Tr  NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH FOUNDED INI 1090 PEA-XaylB-g NORTH CAROLINA Town of North Topsail Beach Planning Board Special Meeting Thursday, July 11, 2024, at 6:00 PM (910) 328-1349 www.northtopsalbeachnc.gov  Town Hall - 2008 Loggerhead Court, North Topsail Beach, NC 28460  PRESENT: Susan Meyer - Chair, Fred Fontana = Vice Chair, Scott Morse, Lisal Brown, Teri Ward  ABSENT: None. . CALL TO ORDER II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA  Chair Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m.  Ms. Ward made a motion to adopt the agenda. Mr. Morse seconded the motion. There was discussion about adjusting the agenda. The motion failed unanimously, 0-5. Vice Chair Fontana made a motion to change the agenda by moving item number' VI. make that become item number V. and item number' V. will then become item number' VI. Ms. Ward seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 6, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes  Mr. Morse made a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting. Ms. Brown seconded the  motion. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.  IV. PUBLIC COMMENT V. DISCUSSION  None. Mr. Daniel Sooy chose to speak during the rezoning section.  The Planning Board watched the APA Video: Zoning Ordinances Presentation for Planning Officials VI. NEW BUSINESS: Rezoning Application #RZ24-000001: 1090 New River Inlet Rd (R20 to R15) Planning Director Hill gave a prelude to the staff report. She explained that the Planning Board was responsible for writing their zoning map amendment recommendation in the format of a plan consistency andi reasonableness statement to document that the Board considered the comprehensive plan in that decision. Ms. Hill explained the handouts provided to the Board, the applicant, and the applicant's architect (attached). She read aloud "For a plan that also serves as a land use plan mandated by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), G.S. 160D-501 also clarifies that the plan amendment is not effective for CAMA purposes until it goes through the CAMA plan review and Mr. Fontana asked ift the Board recommended the rezoning, would CAMA also have to approve the Planning Director Hill confirmed that the rezoning would have to be submitted to CAMA, and explained that she had reached out to CAMA toi find out what their procedures were relative to General Statute Planning Director Hill continued, referencing pages 6-1 and 6-2 of the Town's CAMA Land Use Plan, highlighting the items the plan lists for consideration in deliberation of all zoning petitions. Planning  approval process." rezoning.  160D and was awaiting a response.    Director Hill credited the last page oft the handouts to the University of North Carolina School of Government Chapter 160D Guidance document explaining how to draft a consistency and reasonableness statement. She emphasized the importance of documenting that the Planning Board compared the rezoning application to the comprehensive plan, identified whether the application waso or was not consistent with the comprehensive plan, and specified the areas that was or was not consistent. The reasonableness statement should indicate whether the application was reasonable, Planning Director Hill recommended that the Planning Board work through the two statements first, then make the recommendation, and finally adopt the two statements to be presented to the Board of  whether it was in the public interest, and why.  Aldermen.  Planning Director Hill then presented the Staff Report. The Planning Board asked Planning Director Hill questions. Mr. Fontana asked if the lot could be developed currently, zoned as R-20.  Planning Director Hill responded that she could not make that determination without a complete application package. The survey created by Mr. Canady included in the packet was more than six months old, and by CAMA regulations the first line must be within six months to be considered Ms. Meyer asked if 1078 New River Inlet Road understood the potential emergency vehicle effects. Planning Director Hill responded that unless the owners read the report, they may be unaware. Ms. Hill explained that she discussed emergency vehicle access to these lots with the Fire Chief. Planning Director Hill replied that both were available, however the demand on utilities, the impact on the roadways, infrastructure, emergency services, et cetera from increased density should be Ms. Ward asked if rezoning from R-20 to R-15 would make emergency vehicle access more Ms. Ward asked how taking action to reduce the erosion rate and spot zoning would impact access. Planning Director Hill explained the access issue was related to the build-out percentage, and noted there were trees planted and cars parked within was used to be a forty-foot accessway to the Mr. Fontana suggested that the erosion rate of three feet per year would make any development along Planning Director Hill confirmed, and suggested a successful beach renourishment program could  accurate.  Ms. Meyer asked if they could access water or sewer.  considered. challenging.  Planning Director Hill confirmed.  surrounding properties, further limiting access. the oceanside of New River Inlet Road challenging.  potentially bring back formerly unbuildable lots within ai few years. Mr. Fontana asked if this property was int the cobra zone (CBRS).  Ms. Hill confirmed. Board's rezoning decision.  Mr. Fontana suggested that insurance may be difficult to obtain, and asked if that had any effect on the Ms. Hill answered no. The Board should consider the CAMA Land Use Plan, which is the comprehensive plan. She posed: did the application meet the five requirements per the North Carolina General Statute (NCGS), and the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Ms. Meyer asked if the erosion rate was the same for the surrounding lots. Ms. Hill replied that she did not know the boundary of the erosion rate and would have to check. Ms. Meyer asked if the surrounding structures were damaged over fifty percent, would they have to Ms. Hill explained that if the erosion rate is 3.0, then the small structure setback is ninety feet. Ms. Hill replied that the other properties would have to go through the same process, and without those Mr. Sooy, the owner of the subject property, addressed the Planning Board. He asked the Planning Board to consider that the land was lost to the ocean. Mr. Sooy handed out three pictures (attached) illustrating the beach renourishment activity that he performed after Hurricane Florence washed out the dune. He explained the first image was a Google image illustrating the washed out dune in 2019, the second image from 2023 included the beach renourishment activity he undertook on the right as well as his neighbor's, Mr. Sutton's property on the left side, and the third image showed al large dipi in the dune  meet the same setbacks.  Ms. Meyer asked if rezoning this property would be preferential treatment. applications, she was unable to make that determination.    that related to an easement where people were walking between Mr. Sooy's and Mr. Sutton's property to access the beach. The post and rope in the picture illustrated the property line and utility boxes at the end. Mr. Sooy had the road right-of-way easement established in 1959 removed, with the intention of stopping people from walking across his property. The 1959 easement was intended to connect the sound to the ocean. He explained that Mr. Charles Riggs had applied to build al beach access to stop Mr. Sooy continued and explained that he removed the forty-foot easement from his property only, not his neighbors' properties. It was created for the properties to have a shared driveway. Mr. Sooy's neighbors' gravel driveway with railroad ties, as well as a utility line tensioner placed in that areal both Mr. Sooy expressed his belief that all the properties should be rezoned based upon the non-conforming: dimensional requirements. That would change the minimum setback distance from the road, which would be beneficial to Mr. Sooy and his neighbors, since he wanted to build closer to the road. Mr. Toby Keaton, of Kersting Architecture in' Wilmington, North Carolina, addressed the Planning Board. Mr. Keaton explained that they had not begun a building design pending the rezoning request. He suggested that zoning regulations were to maintain consistency with the surrounding area. Mr. Keaton expressed the idea of increasing the buildable areai toward the street to design a building more consistent with the surrounding areas and explained that the next step was to make a CAMA application with a building design for approval. Mr. Keaton suggested that the denied 2007 plan was not relevant to this application, and that the non-conforming: lot on the year-old survey did present a buildable area. He suggested that emergency vehicle access in his experience was more of a right-of- way issue, and that other things such as mailboxes, vegetation, and fences could also impede emergency vehicle access int that area, sO rezoning was not an applicable comparison. Mr. Keaton suggested that his calculation of rezoning this lot to R-15 density was closer to low density than medium density, at 2.75 dwelling units per acre. He also suggested that the entire context of the neighborhood within the CAMA Land Use Plan was medium density, except fori these five adjacent lots, of which Mr. Sooy's lot was the largest atf fifteen thousand square feet. Mr. Keaton then suggested that one unit per fifteen thousand square feet would never reach low density. He conceded that a duplex built on the lot would increase density. He explained that he did not know ift there was potential for a Mr. Keaton confirmed yes, a place to sleep, a place to eat, and al bathroom would fit according tot the Ms. Ward asked if the purpose of the rezoning would be to build something bigger with more room. Mr. Keaton explained that the building envelope was a wedge shape, and the resulting structure would Mr. Fontana stated that the benefits of rezoning would be to build closer to the street and al larger Mr. Keaton confirmed and explained the shape would be more of a box than a wedge to be more There was discussion about the hypothetical existing dimensions of the building envelope and the Mr. Fontana requested the potential square footage of the existing envelope versus the rezoned Mr. Keaton five hundred square feet per floor plate and mentioned the rezoned proportions would allow Planning Director Hill explained that to place conditions on this legislative decision situation would be illegal per North Carolina General Statue 160D which explicitly standardized what the Planning Board can and cannot do, such as including the analysis of the application and a written recommendation to Mr. Sooy spoke again about the beach renourishment activity he performed on his lot. He said that he understood the rezoning limitations, but he would not build a duplex. There was further discussion regarding the high erosion rate of the area. Ms. Ward stated the application was counterintuitive to the Town's mitigation standards. Mr. Keaton replied that it would allow for wiggle room away from CAMA's ninety-foot setback.  people from walking over the dune.  hindered access to the continuation of the driveway through his property.  conditional rezoning to be single-family.  Ms. Ward asked ifa al house could be built ift the zoning did not change.  year-old survey. look weird. house.  consistent with the surrounding area. potential for an increased building envelope.  envelope. for better architecture.  There was discussion about emergency access limitations.  the Board of Aldermen.    Ms. Ward asked Ms. Hill if the lot remained as R-20, and they built what they could, how would that Planning Director Hill replied that if they built within the existing envelope and it met the Building Code, then it would meet the Building Code. Ms. Hill pointed out the property owner also had the option of requesting a variance from the ninety-foot setback from the Coastal Resource Commission (CRC). Mr. Keaton agreed, and said he believed they must exhaust all other options prior to applying to the  relate to the standards of the Town.  CRC. Denying the rezoning request might fulfil that prerequisite. The Planning Board took a recess at 7:50 p.m. The Planning Board returned at 7:58 p.m. or was not consistent with the comprehensive plan. and this stretch of New River Inlet.  The Planning Board members chose to have a discussion prior to deciding whether the application was Mr. Fontana asked Planning Director Hill what zoning the comprehensive plan required for this property Planning Director Hill explained that the comprehensive plan was the big plan for the Town, rather than specific lots, except for where it listed this property and the properties beside it as low density in the future land use map. Ms. Hill pointed out policy statements such as numbers 25 and 55 in the comprehensive plan were the enforceable items within the plan. She explained that the policy statements within the CAMA Land Use Plan carry the same weight, if not more than the zoning Mr. Fontana asked Planning Director Hill about the accuracy of the claim Mr. Keaton made that the Planning Director Hill explained that R-15z zoning allows for duplexes, and the Planning Board must consider all uses in their decision. The definition of low density is two units per acre, or one unit per half acre. Medium density is four units per acre, or one unit per quarter acre. Therefore, a duplex would be Mr. Keaton suggested that within a table oft the CAMA Land Use Plan, R-15 was generally consistent with the type of development that should happen on this property. The dimensional characteristics of Planning Director Hill explained that it was up to the Planning Board to determine whether the proposal met the low-density requirements of the future land use plan. Ifit did not meet the requirements, and the Planning Board wanted to recommend approval anyway, they could provide aj justification. If the Board of Aldermen approved the rezoning to the higher density, their decision would automatically There was discussion about the density of R-20 as low density, and R-15 as being generally consistent Ms. Brown offered that to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, they were: saying it was Mr. Fontana offered that if they developed the property in al low-density form, it would be consistent, but rezoning would not preclude them from building a medium-density structure which would then make it Ms. Meyer mentioned the topic of spot zoning and the amiable discussions the applicant had with surrounding property owners, noting that discussion did not mean the other owners would apply for Planning Director Hill agreed and noted that they would be required to meet the same five conditions from the UDO and be consistent with the comprehensive plan. She suggested that rezoning other properties to avoid spot zoning would circumvent the objections of spot zoning and suggested that in some cases there might be aj justifiable reason for spot zoning, such as allowing for a neighborhood corner store when the neighborhood desired one, ifits served the public interest. The allowable use Chair Meyer asked Clerk Winzler to poll the Planning Board as to whether the application was or was  ordinance.  rezoning would be closer to low density than medium density.  medium density.  the lots in this area would never be consistent with low-density.  amend the future land use plan. with low and medium density. Planning Director Hill agreed. consistent with low-density residential.  Ms. Ward stated this lot did not meet the low-density criteria.  inconsistent. rezoning.  table would then be amended to support stores in residential zoning. not consistent with the comprehensive plan, the results as follows:  Roll call Ms. Brown  Vote No    Mr. Morse Chair Meyer Vice Chair Fontana Ms. Ward  Is Not Is Not Is Not Is Not  Planning Director Hill asked the Planning Board if they would like to have a discussion or adoption of Chair Meyer asked Clerk Winzler to poll the Planning Board as to whether the application was or was  the statements justifying why it is not consistent. not reasonable, the results as follows:  Roll call Ms. Ward Vice Chair Fontana Chair Meyer Mr. Morse Ms. Brown  Vote Is Not Is Not Is Not Is Not Is Not  There was discussion regarding the proper protocol for formulating the required statements and the motion. The Planning Board deliberated and discussed several reasons that the rezoning application  was not ini the public interest, including: The erosion rate.  Itis counterintuitive for the Town's standards of hazard mitigation planning. Removing the reference to the 2007 application denial. Including the confirmed erosion rate by the 2007 and 2021 plats of survey. The restriction of emergency vehicles from accessing the property.  Ms. Brown proposed that the Board exclude the first sentence in the first paragraph and the last Vice Chair Fontana made a motion that the proposed rezoning is not reasonable in the public interest because it does not support the comprehensive plan policies as listed in number one by removing the first sentence in paragraph one and the last sentence in the second paragraph under one, and items two, three, and four, and then also adding rezoning would restrict access Vice Chair Fontana revised the motion to the proposed rezoning is not reasonable in the public interest because it does not support the comprehensive plan policies as listed in number one by removing the first sentence in paragraph one and the last sentence in the second paragraph under one, and items two, three, and four, and then also adding rezoning may restrict access to the property for emergency vehicles. Ms. Ward seconded the motion. The motion passed *Clerk's note: The statements referred to in the above motion are from the Staff Report, STAFF RECCOMENDATION, Consistency and Reasonableness Statement, reasonableness section as 1) The challenge is the effect of the erosion rate in that area of 3.01 ft/year, which is used to calculate the CAMA setback from the FLSNV or the Static line, 3.0x 30= = 90 feet. From 1993 to 2023, thirty years, the platted. size oft the lot, as measured from the approximate high-water line - which has also Comparing the approximate mean high-water line from a plat of survey by Charles Riggs PLS dated 7/19/2000 andi the shared boundary "eg" ofGairy I. Canady PLS original plat 6/16/21, in 2000, the distance to the mean high-water line was 171.15 feet and in 2021, 109.2 feet, which indicates a loss of 2). Amending zoning setbacks and granting variances in high erosion rate areas to allow for development is counterintuitive to the higher standards that the Town has adopted in its hazard 3) This amendment does not improve consistency with the long-range plan, nor improve the tax base, nor preserve environmental and/or cultural resources, nor facilitates a desired kind of development, and  sentence in the second paragraph.  tot the property for emergency vehicles. Mr. Morse seconded the motion.  Ms. Brown requested that the word "would" be changed.  unanimously, 5-0. * follows:  receded - has been reduced from 26,630 sq ft to 15,606.8. sq ft. or 41.4%.  61.95 feet in 21 years.  mitigation planning to protect the community. is therefore not in the public interest; and    4) Changed conditions warranting the amendment would be a reduced erosion rate and a successful beach nourishment project, with owners investing in sand fencing and planting sea oats, resulting ina a Ms. Brown made a motion that we use the language that is on page two here with compatibility Ms. Brown restated the motion is to the language that we're debating here which is to say the proposed zoning amendment is not consistent with the comprehensive plan because and then take the block of information that Deb has at the top oft the second page of this packet and use that information as our reasoning, starting with "Promoting." ** The motion passed  stable building envelope.  5) Rezoning may restrict access to the property for emergency vehicles. [Added] with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Morse seconded the motion. Mr. Fontana asked Ms. Brown to restate the motion.  unanimously, 5-0, as follows; Roll call Ms. Ward Vice Chair Fontana Chair Meyer Mr. Morse Ms. Brown  Vote Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  **Clerk's note: The block ofinformation referred to in the above. motion is from the Staff Report, page 2 Promoting the development of properties that have been deemed unbuildable due to either state or P.2 25 The Town, ina an effort to protect the eco-friendly environment that the Town has established over the years, may aim to secure lots through either acquisition, grant-funded, purchase, or donation. These lots may be secured as open space easements in perpetuity. Special attention will be given to acquire properties that have been deemed unbuildable due to either. state or local development regulations; and P. 52 The Town supports relocation of structures endangered by erosion, if the relocated structure will be in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal policies and regulations including the Town's. zoning and subdivision ordinances. Relocation of structures should comply with density The application is inconsistent with Future Land Use Map Low Density requirement. Allowable density is 2 dwelling units per acre or 1du/.5 acres. The proposed density is 1 du or 2 du/.36 acres, P.5 55 The Town. supports the land use densities that are specified on page 4-13 of this plan. Through enforcement oft the zoning ordinance, these densities will minimize damage from natural hazards and support the hazard mitigation plan. The Future Land Use Map 11-B on p. 4-18 indicates the property is Future. Land Use Compatibility Matrix p.4-15 R-20 is generally consistent with Low Density Residential; the proposed amendment to R-15 is generally consistent with both Low and Medium Density. Ms. Ward made a motion to send our recommendation to not approve the proposed zoning amendment to the Board of Aldermen. Mr. Fontana seconded. The motion passed unanimously, Ms. Ward made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Brown seconded the motion. The motion passed  Compatibility with the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, as follows: local development regulations is inconsistent with:  standards outlined within the future. land use map section of this plan.  classified as Low Density.  5-0.  VII. ADJOURNMENT unanimously, 5-0. APPROVED This 5"day of September 2024 Swoan Susan Meyer, Chair  The Planning Board Meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.  CERTIFIED  This 5th day of September 2024 9  Muga  Kate  Clerk to the Planning Board    Statutory Authorization 160D-605 is provided belowf for quick reference. 160D-604. Planning board review and comment.  Thes statutory language regarding plan consistency: statementsi in Chapter 160D, Section 160D-604and  (d) Plan consistency. When conducting: a review of proposed zoning text orr map: amendments pursuant to this section, the planning board: shalla advise and comment ons whether the proposed action isc consistent with any comprehensive plan that has been adopted and: any other officially adopted plan thati isa applicable. The planning board shall provide a written recommendation' tot the governing! board thata addresses plan consistency: and other matters as deemed appropriate by the planning board, buta a comment by the planning board that ap proposed amendment isi inconsistent with the comprehensive plans shall not preclude consideration or approval oft the proposed amendment by the governing board. Ifaz zoning map amendment qualifies as a "large-scale rezoning" under G.S.: 160D-602(b), the planning board: statement describing plan consistency may address the overall rezoning and describe howt the analysis and polices int ther relevant adopted plans were considered int the recommendation: made. CAMAI review: For a plant that also serves as al land use plan mandated byt the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), G.S. 160D-501 also clarifiest that the plan amendmenti is note effective for CAMA purposes untili itgoes through the CAMA plan review and approval process.  B) Statements of reasonablenesst for zoning mapa amendments:: Since 2005, North Carolina statutes also haver requiredt the governing board to adopt a: statement ofr reasonableness fore each conditional rezoning or other small-scale rezoning. This requirement was designedt to assist cities and countiesin assessing the case lawrequirement (from Chrismon V. GuilfordCty., 322 NC61L,05E25PI58. that spotz zoning must be 'reasonable." G.S. 160D-605(b): simplifies and clarifies this requirement in Factors of analysis: The statute lists thef factors thats should be consideredi ina at reasonableness analysis. Thef factors are: suggested andr not mandated, as nota allf factors will be relevantt to all rezoning decisions. Thet factors, listed below ast they appeari in G.S. 160D-605(b), haves generally been adapted from Chrismon V. Guilford County, 322 N.C. 611, 627,3 3705.E.2d579, 589 (1988), whichis the size, physical conditions, ando other attributes of the area proposed to be rezoned; the benefits and detriments tot the landowners, the neighbors, andt thes surrounding iii. the relationship between the current actual and; permissible development ont thet tracta and adjoining areas andt the development that would be permissible under thep proposed  the leading North Carolina case ons spot: zoning:  community; amendment;  iv. whyt the action takeni isi int the publici interest; and any changed conditions warranting the amendment  Usingas single motion: G.S. 160D-605(c) provides thatt thes statement of reasonableness can be approvedi int the: same motion ast thep plan consistency! statement.. Asar result, ar mapamendment, plan consistency: statement, futurel land use amendment (if required), and: statement of reasonableness' fort the: same proposed development: all can bea approvedi ina as singler motion.    SECTION 6. TOOLS FOR MANAGING DEVELOPMENT  CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS  This plan provides the framework upon which zoning and subdivision regulations and the capital improvements plan should be based. In fact, the preparation of al land use plan andi mapi is mandated by North Carolina legislation as a prerequisite forz zoning for both cities and counties. Specifically, in implementing this plan, thet following should: serve as guiding land use/planning principles: Consider thef future land use map as part of the policies included ini this plan. Consult this plan, including the future land use map, during the deliberation of all rezoning  requests and proposed text amendments.  Considert the following in deliberation of all zoning petitions:  All deliberations should consider this plan's goals, implementing strategies, andi future All uses that are: allowed in a: zoning district must be considered. A decision to rezone or not to rezone a parcel or parcels of property cannot be based on consideration of only one use or a partial list of the uses allowed within az zoning district. Requests for zoning changes should not be approved ifther requested change will result Access management should be considered in all land use/zoning decisions.  land use map.  ins spot zoning.  CAMA Land Use Plan  3/4/2021  Page 6-1    SECTION 6. TOOLS FOR MANAGING DEVELOPMENT  The concept of uniformity should be supported in allz zoning deliberations. Uniformity is abasic premise ofz zoning which holds that all land in similar circumstances: should be zoned alike; any different circumstances should be carefully balanced witha a  demonstrated need for such different treatment.  Specifically, the Planning Board and Board of Aldermen should ask the following questions:  Is the request in accordance with this plan? Zoning regulations shall be madei in accordance with thel Town's Comprehensive Plan (NCGS 160A-383). When adopting or rejecting anyz zoning amendment, the Board of Aldermen: shall also approve as statement describing whether its action is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and any other officially adopted plan thati is applicable, and briefly explaining whyt the Board of Aldermen considers the action taken Will the request have a serious adverse impact on traffic circulation and otheri infrastructure? Will ther request have an adverse impact on other Town: services, including police protection, fire  to be responsible andi int the best publici interest.  protection, or public works?  Will the request have an adverse impact on Onslow County Schools?  Ist there a good possibility that the request, as proposed, will result inl lessening the enjoyment Will the request, as proposed, cause serious noise, odors, light, activity, or unusual  or use of adjacent properties? disturbances?  Does the request raise legal questions such as spot zoning, hardship, or violation of precedents? Does the request adversely impact water quality or other natural resources? Will the request adversely impact beach maintenance or access?  Page 6-2  3/4/2021  CAMA Land Use Plan    CHAPTER 160D GUIDANCE ?LANNING BOARD WORKSHEET for drafting Consistency & Reasonableness: Statement  The proposed zoning amendment [is/isnot) consistent with [the current comprehensive plan] because: 1. [identify policies in the plan with which the proposal is ori is not consistent); 2. [identify what policy goals this development advances or hinders); and  3. [identify how the amendment matches up (or does not match up) tot the current future land use The proposed zoning amendment [is/isnot) reasonable and int the publici interest because it supports 1. [describe consistency in size, physical conditions, and other attributes oft the area proposed to 2. [list benefits and detriments to thel landowners, the neighbors, and/or the surrounding 3. [describe howt the development that would be permissible under the proposed amendment relates to the current development permissible on thet tract andt to the character of adjoining 4. this amendment [improves consistency with the long range plan, improves the tax base, preserves environmental and/or cultural resources, facilitates a desired kind of development, provides needed housing/commerclal area, etc.] andi is therefore int the publici interest; and  map).  the [plan] policies above and because:  ber rezoned); community); areas);  5. [include any changed conditions warranting the amendment  9  NCI6OD.SOG.UNC.EDU 02020SCHOOL OFG GOVERNMENT  MUNO SCHOOLOF GOVERNMENT    7/11/24,9:45AM  Mail- Daniel Sooy- Outlook  OPNeawA-Goy + 1090 New! Riverl Inlet Rd  D %  C a wyaappenweaNe.NaNwN lopsail-Besch,*NC 28100/0.43965014-7.35014.A15.177675h0275V01. @ * * (Update   €  l0yoleixlnlee isdly.uhacain  Googe 0 SoeIVew A47019  Street Vlew63 360"  (Ma) HI  Google MVERD  WsEia 66'F AC 9 G dk d 11/10/2021  10:19AM  - p Typel here tos search  y  mpsloutoklwecomimalNONwAOMAOAAtgImATBANUNDACITANGABOAXOPNANCAMEagCBp-ehwcAd2FQRkK. 1/1