking about the staff version. Coming before the board tonight with multiple versions, with unwarranted Table of Permitted Uses, not really knowing what’s in or what’s out, not having a proper planning process as far as procedures, that is a process that leads nowhere; and quite frankly, will lead down a path that will lead us back to the Band-Aid approaches we have always had since 1969. Mr. Moore said the board set the stage with the comprehensive plan and should continue that stage and the builders and development community will be there at the table. He noted it is the proper course of action. Mr. Moore stated in conclusion that deciding anything tonight frankly would be haphazard and it would actually disenfranchise exactly what has been done on the comprehensive plan. Clarice Reber of 7919 Blue Heron Drive West stated she represented the League of Women Voters of the Lower Cape Fear and thanked the board for the opportunity to speak and for their hard work on this issue. Ms. Reber said they support the staff special use permit, but would request four modifications. First, provide a very clear opportunity for public input. She noted it sounded like people are in favor of it so let’s make sure that happens early. Right now, there is mistrust in government that is rampant so we really don’t want to encourage that. We want to increase public trust in our government. Second, provide for a double track special use permitting process that separates heavy industry applications from all other applications. Heavy industrial applications should require a far more extensive application process, assuring a thorough review and guaranteeing the establishment of good citizen industry. Good citizen industries provide more than jobs; they are interested in the future of our county, in future water supplies, future water and air quality, and a highly livable county. Advanced manufacturing industries would not be subjected to this more extensive requirement and review, thus expediting the movement through the system, making us a more new-business friendly county. The third modification requested is to provide predictability for our applicants. That is clear and specific timelines for both applicants and county staff, with clear instructions for applications, which would include checklists of both requirements and procedures. She found when teaching at the university for years that checklists and deadlines made for better student outcomes. Clear expectations will expedite the flow of the process for all involved, both applicants and county officials and employees. The fourth modification requested is to limit the depth of mining to mirror Brunswick County. She commented that we know that salt water intrusion has moved inland one mile in the last twenty years. We need to protect our aquifers and water supply for the next fifty to one hundred years, not the next ten years. New Hanover County is a really small, but fast growing urban county. Any proposed industry which has the potential to pollute might affect a large number of people and we really don’t want that to happen. Page 7 of 16 Ms. Reber stated in conclusion the League of Women Voters support these four issues and thanks the board for the opportunity to speak. Hal Kitchin of 2902 Hydrangea Place stated he supports staff’s efforts to make improvements to the county’s special use process; however, because he believes the proposal before the board needs significant improvement before it is passed, he would urge the planning board to postpone consideration of the staff’s version pending at least another work session. Since 2013, the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce has been very involved in the effort of trying to improve the county’s industrial special use permit process. He said they have been talking with county planning leaders, the planning board, county commissioners, and planning staff in an effort to come up with some consensus which could address some of the problems that became evident after the current ordinance was passed in 2011. All along, our concerns regarding the current SUP process have been around the following: 1) The current procedure does not clearly define who does and who does not have to obtain a special use permit; 2) The current procedure does not clearl y define what information an applicant will be required to submit; and 3) The current procedure does not clearly define how long it will be before an application will be brought before the planning board for consideration. Mr. Kitchin said in 2013 and 2014, a year’s worth of effort and compromise resulted in a proposal considered and recommended unanimously by this Planning Board back in March of 2014; however, the Planning Board’s unanimous recommendation was not approved by the Board of County Commissioners in June of 2014. He stated that along with two other chamber affiliated citizens, he participated last year in an attempt sponsored by the Coastal Federation to come up with a consistent set of changes. Just like the staff proposal which failed to be approved by the commissioners after another year of effort and good intentions on the part of everyone in the room, that process failed to result in a consensus. He noted he believed in 2013 that the existing special use permit process was problematic. He also believed that in 2014 and last year and believes it today so he does support the staff’s efforts to make another attempt at finding a solution to this problem. Mr. Kitchin said he was very appreciative of the opportunity to sit down with the planning board and the folks on the other side of the issue at the work session held last week and he thinks this board and staff made very good progress on the portion of the proposal that they were able to get to in the amount of time they had. However, as everyone knows, the session ended before review of the staff’s proposal was complete. He said in his view, important issues still exist with the staff proposal and he believed the wisest course of action would be to postpone final consideration of the staff’s proposal until after at least one additional work session can be held. Mr. Kitchin said there are a few problems with the current staff version that he thinks can and should be worked out before the board takes final action, including considerable work needed on the Table of Permitted Uses. As mentioned by Mr. O’Keefe earlier, the consultant at the request of the county took a stab at coming up with a new Table of Permitted Uses, but because of time and other uses there was no public involvement in that process and there were a number of things that he thinks are probably typos, and other things that are of substantive importance that have not been approved by the public and should not be considered tonight. Mr. Ki tchin said 35 business days is not an inappropriate amount of time to consider a manufacturing or industrial project, but remember, this new, longer timeline applies to all special use permit requests that will be filed in the county going forward. Currently, the application process is a 20-day process and we believe that for the non-industrial, non-manufacturing projects, twenty days is sufficient. Mr. Kitchin stated finally he didn’t think the materials in the packet presented the board with enough information to be able to consider the changes that are being requested. He said he thought the Page 8 of 16 board would benefit greatly from a red line version as discussed earlier. Mr. Ki tchin said they supported the 2014 proposal and they still support it. He didn’t think it was properly before the board tonight, just like he didn’t think the Coastal Federation proposal is properly before the board tonight. Mr. Kitchin said in parting he would say they want to support the staff proposal, but think the staff proposal needs more work before the planning board should take a vote on it. Pris Endo of 7414 Lucky Fish Lane in the Middle Sound area said she was speaking for the Coastal Federation version. She prefaced her comments by citing the New Hanover County vision statement, noting it was printed on the recent county commissioners meeting agenda. It reads, “A vibrant, prosperous, diverse coastal community committed to building a sustainable future for generations to come.” She said no matter how the final version of the SUP reads, it will have to weed out industries dependent on resource extraction, like limestone mining, sand mining, and aquifer depleting extraction, and support instead industries dependent on human resources. She noted we can’t escape the resource limits of industrial corridor without jeopardizing the environmental health and sustainability of our county; therefore, she urged the planning board to adopt the model SUP because it will safeguard our finite resources for the long-term, while addressing omissions in the New Hanover County Planning Staff version of the SUP text amendment. The model SUP version by the Coastal Federation will require a community meeting information meeting before the planning board convenes. She remembered well attending an informative planning staff event at Ogden Elementary when the development of the comprehensive plan began and met Mr. O’Keefe at that time. She stated more of those meetings are needed to hash out these problems before these items get to the planning board. We have also got to have that checklist of what is needed which will provide guidance to the Planning Board and the applicant. Third, we have to give support for the Planning Board to postpone a public hearing until additional information is presented; and fourth, prohibit mining below 35 feet. Ms. Endo stated after two years of planning to an approved SUP and with the health of our community at stake, we can’t miss this opportunity to adopt a stringent industrial use permit. Billy King with Wilmington Business Development and a resident at 7339 Hewlett Drive in Wilmington stated they are in support and in favor of the changes which will provide a streamlined process and certainty and clarity to the process. He said he thinks Mr. Newman and Mr. Ki tchin did a good job of explaining what position they are in favor of and did a sufficient job in defining that. He said he wanted to give the board some real life experiences as an economic developer. He explained they represent New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington, and Pender County in their recruitment process and he can tell everyone with certainty that this is a competitive process. He explained they work directly with the client, with site selectors, and relocation consultants throughout the state, the country and around the world and they have told us and continue to tell us as they do preliminary searches in communities where they are looking to place investments and jobs that when they read the New Hanover County special use permit they mark us off the list. He said that should be of great concern to all of us because what we are about is bringing investment, clean jobs, and good paying jobs to this community. He encouraged the board to think about that bottom line when they are trying to make a process that is clear, has definition, and clients can look at it with clarity and know what is required when they come to this community. He said he thinks that is something we all should strive for. He thanked the board for listening and hoped that they will consider the considerations presented, noting that over and above the complexities of working out the details of the SUP, we need to keep in mind the bottom line Page 9 of 16 because we need to be a growing community and you can only do that with the investment that business and industry brings to a community and through good-paying jobs. He said in that way we can be a growing, thriving community so he would encourage the board to look at the bottom line as they deliberate the right process and help make this happen. Dr. Stanley D. Weinrich of 8668 Vintage Club Drive in Porters Neck Plantation stated he holds a PhD in chemical engineering and an MBA. He spoke in support of two specific items that are part of the Coastal Federation SUP version. His career encompasses thirty-six years in manufacturing and heavy industry with DuPont, Exxon, and mostly with International Paper Company. He has worked in manufacturing, strategic planning, and general corporate management and retired to Wilmington six and a half years ago, attracted by the beautiful natural resources of the area as are thousands of others who he knows have relocated here in recent years. We must not discount the economic value of all those people who would clearly not be here today if our forefathers had allowed an oil refinery to remain downtown or a new one to be built in the port of Wilmington. Dr. Weinrich focused on two key aspects of the model SUP, the model SUP checklist and the community information meeting, a critical item in what he considers citizen participation community planning. First, in regard to the SUP checklist, he heard criticism that a checklist will scare away potential investors, yet several previous speakers have talked about how prominent checklists are in airlines and everything else. They are an integral part of manufacturing today and provide clear guidance from management to employees as to what is to be expected and provide accountability for completion of those tasks. They are routinely used in chemical plants, oil refineries, nuclear power plants and the like and their use has expanded dramatically over the last two decades. In facility planning, checklists such as those proposed for the model SUP also serve as a clear and unambiguous communication vehicle as to what is to be expected to site a facility in a particular area. Interestingly, one of the previous speakers from BASE seemed to echo that earlier. Companies will clearly understand what is needed, they can factor in the compliance costs for those requirements, and make educated decisions as to what makes financial sense for a project. It goes without saying that fewer requirements and lower costs are generally desirable to the company, but ambiguity and far worse, the addition of requirements after a project is initiated are anathema to a successful project. This community’s experience with Titan is a prime facie example of communication gone awry. He said the proposed model SUP’s checklist is simply a communication vehicle to remove ambiguity. It should not be onerous for the small non-intrusive projects and the larger projects clearly merit the increased scrutiny and clarity it will provide to all. He then referenced the community information meeting, noting the inclusion of a public meeting upfront as part of the model SUP process is vital for citizens to play a meaningful role in shaping the destiny of their community, particularly those located in the vicinity of the proposed project. He noted that too often, project details are communicated after the fact with planning decisions partially made even before the community is aware of what is going on. Many enlightened industrial leaders he has encountered in his career realize and accept that they operate their facilities at the behest of the community they reside in. Those are the types of companies we want to welcome to New Hanover County and make it clear and easy for them to operate here with our citizens supportive of the resulting economic benefits that can be provided both to the company and to the community. Dr. Weinrich noted the model SUP is not perfect and certainly will or can be amended in the future as we learn more and gain experience with it. It is, however, far better than the status quo, and the two features he discussed are vital for effective planning. Dr. Weinrich Page 10 of 16 encouraged county leadership to provide to its citizens a decision, taking action now and not just kicking the can down the road. Peter Fensel of 2502 Highland Drive, Wilmington, stated his family has operated a business on Highway 421 for the last 45 years in the industrial corridor and noted there isn’t much he can add or say over what Mr. Kitchin and Mr. Newman and others have said. He stated it is the coalition’s belief that when you put together a document, any document, it should satisfy all stakeholders. Mr. Fensel stated it is clear as demonstrated tonight that is not the case; therefore, they would encourage the board to step back, take a look at it, work maybe a little harder and make sure that everybody’s needs are satisfied. He commented that we need to have continued industrial development in this area. Without it, what happened to New Hanover County in 1960 when the Atlantic Coastline Railroad moved out will happen again. He noted had it not been for the Committee of 100 recruiting GE, Corning, DuPont, etc., a lot of us wouldn’t be here today. He said the county wouldn’t have had the economy, the jobs, nor have the tax base so the coalition would encourage the board to push back, take a look, and come back with a document that satisfies everybody. David Cignotti stated he lives at 105 Live Oak Drive in Wrightsville Beach and is a former alderman, who also served as mayor and on the planning board there for six years so he certainly appreciates what the board is dealing with tonight. One of the big differences is in Wrightsville Beach, we don’t have to deal with heavy industry. That is such a difficult topic. Personally, he is pro-growth, pro-smart growth. He looks back at GE, which is a wonderful industry for us to have, but when GE came to this area it was a different age. Mr. Cignotti stated he thinks we need to be very, very thorough about what kind of industries we want now mainly because of the economic stress that our county is under. He noted one of the things he had learned when he was mayor and came to appreciate was how unique our county is because no one in North Carolina has what we have here. No one has three unique beach towns like we have. No one has the state’s largest historic district, which is booming. No one has UNCW, Cape Fear Community College, and New Hanover Regional Medical Center. We have so much going for us here. He stated that’s not even bringing in the environment, being located between the Cape Fear River and the Atlantic Ocean. We are under tremendous stress to grow. We all know the projections. In 25 years, it’s projected that we will have another 80,000 people, totaling 220,000 to 300,000. Think about that. U.S. Geological Survey notes that groundwater sources that we use are in decline so these decisions are very, very important not just now, but in future generations. Mr. Cignotti commended New Hanover County on recently passing the PLAN NHC comprehensive plan that stresses responsible development. He noted that along with that New Hanover County needs to make sure we have a very strong industrial use permit. He stated he supports the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s model special use permit. He thought they did a good job bringing many stakeholders together. He noted he didn’t think you will ever have everybody agree on one issue, but you should try to compromise and do the best you can on those types of situations. He said they dealt with clarity, timelines, and differentiating between low impact and high polluting heavy industries, which is for him the most important part. Also, very important is obviously public input which we are going through tonight. We need more public input early on. In regard to the importance of polluting industries, if you have a Walmart, you have to worry about traffic in the neighborhood and that area. The board is dealing with a very important issue that affects all the counties that surround New Hanover County. If aquifers are damaged, if air pollution occurs, those are big, big issues that don’t just involve a Page 11 of 16 neighborhood. Mr. Cignotti stated he would certainly hope that lessons had been learned from the Titan experience, noting that 15,000 people had signed on against that industry, which should tell us that our citizens in this county want clean industry and it is important. We all want good jobs; I’m all about good jobs. He said he thinks it is very, very important for our county, but if we trade 200 jobs to an industry that causes serious damage in the long run, that is not a good deal for the other 220,000 residents that call New Hanover County home. New Hanover County’s motto is the Model of Good Governance and we’ve done a good job here, but we are under tremendous stress. The board has heard many people complain about the traffic not being like it was ten years ago. He noted we have a lot of problems to face and this is a really big one and Titan should have opened our eyes to that fact. He doesn’t believe we’re too tough. He has heard some industries write us off the list. He agreed with the doctor that those probably aren’t industries we want here. Good industries know when they go to a city they are going to go through a lot of scrutiny. They understand they are good guys, a lot of good comes with them, but also a lot of detrimental effects so they have to be vetted. Mr. Cignotti stated he supports the staff’s text amendment A-425, but along with the text amendments proposed by the Coastal Federation. He urged the board to be thorough about this issue because he didn’t think the county could afford not to be. Edie Sheeks of 6043 Caddy Circle in Wilmington said she has lived here for the last two years and was drawn to the beautiful geographical and ecological features of this beautiful area. She was aware from the moment she came here that this is a fragile area having moved here from Florida where she lived for many years so she is really aware of fragile ecosystems. She stated she supports completely the Coastal Federation’s proposed permit and she would reiterate what others have said, but being a new resident here she would urge the board to take a large perspective. She challenged them to realize that it is not only the bottom line that they must pay attention to as stated previously by others, but to also understand that as a representative of a county organization, it is their function to look out for the interests of everyone in the county, the county itself, and the big picture. Ms. Sheeks stated that she felt that after reviewing the Coastal Federation’s proposed permit, the Model Permit, there has been a lengthy inclusive process to come up with a permit that seems to cover all bases and that everyone is not going to agree on anything, but it just has to touch the most bases that yields the best protection for the citizens of New Hanover County and its geography so she would encourage board members to remember that focus as they go through their deliberations on this issue because this county is a beautiful, treasured resource and is under tremendous stress as others have said so the Model SUP seems to take care of a potentially very serious threat. Edmund (Beau) McCaffray stated he is in favor of the Coastal Federation proposal particularly in two areas – the required checklist and the public information meeting. He said he feels it is crucial that a public information meeting be held prior to the Planning Board review. Mr. McCaffray stated that he had heard other comment that there are going to be a lot of businesses that are affected by this ordinance, which was first developed in 1969 and he wondered about the other side of those effects should additional brownfield and super fund sites be created and also about the result of businesses coming here without there being a SUP process, specifically for heavy industrial development. In regard to brownfields and super fund sites, the Atlantic Coast Railroad was mentioned earlier and when they left Wilmington, they donated approximately forty acres to New Hanover County Schools on the north side of Wilmington. All of that acreage contained lead and arsenic, it was a brownfield site, and now fifteen acres have been cleared and the other fifteen acres Page 12 of 16 sit out there as an abandoned lot. Mr. McCaffray asked the board to go forward and pass the safe version, noting we need to create this document and update it. It is going to be a living document. There will always be challenges. He said there is no reason to delay passing the staff’s version. Kemp Burdette stated he represents the nearly 1,000 members of Cape Fear River Watch, lifelong members of New Hanover County, and he is raising two daughters in New Hanover County. Mr. Burdette stated that New Hanover County is special and is surrounded by water, but paradoxically, we also face a pending water crisis as our population continues to expand rapidly at one of the fastest rates in the country. Our groundwater and surface waters are fragile and contamination of either is often impossible to reverse. Mr. Burdette noted this county is small as it’s the second smallest county in the state and is densely populated, which means we can’t isolate heavy polluting industry so that their impacts are not felt by our citizens. Land is in short supply, and therefore, is extremely valuable and will continue to increase in value as it becomes more scarce so we should strive to preserve it. Our economy is driven by people who came her to visit or to live because of our beautiful, natural resources, our rivers, our beaches, and our wetlands and because of these reasons, we need strong protections for our natural resources and strong protections for our health and for our economy. Mr. Burdette urged the board to adopt the Model SUP by the Coastal Federation, noting it is carefully crafted to meet the needs of the citizens, which is important since pollution does not recognize property lines and since we are so densely populated, our citizens will certainly be impacted by any heavy industry that settles here. The Model SUP has a strong protection component. Mr. Burdette said many people had noted at the previous planning board meeting before that line extension that they did not feel they had received important information on the proposal in a timely manner. Many had indicated that the process needed to be improved. From a citizen’s perspective, the process was flawed as well. Our voices were not heard and considered before the process was before the board. A public meeting was required by the planning board and the project was improved significantly, but the process seemed arbitrary. He said he suspected that to the applicant, the process seemed arbitrary as well. New Hanover County needs to adopt a strong and improved SUP to make sure that doesn’t happen again. We need a process that citizens and applicants can understand and feel included in. He feels it is not too much to ask heavy industry to disclose their impact and describe their proposals. It is also no unreasonable to expect that heavy industries would be required to provide critical information to the board and the public in advance of approval and it is not unreasonable to expect that sometimes we might say no to heavy polluting industry that threatens our quality of life. Mr. Burdette said our citizens, our children and our grandchildren deserve it. Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the board discussion period. Chairman Girardot stated she had heard Ms. Dunne as she gave a good summation aligning her comments with Commissioner Zapple’s comments and found that very enlightening and worthwhile. She also thanked Ms. Reber for her points about timeliness and clarity and noted Mr. Kitchin’s comments about the current process not defining who should be applying for a special use permit, when it should be brought before the planning board, and how the Table of Permitted Uses needs considerable work, as well as Dr. Weinrich’s comments outlining the value of a checklist. She stated she had heard much excellent input and noted that during the single work session held, they had a mere two hours and just barely go to page three in the narrative. They didn’t even get to the Table of Permitted Uses so she felt there is a lot of deliberation in front of Page 13 of 16 them. Chairman Girardot stated that with the tremendous amount of public input received at the meeting, via email and from phone calls and the work that still lies ahead on the revisions, she didn’t feel ready to make a recommendation to the county commissioners. She commented that she felt another work session was needed on the issue. Ernest Olds said he really values all the opinions offered during the public hearing and didn’t think there was a bad idea in the group. They are all very important. There is no doubt that water quality is paramount and good jobs for the community are important. He said he completely agrees there is so much else the board needs to talk about and deliberation they need to undertake. He didn’t think the board was ready to make a complete decision, one that is fair the citizens, that addresses all the good concerns, and takes into account properly all the good information provided. The work session the board had was very productive. He didn’t feel as though there is a Side A and a Side B as everyone is fairly close right now, but there is more work that needs to be done to do that justice and to not do that work is not fair. It wouldn’t be fair to everybody that has spent all the time so far and all the years that have gone into making this what it is. He noted we are close, but we are not there yet. Ted Shipley stated he would like to make a motion. Chairman Girardot asked if there were any additional comments from the board before a motion was offered. Jordy Rawl stated great comments were heard from several different parties during the public hearing. He thought it prudent to weigh in with some of his comments and how he feels about the situation as a whole, noting this is certainly a complex issue that could have a lasting effect on this community should you sway to one end of the spectrum or the other. He said he is personally in favor of the sustainability of the environment and doesn’t think anyone would argue against the fact that we live in a fragile part of the ecology being here on the coastal side of North Carolina, but he also thinks it is important to sustain the local culture. He noted we have a fragile community and also a fragile economy and it is disheartening to hear representatives of the business community come forward and say that good viable jobs that could create opportunities for people here in New Hanover County don’t even give New Hanover County an opportunity as a potential site for that business because of the cumbersome efforts they may potentially have to go through in order to establish that business here. Two of New Hanover County’s best job creators in his opinion are GE and Corning, and under a couple of these revisions, he isn’t even sure if those industries would be able to operate in the county if we were to pass some of this language the way it is currently written. He noted he feels remiss there are so many people that want to push this issue forward, but he thinks the fact of the matter is that we don’t have adequate information in front of us and he doesn’t think the interested reviewing parties have had adequate time to review this sensitive information. Mr. Rawl commented he doesn’t want this to lead to bad policy making so it would be his intention to move forward with future work sessions, incorporate more people who want to weigh in on this issue and really take both sides of the spectrum to find a healthy blend and healthy balance for this community because this is a special blend of a lot of different aspects. He felt both sides need to be taken into consideration. Page 14 of 16 Chairman Girardot commented that is what the board did with the comprehensive plan, bringing all stakeholders to the table, took our time, and produced a good piece of work and that is what she would like to do with this issue as well. David Weaver agreed with the general consensus to move forward with some more work sessions, noting it was suggested that we simply put the whole thing on the back burner until the UDO is complete and make it part of the UDO process. He felt that would take years if it is ever accomplished at all. He said he has been through that kind of work before and it is not a sure thing, plus the special use permit process to a great extent can be inserted into the UDO that is eventually arrived at so he would personally like to take that proposal off the table. Mr. Weaver asked the county attorney if there was any problem with considering the Coastal Federation’s model ordinance, noting he sees it simply as a response to the version that has been brought to us and not as a separate item. Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated that the comments heard earlier suggested that the Coastal Federation’s version and the 2014 version have both been made part of your agenda packets, but they have not been technically and officially submitted as text amendments so they are not officially before the board in the same manner as the Planning staff’s version. Having said that, certainly it’s is within the board’s authority to come up with whatever version they wish to recommend to the commissioners. Ms. Huffman explained that could be a combination of all three versions if the board wished to cut and paste. She noted that’s what happened in the past with the 2014 version. At that time, there was a version that was put forth after the fact that was worked on and then approved and recommended to the commissioners. Mr. Weaver said to move forward from here, obviously the board is not going to get anything done in the next month or two. It is going to take some work sessions to talk through all of these things, Mr. Weaver commented that he felt there are certain areas of controversy or discussion with regard to coming up with a special use permit ordinance and he would like for the board to focus on those different subject areas as a way of organizing the discussion in the future. He said he can identify some of them, for example is there a need for a community meeting, and with regard to information requirements, is there a need for a checklist and is there a need for an avenue for more information to be able to request it by the Planning Board and the County Commissioners. He added the need for a definite timeline and if there is a need for either the Planning Board or the County Commissioners to request or require a continuation of the public hearing that is in place. Mr. Weaver stated he wondered if that would be a good way to organize the board’s discussion because they currently have all of these different versions floating around and people are stating support of various versions. He stated he felt there was a lot of commonality among the versions, but that there are also a number of substantive points that the board could use as a way to discuss things going forward. Mr. Weaver stated the board has heard that everyone here likes New Hanover County and thinks we have a great array of resources that can be used to attract quality clean industry. Everybody wants clean industries. Everybody wants good-paying jobs. He said he was thankful that an oil refinery wasn’t placed downtown many years ago and we were able to go in such a manner that it was closely looked at and a delay was brought forward until finally the project died. He said he couldn’t remember how the project died, but it is a good example of a project that needed to be closely looked at rather than just simply saying it provided good, high-paying jobs and stamp it and then put an impact on the future of this county for further growth. Mr. Weaver Page 15 of 16 summarized that he would like to go ahead with more work sessions on the special use permit process and list some of the major points the board needs to address regardless of what version is ultimately adopted. Chairman Girardot commented the board could ask staff to draft something for them. Mr. O’Keefe agreed. She suggested that rather than the board going through that process at the meeting, the staff work with Mr. Weaver to draft something and send it the rest of the board to see if everyone is on the same track. Mr. O’Keefe stated staff could work with Mr. Weaver to prepare a list of the components throughout the discussion that are hot button issues that continue to come up and identify those issues in order to address them one at a time through the work sessions. Staff will develop a framework for addressing those issues so that the board can make progress. Chairman Girardot noted that the board seemed to be going in the direction of a list like the one Commissioner Zapple was kind enough to share with them, that they could work from. Deputy County Attorney Huffman stated that the board could consider tabling the item and then ask staff to calendar it when the board members have suggested they are ready to hear the item. Hearing no other board comments, Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the board. Following a brief discussion, Ted Shipley made a motion to table the agenda item. The motion was seconded by Ernest Olds and unanimously approved. Technical Review Committee Report - August 2016 Ken Vafier presented the following TRC Report: The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once during the month of August and unanimously approved a one-year extension of the preliminary site plan for the Carolina Inlet View performance residential project. The project is located in the southern jurisdiction of New Hanover County and was approved for eight residential lots in December of 2014. Details are included in the agenda package. Other Business - Election of 2016-17 Officers Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman entertained nominations for Planning Board Chairman and Vice Chairman for the 2016-17 term. David Weaver nominated Donna Girardot to serve as Chairman for 2016-17. Ernest Olds seconded the nomination. The Planning Board unanimously approved the nomination of Donna Girardot to serve as chairman for 2016-17. Page 16 of 16 Jordy Rawl nominated Ernest Olds to serve as Vice Chairman for 2016-17. David Weaver seconded the nomination. The Planning Board unanimously approved the nomination of Ernest Olds to serve as vice chairman for 2016-17. Chairman Girardot expressed the board’s appreciation to Jordy Rawl for his service as the Technical Review Committee Chairman for FY2015-16. She then asked David Weaver to serve in the capacity of Chairman of the Technical Review Committee for FY2016-17. Mr. Weaver accepted the appointment. Chairman Girardot adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.