2017-09-05 Regular Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 854
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, September 5, 2017,
at 4:01 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington,
North Carolina.
Members present: Chairman Woody White; Vice-Chairman Skip Watkins; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield,
Jr.; Commissioner Patricia Kusek; and Commissioner Rob Zapple.
Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda Copley; and Clerk to the Board
Kymberleigh G. Crowell.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Rabbi Paul Sidlofsky, Temple of Israel, provided the invocation and Vice-Chairman Skip Watkins led the
audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman White requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Motion
: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to approve the items on the
Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes – Governing Body
The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Agenda Review Meeting held on August 17, 2017 and the
Regular Meeting held on August 21, 2017.
Approval of Offer to Purchase Property Pursuant to G.S. 160A-279 – County Attorney
The Commissioners approved the sale of property located at 912 South 7th Street to Cape Fear Habitat for
Humanity and authorized execution of a deed by the Deputy County Manager. The property was acquired by New
Hanover County in August 2017 through tax foreclosure. The acreage is .125 and the tax value is $34,700. The total
back taxes owed is $5,423. The City has nuisance abatement liens on the property that will be extinguished with the
sale. The County has made three attempts to sell the property with no offers. Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity has
offered to purchase the property for $7,500. The Tax Administrator deems this offer to be fair and reasonable. In that
the proposed buyer is a non-profit carrying out a public purpose, the County can sell the property to Habitat without
upset bid.
Approval of Naming, Sponsorship and Underwriting Policy – Strategy and Budget
The Commissioners approved the Naming, Sponsorship and Underwriting Policy. Recognizing that the
County had a number of near-term Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) planned that had anticipated fundraising
components and that the County did not have a formal policy or consistent process in place regarding naming and
sponsorships, staff recommended that the Board consider adopting a formal written policy and process to be consistent
with best practices in fundraising, ensure compliance with legal and tax requirements, and ensure that expectations
are properly aligned and documented.
In Fiscal Year 2015, a Naming and Sponsorship Policy was developed with input from staff, fundraising
professionals, and representatives from various affiliated County fundraising boards (Parks/Library/Museum). On
April 30, 2015, the draft policy was reviewed at agenda review. The policy was then reviewed and discussed during
the July 20, 2015 Board of County Commissioners' meeting. The Board identified several areas for further
consideration, and voted to table the policy discussion to a later date.
This revised draft version of the policy addresses several specific additions/changes to address the
aforementioned areas for further consideration. Specifically: 1) expansion of the policy to include underwriting; 2)
clarification that all naming rights must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC); and 3) in
addition to the requests that are required to be reviewed and approved by the BOCC, adds the requirement that the
BOCC be notified of all approved and denied naming, sponsorship and/or underwriting requests in a timely manner.
A copy of the policy is available for review in the Strategy and Budget Department.
REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
ADOPTION OF THE NATIONAL OVARIAN CANCER AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
Chairman White announced that She Rocks, Inc. has requested a proclamation designating the month of
September 2017 as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Commissioner Kusek read the proclamation into the
record and presented it to Beth Quinn.
Motion:
Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to adopt the proclamation declaring
September 2017 as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Beth Quinn of She Rocks, Inc. accepted the proclamation and stated that she is in her fourth year of this battle
but is stronger than cancer. We're blessed in the community to have faith, our family, we have friends, we have people
that give and there is hope beyond any hope for all cancers and it's not only her prayer, plea, and passion not just for
ovarian cancer but it's for all cancers, and let us all continue to unite, love, challenge, and bring hope that in any
situation it's possible to be victorious.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 855
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book
XL, Page 36.1.
ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 AS WHQR DAY
Chairman White announced that the Board has been requested to adopt a proclamation in recognition of
WHQR Public Radio. Commissioner Zapple read the proclamation into the record.
Motion:
Commissioner Kusek MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to adopt a proclamation
recognizing September 13, 2017 as WHQR Day in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Michelle Rhinesmith, station manager of WHQR Public Radio and Jeff Smith, president of the WHQR Public
Radio Board, accepted the proclamation.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book
XL, Page 36.2.
ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING CONSTITUTION WEEK ON BEHALF OF THE
DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - STAMP DEFIANCE CHAPTER
Chairman White announced that the Daughters of the American Revolution - Stamp Defiance Chapter has
requested a proclamation recognizing September 17-23, 2017 as Constitution Week. Vice-Chairman Watkins read
the proclamation into the record.
Motion:
Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to adopt a proclamation
recognizing September 17-23, 2017 as Constitution Week in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chapter Regent Meg Smith, on behalf of the Stamp Defiance Chapter, accepted the proclamation.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book
XL, Page 36.3.
CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FUNDING POLICY
Chief Strategy and Budget Officer Beth Schrader stated that this matter is a two-part request of the Board.
First, the Board is being asked to approve the Outside Agency Funding Policy. Secondly, the Board is being asked to
provide staff specific guidance and direction regarding the actual set of procedures to be used as part of the recruitment
and selection process. A number of steps would need be taken by staff based on the feedback received regarding the
recruitment and selection process. Specifically, staff would need to update the application, identify training and
outreach materials, identify and prepare standard reporting forms as well as the standardized contract and addendum
which would all be part of this process. In addition, based on the direction received, staff would also prepare a
recommendation in regards to criteria and a recommendation with regards to which of the existing non-profits might
be recommended to transition to vendor status. She then presented the overview of the proposed Outside Agency
Funding Policy as follows:
Eligible Agencies:
Non-profits \[501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6)\] or governmental agencies;
Minimum of two years of prior operation;
Incorporated, no overdue taxes, have a governing board, and disclose any potential conflicts of
interest;
Programs services must be available to all New Hanover County residents who meet eligibility
criteria;
Must meet accountability standards; and
Agency must meet all eligibility criteria on its own.
Application Procedures:
Applicant must complete a written application (with all required documentation);
Application(s) reviewed by Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) at a public meeting;
BOCC approval of final funding; and
Agency acceptance of funds by signing written contract.
Reporting Requirements:
stst
December 1 and June 1:
Progress against goals / measures;
Extent to which / how county funds spent;
Action plan to remedy, if not on target;
Audited (≥$25,000 received) or compiled (<$25,000) financial statements prepared by professional
and board approved;
Two-year comparative data and any related-party transactions identified;
May be subject to a program evaluation.
Recommended Selection Process(es):
Economic Agencies:
Includes both Economic Development Agencies and Community-Based Economic
Development Agencies (arts, attractions, events, etc.);
No specified budget maximum/minimum;
County Manager recommendations included in Recommended Budget for BOCC approval; and
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 856
No specified funding eligibility time limits.
Human Services Agencies:
BOCC appoints seven-person committee to:
Review and score outside agency annual budget requests;
Recommend agencies to fund and amount per agency;
Allocable budget set by BOCC (for example: $ per capita, % budget, etc.);
Committee recommendations included in Recommended Budget for BOCC approval; and
Three years funding eligibility, then BOCC evaluates if move to vendor status or ineligible for
one year.
Proposed Timeline:
2017:
October/November: Outside Agency Training Session(s) / Question and Answer on new policy
process, contract and reporting requirements;
2018:
January:
Outside Agency Applications due.
Board selection of citizen review committee.
January – March:
Committee review and scoring of applications;
Committee shares funding recommendations with BOCC; and County Manager for
inclusion in Recommended Budget.
May:
Recommended Budget formally presented to BOCC.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Schrader stated that the one-year ineligibility, if not moved to vendor
status after three years of funding eligibility, was an error on her part. That error will be corrected to reflect three-
years ineligibility. Essentially, these are organizations providing critical and valuable services or programs that are
helping the County ultimately be more successful in achieving its goal of providing services it does not provide. These
are services critical to the community that the Board has deemed necessary, or they do it more effectively than the
County can. The County can contract with the agency for those specific services or programs and the department that
is most closely aligned with those services and programs would be the one to monitor and work with the agency on
that contract on an on-going basis. Vendor status is a benefit to the outside agencies because it puts them in the
recurring budget. It recognizes upfront that this is a critical extension or critical component of our service delivery as
a local government.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Schrader stated that the decision maker for increasing, decreasing, or
keeping funding at static levels is ultimately the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC makes all of
the long-term funding decisions through the annual budget appropriation process. Depending on the department there
are different layers to go through to get that budget to the BOCC. An example of that might be the Health Department
or the Department of Social Services that have their own boards. The request would be part of their annual budget
submission made to the BOCC for its consideration.
In response to questions about monitoring progress against goals and measures, Ms. Schrader stated as part
of the application, the agencies will submit a budget for the first half of the year and the second half of the year. They
will identify specific measures and will be required to report against those measures. Staff will then submit
documentation to the BOCC so it can see if the agency is on track based on what they said they were going to do, if
accomplishments have been reached, and if there are any variances, how the agency will address it. Monitoring
progress of all the departments and programs is a role that the Strategy and Budget staff does on a routine, annual
basis. In terms of the measures, part of the training process will be staff working with the agencies in preparing their
applications to help them identify different kinds of measures that might be more effective. Ms. Schrader assumes that
as part of the evaluation process, the citizen committee will also look to see, as part of the scoring and ranking, that
outcomes are weighted more heavily than outputs, and outputs are weighted more heavily than inputs. The Strategy
and Budget staff have quite a bit of experience with performance management so it will be able to assist the agencies
to identify the right key performance indicators.
In response to additional Board questions about monitoring, Ms. Schrader stated that if it is the will of the
Board, staff will visit each site to witness what the agencies are doing. Staff doesn’t routinely go on site to check the
veracity of the paperwork. However, checking the progress against goals and measures will be done. The purpose of
each agency being part of the conversation will be to identify the program or services the County is funding, and how
to know the agency is successful and have a measure for it. It's a common perception that human services agencies
can be challenging to measure, but there are available measures that are very effective beyond just how many children
are served.
In response to Board questions about non-profits potentially losing funding at the midyear report if not on
target, Ms. Schrader stated the intent is that they would not necessarily lose their funding in the midyear. It's meeting
the criteria, saying the report has been delivered and an action plan has been delivered that will remedy it. The
consideration would come at the end of the year, when evaluating what action steps were taken to achieve the goals
or achieve the spending plan in place and asking was the agency ultimately successful and to what extent. At that time,
the citizen committee during the next cycle would be analyzing to say, did the agency meet their goals enough that
they would be someone to consider to invest in or not.
Regarding whether or not the non-profits and economic development groups currently funded have to fill out
new applications, Ms. Schrader confirmed each would have to complete an updated application. This helps to ensure
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 857
the Strategy and Budget department has the most current information as it can change over time. There would be
verbiage in the contracts or an addendum added to existing contracts that would outline when there are changes in any
of these areas they have to be reported and documentation shared with staff. All would be required to submit a midyear
report.
Ms. Schrader stated that if the discussion is about the fact the County is funding programs and services, not
necessarily an agency per se, an agency that chooses not to go to vendor status could come back with another
innovative program to ask the County to fund. The way it's currently contemplated that would be allowable because
it's something different, it's not existing funding for the existing program or service that's being provided. So it would
still allow flexibility for the same agency to come back but with a different program.
Vice-Chairman Watkins expressed appreciation to Commissioner Kusek, Commissioner Zapple and staff for
their work on this matter.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek to approve the Outside Agency
Funding Policy as presented by staff to become effective upon approval.
Chairman White asked if there was any further discussion from the Board.
A brief discussion was held about the committee composition. In response to Board questions, County
Manager Coudriet stated that staff would prepare a set of recommendations for the Board and advertisements would
be done to receive applications. Staff would look for a variety of skill sets familiar with non-profit work/services to
fill the committee. While staff has not completely scoped out the committee composition, it is staff’s intention to
bring it back to the Board for approval. If the Board desires, staff can also submit for consideration and approval the
scoring and matrix processes.
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated he was agreeable to amending his motion to reflect the direction to staff to
submit to the Board for its consideration recommendations for committee composition and scoring and matrix
processes.
Amended Motion:
Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek to approve the Outside
Agency Funding Policy as presented by staff to become effective upon approval and direct staff to submit to the Board
for its consideration recommendations for committee composition and scoring and matrix processes.
Regarding the function of the committee, County Manager Coudriet stated that the intention is for the Board
to identify for staff how much money should be made available for the committee to work with in reviewing and
scoring the human services agencies applications. If it becomes the Board’s preference that staff make the
determination based on its analysis, it will. In slide 5 of the presentation, it states that the Board will need to decide
what amount of money will be allocated to the committee. This will need to be done early in the process. The idea is
for it to be somewhat predictable for the agencies. He further stated that staff would not create the committee on its
own. It would be brought back to the Board as a policy ask to identify seven types of positions, either from certain
human services or non-profit entities or individuals with particular skill sets.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Schrader confirmed that all non-profits would go through the process.
There are three categories of non-profits: vendor, economic agency, and human services agency. County Manager
Coudriet stated that most of the County’s economic agencies such as Wilmington Business Development and the
Wilmington Film Commission have contracts. At the point the contract is up for consideration is when the Board
would consider it. The Board may choose to always have a contractual relationship with them in the current state or
if it is the will of the Board, staff will move them to the continuation budget. Regardless, there would still be a signed
agreement between the County and the agency.
In response to Board questions, County Manager Coudriet stated that at some point based on staff’s analysis
working with the departments and the agencies directly, a recommendation will be brought to the Board to determine
which current outside agencies are really addressing concerns and should be part of the continuation budget. If a non-
profit decides not to move to vendor status, it will still be eligible to apply under one of the other economic or human
services areas, as long as it's something new after the period per the policy. If it's beyond the time limit identified here
and the non-profit decides to not modify their status, theoretically the non-profit would not be eligible, and based on
the earlier requested technical question, for three years, unless they pursued some new service that they are not
currently providing on behalf of the County.
Chairman White called for a vote for the motion on the floor.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF REQUEST BY LEE LAW FIRM, PLLC, ON BEHALF OF THE
PROPERTY OWNER, THE LEWIS FAMILY TRACT, LLC, IN ORDER TO REZONE 85.19 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE 4700 BLOCK OF GORDON ROAD FROM O&I, OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL
DISTRICT, AND B-2, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO (CUD) R-15, CONDITIONAL USE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A HIGH
DENSITY DEVELOPMENT (Z17-08)
Chairman White opened the public hearing and announced that the Conditional Use District process requires
a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any person wishing to testify must be sworn in. He requested that all persons who
signed in to speak or who want to present testimony to please step forward to be sworn in.
The following persons were sworn in:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 858
Brad Schuler
Ben Andrea
Ken Vafier
Jordy Rawl
Matthew Carlisle
Amy Kimes
Michael Lee
Adam Sosnee
Dan Cumbo
Gary Pape
Michael Keenan
Annette Davis
Current Planner Brad Schuler reported that a Conditional Use District is a district that requires every land
use within it to obtain a Special Use Permit (SUP) and therefore, two separate actions would need to be taken by the
Board and any conditions must be added to the SUP. Lee Law Firm, PLLC, on behalf of the property owner, The
Lewis Family Tract, LLC, is requesting to rezone 85.19 acres of land located at the 4700 block of Gordon Road from
O&I, Office and Institutional and B-2, Highway Business District to (CUD) R-15, Conditional Use Residential
District, in order to develop a high density development. The property is adjacent to I-40 and is in an area that is zoned
and used for residential purposes.
The proposed development will consist of 236 single-family lots and 192 apartment units for a total of 428
dwelling units. This equates to a density of five dwelling units per acre based on the net acreage. The proposed street
network will be dedicated as private. A buffer yard is required along the eastern side of the apartment buildings, and
a streetscape is required along Gordon Road. Thirty-five percent of the property must be dedicated as open space, with
fifteen percent of the property being able to be used for active recreation. A clubhouse and pool will be included within
the apartment area.
Access is provided to the subject property by Gordon Road (SR 2048) and five stubs will be provided for
interconnectivity to the adjacent properties. This proposal will generate 275 trips in the AM peak, and 359 trips in the
PM peak, and therefore, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed and is currently being reviewed by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO).
As such, the following TIA recommendations for improvements are subject to change:
Gordon Road and NC 132 (N. College Road)/I-40 Eastbound Ramps:
Optimize Signal timing;
Increase the southbound left turn lane to 650 feet of storage with appropriate taper; and
Increase the westbound left turn lane to 400 feet of storage with appropriate taper.
Gordon Road and Blount Drive/Site Access:
Signalizing the intersection;
Westbound left turn lane with 100 feet of storage and appropriate taper;
Eastbound right turn lane with 100 feet of storage and appropriate taper; and
Northbound full left turn lane along with a through-right lane that extends to the first internal
driveway.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler stated that he thought the TIA included the approved 328-unit
apartment complex across the road. The Gordon Road project was not part of the TIA. It was removed from the 2018-
2027 NC State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). He stated that representatives from NCDOT and WMPO
were present who will look into this so he could provide the answer to the Board.
NC State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP):
The current STIP includes Project U-3831, which proposes to widen Gordon Road to multi-lanes.
This project will be split into two parts, with some construction expected in 2023-2024.
This project is not included in the proposed August 2017 update of the STIP.
The New Hanover County/City of Wilmington Greenway Plan recommends that bike lanes be installed along
Gordon Road, and that a greenway be installed along Smith Creek and College Road/I-40.
The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject property as Urban Mixed Use and
Conservation. However, most of the site is Urban Mixed Use. The Urban Mixed Use place type promotes development
of a mix of residential, office, and retail uses at higher densities. Types of uses encouraged include office, retail, mixed
use, small recreation, commercial, institutional, single-family, and multi-family residential.
Staff concludes that the proposed residential development is not consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive
Land Use Plan because it is moving the County’s development pattern away from the direction outlined in the Future
Land Use Map. It proposes a residential development on the only portion of the Urban Mixed Use place type off
Gordon Road that is not already zoned for residential, and design features do not conform with the recommendations
for this place type. The Comprehensive Plan strongly encourages a mixed use development pattern. This type
development has many advantages, one being that when there are compatible and supporting uses close to one another
alternative forms of transportation, such as biking or walking, are promoted. The length of trips is also shortened. The
subject property is surrounded by residential zoning and single family housing. The closest commercial areas are
Market Street and Murrayville. These areas are most likely where many of the residents go for everyday services thus
contributing to the traffic concerns for the area.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 859
In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler explained that his statement that most residents utilize Market
Street and Murrayville is an assumption based on that being the closest commercial area. It could be changed due to
access to the interstate. People typically are going to travel to their closest store. All the residential development in
that area has to go to Market Street or to College Road to get to their closest grocery store.
The Planning Board considered this application at their July 13, 2017 meeting and recommended denial (4-
3), finding that the application is:
1. Not consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposal would
remove the only non-residential zoning in an area that is exclusively zoned for residential purposes. This
will not support a mixture of compatible uses as encouraged in the Urban Mixed Use place type and does
not conform to the recommended development intensity of the place type.
2. Not reasonable and not in the public interest because the proposal would not encourage a mixture of uses
that would promote alternative forms of travel and the reduction of the dependency on the automobile.
The Planning Board cited that the proposal did not contribute to the mixed use development pattern encouraged by
the Comprehensive Plan. It recommended that the application be modified to designate a portion of the property for
nonresidential uses. Concerns were also expressed with the design of the development, specifically regarding access
to the lots located in the northern portion of the property, and the proximity of wetlands to certain lots within the
development. The applicant has updated the site plan in response to these design concerns.
Staff concurs with the Planning Board’s action and recommends denial of the Conditional Use Zoning
District.
If the Board approves the rezoning, then it can consider the SUP portion of this application based on the
current information. Based on current information, staff has created preliminary findings of fact for each of the
conclusions required to be reached to approve the SUP request and are detailed in the staff summary. If the Board
does approve the application, staff has identified some potential appropriate conditions:
1. The proposed private right-of-ways shall be open for public use and placed within a public access
easement.
2. Streetscape landscaping and buffering, consistent with that of which is required for high density
developments adjacent to single-family developments, shall be installed around the multi-family
structures to provide a screen from the single-family lots located within the development.
3. A 20-foot wide access easement shall be dedicated to the County along Smith Creek in order to allow
for the future installation of a multi-use path in accordance with the Wilmington/NHC Greenway Plan.
4. Five feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated to NCDOT along Gordon Road for the purpose of allowing
for future roadway improvements. This right-of-way dedication shall be in addition to any right-of-way
dedication required as a result of the TIA and driveway permit.
In response to the earlier question if the already approved 328-unit apartment complex across the road was
included in the TIA, Matthew Carlisle with NCDOT District Office stated that the project to the north was not included
in this document because the buildout year of that development has already passed. If and when that project comes
forward those developers will have to obtain a revised TIA and it would include this project, if this project is approved.
He does not know what was approved on the TIA for the other project as it was prior to him being with NCDOT.
Staff will see what can be found on that TIA during this meeting.
Chairman White requested the petitioner to make its presentation.
Mr. Lee, attorney with Lee Law Firm, PLLC representing the petitioner, presented the following information
regarding the application:
Approval:
Rezoning:
How is change consistent with County’s Policies for Growth and Development.
How would the zone change be consistent with the property’s classification on the Land
Classification Map.
What neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate or is the
land unsuitable for uses permitted under existing zoning.
List proposed conditions and restrictions that would mitigate impacts of new use.
Special Use Permit:
Will not materially endanger public health or safety.
Meets all required conditions and specifications.
Will not substantially injure value adjoining/abutting property.
Location/character of use in harmony with area and in general conformity with plan of
development for New Hanover County.
Summary:
History:
October 7, 1985: Petition to rezone property from R-15 to current zoning and denied due to
traffic concerns.
April 7, 1986: Petition to rezone property from R-15 to current zoning and approved.
Rezoning was intended for commercial/shopping center use.
Recently under contract for a decade:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 860
Site Plan:
432 Apartment Units; 300,000 Retail Use; Over 1,700 parking spaces; and Additional
pad sites and 2 hotels.
Current Zoning:
O&I
B-2:
Kennels; Nursery/Greenhouse; Equipment leasing; Small collection recycling; Large
collection recycling; Trade contractors; Warehousing; Demolition-landscape landfill; and
Crush/recycle construction debris such as concrete, metal, lumber, tile, insulation, carpet,
rock, masonry, etc.
Mr. Lee stated that this application proposes less number of units than was being pursued under just a portion
of the prior project. This project as presented is a significant downzoning of the property. What is currently allowed
on the property are by-right uses with the exception of the required Special Use Permit for the apartments. Mr. Lee
thinks the property, as first rezoned, was intended to be used for commercial development, but is not able to be used
as such. The property owner did not want to develop what was allowed under the B-2 zoning by-right. Not being able
to utilize it for commercial and if this application is not approved, the Lewis Family can only fall back on what is
allowed by-right to utilize this property. The proposal is for:
Proposed Project – Mix of Single and Multi-Family:
Five units per acre: 236 single family lots and 192 apartment units.
Open space/active recreation: 35% open space (29.8165 acres) and 15% active recreation
(12.7785 acres).
Mr. Lee stated that based on changes made after receiving the Planning Board’s comments, the approximate number
of single family lots is now 230. He respectfully disagrees with staff’s analysis that this project is not part of a mixed
use. In regards to the ordinance:
Ordinance – Rezoning:
How is change consistent with New Hanover County’s Policies for Growth and Development:
The Livable Built Environment:
Preserve open spaces, create mix of housing types to promote diversity and strengthen
existing residential areas, invest in community infrastructure.
Mr. Lee stated that there are significant transportation improvements being made. There are a mix of housing
types and it is high density just as the code requires under this future land use designation.
Interwoven Equity:
Provide a range housing types, opportunities and choices, increase workforce housing,
upgrade housing development with installation of new infrastructure, strengthen
neighborhoods through redevelopment.
Mr. Lee thinks due to the range of housing types the focus is going to be on the increase of workforce housing.
A person is present who works for a local bank that will speak about the price ranges that are being targeted and what
that means from an income perspective and monthly payment perspective. He thinks it will be seen that it is cheaper
to own than to rent in this community.
Healthy community – increase physical activity and promote healthy, active lifestyles –
sidewalk on front of project and 20-foot dedication of easement along Smith Creek
Responsible regionalism – utilize a regional approach to housing development
How would rezoning be consistent with property’s classification on Land Classification Map:
Urban Mixed Use – “promotes development of residential, office, & retail uses at higher
densities. Multi-family residential uses are preferred, though higher-density single family
developments will not be prohibited. Mixed uses are encouraged in the same parcel, but
they can also be adjacent . . .. Types of uses include . . . Single-family & multi-family
residential.”
What neighborhood changes have occurred to make original zoning inappropriate or is the land
unsuitable for uses permitted under existing zoning.
Mr. Lee stated that he thinks the property owner tried to develop the site for what it was intended for a very
long time. It was a 2007 site plan they started with and the contract was terminated last year.
List conditions and restrictions to mitigate use
Mr. Lee stated that this information is in the staff report. However, this is a significant downzoning from
what was originally planned which was a much larger project.
New Hanover County Future Land Use Plan:
Urban Mixed Use classification – There are 322 acres with this project being just over ¼ (26.7%)
of the area.
Commercial has not been successful in this area. Again, the ordinance provides that the mix of uses are
encouraged in the same parcel but they can also be adjacent. The hope is this project will help to be a component to
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 861
a mix of uses. He doesn’t want to say it will be Urban Mixed Use. Even though it calls for Urban Mixed Use, the
County does not have an Urban Mixed Use development. There are some horizontal mixed use developments like
Mayfaire. Mayfaire proper if looking from The Fresh Market to Red Robin, not including the movie theater, is only
60 acres. If including the movie theater, he thinks that’s still about the size of this particular tract and that’s with
horizontal mixed use. He thinks this proposal can help be a catalyst to take the property into mixed use because of the
interconnectivity.
Chairman White asked that the time clock be stopped and noted that Mr. Lee has four minutes left. He asked
Mr. Lee to provide more information in regards to the remaining portions of the parcels and what would he say if in a
year or five years from now someone tries to develop under the same zoning right now, if there is still not a commercial
market. Mr. Lee stated he did not mean to say it will happen but rather, he hopes this project will be the tipping point
to get enough rooftops to drive some small neighborhood commercial. Without it, it has failed for decades.
Mr. Lee continued his presentation:
Project overlay on Urban Mixed Use: There are interconnection points.
Ordinance - SUP:
Special Use Permit:
1. Will not materially endanger public health or safety
2. Meets all required conditions and specifications
3. Will not substantially injure value adjoining/abutting property
4. Location/character of use in harmony with area and in general conformity with plan of
development for New Hanover County
Staff report provides 1 – 3 met:
1. Traffic
4. Future Land Use Plan (FLUP)
Mr. Lee stated there will be turn lanes, a traffic light, an expanded turn lane, and storage coming off the
project. In showing the project improvements, he noted:
TIA Recommendations:
Gordon Road and NC 132 (N. College Road/I-40 Eastbound Ramps) – TIA:
Optimize Signal timing.
Increase southbound left turn lane to 650 feet of storage with appropriate taper.
Increase westbound left turn lane to 400 feet of storage with appropriate taper.
Gordon Road and Blount Drive/Site Access – TIA:
Signalizing the intersection;
Westbound left turn lane with 100 feet of storage and appropriate taper;
Eastbound right turn lane with 100 feet of storage and appropriate taper; and
Northbound full left turn lane along with a through-right lane that extends to the first internal
driveway.
STIP:
2016-2025 STIP includes a project (U-3831) to widen Gordon Road to multi-lanes, with
construction expected to begin in 2023-2024.
Proposed 2018-2027 STIP does not include this project.
Mr. Lee stated that on the rezoning side, this proposal is consistent with Future Land Use Plan. It is only
about one-fourth of the 322 acres set aside for a mixed use zoning designation. From a Special Use Permit perspective,
the significant point is that traffic issues will improve on Gordon Road due to the improvements that will be made due
to the project.
Chairman White stated Mr. Lee’s time was up. While he understands there are no speakers in opposition and
consequently, there’s no time for rebuttal, but the Board might have questions that the speakers in favor can answer.
Chairman White closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion.
Mr. Carlisle with NCDOT was asked to give his opinion, even though the TIA is not ready, on how he sees
this proposal versus what is available by-right. Mr. Carlisle stated that he could not speak to exact detail except that
typically a mixed use development would produce more site trips than a residential development. It is dependent on
what an applicant might propose.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler stated that the high density development requires 35% of the
property to be open space. There is a portion of that that has to be reserved for either passive or active recreation. This
request is meeting the ordinance requirements for open space.
Michael Keenan, resident of Wedgefield Drive and in support of the request, was asked to address how this
project affects workforce housing which is an economic development tool. Mr. Keenan stated that he is a residential
and construction lender for BB&T Bank. He has market data from last year that indicates the number of units at a
sales price of $240,000 and below. In New Hanover County was 219 units, which represents 27% of the total new
houses being built in the market by builders. It does not account for the affluent consumers that are building houses.
For the first six months of 2017, that number dropped to 46 units. In looking at the trend reports from 2014 through
now the percentage of the market of affordability housing has reduced significantly. The lot price is normally 20%
indicative of the cash sales price of the house, so lots are roughly $50,000 lots here. The normal methods of calculating
this development is at least $25,000 in development costs for each lot. It is almost getting to a point now that there is
limited land supply in the County for a person to build a lot. The development costs include infrastructure of roads,
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 862
curbs and gutters. So this particular project, at the $190,000 through $240,000 sales price level, a $190,000 sales price
would indicate that a household of $34,000 of annual income and no other debt could afford this property all the way
up to the $240,000 range; that's with a $1,200 payment, the principle, interest, taxes and insurance. A household that
could go up to $240,000 price range with a five percent down payment and have a $1,600 payment would indicate a
household of $50,000 annual income. As such the median income in New Hanover County for 2015 was $50,088. He
does think this property will qualify for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) loan program. This will allow
buyers with a household income under $79,000 to qualify for a 30-year mortgage for these properties. Under USDA
a buyer may be able to get an approximately 97% percent loan for that.
Annette Davis, a resident of Rogers Drive and in support of the request but with concerns, was asked to share
her comments about the project. Ms. Davis stated that she is not opposed to the project but her main concerns are
traffic and congestion. The amount of proposed apartments is going to add to the traffic and congestion. She lives in
the Weaver Woods Subdivision and currently has to wait 15 – 20 minutes to leave her driveway to go onto Gordon
Road. With this development and the other forthcoming she wants to make sure the light at Gordon Road and Blount
Drive will be installed. The light could improve things. She’s in favor of movement but is also in favor of safety. She
thinks the already approved apartment complex needs to be included in the TIA. There is no way for the narrowness
of Gordon Road to be able to handle the increasing traffic and congestion with these projects.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler provided information about the project being classified as Urban
Mixed Use even though there is no mixed use part of it stating it really just depends on the application. There's
probably some occurrences where a single use is appropriate on a parcel, those are generally smaller parcels of land
where there could be a mixture of uses in a regional area. Staff’s concern with this application is the purpose of the
Urban Mixed Use area is to get services close to all the residents in the area. The proposal has taken the only
commercial zoning on Gordon Road away and puts in the same type of development that's in the surrounding area,
which is residential development. It's moving away from that mixed use development pattern that the Comprehensive
Plan is seeking. The site plan presented during this meeting is similar to what was presented to the Planning Board
with the exception of a lot from the north has been removed and some lots have been shifted over farther away from
the wetlands.
Regarding school capacity in the area, Mr. Schuler confirmed that there are four schools and each is over
capacity. The school system did not say it couldn’t adequately serve the children that are going to be produced. The
school system just gives staff the numbers. In regards to workforce housing, Mr. Schuler stated that while he
appreciates the applicant looking to provide some workforce housing, he asked that the Board keep in mind that this
was not a condition of this approval. The permit runs with the land so the ownership can change hands and someone
else can come in and develop more expensive housing. Legally under state law, the price point of residential
development cannot be made a condition. He would consider that school capacity could be considered a part of the
infrastructure as County taxes are going to provide schools.
Mr. Schuler also confirmed that at this point there is no road widening project that’s been approved for
Gordon Road. Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea stated that there is not a bus stop at the property.
There is a bus stop near White Road which is south of the property.
Regarding if the downzoning would have a positive effect on school capacity, Mr. Schuler stated that it would
depend. The property is currently zoned for commercial services so there wouldn’t be any residential by-right
development allowed. The downzoning Mr. Lee referred to is in terms of traffic. As to whether or not this application
is a downzoning, Mr. Schuler stated that the property is going from a commercial to a residential zone so it’s an apples
and oranges comparison. It could be said a residential zone is less intensive but in relation to the school system it
might be the opposite in that a residential zone is going to be more intensive.
Regarding why staff would desire one outcome over the other when there’s a situation where there's a net
positive as to the traffic, Mr. Schuler responded that if the property is developed in a commercial fashion, roadway
improvements would still be required as part of that development. From staff’s point the bigger picture is whether this
is going to benefit the County overall, having that property be developed and provide services to the nearby residents.
By keeping it residential it will increase the traffic on some of the major corridors where the commercial use currently
is.
Chairman White stated that while he understands Mr. Schuler’s point, he would like to know at what point
does that belief get abandoned for some other potential benefit. He asked staff if these issues were discussed internally.
Mr. Andrea stated that certainly staff has a lot of conversations about this and every other project, the pros and cons
of each. What staff relies largely on when making a recommendation is if it is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, is it consistent with the place type that this piece of property is classified as, as a result of the project. In this
case, staff made a determination it was not consistent. There will continue to be traffic issues, but that is not the only
issue staff discusses when arriving at a conclusion.
Commissioner Barfield stated that in his opinion it's not staff's job to determine market conditions. Staff’s
job is to look at what was approved as a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and not look at the financials. The market
will determine what's going to be built there. Bringing something forth that may or may not materialize, it doesn't
influence his decision one way or the other. If people have the right resources in place, they look at the market and
look at other commercial markets happening in our community. They will decide where to build something based on
what they will make and that's not staff’s job. He stated that there is no bigger proponent of workforce/affordable
housing than himself and for the most part the homes built off Gordon Road are just that. Alamosa Place, Saratoga,
Gordon Woods, Weatherwood, and Meadowbrook, all those homes when they were initially built were selling in the
low 90s to low 100s when they were first established and they are probably selling in the 150s to 200s range right
now, so that whole area was considered affordable housing or workforce housing. People think the wrong thing when
the words “affordable housing” is used. People are able to obtain the loans and trying to buy homes and we are trying
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 863
to provide that type housing in our community. The Board’s job is to look at the comprehensive picture of what it’s
approved and the fact the Board receives a panacea in terms of it's not going to fail. The Board has already approved
328 units that will eventually be built. Once built, level of service (LOS) on Gordon Road is going to be an E or F,
it’s not going to be what is being presented as now. He has to look at the bigger picture, collectively, to figure out
what's best for that area.
Commissioner Barfield stated that his concern is putting a traffic light where proposed, when there is already
one at Gordon Road and Highway 132, will create more of a backlog of traffic. He is concerned what the real impact
on the traffic in the area will be when coupled with 700-plus units in a particular location. He reiterated that his concern
is not knowing what NCDOT is going to require, whether they are going to require a traffic light there and what impact
that's going to have on that particular road. There are a lot of communities in the area that use White Road as an
arterial road to get to Gordon Road. He stated that he does not know that he can make an informed decision without
having that information available. At this point, he would not be in favor of this request because of the traffic concerns
right there. He reiterated that he does not want the Board to get caught up in NCDOT not looking at the other
apartments already approved, the Board has to look at it and take it into consideration.
Commissioner Barfield asked Mr. Keenan whether or not BB&T was pulling back on apartment funding
because of the oversaturation. Mr. Keenan responded that while it’s not his department, his understanding is that
BB&T had been withdrawing but is now going back after it.
Chairman White stated that he was confused about the downzoning question and while he knows based on
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan what the designation is right now, asked Mr. Andrea if the request is approved
does it have any negative or positive impact on the school system versus the present status. Mr. Andrea stated that it
would be his opinion that the approval of the proposed project would place an increased burden on the school system
because it is a shifting from a commercial zoning district, which does not allow for residences or families or folks
with school children, to a residential district that would allow for that. So as it sits right now, no homes can be built
there, no families can be living there so there's not an opportunity for more children to be needing to go to school
based on the current zoning. Chairman White stated that he misunderstood petitioner’s slide and asked Mr. Lee to
respond to his question about the point on downzoning from a prior project for the site.
Mr. Lee stated that the prior project is by-right with the exception of the apartments that can only be approved
with an SUP. He then addressed the matter in two components. The first component, what is being looked at, based
on what the Board heard from Mr. Keenan is this is a workforce housing project. These are folks who likely already
have children in the school system. This would give them the opportunity of homeownership as well as help to add
to the tax base because they are paying property taxes as opposed to staying in apartments. This is the workforce
housing component. The salaries discussed are police officers, sheriffs, teachers, these are folks living in our
community that hopefully will have the opportunity at some point to buy a home. If everybody that moves in this
neighborhood is from out of town it is correct to think there will be more kids coming. However, anecdotally, he
would expect since there is a shortage of workforce housing in this County, that current residents would be hopefully
purchasing homes and kids may have to be relocated to another school from the school they are going to.
The second component is the TIA. The TIA process started with a scoping meeting with NCDOT to learn
what needed to be studied. A TIA was done, a study was created based on the scope that the applicant and NCDOT
along with the WMPO agreed upon. That report was delivered to NCDOT where it was reviewed and comments were
provided. The comments went back to Davenport Engineers who revised the TIA to incorporate all the comments and
sent the revision back to NCDOT. The thought was that NCDOT was going to have a finalized review and comment
by today and then he was told it didn't occur. He and the property owners did not want to continue the hearing because
folks have come out previously to speak at the hearing and they were sent away at the last minute. Since it was thought
NCDOT was going to be done by today, they came out and he didn't want to send them home again.
Traffic, in relation to the downzoning component, is based on what can go there and this plan is going to be
improved. There are no NCDOT improvements within the STIP contemplated. The only improvements that are going
to come is by private developers. If that project had come first, that developer may have been paying for a lot of these
improvements. Now that developer will have to complete a new updated TIA. The Board will not know until it goes
through the process and NCDOT comments what requirements are needed to mitigate that development. If that project
is developed in the future, their traffic will have to be mitigated. It is not contemplated now because it's not finalized.
The downzoning is mostly related to traffic. If the property is not rezoned it will go to the other B-2 by-right
uses which Mr. Lee discussed earlier because the Lewis family has been holding on to this property for a very long
time and will want to do something with it. If they can't do what the by-right is for the commercial development,
which is highest and best use, and make the most money because it's not out there. It hasn't been out there and they
can't rezone it for workforce housing, then it will have to go to the other by-right uses under B-2, which is the largest
part of this property.
In response to Board questions regarding what it will take to get the widening of Gordon Road back onto
NCDOT’s plan and why it was taken off, Mr. Carlisle stated he cannot speak to the specifics. He believes it was on
the list to compete for funding but it was not selected because it did not rank high enough. He can provide the
appropriate NCDOT contact to discuss the STIP prioritization. He does think it is still on the list and will likely remain
on the list for reprioritization next year, but is unsure if it will rank high enough to receive funding.
A brief discussion was held about how each year the WMPO, along with the Transportation Advisory
Committee (TAC), evaluates different road projects in this region and uses a scoring mechanism to rank the projects
by priority. Some fall in, some fall out. This WMPO has a 40% ranking in terms of determining what happens while
NCDOT has a 60% ranking. Although the TAC is an advisory committee, NCDOT will determine based on the
amount of resources it has and input from the WMPO/TAC as well as their engineers and staff, what will be done.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 864
Every year the funds are shifted from one place to another depending on what the TAC deems necessary. The TAC is
comprised of New Hanover, Brunswick, and Pender counties. The project is still on the list but not funded.
Commissioner Zapple stated that he understands how retail in a project such as this can actually reduce the
number and length of trips in the area. He asked Mr. Andrea if he had in mind, based on internal staff discussions,
what kind of retail could work that would allow the workforce housing. Mr. Andrea stated that he would state first
that as planners, staff doesn’t necessarily go down the road of suggesting what businesses might be viable for a
particular piece of property. What staff would envision are businesses that are consumer services or consumer goods
and services type things. Those are the types of businesses staff envisions getting closer to people, to homes, so that
it does have those positive effects of cutting down traffic.
Mr. Andrea further stated as a point of clarification that the existing zoning now is B-2 and Office and
Institutional which are regular zoning districts. There’s not an approved plan in the Planning and Land Use department
or any sort of plan approval for this particular piece of property. When this application was discussed at the Planning
Board meeting and even prior to that when staff was discussing and assessing whether it’s consistent with the Urban
Mixed Use place type, one of the things found was a void in finding consistency with that was some component of
commercial use. Staff is not suggesting that workforce housing or residential development on this property is not a
good thing, but rather that some component of consumer goods and services intermingled with some residential
development would be a step in the direction towards the more consistency with that Urban Mixed Use place type.
Regarding being able to provide a percentage of commercial services, Mr. Andrea stated that it is a case by
case basis when staff is looking at this, but staff does look closely with the guidance at what the Comprehensive Plan
suggests. Planning Manager Ken Vafier stated that he would not offer a percentage but would offer a point not
discussed tonight. One of the issues that led to staff’s recommendation was that this application was removing almost
the entirety of the commercial area that's already zoned there that could already provide the commercial that would
support the mixed use by proximity as Mr. Lee mentioned. There could still be opportunities on adjacent parcels
should they develop in the future to provide some of those rooftops.
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated the Board was criticized in May when during the budget process affordable
housing was not addressed. It is his opinion that is a federal issue and the County should not be involved in affordable
housing. It is also not the County’s place to create workforce housing. However, when the marketplace brings it
forward it is an opportunity for us to legislate in favor of affordable housing. For over 10 years the property has been
vacant as there is no economic draw, which can be seen by current development. Affordable housing, workforce
housing, on that corridor of I-40 will support an economic benefit to all three counties. This County benefits from
what happens in Brunswick and Pender counties and in his opinion, having that close proximity to I-40 will allow
individuals to easily reach their destinations. There will be more traffic in that area regardless of what is developed.
While he respects staff's opinion as to where residents may shop versus where they reside, in his industry there's a
statistic that people will shop within one or two miles of where they live or where they work, whichever is most
convenient.
Commissioner Barfield stated that he wants to clarify that workforce housing and affordable housing are the
same thing. The word affordable housing was used and because people got it twisted with public and Section 8
housing, the realtor community came up with the term workforce housing. So they are not two separate things, they
are the same thing. He does not want the Board to intertwine those two nor be confused about words. He reiterated
that his concern is the traffic in that area and the impacts in the area.
Commissioner Zapple stated that he is looking for a way to support this. His main concern is the lack of
infrastructure and the fact that this one project, before the other approved apartment project is developed will add an
additional 3,534 trips per day in a 24-hour period. The lack of the road widening, which may happen in the future or
may not, the lack of the infrastructure of school capacity, no reasonable alternative transportation, and mainly not
being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan are his concerns. He would strongly encourage the applicants to rework
this slightly to add some sort of retail component mainly on Gordon Road that would allow this to fit into the
Comprehensive Plan. While he knows the market will pick up there, the Board cannot continue to approve these type
projects while the infrastructure is not there and then turn around and have to deal with the negative aftereffects. He
stated for those reasons he would not support a motion to approve at this point.
Chairman White stated for the record that when he posed the question to Mr. Andrea about a downzone, he
misunderstood the applicant’s presentation. That was his error not Mr. Andrea’s and appreciates Mr. Andrea’s
thoughtfully phrased response to his question. He does not know why he thought that, but thought it was relative to
the density and not to the traffic and he appreciates the clarification.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White closed the Board discussion and asked whether the applicant
wanted to continue the application to a future meeting or proceed with the Board deciding to approve or deny the
request. Mr. Lee requested the Board to proceed with the decision.
Chairman White requested direction from the Board.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that though there is question as to whether it falls into the 2016
Comprehensive Plan, he thinks in the larger picture it will especially since, as Commissioner Barfield clarified,
workforce and affordable housing are synonymous. It is his motion to accept to rezone to conditional use district R-
15 from the current O&I and B-2.
Chairman White asked if in Vice-Chairman Watkins salutary comments that he believes that ultimately it
will fall within the Comprehensive Land Use Plan over time, that’s consistent and will meet the markers. Mr. Andrea
stated that some statement is needed as to why it is reasonable and in the public interest.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 865
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated specifically because it meets the identified shortage of 5,000 or so affordable
workforce housing that was identified in the original report presented in April to this Board and identified again when
the Board passed a budget and did not address affordable housing. So the shortage of affordable/workforce housing
and in proximity with the other hundred some-odd acres there's an opportunity for the mixed use to be completed,
hopefully.
Chairman White asked County Attorney Copley if it would be appropriate to add to that component of the
public interest that it improves traffic flow based on the evidence that was presented tonight and, thirdly, that it
increases the probability of adjacent parcels being developed for commercial uses at a later time. The Board would be
making a judgment call on that possibility if it puts more roofs or houses there that the other 236 acres would be more
likely to be developed commercially even though it can't force that. If that's the case, he thinks everyone has agreed
through this conversation that it would be in the public interest because that would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. County Attorney Copley stated that it can be included in the motion.
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated he would accept the additional verbiage in his motion.
Amended Motion:
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated though there is question as to whether it falls into the 2016
Comprehensive Plan, he thinks in the larger picture it will especially with, as Commissioner Barfield clarified, that
the workforce and affordable housing are synonymous. His motion was to accept, to move to rezone to conditional
use district R-15 from the current O&I and B-2. Specifically, because it meets the identified shortage of 5,000 or so
affordable housing workforce that was identified in our original report presented in April to this Board and identified
again when the Board passed a budget and did not address affordable housing. So the shortage of affordable/workforce
housing and in proximity with the other hundred some-odd acres there's an opportunity for the mixed use to be
completed, hopefully. It is reasonable and in the public interest that it improves traffic flow based on the evidence that
was presented tonight and that it increases the probability of adjacent parcels being developed for commercial uses at
a later time and consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman White asked if there was a second to the motion.
Commissioner Kusek SECONDED the motion.
Chairman White asked if there was any additional Board discussion.
Commissioner Barfield stated although what the presentation is showing that there's no real traffic impact,
the Board knows different. The Board knows it has approved a project with 328 units. It’s assumed based on the
presentation and based on what NCDOT is not counting that everything will be fine, but we know that it won't be.
Once the project goes into effect there will be issues in the area that will have to be dealt with.
Chairman White stated that his recollection of the evidence was the traffic improvements to Gordon Road
and the stop sign has a net positive on traffic flow, regardless of whether the other project goes forward. He asked if
he heard the evidence incorrectly. Mr. Andrea stated that he believes what Chairman White heard was that the LOS
would improve with the suggested TIA improvements for this project. Chairman White then asked if the request is
denied then is it correct the LOS doesn’t improve. County Manager Coudriet stated that he believes NCDOT stated it
did not contemplate for the approval this Board has already made for the residential units across the street.
Chairman White asked if that was the petitioner’s fault, could the petitioner not have asked for that, was it
not asked to contemplate. He also asked what was the scope of the requirements on that point. Mr. Andrea stated that
he did hear Mr. Carlisle state that the numbers were not included in this project’s TIA because of the buildout date of
the apartment complex. Mr. Carlisle stated that the buildout of the apartments across the street has already passed, so
in the eyes of NCDOT and through the TIA process, that project is stagnant so that traffic was not included in this
analysis. If the other project comes back it will have to include this development’s traffic, if this request is approved.
There will be a cumulative effect analyzed in the future if the other apartment complex comes forward. Chairman
White stated that is what he heard.
Commissioner Barfield stated that the analysis for the other apartment complex will not come back before
this Board, it will be handled at the NCDOT level and this Board will have no input into what NCDOT requires. He
stated that in speaking with Mr. Swain recently, the plan is to move forward with that project. Traffic will be increased
in the area and will cause issues for individuals in the area once everything is online. The Board knows this will happen
as it approved the project.
Chairman White stated that the Board is considering evidence that wasn’t even presented tonight.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Carlisle confirmed that he did state whether it’s by-right, the rezoning
potential or the apartment complex across the street, there would be a higher traffic count. It’s also difficult to place
an exact number on it.
Commissioner Zapple stated that regarding Chairman White’s comments about the adjacent undeveloped
parcels he thinks it’s totally speculative on the part of this Board to consider what will or won't go in there.
Chairman White stated that staff speculated by recommending in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That's
what the whole plan is based on, speculation on what we want and where. The petitioner presented evidence of 236
acres are still available to meet the overall policy objectives set by staff and the Board in the future or this board with
other developments. That's the point he was trying to make and if the Board finds that is in the public interest.
Vice-Chairman Watkins called the question.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 866
Commissioner Zapple stated that his point is we don’t know. Just as was found here, saying we are going to
be following the Comprehensive Plan for the rest of the acreage that’s over there if we move forward with this means
we won't be following the Comprehensive Plan here. The same thing could happen in this area. To speculate further
that there will be rooftops there which will drive more commercial retail he thinks it’s highly speculative on the
Board’s part and does not think it should be part of the Board’s thinking or consideration here.
Chairman White stated that the question has been called for a vote on the motion on the table concerning the
rezoning portion of the application.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 – 2. Commissioner Barfield and Commissioner Zapple voted in
opposition.
Chairman White requested direction from the Board concerning the companion Special Use Permit.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek to approve, as the Board of
Commissioners finds that this application for a Special Use Permit to develop a high density development meets the
four required conclusions: 1) will not materially endanger the public health or safety; 2) meets all required conditions
and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance; 3) will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property;
and 4) will be in harmony with the surrounding area, and is in general conformity of the plans of development for
New Hanover County, with the following four conditions:
1. The proposed private right-of-ways shall be open for public use and placed within a public access
easement.
2. Streetscape landscaping and buffering, consistent with that of which is required for high density
developments adjacent to single-family developments, shall be installed around the multi-family
structures to provide a screen from the single-family lots located within the development.
3. A 20-foot wide access easement shall be dedicated to the County along Smith Creek in order to allow
for the future installation of a multi-use path in accordance with the Wilmington/NHC Greenway
Plan.
4. Five feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated to NCDOT along Gordon Road for the purpose of allowing
for future roadway improvements. This right-of-way dedication shall be in addition to any right-of-
way dedication required as a result of the TIA and driveway permit.
Chairman White asked if there was any further Board discussion.
Commissioner Zapple asked if Vice-Chairman Watkins would amend his motion to include a fifth condition
of setting aside ten percent of the acreage for the inclusion of retail or community services as part of the SUP.
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated he would not amend his motion to include the fifth condition.
Mr. Schuler stated that the requested condition would most likely require some significant changes to the site
plan which staff would need to review.
Chairman White ruled the requested amendment to the motion on the table out of order.
County Manager Coudriet stated that from a staff perspective, he wants to make sure as it was motioned by
Vice-Chairman Watkins that it fully covers from staff’s perspective anything that the TIA may require of the applicant.
Chairman White stated that with Vice-Chairman Watkins’ comments that he adheres to that, he thinks that is
encompassed and staff has clear direction on that.
Chairman White called for a vote on the motion on the table concerning the Special Use Permit.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 – 2. Commissioner Barfield and Commissioner Zapple voted in
opposition.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
OF AREA 8B OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED July 7, 1972, is hereby
incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8B, Page 76.
A copy of the order granting the Special Use Permit and listing the findings of fact is contained in SUP Book
IV, Page 67.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman White reported that three people had signed up to speak on non-agenda items.
Dee Wyly, a resident of Castle Street, stated that she represents certain members of the community who are
very concerned about Project Grace. They do not want the museum and library moved, altered, or destroyed. The
library is an excellent location currently for those that live in the downtown area and everyone else. It is a vital resource
for everyone in the community. Also the mission statement of the museum itself is education and that means its main
purpose is education of the public and school children.
Susan Silver, a resident of South Third Street, stated that she, along with a significant number of
Wilmingtonians and the Board’s constituents are opposed to the proposals that would change the library and the
museum. Based on what she heard at the July meeting and subsequent press coverage, it seems to be a foregone
conclusion that scenario 4 will be approved. Many have emailed each of the Commissioners to engage and encourage
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 867
the Board to get public comment and input into the plan but apart from Chairman White, no one has received an
answer to their emails. This is disappointing as they would have hoped that the Board would be interested in knowing
how they would like to see their money spent. She then extended an invitation to the Board to attend a public meeting
th
on Tuesday, September 12 at 5.30 p.m. at the main library of the Downtown Readers Book Club and others who will
be discussing Project Grace.
th
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated he plans to attend the September 12 meeting.
Vice-Chairman Watkins asked County Manager Coudriet to provide an update on the two informational
meetings. County Manager Coudriet stated that there are two public meetings scheduled. They have not been published
as of yet as staff is trying to finalize the logistics. Unless something happens there will be a meeting on September
thth
18 and a second meeting on September 19, one at the main library and one at the Cape Fear Museum. The meeting
information will be sent out via public notice through all our media channels.
Ms. Silver stated that Ms. Rigby has met with the boards of various organizations and when asked about
seeking public comment she specifically said on more than one occasion, the public has had its chance at previous
meetings to express itself and there will be no further input. She stated she was quoting Ms. Rigby.
Chairman White stated that he thought there was general uniform agreement from library people, museum
people, and downtown community. He has heard nothing but positives except from a couple dozen people over the
last two weeks. He certainly doesn’t want to be invited to a firing squad and thought it was a nice public informal
gathering. He does intend to be there as he stated in his email. He asked if there's any further clarification staff can
say publicly about the efforts that went into engaging some of the stakeholders prior to that.
County Manager Coudriet stated that staff committed it would meet with organized stakeholders. Certainly
staff could not go door to door to meet with every neighborhood person but staff did meet with the Cape Fear Museum
Advisory Board, the Cape Fear Museum Associates, the Library Museum Board, Friends of the Library, Residents of
Old Wilmington, and Wilmington Downtown, Inc., that have an organized structure. Staff made very detailed
presentations to each and clearly articulated at those gatherings that there would be public input along the way. What
was probably stated is that when staff makes the presentation to the Board, unless it directs otherwise, staff does not
intend to schedule it as a public hearing. That would have been clearly articulated and it has always been part of the
plan and the outreach to engage and hold meetings at the library and the museum so that individuals or neighborhoods
that are impacted by any recommendation staff might make to the Board, have the opportunity to be informed about
what staff recommends. Ms. Rigby wrote to the Board specifically about what has been heard as it relates to the
Museum piece in that if the Board chooses to co-locate, the decision of what to do with the Museum needs to be fast
forwarded. It was not necessarily in staff’s mind, if staff recommended scenario 4, that was a decision that needed to
be made sooner rather than later because it's multiple years before that would happen but clearly the community has
expressed concern with uncertainty. If staff recommends scenario 4, one of the ways that it would be an impact in the
recommendation is that staff knows the community is concerned about what becomes of the museum property as a
whole, not just the building but the parking lot and also some dedicated green space.
th
Vice-Chairman Watkins requested that the organizers of the September 12 meeting reconsider allowing Ms.
Rigby to make a presentation.
Chairman White stated that he accepted an invitation to a small meeting and agreed to attend. He did not
know there was a formal presentation and a public hearing. There will be opportunities for this at a proper time and
he had asked Library Director Harry Tuchmayer to attend the meeting and would like for the Cape Fear Museum
Director Sheryl Mays to attend. The Board has been told that the library and museum people are in great support of
this idea and it is an idea, it is not a decision that's been made. It's certainly one he has expressed support for in his
emails to people and he has expressed support for selling the museum. He has been public about it and others have to,
about their viewpoints. Nobody has made any decisions, but there is clear momentum for a choice he thinks the Board
might be asked to make.
Dorothy Moon, a resident of South Eighth Street, stated she was also present to speak about Project Grace.
When she first heard about Project Grace she was excited because she does know there are many pressing and growing
needs in New Hanover County and the idea of using underutilized properties in order to boost revenues was an
intriguing idea. However, through news articles and conversations, it was brought to her attention that there were those
that were leaning towards the museum and library combination which is concerning to her. She also has concerns that
in looking at the numbers it is the most expensive option, at $21 million and will take 19 years to pay off and will
pretty much negate the revenue benefits of Project Grace for nearly two decades. She requested that as the Board starts
moving forward and considering its options on Project Grace that it consider the quality of life of those outside the
central business district of downtown.
Commissioner Zapple stated that he has tried to respond to as many emails as possible and apologized if he
did not get back to anyone quick enough. However, he has noticed in some of the conversation some points of
misinformation which he knows have caused great concern. One item is that the library would go away and not have
any service if it was taken down for as long as two years during a rebuilding process. He stated he can guarantee that
in all discussions of this, if indeed the decision is to move ahead with this and the current library were taken down,
there would be continuous service within a one or two block area during that entire time. The Commissioners are in
complete agreement with that. Also there's been some concern that the library would actually be a smaller space which
is also not true. The actual usable space of the library in all the configurations, if indeed it were to be rebuilt, would
be larger. It has to do with shifting out administration and shifting the basement storage which currently is in miserable
shape. The third point being circulated which is also not true is that the museum, if it is to be downtown, will have
less square footage than it currently does now. It will actually have more space. So there will be improvements to both
the museum and the library, if indeed the Board chooses to do that. He stated that he wanted to make these statements
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 868
th
as there are a number of erroneous emails being circulated. He stated he would be unable to attend the September 12
meeting as he be returning from being out of town and if possible, will try to get there.
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Chairman White stated he would echo Commissioner Zapple’s comments that’s is why he has sensed the
excitement, and personally why he got excited, about this conversation. When he was first elected five years ago,
discussions were held about what it would cost to move the museum, how there could be better engagement of the
services, put more of the 28,000 artifacts in the basement out for public display, and how the cost of building a facility
downtown or anywhere for that matter by itself is prohibitive. This is a potential possibility to make it affordable. In
his email responses he has commented from his personal view that if it is affordable that's an option he will strongly
consider.
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that the Board totally understands citizens’ concerns and he has not decided
on the matter. He stated that Commissioner Zapple is correct, the library goes from approximately 30,000 usable feet
to approximately 40,000. The museum in its current configuration lacks the ability to be flexible for traveling exhibits
and it would have larger, better space. Library services will not be interrupted and the collection will be transferred to
the northeast library as well as administration, and restoration will be there. The museum right now as it sits will need
an approximately $1.3 million capital improvement just to keep the building going. It has an HVAC issue right now
that will probably cost three-quarters of a million dollars. In looking at what it would take at this point to keep it in
the shape that would represent the heritage of our community, it's approximately $3 million. He hopes the integrity of
the lot can be preserved but cannot define what that means. When the museum expanded many years ago and left the
red brick structure and added the wing, it was a disappointment. Personally to him, the wing does not provide a
historical representation. The integrity of the building, the armory aspect to it, he truly hopes to support the integrity
of that location to the best of our ability.
Commissioner Barfield commented that in light of the pending hurricane that may strike this region he asked
that everyone please keep in their prayers those in Texas, Louisiana and who have lost their lives and those who live
in Florida that will be dealing with the impending hurricane in the coming days.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman White adjourned the meeting at 6:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kymberleigh G. Crowell
Clerk to the Board
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
meeting. The entire proceedings are available for review and checkout at all New Hanover County Libraries and
online at www.nhcgov.com.