The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda 2006 02-06 AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse 24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC ROBERT G. GREER, CHAIRMAN. WilLIAM A. CASTER, VICE-CHAIRMAN TED DAVIS, JR., COMMISSIONER. WilLIAM A. KOPP, JR., COMMISSIONER. NANCY H. PRITCHETT, COMMISSIONER BRUCE T. SHELL, COUNTY MANAGER' WANDA COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY' SHEILA SCHULT, CLERK TO THE BOARD February 6, 2006 5:30 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Vice-Chairman William A. Caster) INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page TIMES No. 5 :40 p.m. 1. Public Hearing and 53 Consideration of Approval to Submit a Joint Application with the City of Wilmington for 2006 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Funding from the U. S. Department of Justice 5 :45 p.m. 2. Public Hearing and 59 Consideration of a Resolution Relating to a County/City Bond Issue 6:35 p.m. 3.1 Public Hearing 63 Street Naming - Request by Planning staffto consider naming an unnamed road to Clemmons Way located near Trinity Avenue in the Middle Sound Community (SN -98, 02/06) 6:45 p.m. 3.2 Public Hearing 67 Street Naming - Request by Olen & Patricia Roberts to consider naming an unnamed road to Flounder Lane located near Royal Oak Drive in the Myrtle Grove Community (SN-99, 02/06) 6:55 p.m. 3.3 Public Hearing 71 Rezoning/Conditional Use - Request by John E. Evans, Jr. to rezone approximately 26.5 acres of property located at 1500 and 1551 Point Harbor Road from 1-1 Light Industrial to CD (B-2) Highway Business with Mixed Uses (Z-826, 12/05) 7:25 p.m. Break 7:35 p.m. 3.4 Public Hearing 77 Item 4: Rezoning - Request by Withers and Ravenel for Gulfstream Shopping Center Properties LLC to rezone approximately 5.73 acres of property located at 609 Piner Road behind the Junction Creek Office Park from R-15 Residential to 0&1 Office and Institutional (Z-8l7, 11/05) 7:50 p.m. 3.5 Public Hearing 81 Item 5: Special Use Permit - Request by Thelma Washington to consider a Special Use Permit to expand a Child Care Center in an R-lO Residential District located at 309 Cardiff Road (S-547, 01/06) 8:00 p.m. 3.6 Public Hearing 87 Special Use Permit - Request by Deborah Stafford to consider a Special Use Permit to place a Single-Wide Mobile Home in an R-20 Residential District located at 3321 Oakley Circle (S-550, 02/06) 8:20 p.m. 3.7 Public Hearing 91 Text Amendment - Request by John Evans, Jr. to amend the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 55-4 Dimensional Requirements for Height and FAR Requirements in the B-2 Highway Business District (A-345, 12/05) 8:50 p.m. 3.8 Public Hearing 93 Text Amendments - Request by planning staffto amend the New Hanover County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect changes made by the North Carolina General Assembly in the 2005 Legislative Session (A-346, 01/06) 9:00 p.m. 4. Presentation ofProiect Results to Date on the Problem of Disproportionate 119 Minority Contact 9:15 p.m. 5. Meeting ofthe Water and Sewer District 121 9:25 p.m. 6. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes) 9:30 p.m. 7. Additional Items County Manager County Commissioners Clerk to the Board County Attorney 9:45 p.m. ADJOURN Note: Times listed for each item are estimated, and if a preceding item takes less time, the Board will move forward until the agenda is completed. 2 MEETING OF THE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ASSEMBLY ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE 24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301 WILMINGTON, NC ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page TIMES No. 9:15 p.m. 1. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes) 9:20 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes 123 3 This page intentionally left blank. 4 CONSENT AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page No. 1. Approval of Minutes 7 2. Approval of Request to Submit Grant Application to The Laci and Conner Search 9 and Rescue Fund (A Program of The Carole Sund/Carrington Foundation) in the Amount of$35,000 3. Approval of Certified Copy of Corporate Resolution from First Citizens Bank 13 Changing the Finance Director's Name to Avril M. Pinder as an Authorized Representative of New Hanover County 4. Approval of Request for Approval of Budget Amendment to Increase Revenues 17 and Expenditures in Epidemiology Division; Additional Revenues have been Received for Administration of Flu and Pneumonia Vaccine and Associated Budget Amendment 06-0110 5. Approval of Family Assessment Coordination Grant of$113,000 21 6. Approval of Health Check/Smart Start Grant Request (Renewal of Existing Grant) 25 of$45,800 7. Approval of Child Care Nursing Smart Start Grant (Renewal of Existing Grant) of 29 $lSQ,QQQ 8. Approval of Primary Care Proiect Grant Application 33 9. Approval of North Carolina Institute of Public Health Improvement Fund Grant 39 Application for $17,034 10. Approval of Smith Creek Greenway Clean Water Management Trust Fund Mini 45 Q1"(]11tctllciAssQ~i(],t~ciI311cig~tAl11~1lc1111~lltQQ-QJJ7 Approval of Budget Amendment: 11. 06-0112 Health Department 49 5 This page intentionally left blank. 6 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Consent Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Presenter: Sheila L. Schult Contact: Sheila L. Schult Item Does Not Require Review SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes BRIEF SUMMARY: Approve minutes from the following meetings: Budget Work Session - January 20, 2006 Regular Meeting - January 23, 2006 RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve minutes. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: Number of Positions: Explanation: ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 7 This page intentionally left blank. 8 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Consent Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Sheriff's Office Presenter: Sidney A. Causey, Sheriff Contact: Sidney A. Causey, Sheriff SUBJECT: Request to Submit Grant Application to the laci and Conner Search and Rescue Fund (A Program of The Carole Sund/Carrington Foundation) in the amount of $35,000 BRIEF SUMMARY: Initially contributions to the Rocha family were used to help with expenses related to the Laci and Conner Peterson search and trial. Going forward, the funds will be used for law enforcement and non-profit search and rescue organizations to help fund necessary equipment, education, tools, etc., needed for search and rescue. The grant proposal includes the following: Centurion Splash Proof System, $32,600; three Mustang Anti-Exposure Work Suits, $1,815; and $585 training. The Centurion Splash Proof System is an underwater side reading sonar system to search for drowning victims and evidence of crimes; the Anti-Exposure Work (protective) Suits are for divers recovering bodies and evidence from underwater. In addition to the Sheriff's Office using this equipment, other law enforcement agencies would benefit. Mutual Aid Agreements are currently in place with the three beach communities, U.S. Coast Guard, N.C. Marine Fisheries and Wildlife, and N.C. State Port Police. There is no local match requirement. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend approval for the Sheriff's Office to apply for a $35,000 grant from the Laci and Conner Search and Rescue Fund (a program of The Carole Sund/Carrington Foundation). If the grant is awarded, recommend approval of the grant and associated budget amendment. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: $35,000 Laci and Conner Search and Rescue Fund (a program of The Carole Sund/Carrington Foundation) No local match requirement ATTACHMENTS: Sheriff Causey's letter to the Foundation Note: A copy of the grant application is available for review in the County Manager's Office REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: 9 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 10 New Hanover County Sheriff s Office Sheriff Sidney A. Causey 3950 Juvenile Center Road Castle Hayne, North Carolina 28429 Phone (910) 362-3918 Fax (910) 362-3931 January 12,2006 Carole Sund/Carrington Memorial Reward Foundation P.O. Box 4113 Modesto, CA 95352 RE: Laci and Conner Search and Rescue Fund To Whom It May Concern: The New Hanover County Sheriff's Office is requesting assistance from your foundation in order to purchase necessary "equipment to be used in search and rescue efforts in our area. We are located in Wilmington, a port city, located in southeastern North Carolina. We provide assistance to several agencies in our area to include the beach communities of Wrightsville, Kure and Carolina Beach via our department's boat patrol and dive team. We are requesting aid in purchasing the following equipment in attempts to increase our search, rescue and recovery efforts: . Centurion Splash Proof System $32,600.00 . Mustang Anti-Exposure Work suit 3 @$410.00 $ 1,230.00 . Taxes, Shipping and Handling $ 585.00 . Training $ 585.00 --------- Total Request $35,000.00 The closest response time to our area with similar equipment is 4 hours. Within the past year there have been incidents involving search, rescue and recovery where the requested equipment would have been used had it not been for the response time delay. The requested equipment allows the dive team to focus its search efforts with greater accuracy. This accuracy will lessen the danger to our divers. by alerting them to the hidden dangers of the murky waters in which we would be searching. In addition to our agency other law enforcement agencies would benefit from this equipment. Mutual aid agreements are currently in place with Wrightsville Beach, Kure Beach, Carolina Beach Police Departments, as well as, U.S. Coast Guard, North Carolina Marine Fishers and Wildlife, and North Carolina State Port Police. The New Hanover County Sheriff's Office would be the second coastal agency in North Carolina to possess and render aid with quick response. Ideally, with any search a rescue is the primary goal. However, when this can't be achieved despite all efforts a recovery is just as important in ensuring closure for those affected. The New Hanover County Sheriffs Office is actively pursuing other avenues of funding in order to acquire this equipment if the Lad and Conner Search and Rescue Fund is unable to award funding. If we are awarded funding the above mentioned equipment would be purchased immediately and made readily available for our agency and those neighboring agencies upon request. Sincerely, ~ b.. c..() .. . ......, Sidney A Causey, heriff r New Hanover County Sheriff's Office OR! 0650000 - 11 This page intentionally left blank. 12 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Consent Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Finance Presenter: Avril Pinder Contact: Avril Pinder SUBJECT: Certified Copy of Corporate Resolution from First Citizens Bank Changing the Finance Director's Name to Avril M. Pinder as an Authorized Representative of New Hanover County BRIEF SUMMARY: Certified Copy of Corporate Resolution from First Citizens Bank changing the Finance Director's name to Avril M. Pinder, as an Authorized Representative to be able to conduct business on behalf of New Hanover County. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve Corporate Resolution. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: Number of Positions: Explanation: ATTACHMENTS: Certified Copy of Resolution REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 13 CERTIFIED COpy OF RESOLUTION OF New Hanover Countv Chairman, New Hanover County Board 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that 1 am theof County Commissionefthe above- named Government EntW~h is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina ; that the fol1owing is a true copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of New Hanover county effective on the 6 day of Februarv 2006 RESOLVED. that the officers listed below are authorized Representatives of Ne',' H('lnnu<:>r r'Ollnty with the authority to execute all Trust Business on behalf of the company with First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company. NAME Title Sil!naturc A vr i 1 M Pinnpr ~ -- 1'<'i nCJnr.f' Di rector :.:tl AA.J <.,'\ -' , ,- I f1rJ.: / I J I" I Julianne M McLawhon Deputv Fin Dir ~LVjV1V. ,lY; )J!( 1V:~~?r-/ I'~ Barbara D McClure Asst Fin Dir ' ct~J. /J1(1 ~ I further certify that this Resolution has neither been rescinded nor modified. Witness my hand and seal of this Day of Signature Print Name -- Title SEAL 14 . "Long, Liz" To: bthomas@co.new-hanover.nc.us r. <el izabeth. I ong@firstc cc "Long, Liz" <elizabeth.long@firstcitizenscom> itizens.com> Subject: New Hanover County Bond Issues 01/12/200602:04 PM Ms. Thomas Attached is a blank corporate resolution that will need to be signed by Ms Pinder so she will be able to conduct business on beh91f of the County. If you can, please fax a copy to me once she has signed tnis resolution and drop the original In the mail. Thanks for your help Have a great dayl < <corporate_resolution _g e n e ric _ tru st_ bus i ness. doc> > 'E6.za6etfi J. Long 'Trust )lccount 5 peczalist II (919) 716-7145 (%fepfione) (919) 716-2025 (lJ"aYj eClZa6etfi. [oll{j@firstcitizens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This electronic mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipiem or the person responsible for delivering the electronic mail to the intended recipient, he advised that you have received this electronic mail in error and that any use. dissemination, forwarding. printing, or copying of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by retum mail. ---------------------------------.------------------------------------ ----"------------------------------------------------------------------- [] ========= corporate_ resolution_generic_ trust_ buslnes~ - ------------ 15 This page intentionally left blank. 16 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Consent Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Health Presenter: David Rice or designee Contact: Kim Roane SUBJECT: Request Approval of Budget Amendment to Increase Revenues and Expenditures in Epidemiology Division. Additional Revenues have Been Received for Administration of Flu and Pneumonia Vaccine. BRIEF SUMMARY: The New Hanover County Health Department has administered over 10,000 flu shots, nearly twice the projected number. Demand for shots was greater this year due to critical vaccine supply issues resulting in shortages of vaccine in private physician offices. To provide community protection against an outbreak, flu clinics were held over a three month period to immunize the public. Resulting Medicare and health fee revenues have already well exceeded budgeted revenues by over $109,000. We request approval for an increase of $100,000 in the Epidemiology Division's revenue and expenditure budgets. Funds will be used to pay for the increased costs of vaccine, clinic supplies, costs incurred in the administration of the vaccine (temporary help, printing, office supplies), patient service enhancements to the clinic cashier office (remodeling to improve access), billing office equipment and medical records document scanning and lab patient processing programs to improve efficiency and patient flow to allow increased capacity for greater numbers of patients served in the clinic. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: To approve the budget amendment for a $100,000 increase in the Epidemiology revenue and expenditure budgets. Funding Source: Medicare revenues and patient fees. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: ATTACHMENTS: Budget Amendment 06-0110 Epidemiology Medicaid Revenues iii I!I 06-0110.d Epi revenues flu 17 REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 18 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Budget Amendment DEPARTMENT: Health BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0110 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT Epidemiology: Grant - Flu/Pneumonia Vaccine $100,000 Supplies $100,000 EXPLANATION: To increase Epidemiology revenue and expenditure budget by $100,000. A budget will be prepared when quotes for services and prices are received. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Medicare and health fee revenues have already exceeded budgeted revenues by over $109,000. APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 19 Epidemiolgoy Medicare Revenues (Flu) FY 05/06 Additional Revenue Billed Total YTD percentag through Revenue, e over YTD 05/06 Percent December Received budgeted Revenue Budget Collected 2005 and billed reven ues $78,600.23 $24,000.00 327.50% $54,648.92 $133,249.15 555.20% Current YTD revenues (received plus already billed) are $109,249.15 over budgeted revenues of $24,000. Additional revenues will be received over and above the amounts shown above from billing currently processing (data entry continues monthly as additional immunizations are given, so these revenues will be even greater by fiscal year end). 20 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Consent Item #: 5 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Health Presenter: David Rice or designee Contact: Janet McCumbee SUBJECT: Family Assessment Coordination Grant - $113,000 BRIEF SUMMARY: The Family Assessment Coordination (FAG) Program has been funded for four years as part of the Cape Fear Memorial Foundation (CFMF) NAVIGATOR grant. CFMF funds have ended and the FAC part of the grant has been picked up by Smart Start for the rest of the current FY. We are submitting an application for continued Smart Start funding for FY 06-07. The goal of the FAC Program is to provide universal screening for prenatal and postpartum women. Surveys are done in obstetrician's offices and prenatal clinics to determine the needs of parents for resources such as social, financial, developmental, nutrition, medical, and educational. Social workers or nurses follow up with the families, based on their needs. This funds one position (SW or nurse) and administrative support for the program. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Ratify the submission of the Family Assessment Coordination Smart Start grant and approve any budget amendment related to the receipt of the grant funds, if there is a difference in what is already budgeted in the health department 06-07 County budget for organization 11061250. (The grant application deadline was 01/27/06.) Funding Source: NHC Partnership for Children (Smart Start); No County match of cash funds is required - only in-kind contribution of administration and supervision (currently in place). No additional space is required, as staff are currently working in existing space. Program will not be continued if grant funding ends. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: The grant currently covers one (1) Social Worker or Nurse position and one (1) part time Administrative Support Technician. ATTACHMENTS: Application Cover Sheet Budget Summary iii ~ 2 Applic for Can't Funding-Cover SJBudget Summary Navi~ REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 21 Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 22 Application Cover Sheet Project Title: Navigator/Family Assessment Coordination Agency Legal Name: New Hanover County Health DePl.lrtment Mailing Address: 2029 S. 17tb Street . Street Address: same City: Wilmington New Hanover Co. NC Zip: 28401 Phone: 910343-6522 Fax: 910341-4146 Email: kroane@nhcgov.com Website: www.nhcgov.com Program Contact Person Name: Juanita Sneeden Title: Public HealthNlIrse~upervisor Phone: 910-343-6566 Email: jsneeden@nhcgov.coDl Fiscal Contact: Kim Roane, Business Officer, 343-6522, kroane@nhcgov.com Person Authorized to Sign Contract Name: David E. Rice Title: Health Director Phone: 910-343-6591 Email: drice@nhcgov.com Tax Status: ()For Profit (X )Public ()Tax-Exernpt Organization Federal Tax ID Number: 56-6000324 Total Project Budget: $ 125,800 Other Funding Sources: $ 12,800 Funding Requested from NHCPFC Year (2006-2007) $ 113,000 Total Request $ 113,000 Signatures indicate completeness and accuracy of proposal packet. .~~ 111 !Or" Pro~O[.ct ;;";00 , I Date A ." 19~ .6;b' Person Authorized to Sign Contracts Date 36 -"-"-_. ----- 23 Attachment 5 Projected Budget for Direct Services Provider Activity Partnership:New Hanover County Partnership for Children, Inc. Fiscal Year: 2006-07 Direct Services Provider: NHC Health Department Smart In-Kind Cash Total Contract #: Activity #: 219 Start Funds Match Funds Activity Name: Navigator/FAC Funds Amount Amount Amount --- ~llf.e!Sonnel $110,700.00 $9,00000 $119,700~ ------ --- ---- 12) Contracted ServJ.c!'!s _n~O.OO 1_31~tal P~rsonnel/Contracted Services ~110,700.00 J!j..QQO.OO $0.00 $119,700.l)Q_ - ---------- 14) Supplies & Materials...-_ u $1,100QO l1,1000~ 15) Service-I3~lated Supplies and Male~il~___ $300.00 __~Qg()O 161 Total Supfllies & Materials $1,400.00 _J~QO $0.00 $.1..~_Q.00 17) Travel ~~OOOO $600.00 ~Co.rnll1unications &Po~.'l.!!e $200.00 $200.00 19) Utilities $400.00 . . $400cQ() 20) Printi!!.>! & Binding $20000 $200.00 21) Repair and Maintenance -..--------- ----------- $0.00 22) ~etil1g1Conference Expen~e $000 23) Employee Traini~>! (no travelL $300.00 $300.00 24) Aclvertisingal1.dPublicizing_ $0.00 25) Not Available for Us_e. ---- -- ---------- $0.00 26) Total N_ol1::Fixed Operatin9_E:J(pen~e~___ -------- $900.00 $800.00 $0.00 11,700.00 ---- - ---------------- 27) OfflC~_~nt (Land, Buildings, etc.) ~3,000Q() $3,O.o~O.o ~lFurniture Rental $0.00 29) Equipment R~_n~<llj!'hones, Computer,et~ $0.00 30) VehJcle Rental -------------..---. - ------ $0.00 31) Dues & Subscrip_tilllls_________ $0-00 32) Insurcmce & Bonding $0.00 33) Books (Library ReferencE!_Materiill~L ~OOO 34) Notl\vajlableforUse $0.00 ~5) Ottler Expens_es________ $0.00 36) Total Fixed Charges & Other Expenses !O.OO $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 37) Not Available for Use_ _ _ ____$.Q.OO 38) Not Available for USt;l $0.00 39) Furniture/Non-Computer Eqpt., $500+ per item $0.00 40) Computer EquiflmentlPrinters, $500.+ _per item_ $0.00 41) Furniture/Eqpt.,under $500 per item_ ~()O() 42) Totat Pr~perty & Equipment 9~tl_a~_____ . $0.00 $0.00 $0.00... _lOOO ---- ------ . - ------- ____n__ 43) Purc.h31ses of Services $0.00 44) Not Available for Use - ------------------- $000 45)J\~ilrds (including schll~arsh.i!>s~bonusesL . _$.QOO 46) Cashg~~n_ $0.00 47) Non.Cash Grants $0.00 48) Total Services/c;ontl'acts/Gra_l1ts -------- $2.,00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 49) Tota!F'~rticipant Trair1il1~,-~xpense _ lOOl' 113,000.00 12,800.00 125,800.00 24 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Consent Item #: 6 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Health Presenter: David Rice or designee Contact: Janet McCumbee SUBJECT: Health Check/Smart Start Grant Request (Renewal of existing grant) - $45,800 BRIEF SUMMARY: The Health Check Coordination Program has been funded by Smart Start for nine years. We are submitting an application for continued funding for FY 06-07. The goal of the Health Check Program is to ensure that Medicaid eligible children and Health Choice insured children receive comprehensive health and dental care. The Health Check Coordinator also does outreach in our community to find uninsured children and assist their families with the application process for Medicaid and Health Choice. Health Check is governed by state guidelines. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Ratify the submission of the Health Check Smart Start grant and approve any budget amendment related to the receipt of the grant funds, if there is a difference in what is already budgeted in the health department 06-07 County budget for 110 61450. (The grant application deadline was 01/27/06.) Funding Source: NHC Partnership For Children (Smart Start); No County match of cash funds is required, only in-kind contribution of administration and supervision (currently in place). No additional space is required, as staff are currently working in existing space. Program will not be continued if grant funding ends. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: The grant covers one current position - Program Assistant (Health Check Coordinator). ATTACHMENTS: Projected Budget Sweadsheet iii 2 Applic for Can't Funding-Cover Sl ~ HC 8 Attch 5 Projected Budge 25 REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 26 Application Cover Sheet Project Title: Health Check Coordination Agency Legal Name: New Hanover County Health Department Mailing Address: 2029 S. 17th Street . Street Address: same City: Wilmington New Hanover Co. NC Zip: 28401 Phone: 910343-6522 Fax: 910341-4146 Email: kroane@nhcgov.com Website: www.nhcgov.com Program Contact Person Name: Page Dunn Title: Community Service~Supervisor Phone: 910-343-6648 Email:pd 1IIln@nhcg()v.colll Fiscal Contact: Kim Roane, Business Officer, 343-6522, kroane@nhcgov.com Person A uthorized to SignContract Name: David E. Rice Title: Health Director Phone: 910-343-6591 Email: drice@nhcgov.com Tax Status: ( )For Profit (X )Public ()Tax-Exempt Organization Federal Tax ID Number: 56-6000324 Total Project Budget: $ 61,700 Other Funding Sources: $ 15,900 Funding Requested from NHCPFC Year (2006-2007) $ 45,800 Total Request $ 45,800 Signatures indicate completeness and accuracy of proposal packet. '~~~~ I-~o..-O~ ~tact Person Date j:Jch (jb Person Authorized to Sign Contracts Date 39 -------..---" 27 Attachment 5 Projected Budget for Direct Services Provider Activity Partnership:New Hanover County Partnership for Children, Inc. Fiscal Year: 2006-07 Direct Services Provider: NHC Health Department Smart In-Kind Cash Total -- -.._----._-- - Contract #: Activity #: 202 Start Funds Match Funds --- ----- -- --- - - - Activity Name: Health Check Coordination Funds Amount Amount Amount -- - ---,', -",. - - -.'----- - 11)1'E!rSo~n~ _$~3,000.00 $ g_50 0.0 0 $56,5QQ oll 12LContracted ~Nic~ $QOQ. 13) Toj<ll Pe/"llonneIlCllIlt~cted Servic~s $~.O()O.()O $13,~O().00_ $0.00 $56~5()0.00 -- ---. -- ---....- -- - lj) '::;uJlPlies & Material~ ___ $800JlO $800.00 15) SeNJc:e-Related SUP!JliE!.s and Mate.rLa~ __ $400.0Q, $400.00 16l"TQ!al..::>.lJ.!:lplies & Materials___ __~1~O().OO $0.00 ~OcO~ $1,200.00 --.'--.----.-- 17)Trav~__ _ _ __ _!1.16000 _$1-1~,.Q0 18) Communicatio~ & Postage._ ___.. $240_,00 _~.1..c?00 0.0 _ $,1,44000_ 19) Utilitie~ _ _. _ ___ _ -- ---- - --.._- $~CJ.OO_ t200QQ 2011'rinting & Binding._ _ __ __ $}OO.OO $300.00 _2'1) Repai~rl(jMaintenance_ ~.QQ 22) ~E!ting/ConfeJ"Ell1.~ Expen~ -- $0.00 2~ Eme.lclyee Training (notravel) _ __ _ $20000 J2QQOO 24) ~dvertisinl/....<l.QCl PublicizinlL_ $0,00 25) NoV\vailable fOlJJse -- - $0 O.Q. ~6LTotalJ-l()I1-Fixed Oplll'atin9E_~el1S.e~ $1,600.00 $..1,7..00.00 $0.00 $:J,30.9,~0 --,____ ____,__u_u_ _ 27) OffiCEl...Renlll.an~-,-Buil.dings, ets) _ !7'QQO_O _ $700,00 .?8lfurniture RE!I1.t~ -- $CJ.OQ. .?9LEquiprnent RentaIJPhon_~~o.r!1fllller, etc.) _~OJlQ. 30) Vehicle Rental_____ ._ - ---,- '- -- $0.00 31) Dues & SUbscriptions $0.00 l?2J nsuran~~Bolldin9____ _ .!OJ],O_ 33) Books (Library Reference Materials) _u,__ ',._____.__..____ ___ $O{)() ~4)NotAvailablefurUse___ n~OO 3~Oth~J=xpenses ------,.- ~OO 3_~ _I?l!i Fixed Charaes & Ot~r~xpenses $O.()O $700.00 $0.00 FO().QQ. -"'-------'-----..-- - 37) Not~vailaEl13 fOr..!Jse $0.00 3~_ ~t AV~<Ible for Us..l3.._ __._ _ n $0,00 39) f=ljrniture/Non-CoIl1Puter Eqpt., $500+ peritE!~_ ~() .()O _ 40) Computer EquipmenVPrinters, $500+ Pl!i" _~Il1.._ _ !g.00 ~LE..urniture/Egpt.. under.!.~()() per itel11.... _ n $Q.()Q. ~l!.otal Property & Equipment Outlay_ _ __ ...!O.o~ $0.00 $0.00 ~O,OQ. ---..------------- -------.----.,-- --- i3) Purchases .<l!...SeNice~ __ $O,Q.O 44)l'J.clt Available for U~E!...n___ ___ __~OO~ 45) Awards (inciudJrlg scholarships and bonuse~!___ _ _ ...10.00 46) Ca.s1!Qi:a..llls_____ $0,00 ii'2.J.I<lrl_-Cas..f1..9rants !g.QQ ~)..!otal Services/Contr~c:ts/Qran~_ - - --- -----,- $().Oll. _. $0.00 $0.00 ...10jlO_ -------..,---.- 49)..!.otal Participal1!...Training ElCJle_l'l!l~ .. $000 45,800.00 15,900.00 61,700.00 28 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Consent Item #: 7 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Health Presenter: David Rice or designee Contact: Janet McCumbee SUBJECT: Child Care Nursing Smart Start Grant (Renewal of existing grant - $186,600) BRIEF SUMMARY: The Child Care Nursing Program has been Smart Start funded for nine years. We are submitting an application for continued funding for FY 06-07. The goal of the Child Care Nursing Program is to provide preventative services to children, their parents, and child care providers in local child care facilities. This includes immunization follow-up, medical action plans, health and safety education, and technical assistance for policies. Communicable disease issues are addressed and children are referred for developmental concerns. Two child care nurses provide services to approximately 75 large facilities and 100 family child care homes. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Ratify the submission of the Child Care Nursing Smart Start renewal grant and approve any budget amendment related to the receipt of the grant funds, if there is a difference in what is already budgeted in the health department 06-07 County budget for organization 11061530. (The grant application deadline was 01/27/06.) Funding Source: NHC Partnership For Children (Smart Start); No County match of cash funds is required, only in-kind contribution of administration and supervision (currently in place). No additional space is required, as staff are currently working in existing space. Program will not be continued if grant funding ends. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: The grant currently covers two (2) Nursing positions and one (1) Administrative Support Technician ATTACHMENTS: Budget Spreadsheet Application Cover Sheet iii Applic Cover - Sheet Sm I!I Projected Budget Spreadsht 29 REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 30 Application Cover Sheet Project Title: Child Care Nursing Agency Legal Name: New Hanover County Health Department Mailing Address: 2029 S. 17th Street Street Address: same City: Wilmington New Hanover Co. NC Zip: 28401 Phone: 910343-6522 Fax: 910341-4146 Email: kroane@nhcgov.com Website: www.nhcgov.com Program Contact Person Name: Page Dunn Title: COillmunity Services Supervisor Phone: 910-343-6648 Email:. pdunn@nl1~gov.coill Fiscal Contact: Kim Roane, Business Officer, 343-6522, kroane@nhcgov.com Person Authorized to Sign Contract Name: David E. Rice Title: Health Director Phone: 910-343-6591 Email: drice@nhcgov.com Tax Status: ( )For Profit (X )Public ()Tax-ExemptOrganization Federal Tax ID Number: 56-6000324 Total Project Budget: $ 207,400 Other Funding Sources: $ 20,800 Funding Requested from NHCPFC Year (2006-2007) $ 186,600 Total Request $186,600 Signatures indicate completeness and accuracy of proposal packet. yg ~ ct Person 1 -I '1....(J ~ Date /9rkx Pt Date 42 ------- 31 Attachment 5 Projected Budget for Direct Services Provider Activity Partnership:New Hanover County Partnership for Children, Inc. Fiscal Year: 2006-07 Direct Services Provider: NHC Health Department Smart In-Kind Cash Total -- Contract #: Activity #: 203 Start Funds Match Funds ----- -- -- Activity Name: Child Care Nursing Funds Amount Amount Amount -_.....----- ..-.---.. --- 1JlPersonnEl~______ $179,300~ J14,000~ $1~3.30000 12) Contracte~ Services ~(j()- 131Iotal Personnel/Col1!rClcted ServJc:es . _ $1'7!l,300.00_ $14,llll.0.00 $0,-00 $193,3Q(),00 -_.-------- 142 Supplies& Materia~ $685,00 $685.00 15) Service-Related Suppliesand Materials !El00.00 $600.00 ~611otal Supplies & Material~_ $1,~~.Q~ $0.00_ $0.00 l1,285.00 -- ----------- ---- .!D Tn~v~_____ $2,400.0~ $2,400.00 18) Comm~flications & PO~C1gEl _~200.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 .l9) Utilities $1,00Q.00 $1,000.00 20) Prinlin~inding ~OO~Qo. $1-,-QOO.00 ~1,:3()000 lliRepair and Maintenance $200.00 $~()O~O 22) Meeting/Conference Expense .!QOQ 23) Employee Training (no tra_~1J. __ $~00Cl $500.00 24) Advertising and Publicizing_ __ __ $000 ~~Not Available for Use -- ---- ---- ~OO~ ~6) Tota!t'lon-Fixed Operating EXPll.r1.se.! $3,600.00_ g,80(),OO $0.00 $6,40o..QO _.......----- -----"..--......--.- III Office Rent (Land. E3lJildings,~c:t $4,000.00 . $4,000.00 28) Furniture Rental - ----- --- ~OO 29) Equipment RenIClljf'hones, Computer,-Ell.cL $O.O~ 30) Vehicle Renta~__ 50.00 m Dues & Subscriptiof1.S._ g15.(j() _ ~215.00 32) Insurance &_ Bonding 50QO 33~oks (Library Reference Mclleri.'l~L $~QO 34) Not Available forUse___ $0.00 35) Other Expenses _ _______ $0.00 ~~otal FixedCharges & OtherExp~nses j21~0 $4,000.0.0 $0.00 $4,2~.00 -......-------- 31tN_o.t Availabll~J()rUse _$0.00 38) Not Availab~e for Use $0.00 3Q2 Furniturell'lon-gomRuter EqIlU~OO+ JJllr}em $0.00 40} Computer E~uipmentlPrinters, $500+ perJtem $2,200,00 ~2,2QClO~ ~1)B1rniturf3/Eqpt:.o.JJr1der $500 p~item__ ~OO 41}Totall"roJ)erty ~~quipment Outlay .$2,200.0.0 $.().O~ $.0..00. $2,200.00 43) p.LJrchases of Servic~ ~:OO_ 44) !'lot Availa~le for Use __ __ _~O,QO 45) Awa~s (including scholarships and bOr1lJS_e.~_ $0.00 i6) Cash Grants __ __ __ $0.00 ~)Non-Cash Grants _m..____ _ __ _$.0 00 4111I11tal Services/Contr~ts/Gran~ $.0.00 $.0'00 $0.00 ~.o.o._ - ____ .__......._._. u_________ 49) To~_'_""rticipant Training Expense $0.00 186,600.00 20,800.00 207,400.00 32 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Consent Item #: 8 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Health Presenter: Scott Harrelson, Assistant Health Director Contact: Scott Harrelson, Assistant Health Director SUBJECT: Primary Care Project Grant Application BRIEF SUMMARY: Our department has been notified by the Division of Medical Assistance, Carolina Access of the Lower Cape Fear, New Hanover County DSS and representatives of local pediatric groups to alert us of the need for additional providers for low income and indigent children in New Hanover County. Currently in New Hanover County there are 14,167 children on Medicaid, 2,168 on NC Health Choice and approximately 4,234 with no insurance coverage. When you combine all three groups there are 20,569 children in this target population and the number is growing. Currently in New Hanover County there are no pediatricians accepting Medicaid clients without restrictions. Access to care is a number one priority of the New Hanover County Board of Health and the health department. Our previous grant request for this initiative to the Office of Rural Health was not funded. Through a collaborative effort with the safety net providers in the area we have an opportunity to re-submit this grant request in the amount of $30,000 to the Cape Fear United Way to begin pediatric primary care services for under-served children. This would be one component of a larger grant. The total amount needed to cover the cost of staffing this project is $85,231. The difference of $55,231 will be funded via Medicaid/Health Choice reimbursements and fees for services. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: To accept and approve our request to be included in an application submitted by New Hanover Regional to Cape Fear United Way for $30,000 to establish a pediatric primary care clinic geared towards low income and indigent children as presented; to approve any associated budget amendment for the increase in revenues and expenditures, including other funding sources, if funding is awarded. Funding Source: Grant funding in the amount of $30,000 would enhance our capability to establish a much needed pediatric primary care clinic for the community. Grant would be for start-up costs and would not continue past year one, but the program would be self-sustained through other revenue sources based on patient services provided. Financial projections based on the documented need, current reimbursement rates and similar programs in neighboring health departments would create a self sustaining program funded by revenues received from NC Health Choice, Medicaid and patient health fees. No County match would be required. Space for this program would be current clinic space already in use. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: New Position(s) Number of Positions: 2 Explanation: This program would include two new positions, an LPN and an Administrative Support Assistant. The combined salary/fringe for both of these positions would be $85,231. ATTACHMENTS: 33 REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: The item was withdrawn. 34 I I Overview of Organization (1-2 paragraphs) I Provide a brief description of your organization. Also include the following information on users for the time period July 1,2004 through June 30, 2005: total users, Medicaid users, and the total number of uninsured insurers. Also as a subset of the total number of uninsured users please report the number who are sliding fee scale, Medical Access Plan (MAP), or free care users. Important: Please do not report the number of visits but the number of un duplicated users (patients). New Hanover County Health Department is located in Wilmington, NC. Our county has a population of 173,554. Our health depmtment is one of the oldest in the state. We have been serving the public health needs of the people of New Hanover County for over 126 years. Our department was one of the first health departments in the state to become accredited. We provide Clinic Services, Care Coordination Services, School Health Nurses, Animal Control, Vector Control and Environmental Health Services. Beginning in March 2006 we will offer dental services to indigent children through a brand new mobile dental unit. Users from July 1,2004 through June 30, 2005 Total Users: 26,203 Medicaid Users: 2,716 Insured Users: 8,292 Uninsured Users: 15,195 III Community Need (1 page) 15 points Describe the population served by your organization and their healthcare needs. Include and cite demographic data wherever possible. The population that our proposed program will target is indigent children age birth to 18. This population can be broken down in to three groups NC Health Choice, Medicaid eligible and the uninsured. The numbers of each group in New Hanover County are as follows: NC Health Choice 2,168 Medicaid 14,167 Uninsured 4.234 Total 20,569 At our recent strategic planning session one of the top priorities for our department was to improve access to care. The Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) informs us that there are enrollment restrictions for Medicaid clients in New Hanover County that are ~.,._.~"-------_.- 35 presenting barriers to care. We also received e-mail notification from our local DSS Family & Children's Medicaid/Child Care Chief stating, "we now have no pediatricians who will accept Medicaid patients without restrictions. Most are only seeing established patients, though Carolina Pediatrics will also see siblings of established patients." As of January 2006 all NC Health Choice children 0-5 will be rolled over to Medicaid, which may mean more children will need to be placed with a provider. DMA has requested that we provide primary care for children and enroll as a Carolina Access Provider to meet the demand. Data from the North Carolina Healthcare Safety Net Report provided by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine shows that 85% of the uninsured in New Hanover County do not have a primary care home. There are currently three safety net providers for the uninsured listed for New Hanover County, NHC Community Health Center, AHEC Outpatient Uninsured and Tileston Free Clinic. These providers saw approximately 17% of the uninsured population for New Hanover County in 2003. The Safety Net Report also included some interesting data entitled "Indicators of County- Specific Categories of Nee d." They scored each county on 5 different areas in regard to the uninsured: . Number of uninsured in the county . Percent ofthe county population that is uninsured . Number of uninsured with no identified source for Primary Care . Percent of uninsured with no identified source for Primary Care . The ratio of primary care providers to the county population Even though New Hanover County (NHC) scored high on the physician to population ratio, in the top 25% for the state, the uninsured with no identified source of Primary Care was one of the worst in the state, in the bottom 25%. This means that there is a serious problem with access to care for the uninsured. During our recent strategic planning process for our local Healthy Carolinians Task Force we were presented four separate community assessments done for our area: the NHC Health Dept 2003 Community Health Assessment, 2005 Cape Fear Area United Way's health and human services assessment, Brunswick County Health Department 2003 community health assessment, and the Coastal Carolinas Health Alliance regional health assessment. Each of these assessments listed access to care as a major issue for our area. III Project Description (3 pages) 40 points Describe your proposed project/service. Discuss how this project will increase access to primary care for uninsured and medically indigent persons. Include an implementation timeline for your project assuming funding is received in January 2006. The current problem in New Hanover County is that we do not have enough providers accepting Medicaid to meet the demand for our child Medicaid population. The 36 additional problem is with the uninsured, 85% of them do not have a medical home. The proposed pediatric care program will offer an additional provider of primary care for indigent children. We have most of the necessary infrastructure in place already. We have an Open Access Schedule clinic, which means we offer all of our services every day much like a private office. We have a part time physician on contract three days a week in the clinic. We have a full time family nurse practitioner and a full time physician assistant. We currently operate two clinic suites five days a week and one clinic suite three days per week along with a general clinic five days a week. With this funding we could add an additional contract physician extender two days a week, a licensed practical nurse, a community health assistant and a program assistant to expand our clinic services to three suites operating five days per week. The clinic would be set up to see children 0-18 on NC Health Choice, Medicaid and those with no coverage. A 250% sliding fee scale would be utilized to offer a maximum price break to the undocumented and the working poor with no insurance coverage. The sliding scale would slide to 0 for truly indigent children. We would be able to offer 50 appointments a week to this target population. We will apply to be a Carolina Access Provider to accept 750 Medicaid children as our patients. With the ability to place 750 new Medicaid patients it should relieve the strain on DSS for placement issues. The funds realized from the Medicaid and patient pay clients will also provide us with a method to provide charity care to the uninsured. We will act as a referral source for other safety net providers in our community to treat indigent children. We would meet the requirements for 24/7 coverage and hospital admissions for the Carolina Access Program with the assistance of local partnerships with other medical providers in the community. Financial projections show sustainability through Medicaid reimbursements as well as fee for services for those that payout of pocket at a reduced rate. Cost settlement dollars for Medicaid services should also increase due to increased volume of Medicaid services provided to Medicaid children. This would infuse more money to our local cause to treat indigent children. I IV Collaboration (1 page) 15 points I Describe any collaborative activities with other safety net providers in your community related to this project; when possible include letters of support. Our collaboration with each of the safety net providers in the community is spear headed through our local Healthy Carolinians Task Force, the Cape Fear Healthy Carolinians. One of our four sub-committees is Access to Care. New Hanover Health Network will be applying for a larger grant on behalf of area safety net providers to include our $30,000 request. Letters of support from our local partners and human service agencies will evidence this. __.,~~._~____ _m ~-"----~-- .------ 37 Salary/Fringe LPN (fIt) 48,152.00 Physician Consultation (16 hours/month) 10,512.00 Admin Support Asst (fIt) 37,079.00 Total Salary/Fringe $95,743.00 Operating Expenses Contract Services - Interpreter 17,000.00 Contract Services - FNP (40%) 45,760.00 On-Call Services ($400/mo) 4,800.00 M&R Equip 1,000.00 Printing 2,000.00 Supplies 18,000.00 Dues & Subscriptions 500 Employee Reimbursements 350 Training & Travel 1,760.00 Total Operating Expenses $91,170.00 Total Expenditure Budget 186,913.00 Revenues Medicaid 139,950.00 Health Fees (private pay patients) 14,900.00 Health Choice 12,600.00 United Way/NHRMC grant 30,000.00 h"otal Revenues $197,450.00 $197,450.00 Net Income (Revenues - Expenditures) $10,537 38 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Consent Item #: 9 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Health Presenter: Scott Harrelson, Assistant Health Director Contact: Scott Harrelson, Assistant Health Director SUBJECT: North Carolina Institute of Public Health Improvement Fund Grant Application - $17,034 BRIEF SUMMARY: The NC Institute of Public Health Accreditation Board is offering funds to local health departments who have been through the accreditation process over the last few years. These funds are to be used to improve performance relative to activities that were found to be less than optimal by the Accreditation Board. We received our accreditation in May of 2004, with very few deficiencies. We are requesting funds to get temporary clerical assistance for the remainder of this FY, to improve and standardize our documents such as policies/procedures/standing orders per recommendation of the accreditation committee. We also need to enter all staff continuing education hours into a database for annual review and to be able to prove staff competency. If received, the two mini-grants ($8,517 each) would fund two full-time clerical temps to work from March through June 2006. This is a one-time grant funded project which will end when grant funding ends. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Ratify submission of the applications, and if awarded, approve the acceptance of the state grant of $17,034 (Two separate requests for $8,517 each are being submitted, due to the request covering two different activities); and to approve any associated budget amendment related to the receipt of the grant funds in the Health Department 05-06 County budget. Funding Source: NC Institute of Public Health Accreditation Board. No County match required. Existing space will be used. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: Number of Positions: Explanation: Funds would be for two temporary clerical staff/contract services for 17 weeks, March-June 2006. ATTACHMENTS: 2006 NC Institute for Public Health Improvement Fund Grant Applications (2) REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: 39 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 40 2006 NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC HEALTH IMPROVEMENT FUND GRANT APPLICATION Benchmark not met: Activity not met: Section One: Standard 24 Translates adopted policies into operating procedures; Activity 24: 1 and Activity 24:4 Remedial action for which funding is requested: N/ A Estimated date of completion: June 30,2006 Budget requested: $8517 Budget Narrative: Request a temporary clerical person for 40 hours per week X 17 weeks (estimated from March through June 2006); Temp would cost $501 per week. This clerical person would provide much needed support to translate all policies into newly adopted format. He/She would also provide assistance to the Quality Assurance team as they review, revise and develop policies, and standardize annual review processes. This person would also assist all Divisions and teams with updating procedures and standing orders per recommendations of accreditation committee. Outcome or Deliverable - Document, Policy, or Physical Improvement AIl Health Department Policies will be available on the web site in a standard format. All program specific procedures will be standardized, with scheduled annual reviews, and in notebooks that readily identifiable All standing orders will be standardized, and in a format that can be reviewed annuaIly with appropriate signatures. The Quality Assurance Team will have procedures in place for annual reviews, creation of new policies, etc. ~~._--------------- 41 Contact Persons: David Rice, Health Director or Scott Hanelson, Assistant Health Director Telephone:910-343-6591 or 910-343-6592 Email: drice@nhcgov.com; shanelson@nhcgov.com Please note: APPLICATIONS FORMS ARE DUE ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 31,2006. Forms received after that date may not be considet'ed for funding. Health Department: New Hanover County Health Department Health Director's Signature and Date Submitted 42 2006 NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC HEALTH IMPROVEMENT FUND GRANT APPLICATION Benchmark not met: Activity not met: Section Three: Standard 3 The agency has and implements a performance appraisal plan, that identifies the continuing education needs of the staff. Remedial action for which funding is requested: N/A Estimated date of completion: June 30, 2006 Budget requested: $8517 Budget Narrative: This would pay for a temporary clerical person for 40 hours per week X 17 weeks at $501 per week (based on March through June 2006). A clerical person is needed to provide support for the new performance appraisal process, which includes documentation of the staff s need for continuing education (Section 3: Standard 3). The accreditation document recommends that all staff have continuing education needs review at performance appraisal time, and additional education needs identified. We need all staff continuing education entered into a new database for 05-06, so that this process can occur with the new FY (06-07). Outcome or Deliverable - Document, Policy, or Physical Improvement All staff continuing education will be available in a database, to include 05-06 continuing ed units. Additional mandatory certifications or trainings will be documented. Staff training specific to competencies such as required for Bioterrorism mandates and core functions can be queried as needed. Continuing ed can be easily retrieved and documented at performance appraisal time each year, to plan for meeting continuing ed needs for new year. _.____n___ _____._____'__m__"__n.___ ____0 43 Contact Person: David Rice, Health Director or Scott Harrelson, Assistant Health Director Telephone:910-343-6591 or 910-343-6592 Email: drice@nhcgov.com or sharrelson@nhcgov.com Please note: APPLICATIONS FORMS ARE DUE ON OR BEFORE .JANlJARY 31. 2006. Forms received after that date may not be considered for funding. Health Department: New Hanover County Health Department Health Director's Signature and Date Submitted I -~._--_._-_..--_.."~--_."." 44 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Consent Item #: 10 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Chris O'Keefe Contact: Chris O'Keefe SUBJECT: Smith Creek Greenway Clean Water Management Trust Fund Mini Grant - $25,000 BRIEF SUMMARY: New Hanover County has been awarded a "mini-grant" of $25,000 from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF). The grant is for costs associated with future acquisition of properties in the Smith Creek Greenway. These costs will include appraisal, survey, Phase I environmental study and other pre-acquisition costs. The Greenway expansion would be in harmony with the newly adopted Master Plan. It is hoped that we will be able to acquire these two properties without further cost to the County through a combination of CWMTF grants and landowner donations. Any further effort to acquire these properties will be brought to the Commissioners for approval. The Watershed Management Advisory Board has approved the use of funds currently in the project for the match which can be up to $5,000 (matching funds must equal at least 20% of the grant award). Vice-Chairman Caster is the Board's representative. A draft grant agreement is available for review in the County Manager's office. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Sign the contract entering into an agreement with the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to pay for the costs of the project and approve related budget amendment. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: Number of Positions: Explanation: ATTACHMENTS: iii 06-0117.doc REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES: 45 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 46 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Budget Amendment DEPARTMENT: Watershed Management Program BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0117 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT Tidal Creek: Grant - Clean Water Mgmt. $25,000 Capital Project Expense $25,000 EXPLANATION: To budget funds of a grant award from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund. The total value of the grant is $30,000 with the 20% matching funds available in the current project budget. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The grant is for costs associated with future acquisition of two properties in Smith Creek Greenway. APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 47 This page intentionally left blank. 48 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Budget Amendment Consent Item #: 11 Estimated Time: Page Number: DEPARTMENT: Health BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0112 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT Health Promotions: Grant - State $8,175 Advertising Cost $600 M&R Equipment $150 Printing $950 Supplies $4,825 Dues and Subscriptions $250 Employee Reimbursements $700 Training and Travel $700 EXPLANATION: There is a reduction in state funding for the Health Promotions program of $8,175, with a corresponding decrease in Health Promotions expenditures. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: This is a statewide funding cut. APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 49 This page intentionally left blank. 50 REGULAR AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page TIMES No. 5 :40 p.m. 1. Public Hearing and 53 Consideration of Approval to Submit a Joint Application with the City of Wilmington for 2006 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Funding from the U. S. Department of Justice 5 :45 p.m. 2. Public Hearing and 59 Consideration of a Resolution Relating to a County/City Bond Issue 6:35 p.m. 3.1 Public Hearing 63 Street Naming - Request by Planning staffto consider naming an unnamed road to Clemmons Way located near Trinity Avenue in the Middle Sound Community (SN -98, 02/06) 6:45 p.m. 3.2 Public Hearing 67 Street Naming - Request by Olen & Patricia Roberts to consider naming an unnamed road to Flounder Lane located near Royal Oak Drive in the Myrtle Grove Community (SN-99, 02/06) 6:55 p.m. 3.3 Public Hearing 71 Rezoning/Conditional Use - Request by John E. Evans, Jr. to rezone approximately 26.5 acres of property located at 1500 and 1551 Point Harbor Road from 1-1 Light Industrial to CD (B-2) Highway Business with Mixed Uses (Z-826, 12/05) 7:25 p.m. Break 7:35 p.m. 3.4 Public Hearing 77 Item 4: Rezoning - Request by Withers and Ravenel for Gulfstream Shopping Center Properties LLC to rezone approximately 5.73 acres of property located at 609 Piner Road behind the Junction Creek Office Park from R-15 Residential to 0&1 Office and Institutional (Z-8l7, 11/05) 7:50 p.m. 3.5 Public Hearing 81 Item 5: Special Use Permit - Request by Thelma Washington to consider a Special Use Permit to expand a Child Care Center in an R-lO Residential District located at 309 Cardiff Road (S-547, 01/06) 8:00 p.m. 3.6 Public Hearing 87 Special Use Permit - Request by Deborah Stafford to consider a Special Use Permit to place a Single-Wide Mobile Home in an R-20 Residential District located at 3321 Oakley Circle (S-550, 02/06) 51 8:20 p.m. 3.7 Public Hearing 91 Text Amendment - Request by John Evans, Jr. to amend the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 55-4 Dimensional Requirements for Height and FAR Requirements in the B-2 Highway Business District (A-345, 12/05) 8:50 p.m. 3.8 Public Hearing 93 Text Amendments - Request by planning staffto amend the New Hanover County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect changes made by the North Carolina General Assembly in the 2005 Legislative Session (A-346, 01/06) 9:00 p.m. 4. Presentation of Project Results to Date on the Problem of Disproportionate 119 Minority Contact 9:15 p.m. 5. Meeting of the Water and Sewer District 121 9:25 p.m. 6. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes) 9:30 p.m. 7. Additional Items County Manager County Commissioners Clerk to the Board County Attorney 9:45 p.m. ADJOURN Note: Times listed for each item are estimated, and if a preceding item takes less time, the Board will move forward until the agenda is completed. 52 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Sheriff's Office Presenter: Sidney A. Causey, Sheriff Contact: Sidney A. Causey, Sheriff SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Consideration of Approval to Submit a Joint Application with the City of Wilmington for 2006 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Funding from the U.S. Department of Justice BRIEF SUMMARY: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed by President Bush in December 2004, consolidated the Edward Byrne Memorial and the State and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Programs into a new program designated as the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington are certified as disparate agencies; therefore, FY2006 JAG funding in the amount of $84,358 is available to be split between these two law enforcement agencies with each receiving $42,179. Submittal of a joint JAG Grant application is required. The JAG grant process requires a public hearing be held for discussion on the use of funds. There is no local match requirement. The Sheriff's Office portion of the 2006 JAG grant funding would be spent to purchase Live Scan equipment to process fingerprints and palm prints. A Memorandum of Understanding between New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington is required as part of the JAG Grant process and is hereby attached for consideration and approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend the Board of Commissioners hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the use of JAG grant funds. After closing the public hearing, recommend approval to submit a joint 2006 JAG grant application with the City of Wilmington and execute the required County/City Memorandum of Understanding (authorizing the County Manager to sign). If the grant is awarded, recommend approval of the grant and associated budget amendment. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: $42,179 as County's portion of the 2006 JAG grant. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding Note: The JAG grant application is available for review in the Commissioners' Office and the County Manager's Office. REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: 53 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Held public hearing and approved 4-0. 54 GMS# 2006-F0686- NC -DJ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this the _ day of ,2006 by and between the undersigned officials of New Hanover County, North Carolina (hereinafter referred to as "County") and the City of Wilmington, North Carolina (hereinafter referred to as "City") in order to facilitate obtaining Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) through the United States Department of Justice. Further, all understandings contained herein are contingent upon the timely passage of appropriate funding resolutions by the parties' respective governing boards. RECITALS WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice has announced thc availability of certain Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant funds through its Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to federal law The Attorney General of the United States and The US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, has determined and certified that the County bears more than fifty percent ofthe prosecution or incarceration costs arising from Part I violent crimes; and WHEREAS, the County and the City recognize that it would be in the mutual best interest of all parties, as well as the furtherance of the public interest and advancement of public safety, to cooperate one with the other in the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant process, and further, to enter into an agreement to equitably share said grant funds. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto enter into the following mutual understandings contained herein: 1. The County and City shall join in the herein described grant process, shall use their best efforts to facilitate said process to include, but not limited to, the submission of 55 GMS# 2006-F0686- NC - DJ appropriate and timely funding resolutions to their respective governing boards, and shall cooperate one with the other. 2. The parties hereto agree to share on an equal basis any and all funds awarded under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant and further each party shall detennine their individual funding needs. 3. Based on the individual funding needs as determined by the parties and subject to the approval of each party's governing board. each pal1y may contribute a proportional share of any matching funds if deemed appropriate. 4. In the event the actual grant award is less than the original amount requested. then the amount awarded to cach party shall be proportionately decreased and each party's matching fund share be proportionately decreased (i.e., if the overall grant award is reduced by 10% then the amount awarded to the County and/or the City would decrease by 10%, and thc matching funds contributed by either the County and/or the City \'vould be reduced by 10%). 5. The City shall act as lead agency and shall be responsible for the following: submitting the grant application; filing all necessary attachments on behalf of both agencies for the required application; receivc the electronic drawdown; and transfer the shared portion to the county; and handle the grant monitoring and close-out. Further. the County shall provide the City with receipts of the designated expenditures in order for the City to submit the appropriate financial and program reports. No administrative fee shall be charged hy either party. All funds will he used strictly for law enlorcement purposes. 6. I'he City Manager has designated the City Police Department Grant Manager to submit the application on behalf of both parties and shall provide any additional documents requested by the JAG program office. 7. This agreement shall commence on the. day of . 2006. and shall remain in effect until completion of the grant award pursuant to the Fiscal Year 2006 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. 56 GMS# 2006-1'0686- NC-DJ 8. The tenns and provisions enumerated herein shall constitute the entire understanding oetween the parties. This Memorandum of Understanding shall not be modified or otherwise amended except in writing. signed oy the parties. IN WITNESS WlIEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the day and year first above written. NEW HANOVER COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA ---~-----_....__._- - --------------...- County Manager AITEST: -_._-----.._._,~_._-_._~---_._-~~._._~.._- Clerk to the Board CITY OF WILMINCiTON -4 -&- {j...)--- --~ __u.._,_______... .. ... .--------.---.-----...~_.---- City Manager Al'l EST: '/~I01J'j J'pdJl-S1dIJJIIj City Clerk .. J &i '." 57 GMS# 2006-F0686 NC-DJ This instrument has heen pre-audited in the manner required hy the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. --- ------ County Finance Officer This instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Aet. r Ii' R"J r ( ( / ('1\1-4'>-.. /'1 ) / I ) /0 '.0 '"'V !',,/ \~L-'--- City Fi;;;'n-ce Offil'~r uT~-r--n I ' I Approved as to form. ----------" _._--_._---~-_._--_._-- .-....-.------------..- County Attorney Approved as to form: \ (, ), / '( I, ( _m__.________________________ -_._~---""' City Attorney 58 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Finance Presenters: County & City Staff Contacts: Avril Pinder and Wanda Copley SUBJECT: Public Meeting and Consideration of a Resolution Relating to a County/City Bond Issue BRIEF SUMMARY: A brief presentation will be made by County and City staff regarding the proposed $35.5 million Bond Issue. Afterwards, a public hearing will be held to receive input from the public. The County Commissioners will be asked to approve a resolution authorizing the Finance Director and the County Manager to file an application with the Local Government Commission. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Hold public hearing, approve. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: Number of Positions: Explanation: ATTACHMENTS: iii Bond Resolutio REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Introduced the resolution, heard public comments. Adopted the resolution 4-0. 59 RESOLUTION MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZA nON AND ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGA nON BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO FILE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL THEREOF WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the County of New Hanover, North Carolina (the "County") is considering the authorization of not exceeding $35,500,000 bonds of the County (the "Bonds") for the purpose of providing funds, together with any other available funds, for financing parks and recreation facilities, including the acquisition and development of land, the construction and development of athletic fields, parks, playgrounds, swimming pools and recreation centers, and the provision of related library, museum and beach improvements in the County, including paying expenses related thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the County: Section 1. The Board of Commissioners hereby finds and determines in connection with authorizing the issuance of the Bonds that (a) the proposed issuance of the Bonds is necessary or expedient for the County, (b) the proposed principal amount of the Bonds is adequate and not excessive for the proposed purposes of such issue, (c) the County's debt management procedures and policies are good and are managed in strict compliance with law, (d) the estimated increase in taxes, if any, necessary to service the Bonds will not be excessive and (e) under current economic conditions the Bonds can be marketed at reasonable rates of interest. 60 Section 2. The County Manager and the Finance Director are hereby designated as representatives of the County to file an application for approval of the Bonds with the Local Government Commission of North Carolina, and all actions heretofore taken by the County Manager and the Finance Director and any other officers of the County relating to such matter are hereby approved, ratified and confirmed. Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. This the 6th day of February, 2006. NEW HANOVER COUNTY (SEAL) William A. Caster, Vice-Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board 61 This page intentionally left blank. 62 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 3.1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Steven Scruggs Item Does Not Require Review SUBJECT: Case SN-98, 2/06 Naming of an Unnamed Easement BRIEF SUMMARY: Application by the New Hanover County Planning staff to name an unnamed easement Clemmons Way (located between Sneeden Drive and Masons Bluff Court). The affected property owners are all in agreement with this application. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The County Commissioners may approve or deny the petition. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: N/A ATTACHMENTS: iii SN-98 .do 1 Map ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 63 New Hanover County Planning Department County Annex Building 230 Marketplace Drive, Suite 150 Wilmington, NC 28403 Dexter L. Hayes P 910.798.7165 Director F 910.798.7053 CASE: SN-98, 02/06; Applicant: New Hanover County Planning Staff REQUEST: Name an unnamed easement Clemmons Way LOCATION: Between Sneed en Dr and Masons BluffCt Staff Summary The subject easement is located between Sneeden Dr and Masons Bluff Ct approximately 1100 feet southwest of the Middle Sound Loop Rd-Sneeden Dr intersection, in 2100 block of Middle Sound Loop Rd. The affected properties are part of the Marsh Clyde Harrelson Division, Map Book 5, Page 20, on the eastern side of Middle Sound Loop Rd. The entire easement is shown on Map Book 35, Page 46. This naming was proposed to Planning Staff by a resident following Emergency Services having difficulty locating a home during an emergency. The existing residences and business are currently addressed off of Middle Sound Loop Rd. The proposed naming of the easement meets the County's criteria of serving as access to four or more addressable structures. Staff Recommendation Staff contacted adjacent landowners and the owners agreed upon Clemmons Way as a possible road name. The affected property owners have signed petitions approving the street naming. The County will be responsible for erecting a street sign should the naming be approved. 64 >- ~ ell r:: o E E ~ ~ O' · ~ .." . J ~ . ; , o 0 _ ...J ('II " o C ::l Cl ci) ~.~ I: .!! l; ._ "C ca E :2n: III ::;<.> :z o~ ...~'E ~ ~ Q) ",,, +." Q) ~.r:! 7..- ~ u15. .~" ..... en.., u a. \.!!'! <:( <( ,,8 CD 65 This page intentionally left blank. 66 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 3.2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Steven Scruggs Item Does Not Require Review SUBJECT: Case SN-99, 2/06 Naming of an Unnamed Easement BRIEF SUMMARY: Application by the New Hanover County Planning staff to name an unnamed easement Flounder Lane (located between Sound Watch Drive and Royal Oak Drive). Petitions by affected property owners have been submitted in support. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The County Commissioners may approve or deny the petition. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: N/A ATTACHMENTS: iii SN - 99. do 1 Map ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 67 New Hanover County Planning Department County Annex Building 230 Marketplace Drive, Suite 150 Wilmington, NC 28403 Dexter L. Hayes P 910.798.7165 Director F 910.798.7053 CASE: SN-99, 02/06; Applicant: Olen & Patricia Roberts REQUEST: Name an unnamed easement Flounder Lane LOCATION: Between Sound Watch Dr and Royal Oak Dr Staff Summary The subject easement is located between Sound Watch Dr and Royal Oak Dr approximately 550 feet southwest of the Myrtle Grove Road-Sound Watch Dr intersection, in 6300 block of Myrtle Grove Rd. The affected properties are part of the RF Parker Division, shown on Map Book 40, Page 93, on the eastern side of Myrtle Grove Rd. This naming was proposed by Olen & Patricia Roberts due to the easement not having an official street name. The existing residences are currently addressed off of Myrtle Grove Rd. The proposed naming of the easement meets the County's criteria of serving as access to four or more addressable structures. Staff Recommendation The applicant presented petitions signed by the adjacent landowners who have agreed upon Flounder Lane as a possible road name. Due to the importance of emergency services and adherence to the county street naming ordinance, staff recommends that the road be named Flounder Lane. The County will be responsible for erecting a street sign should the naming be approved. ..-.-- 68 l: ..J ... CD '0 l: ::::I i 0 i u: i '" cD t: .. 0'0"8 C\ja:a: o ~.~ 0)(; ~ s:: ..!o.. .- t: ol1 E:E l: ,*~ ctI_~ z~~ - 0 l: Q) '" '" ~t~ c . '" 69 "'uc- en <0: <0: - This page intentionally left blank. 70 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 3.3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Steve Candler Item Does Not Require Review SUBJECT: Case Z-826, 12/05 Rezoning request to rezone approximately 26.5 acres of property located at 1500 and 1551 Point Harbor Road from 1-1 Light Industrial to CD (B-2) Highway Business with Mixed Uses BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by John E. Evans, Jr. to rezone approximately 26.5 acres of property at 1500 and 1551 Point Harbor Road from 1-1 Light Industrial to CD (B-2) Highway Business with Mixed Uses. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The County Commissioners may approve or deny the conditional use rezoning portion of the request. The Planning Board recommends approval by a vote of 3-1 with conditions: - Except for the existing uses and the commercial marina; new uses will be limited to B-1 neighborhood business - Eliminate billboard sign - Sidewalks and walkways must be provided - Additional phases and out parcel development will require an amended plan - CAMA and COD setbacks may apply along the waterfront and brackish marsh FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: N/A ATTACHMENTS: iii iii Z-826-Staff Summary-r Z-826 Petition Suml1 Map ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: A motion to approve the rezoning failed for lack of a second. A motion to deny was approved 3-1, Caster dissenting. 71 CASE: Z-826, 12/01 APPLICANT: John E. Evans Jr. REQUEST: 1-1 Light Industrial to CD B-2 Mixed Use Commercial and Residential ACREAGE: 26.5:1: Aeres LOCATION: 1500 Point Harbor Rd south of Isabelle Holmes Bridge LAND CLASS: Conservation - The Conservation Class is to provide for effective long-term management and protection of significant natural resources. These areas coincide with the 100 - year floodplain where residential density is limited to no more than 2.5 units per acre. Water dependent uses and Industrial corridors may be allowed as long as they are sensitive to preserving the natural functions of the site. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted 7 to 0 to continue the case. The board expressed concerns that the site plan submitted did not contain enough detail. Planning Board Recommendation- The Planning Board met on January 5, 2006 and voted 3 to 1 to recommend approval. The board also placed 6 conditions on the conditional use and asked the developer to provide architectural details for the commissioners. One board member was still concerned with the environmental impacts along the waterfront. STAFF SUMMARY-REVISED: The property is located along the western edge of the Northeast Cape Fear River south of the Isabelle Holmes Bridge. The area was once the home of Wilmington Shipyard, a bustling ship repair facility. Though some of the property has been converted to other uses, remnants of that use still remain. Tn February 1996, the Commissioners approved a Conditional Use Zoning that authorized the construction of41 residential units, a liS-slip marina, a hotel, and 50,000 sq ft of retail and office space. That development never materialized and the property was rezoned to 1-1 Light Industrial in January 2005. The site's primary road frontage is along Point Harbor Rd, a service road connecting to US 421. The greatest obstacle hindering development of the site is the absence of adequate water and sewer. This project proposes a phased plan for providing those services. Existing facilities on the property include a Maritime Building, Rowing Club and several small offices. The marina presently has 24 wet slips. The new plan calls for 18 townhomes, and a marina office with 100 wet and 144 dry slips. A second phase of the project shows proposed future towers that would exceed the residential density limits of 2.5 units per acre and cannot be built. The property is classified Conservation which typically include all marshlands and land within the 100 - year floodplain. Floodplain elevation for this property is 9 feet. The redevelopment ofthis site is at a strategic gateway into the City of Wilmington. Construction of the PPD offices are underway across the river. Several concerns should be addressed in finalizing plans for this site. Since the property has a history of intensive industrial use, environmental assessments should be completed prior to using the property for residential purposes. Another concern is its close proximity to the heavy truck tramc along US 421 and NC 133. Traffic volumes are already high and will only become more intense with the noise from the nearby Bridge crossings. Nevertheless, the proposed mixed-use marina facility with some limited residential appears to be a reasonable tit for the site. Assuming the adjustments in the setbacks and 72 wetland boundaries can be satisfied in the final plan, staff would recommend approval of the zoning change for the first phase of the project. The applicant submitted a more detailed plan as the planning board requested. Preliminary Staff Findings 1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. Water service is available from the City of Wilmington across the river. B. Sewer service will be provided on site with a packaged treatment facil ity. C. All of the property is located within a I DO-year flood area. D. Access to the project will be from US 421 a major arterial and Point Harbor Rd. E. Fire Service is available from the North Wilmington VFD. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. A site plan pursuant to the Ordinance has been submitted. B. The 18 units proposed are consistent with the density I imits for Conservation areas. C. Parking, Building Height and Impervious coverage satisfy the County requirements. D. Wetlands areas need to be mapped and preserved. E. Buffer yards and Setbacks need to be adjusted on the plan. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. Redevelopment of this site as planned would be a significant change to the quality of land uses in the area. B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of commercial uses nearby. 4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The 1999 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Conservation with residential density limited to no more than 2.5 units per acre. Water dependent uses and commercial uses may be allowed as long as they are sensitive to preserving the natural functions of the site. B. The property adjoins other marine activities and a truck stop to the north; Downtown waterfront uses are planned across the river. Suggested Conditions . Except for the existing uses and the commercial marina; new uses will be limited to B-1 neighborhood business . Eliminate Billboard sign . Sidewalks and walkways must be provided . Additional phases and out parcel development will require an amended plan . CAMA and COD setbacks may apply along the waterfront and brackish marsh ~ .. --."--- - -,---~-._-_.- 73 Case: Z-826, 12/05 Petition Summary Data Owner/Petitioner: John Evans, Jr. Existing Land Use: Commercial Marina and assorted ot1ices Zoning History: July 1,1972 (9A) Land Classification: Conservation Water Tvpe: City Sewer Tvpe: Septic Recreation Area: Cape Fear River Access & Traffic Volume: 24,467 ADT (2003 MPO count) Fire District: 412 North VFD Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Cape Fear River (SW) Aquifer Recharge Area: Chiefly a discharge area for groundwater flow ConservationlHistoric/Archaeological Resources: Open Tidal Water (river) Soils: Dorovan, Urban land Septic Suitability: Class IV (unsuitable), not classified Schools: Parsley Elementary 74 "0 ~ i~ z ~ ," c 0 1;:j ~ ~ CO "0 (') OJ "tl 0 ~ "! IiJ -'i <: ,g en N 0' Gl ..~ " , g _Ill 01 , , Nl: Gl . '" ..J ' , <ll > -W Ltl C . o () w ..... 0<: C\l ~.&:: _ 0 ~~ ~ ...:.-, ... c,';': ~ ,~~ 7~ '^~ ~ ~.~ " Na:<( 75 This page intentionally left blank. 76 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 3.4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Steve Candler Item Does Not Require Review SUBJECT: Case Z-817, 11/05 Rezoning request to rezone approximately 5.73 acres of property located at 609 Piner Road from R-15 Residential to 0&1 Office & Institution BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Withers & Ravenel for Gulf Stream Shopping Center, LLC to rezone approximately 5.73 acres of property at 609 Piner Road from R-15 Residential to 0&1 Office & Institution. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The County Commissioners may approve or deny the petition. The Planning Board recommends approval by a vote of 4-0. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: N/A ATTACHMENTS: iii iii Z-817-Staff Summary-Re Z-817 Petition Suml1 Map ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 3-1, Pritchett dissenting. 77 CASE: Z-817, 11/05; PETITIONER: Withers & Ravenel for Gulf Stream Shopping Center, LLC REQUEST: R-15 Residential to 0&1 Office & Institution ACREAGE: 5.73 LOCATION: 609 Piner Road LAND CLASS: Resource Protection - The purpose of the Resource Protection Class is to provide for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on November 5, 2005 and continued the item to allow the applicant to meet with the staff. The staff had concerns with the compatibility with adjacent residential uses and some of the topography features of the site. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on January 5, 2006 and voted to recommend approval 4 to O. STAFF SUMMARY The subject property is located just northeast of the College and Piner Road intersection near Monkey Junction. Adjacent and to the west is an existing business and office park. East and north near the property are several residential neighborhoods - Greenbrier and Wood Duck Forest. Two 0&1 Office and Institution Districts also exist along Piner Road that were rezoned in the late '90's. Presently, both 0&1 Districts are vacant. Land Use patterns near the Monkey Junction area have undergone a significant transformation since the early 1980's when most of the real estate was zoned residential. A large commercial node has evolved during the past 20 years that include restaurants, offices and major retail type centers. Changes in these land use patterns near Monkey Junctions during this time have been a result ofthe extension ofthe County's sewer. Pressures to rezone in this area will continue, especially with its proximity to a major intersection and demand for goods and services in the southern part of the County. This rezoning petition is a logical extension to the existing office park zoned CD (0&1) located adjacent and to the north. Additional access to Piner Road increases interconnectivity through the business park. Also significant is the existing topography and drainage features on the site, which provide for a natural transition in the existing office park. Recognizing the expansion by this commercial corner and the desire to merge the existing residential land use pattern with existing street connections nearby, the applicant has made some adjustments to the rezoning petition. The rear portion of the property will remain R-15 residential. This allows for more compatible uses with the adjoining property owners who will be able to share an improved access to Piner Road. Staff is satisfied with the revised rezoning description and the preliminary design and recommends approval. 78 Petition Summary Data Case: Z-817, 11/05 Owner/Petitioner: Withers & Ravenel for Gulf Stream Shopping Center LLC Existin2 Land Use: Vacant Ori2inal Zoning: Area 4 (April 7, 1971) Land Classification: Resource Protection Potable Water Type: Public (located nearby) Sewer System Type: Public (located nearby) Recreation Facility/Area: River Road Park Traffic Volume: 26,354 ADT near South College & Carolina Beach Rds (May '03 MPO Data) Fire District: Myrtle Grove VFD Watershed and Water Quality Classification: Mott's Creek C (SW) Aquifer Rechar2e Area: Primary Recharge Area Conservation/Historic/Archaeologic Resources: No historic or archaeological resources located on site Soils Septic Suitability: Class III = Severe Limitations Schools: N/A 79 ~ "0 ~ ~ - z ~ :l c 0 .iij <( N 0. ~ "" U C> ~ .E~"Dg<ri"" If --'-' If If If If lI.I $ c: 'i= 5; N a.' Q. ll. ,~ ~ :~ ,:...J....J _ ' H ~ :":fu1 :,'h 0 ,!,l liMO Hili'! ;;a .g g> ...J '... 51;! If;! @;! tu~ ~~ 'ggg~ r . .~ ~ o III .- "'Vi n. ~ Vi OJ! ~.~ ~" . . :g .9 6, ~ i ~ ~ 5 o~d ~ul 5 ~ ~ e ~!!i!!i !!ij, .~ .~~ -..... &I).-.c U LU, ,m".l.LJ" ?: -3: ,~, .w 'Cf.l: . ~(f)(I) ..- ";" ~ III ...J Ili ~ 11 If :;l1dl!i 11 ~ ~ ~ 8'" ,'" ,''' .~ ':E ':E I~ .~ "" ..... ~ C. E...J, . 8 1\ za~za:~ z~~~ ~ ~ H~ l~ fzU ~ ..- ~ ~ 0 "'~ I I II ~o <( q 00 'n ...... c; ~:e LU , ~.ff); : I ~ 0 0 ~ ~ r:!2 '(Z rJ) , :U1.U) ..... .~ ~ iiS ell '-$--' ~. _S!~ .~ .~ lfi! ~.~ > >> ':; :S~ .~.~ C? N c.:= g. ili if () N Vi " N , if NVi8 .." Vi Vi 1\ 1\1\ " " " .~ ~" " N "c." ~, " ~ ",> ~~~~ ~ --.'-- ---- 80 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 3.5 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Steve Candler Item Does Not Require Review SUBJECT: Case S-547, 1/06 Special Use Permit request to expand a child care center in an R-10 Residential district located at 309 Cardiff Road BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Thelma Washington for Denise Bullock to consider a Special Use Permit to expand a day care center to eight children in an R-10 Residential district located at 309 Cardiff Road. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The County Commissioners may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Use Permit. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: N/A ATTACHMENTS: iii iii s-547-Staff Summary-RES 547-Petition Suml2Maps ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 81 SPECIAL USE PERMIT S-547,0l/06; Child Day Care Center for 8 Children Request By: Thelma Washington for Denise Bullock Location: 309 Cardiff Road Planning Board Recommendation: The planning board met on January 6, 2006 and votcd 4 to 0 to recommend approval. Preliminary Staff Findings I. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. County water and sewer serve the property. B. The property accesses Castle Hayne Road, an identified arterial, by Rock Hill Road, an identified collector. C. Fire Service is available from the Wrightsboro Fire Station nearby. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. The property is zoned R-I 0 Residential. B. Off-street parking requirements are on the plan and meet the requirements of Article VIII of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. C. The entire play area is in an enclosed fence with a minimum height of four feet. D. The applicant states the day care is licensed by the State of North Carolina. E. No outside on-premises signs currently exists. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. Similar type facilities exist in other residential districts in New Hanover County. B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of residents who live nearby. C. No new structures are proposed for the Special Use. 4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved wiII be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The 1999 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Resource Protection, which provides for the protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources. B. Policies in the Comprehensive plan support providing additional services for the special needs population, the elderly as well as for children. Suggested Conditions: Staffrecommends no additional conditions. -,-...---- 82 Case: 8-547,01106 Petition Summary Data Owner/Petitioner: Denise Bullock Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential Zoning History: July 1, 1974 (Area lOA) Land Classification: Resource Protection Water Type: Public Sewer Type: Public Recreation Area: Cape Fear Optimist Park Access & Traffic Volume: 20,894 ADT (Nov 2004 MPO Count) Castle Hayne Road and 23rd Street Fire District: Wrightsboro VFD Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Ness Creek C (SW) Aquifer Recharge Area: Second Recharge Area Conservation/Historic/Archaeological Resources: N/ A Soils: Baymeade Septic Suitability: Moderate, Wetness Schools: Wrightsboro Elementary '-'.,-"~--_.__._~- 83 .. S1 { ~.f ~l.. '1-;:;;; ~~ __\ c\.. \ .,. 0 'CJ ~ ~ ~ ~... \.\..~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ,- ~ " - '~.o"-o..- U .Q,~ "- '~O., QI ~ ~ [\), t / \..L,. . '. \...J.. ~DD~ ~ .c-~..~~~ \., //" cC // U //. ../ --- J.... "'J . "r~-~"r)'-'--;;:: ._)~:} --;;17------ , '\ r>' J '. (~>.. ( 8.;; -"" .! ~ " . ",.,.....- ~ ~~.- .... ~ - I-,_r , ,...~ ,..~.- ~ - -".'-""--~-"".",^.",.,.-~..~~ t(~ ,1 \\) .1 r,~. J -, ,i, rut ~- 84 :r~1 \]~lliULtj!".", ,/ · t~! '\ ~hh-""'lIJr< rL1 ~~\ -~iJ S\ ~~. .:\ ! I ~.~ -0"", 1;7 .' I ~ (~~ If ~ HD .. I ~ "h,r U' ~ - \~ ff ,: r-------_" ~ ' _ -1 '- . 1- /'1\ \\ 1[[ Jl~- f:E I ;k"~?9N~~~' , , ~~ ~ F= ~ /i~ '\ ffiH<:) I , \\ 2 \ ~L1,Vy ~ r a:: I. -ji) \ ~ 0:: t!1 '0 t~ J ;;---.----"~ , ~ \ P "., ,r_ ) ,,~,~;Zrn:-j " T~__-=~~~~> ~ I 1 f\ ill -TiTr"' /:)~ ." T7 U III I I T7\0\j: ~~J~"" ~.." LL1= 1 g~ 'y- '];t= hi: "i':i ..' f-- '- ~~ ,N' '0 .aii ~ f-- ---., -ti K. ~i '..,.,... ~ ~ ~ .'" trr- / 7' <<:::: w N! k,>)iiii\iii< J r Y \II T "'-----/,\i i ".,." '.............i> i I r I CJ:.[ '- ............ Ij'i' - m ~ "":., ... .... . r-----.. /-.0 I \\'1 ~ h ~ ~ i,.'"".<ri "..,., ....,.,.'... ii... . ?J ~ ~'rfi!f' !j!:::.'> '. f-......... "--- \\",< ..... --....j 1\ t-- ,. .... '-J -' 'I .t ~" " '-----....: d ,/ "x. i. .... ~~- I) ~ v:~'\ '. ~ fh Y .... .... re.' " .... .... \. ! ~.,.... I---" ~ ~'i ,..,;.'i.' ..'.'.'i.;.i , >1'. H ,.,..;.i' j I} (j '.i....;' '....'. ".,... 4."> ".. ~'" .. ;,.;.,,,,- p, "iC. "Y"'S'.U. .......... ..i"'i' ';..,.'....1/ ,;..'. -g ........i...,. ,'.'... '>Jii. !.~ '.;..;.. ";""', fii J~ ~ ;~ I"' ~ I; '..;.;.. ..,.i.." .... - i............. ~ i I".' "..',..i' ..., ~ ~ i 1'1;;;)'..-'<" .."..;c-'.,'...,'..), .~ ~ 6 !;: : 1-, ..;.,. /;> ...';.,' ...",. " o. "' Ii 't~.. C +-' "C 0 .!2 I ;: \ 0 c r::: "" 0> U) if) , I;t'i. -" <Il .. ~ ~.' "'.." ""i ',.'" .0 m " · · ',> ;V"'" . :E ~ _ Cl) .. ~ iI :! "'. :0,;':.'_:::-,; CI) "'.~ -.J .: '_ i~! : :::',:: ""4:: : ',:'-'- .. ~ ~~ ~ b! 112 i.'.'.~', <o'.no "!,,,,",,. .... . 'i'. ..~ o E E"tl -;;; - :~ ,;: Ii iw . ...... -... 4l Qj :": .- 010 I...J '2 ~ ';.= t3 ~ ~ :~ i~ i~ :., ,.:~..rn"tl. 2 Ic, ,1) IQ ~~" ..q ~ ~ ~.~ _ ~, f- ~~ :~!~ .;><: to .~,g :a ~ '~ ' 5 ib ;!ii I~!~ I '''" N I ~,.,. 0 c .~ .~ i~ i~ I~ . If) ~~ilj~' iI """'i'''' ........ - / ......... .... I.. ....... , --- 85 This page intentionally left blank. 86 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 3.6 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Steve Candler Item Does Not Require Review SUBJECT: Case S-550, 2/06 Special Use Permit Request to place a single-wide mobile home in an R-20 Residential district at 3321 Oakley Circle BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Deborah Stafford to consider a Special Use Permit to place a single-wide mobile home in an R-20 Residential district at 3321 Oakley Circle. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The County Commissioners may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Use Permit. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: N/A ATTACHMENTS: iii S-550-MH-Staff Summ2 Maps ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0 with two conditions: 1) that it is to be occupied by a family member, if a family member ceases to occupy, the special use permit is no longer valid; and 2) that a single driveway be used. 87 SPECIAL USE PERMIT S-550, 2/06; Singlewide Mobile Home in an R-20 Residential District Request By: Deborah Stafford Location: 3321 Oakley Circle Preliminary Staff Findings 1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. The subject property is near the Oakley Mobile Home Park. B. Ajoint septic tank and individual well serve for the utilities. C. Access to the property is from Oakley Road, off Castle Hayne Road. D. Fire Service is available fi'om the Castle Hayne YFD. 2. The Board must find that the lIse mects all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. The property is zoned R-20 Residential Zoning District. B. A Special Use Permit in the R-20 Residential Zoning District permits singlewide mobile homes. C. The property can accommodate the setback requirements for a singlewide mobile home. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. Approximately twenty (20) other mobile homes exist nearby. B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of residents or commercial uses nearby. 4. The Board must find that the location and character of the lIse jf developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The 1999 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Urban Transition. The purpose of the urban transition land classification is to provide for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The location of these areas is based upon land use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in land utilization and public service delivery. B. Several other mobile homes exist nearby, some for 10 years or more. Suggested Conditions-Staff does not recommendation any other conditions. 88 Q) "C .- ~ Q) - 0') c .- (J) +-' C Q) E u fU a. "C Q) (fJ 0 CO II -+ Ua(M 'f%II-(j 0- 0 L a. -- 89 - I \ c:b I I I 1\ \ ilL ., --1---,- :"~TLEHAYNERD ~1 ~ . .....,.. .---"" 1 ~ 'IF'.... IT .... ';" 7 'I / r Ul \ C\I ~. ~ \ Il/rD eir 1II1 iii ~ f--- .' .'iV; ~'1 \.. . ,. ........ ........;,- I '\ / ,.,:<,. """"'5 I I -, ...... >---1--- \ V 1-.. ..,......... .'.. i= -". I. ,....."..,.'.:..,... ~ ,...... ,\'<,' ~ il..,.....,! , \ '2\Z< ... ,t'/';\' A : ........... \\'> \ _, 1'." .. 't.;,. \ \ _ ., ....... ...,...; J r"' j{ '\.:....,..... :.'\ .... .... D- .l r-- I-- :S...... .,.'.... ..~.... ..21.... IT ~f!V' ~~--=, e- I l li: 'is ~/ "\ LZ~ [' l d:{! '\'\ ~ N V r---r'=' ~/ ,', \ '\ ~~ W r.\ 1 l ~----= % rI \ I ~______ ff / - / - I / ~ / =---~ l II II :=r===-=;; rx ' 7 7 DELVAD~ IT] 7/ r------3""^,"d '! ~ / / J --= 1/1 I ~ I RUSTICLN r-= IC ~ r--- .N! r j I I I PRIVAT"C r- 1-\ r-I < . ~ - I ,,------- V I I , " ~I t:':" 1 ___J I --\"\~ N I '~L/ ~ W. "a~a3NN3" -~-!! \ . \ ,\ - '- It) ~ l.L ';"-'- I"" I \ \\ f ~I.".-~." ~JIL8 \ ';'''W 1 U1p:" ..- ~""13a- ~ ~ - Ln ' w 'U~D~ I F=:!-T'3""('I'~UO -=: r '~\ '\ L 'J \ \ >--r-- ~ """0 \ t- " at. ~ 1 \~ E "C Ili-N",~~m \.\\0 ~ ~ ~ II , ~/ _...=..Uf!-~--_. " Z N /' \ \ ~ ~~ lill /,/ ,1 :;; .<'! <( I i I I \....-+--J ~ ~(;l:?; ,I I' "- ._ "C is "! '" I I ' L...J Q) QJ . . <( I I ,....J::'--::::U \"\ g> g> :10] ~I; ~ 3i~i '~I~ --1 .// ~ \ \ '. (j) ..J :~ ~ ~ I> IgCl: I iO .iCl: !!..._~._// ~\.---\ II . ....... It) .;.; ;. Cl: 1[/1 UJ .;'\ J'" II... o .h 10 ~i~ICiiI ~I&l 11':- \ '-..< ~ "0 I "11<t1l!iSl.11li ,~ 7ffi" ..... N "-'I: i " I" 2 w"':' ' o ~ s .; @ I~ i'" 18 " iiE I 1\,,",C1-.V; o ::l ~ " fj Vi 115 10': I~ I~ @ w \ ~ ~ ~ .A. H U l~ II~ I~ ili' ~"OOOVldSNlA83. _. '6c~ t{ l' I ".0 '1"- LI w 10 I;,ji <'i .:l---- 'D> (/) ~~ ,_~'_ 7<>. _ ..' ~ \ .. -- .. .. _.. I 7 90 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 3.7 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Steve Candler Item Does Not Require Review SUBJECT: Case A-345, 12/05 Request for Zoning Ordinance text amendment in the B-2 Highway Business district BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by John Evans, Jr. to amend the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 55-4 Dimensional Requirements for Height and FAR Requirements in the B-2 Highway Business District. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend the staff version of the amendment. The County Commissioners may approve or deny the request. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: N/A ATTACHMENTS: iii A-345- Staff Summary-R ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: A motion to table for 60 days, schedule a public hearing and reconsider at that time was approved 4-0. 91 CASE: A-345, 12/05 Applicant: John Evans, Jr. REQUEST: Zoning Text Amendment for Section 55-4 Dimensional Requirements Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on January 6, 2006 and voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval for the staff version of the text amendment. The proposed text amendment can be accomplished by amending the following: (the petitioner's amendment is underlined) Section 55-4: Dimensional Requirements (4) Maximum Building Height-40 feet; except that buildings located within the Urban Transition Area and fronting along a collector, Minor Arterial or Principal Arterial as indicated on the County's Thoroughfare Classification Plan, may exceed 40 feet provided their Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) does not exceed 1.0 (2/7/83) (10/5/95) The FAR may exceed 1.0, but shall not exceed 1.4 if; (a) The ratio of the total building footprint to the total buildable site area docs not exceed 40%. and (b) The required parking ( exclusive of off-loading and service parking) is included within the building footprint. NOTE: Parking deck area calculations shall be excluded from the total building area calculations when computing the FAR and the total height of the parking structure shall be excluded from the height limits specified in this article. ST AFF SUMMARY FAR (floor area ratio) requirements were adopted in the County's Zoning Ordinance in 1983 to allow for more intensive commercial development along major al1erials. At this point in time the land economics ofthe County has not resulted in any request to use this height and density provision. The existing Ordinance defines FAR as follows: 23-74: Floor Area Ratio - Floor Area Ratio equals the total floor area of all structures located on lot divided by the gross lot area. (2/7/83) FAR = TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL STRUCTURES ON A LOT GROSS LOT AREA This definition allows the developer to count the gross lot area to determine the amount of floor area allowed in the Buildings. The applicant proposes a bonus in the allowable square footage if the lot coverage is limited and the parking is within the building footprint. This idea is appealing if additional green space can be preserved on the site. Staff suggest an alternative change that would equate additional square footage with certain open space amenities. Ordinarily, the FAR usually considers the buildable area of a site after setbacks and parking areas have been subtracted. Our standard counts the gross lot area which already increases the square footage by 40 - 50 %. Staff agrees that parking under the building would minimize disturbance of the site and retain additional open space. We recommend the following bonus provisions be added to the FAR calculation: If all surface parking (excluding visitor drop-off and pick-up) is within the building footprint. additional floor area can be added at the rate of 1ft off/oor area per 1 ft of parking area. 92 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 3.8 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Steve Candler Item Does Not Require Review SUBJECT: Case A-346, 1/06 Request to amend the NHC Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by planning staff to amend the New Hanover County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect changes made by the North Carolina General Assembly in the 2005 Legislative Session. (Please note that one change concerning Development Agreements will be brought to the Commissioners separately in March. Development Agreements can serve as a mechanism for accomplishing what Commissioners wish in approving large subdivisions with a longer development term in return for such benefits as acreage donations to the County for parks. A separate memo will be sent to you on this subject.) RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval. The County Commissioners may approve or deny the request. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: N/A ATTACHMENTS: iii A-346-Z0nllll& Sub Text Amendmelllll51S'6 . Legislation of Interest Summary Analysis of LLegislation Ma ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 93 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ADOPTED October 1969, Updated August 2005 CASE: A-346, 1/06 Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on January 6,2006 and voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval for all of the following amendments. Zoning and Subdivision Text Amendments -- Numerous text amendments in response to amendments in the Zoning and Planning Enabling Legislation for Counties that were adopted in the 2005 legislative session. The adoption of Senate Bills 518 and 814 and 681 amends the State's planning and development laws. Since these laws are used as the basis to enact local zoning and subdivision ordinances, certain changes will be required to make our local ordinances consistent with these new statutes. Dave Owens with the Institute of Government has prepared a brief summary of the changes to the North Carolina Planning Statues which is attached. He has also prepared a checklist that highlights the potential changes as well as a brief explanation. Many of the changes are procedural in nature and will not require text amendments. Revising the Rules of Procedure applicable to the various Boards can accommodate some of these. Following are the specific Zoning Ordinance Changes as prepared by Staff: ENACTMENT: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA, AND PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT,.-A-NI} AMENDMENT OR REPEALING THEREOF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES 153:\ 340 THROUGH 153:\ 348 (5/3/82) INCLUSIVE, AND FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. PREAMBLE: WHEREAS, the General Statutes of North Carolina empowers the County of New Hanover to enact a Zoning Ordinance and to provide for its administration, enforcement ami amendment or repealing, and SECTION I: Authority The provisions of this ordinance are adopted under authority granted by the General Assembly of North Carolina. (GeReral StatHtes 153 :\, .A.rticIe 18) 59.7-4: Approval Process (I) Overview ~,-,.,-,,,-------'-'.'-~~-_...._---'--"--- 94 a. In all Conditional Use District proceedings, only testimony and other evidence pertinent to the specific use proposed in the petition/application shall be presented. b. After the public notice of scheduled hearing before the Planning Board is delivered to the newspapers, no amendments to the additional conditions and requirements specified in the petition/application shall be added which are less restrictive, including but not limited to less setback, more dwelling units, greater height, more access points, new uses and fewer improvements. c. No rezoning to a Conditional Use District shall be approved unless all conditions and requirements for the companion Special Use Permit have been included voluntarily by the petitioner, or their authorized representative. Am' condition and site-specific standards imposed shall address the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development or use of the site. d. No rezoning to a Conditional Use District shall be approved unless the companion Special Use Permit is also approved for the use or uses specified. e. The companion Special Use Permit shall be approved only if the requirements of Article VII, "Provisions for Uses Allowed as Special Uses", Section 59.7-3 and Section 59.7-4(2) are fully satisfied. 67-9: Tree Removal (7/01) (5) Failure to obtain a tree removal permit prior to any timber harvest may result in a three or five-vear delay in obtaining a building perm it or approval of anv development or subdivision plans. 112-3: Planning Board Consideration (5) The Planning Board shall advise and comment on whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development and anv other adopted plans that may be applicable. 112-5: Action by the County Commissioners (I) The County Commissioners shall consider the Planning Board's recommendation for each proposed zoning amendment, unless the Planning Board recommends denial and the petition is not appealed at a regularly scheduled public hearing, advertised as described in Section 112-1 above and held in accordance with its rules of procedure then in effect. No amendment shall be adopted by the County Commissioners until after public notice and hearing. Prior to adopting or reiecting any zoning amendment. the Commissioners shall adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development and explaining whv the Commissioners consider the action taken as reasonable and in the public interest. Section 122: Powers and Duties 122-1: The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have the following powers and duties: ^ ---.-.----..----.------- --- -----_._-~.._-~---- 95 (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is error in any decision made by the Building Inspector or other administrative oftlcials in the carrying out or enforcement of any provision of the Ordinance. A concurring vote offour-fifths (4/5) of the members of the Board shall be necessary to reverse, wholly, or partly, any such decision. Vacant seats and disqualified members are not considered in calculating 4/5 votes. (2) To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the ternlS of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. No change in permitted uses may be authorized by variance. In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. A concurring vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the members of the Board shall be necessary to grant a variance. A variance from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be granted by the Board unless and until the following findings are made: (3/7/83) Following are the specific Subdivision Ordinance Amendments as prepared by Staff 20-17 Subdivision - A "subdivision" shall include all divisions of a tract or parcel of land into two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions when anyone or more of those divisions are created for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or building development, and shall include all divisions of land involving the dedication of a new street or a change in existing streets; provided, however, that the following shall not be included within this definition nor be subject to the regulations authorized by this ordinance: (I) the combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and recorded lots where the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in its subdivision ordinance. (2) the division ofland into parcels greater than ten (10) acres where no street right-of~way dedication is involved. (3) the public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for the widening or opening of streets or for public transportation system corridors. (4) the division ofa tract in single ownership whose entire area is no greater than two (2) acres into not more than three (3) lots, where no street right-of-way dedication is involved and where the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in its subdivision ordinance. 32-5 Contracts to sell Lots from Approved Preliminary Plat The provisions of this section shall not prohibit any owner or its agent from entering into contracts to sell or lease by reference to an approved preliminary plat for which a final plat has not yet been properlv approved under the subdivision ordinance or recorded with the register of deeds, provided the contract does all of the following: ill Incorporates as an attachment a copy of the preliminary plat referenced in the contract and obligates the owner to deliver to the buyer a copv of the recorded plat prior to closing and conveyance. ill Plainly and conspicuously notifies the prospective buyer or lessee that a final subdivision plat has not been approved or recorded at the time of the contract, that no governmental body will incur any obligation to the prospective buyer or lessee with respect to the approyal of the final subdivision plat, that changes between the preliminary and final plats are possible. and that the contract or lease may be terminated without breach by the buyer or lessee if the final recorded plat differs in any material respect from the preliminary plat. -~------ ._.._---_._~._.._-- _'M _'____.__,__.~___._..________ ___ ___'_'___'__~. 96 ill Provides that if the approved and recorded final plat does not differ in any material respect from the plat referred to in the contract, the buver or lessee mav not be required by the seller or lessor to close any earlier than five days after the delivery of a copy of the final recorded plat. ill Provides that if the approved and recorded final plat differs in any material respect from the preliminary plat referred to in the contract, the buyer or lessee may not be required by the seller or lessor to close any earlier than 15 days after the delivery of the final recorded plat. during which IS-day period the buyer or lessee may terminate the contract without breach or any further obligation and may receive a refund of all earnest money or prepaid purchase price. The provisions of this section shall not prohibit any owner or its agent from entering into contracts to sell or lease land by reference to an approved preliminary plat for which a final plat has not been properlv approved under the subdivision ordinance or recorded with the register of deeds where the buver or lessee is any person who has contracted to acquire or lease the land for the purpose of engaging in the business of construction of residential. commercial. or industrial buildings on the land, or for the purpose of resale or lease of the land to persons engaged in that kind of business, provided that no convevance of that land may occur and no contract to lease it may become effective until after the final plat has been properly approved under the subdivision ordinance and recorded with the register of deeds." 51: Guarantees of Improvements a) Cost Estimates - The subdivider shall furnish bona fide estimates of the subject improvements for verification by the County Engineer. Upon approval of the cash, performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit by the County, the subdivider shall deposit with the County the amount specified by the County Engineer in the form of cash, cash equivalent, or irrevocable letter of credit. 68: Enforcement of Ordinance (5) Building Permits may be denied for lots that have been illegally subdivided, --.---. _._---------~~-,_._-- ".--..--------.'---- 97 Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Pagc 1 01'6 PC-2005 Legal Update: Part II Land Subdivision Control, Development Agreements, and Tree Protection: A Selection of Legislation from the 2005 North Carolina General Assembly Richard Ducker I nstitute of Government The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill October 6, 2005 This memo summarizes certain key provisions in three major bills (S 681, S 814, and S 518) adopted by the General Assembly this summer that will affect local planning and land development regulation. A fourth bill, S.L. 2005 -286 (H 1469), affecting road easements is also briefly discussed. The first bill, S 681 (An Act to ClarifY the Role of Counties and Cities in Regulating Certain Forestry Activities), has passed both chambers of the General Assembly and been ratified, but has not (yet) been signed by the Governor. If signed by the Governor, it would become effective immediately. It has important implications for local tree protection programs. This memo also analyzes portions of two other bills that affect land subdivision control and development agreements, but not the other portions of those bills. These two bills have already been enacted-- S.L. 2005 - 418 (S 518) (An Act to Clarify and Make Technical Changes to City and County Planning Statutes) and S.L. 2005 - 426 (S 814) (An Act to Modernize and Simplify City and County Planning and Land-Use Management Statutes). The land subdivision control and developer agreement portions of these bills become effective January 1, 2006. All three ofthese bills affect the authority of both cities and counties. In each instance amendments to G.S. 160A affect municipalities and those to G.S. 153A affect counties. The full text of these bills may be found on the General Assembly's web site at http://\VWlv.n<:;ga.state.Jll.:.us/. Enter the bill number under "Bill Look - Up" on the column on the right-hand sidc ofthc home page. Tree Protection/Forestry Activity The last five years have seen a growing interest among municipalities in preserving stands of trees from destruction and protecting undeveloped areas from clearcuUing. Good arguments may be made that local governments have had the necessary general legislative authority to restrict and even prohibit activities of this sort. Nonetheless, between one and two dozen local governments have followed a conservative course by seeking local acts specifically authorizing them to undertake certain regulatory activities. The struggle and debate during the past several years over whether local legislation is needed and what form local acts may take has pitted local governments and environmental groups against home builders and timbering interests. This year some of the lingering questions about local government authority were resolved by S 681. The bill clarifies local authority over certain forestry activities in a way that recognizes tree protection as an adjunct of land development regulation, but substantially restricts local authority in other respects. First, it prohibits cities and counties from enforcing any regulation affecting forestry activity on forest land that is assessed at its present-use value for purposes of local propcrty taxes. (Such properties are typically found in rural areas, but are also not uncommon in urban fringe areas.) In addition, municipal rcgulations may also not be applied to forestry activity conducted in accordance with a forest management plan prepared by a registered forester. In contrast, county regulations may not be applied to activity conducted in accordance with a management plan regardless of who prepared the plan. file: IIC: \D ocuments%20and %20 Settings\swynn \Local %2 0 Setti ngs\' ]'emp \ C. Note s .Data \S u.. . 1/26/2006 --,-- -~- 98 Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 2 of6 There are, however, a variety of exceptions to this general prohibition. First, tree protection regulations that are part of land development regulations are exempt. Cities and counties may thus enforce such regulations if they are adopted as part of a zoning or land subdivision ordinance. Local governments sometimes face property owners who wish to clear land in anticipation of development and to circumvent these regulations. See the discussion of that issue below. A second important exception to the prohibition against local regulations is those regulations that are nccessary to comply with any federal or State law, rule, or regulation. If, for example, a local government regulation protecting buffers along a water course is required under state watershed protection or stormwater management rules, that regulation may be enforced by a local government notwithstanding the new prohibition. A third exception allows a city to regulate trees within or affecting a municipal street right-of-way. For example, a city may require the trimming of trees if limbs or roots impede the use of the right-of- way. A fourth exception authorizes local governments that are permitted to regulate trees and forestry activity under existing local acts to continue to do. One of the impost important issues separating forestry and development interests from local government and environnlental interests concerns clearing of sites in anticipation of development. The owner of land on the urban fringe may wish to harvest an old stand of timber before selling the land to a developer. Or a development company that has invested in land may wish to harvest the timber either simply to enjoy the cash flow or to avoid having to comply with the land development and tree protection standards that would apply (or would have applied) were a development application to be submitted. The remedy for this "clearing in anticipation of development" that was madc available in much of the local legislation that has been adopted in the past five years has been to allow the local government to withhold development permission for the property for a certain period of time after the clearing occurs. S 681 adopts similar standards. A city or county may deny a building permit or withhold site or subdivision approval for a period of up to three years after the completion of a "timber harvest" if it results in the removal of "all of substantially all of the trees that were protected" under development regulations that apply (or would have applied) to the tract ofland. If the harvest is a "willful violation" of local government regulations, development approvals may be withheld for a period of five years after the clearing. Although withholding development permission seems like a strong remedy, the remedy is triggered only after a local government is prepared to demonstrate just how their tree protection standards would have applied to the development site. Land Subdivision Control Subdivision plat approval S.L. 2005 - 418 (S 518), one of the two major planning bills to be enacted this year, includes several parts that will affect the local government plat approval. Sections 2.(a), 2.(b), 3.(a), and 3.(b) collectively amend OS 160A-371 and -373 (cities) and 153A-330 and -332 (counties) to make several sets of changes to plat approval arrangements. The first clarifies that a local government may adopt a subdivision ordinance as a separate ordinance or as part of a consolidated unified development ordinance. What's more, a city or county may apply any definition or procedure authorized for one type of land development ordinance to any aspect of a unified development ordinance and use any organizational arrangement authorized for any other planning and development ordinance to the reviews provided for in the unified development ordinance. The second set of changes enables cities and counties to provide for the review and approval of sketch plans and preliminary plats as well as final plats and for different classes of subdivisions that are each subject to different review procedures. The third set of changes provides that plats may be approved by any of a variety of groups--the governing board (city councilor county board of commissioners), the governing board on the recommendation of a tile ://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes. Data \Su... 1/26/2006 - -- - - _...,..._._----"..._-~------~~.__.._---_.--.- - .'.- ------'---' __ 'n'" __ _ ___._______.__________~.___._._._..._____ 99 Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 3 of6 designated body, a planning board, a technical review committee, or some "other designated body" or staff person. The legislation answers affirmatively the question of whether special subdivision review committees or staff members are authorized to approve plats required by the ordinance. It also appears to make it possible for a zoning board, like the board of adjustment, to be assigned that power. Subdivision ordinance standards Sections 2.(a) and 2.(b) also amend GS 160A-371 and 153A-330 to reflect a concern of the development community. These subsections provide that decisions on whether to approve a subdivision plat (whether preliminary or final) must be made on the basis of standards set forth explicitly in the ordinance. Although the new act does not prohibit or circumscribe the use of discretionary standards in subdivision regulations, it requires that if ordinance criteria require the application of judgment, the criteria "must provide adequate guiding standards for the entity charged with plat approval." Subdivision ordinance performance guarantees Several additional changes to the subdivision statutes are included in S.L. 2005 - 426 (S 814). Section 2.(a) and 2.(b) amend GS 160A-372 (cities) and 153A-331(counties) respectively to make several changes to the language of these statutes concerning the construction of community service facilities. First, a subtle but important addition requires such facilities to be in accordance with not only local government policies and standards but "plans" as well. This reference establishes more fully the link between subdivision requirements and external plans such as transportation plans and land-use plans. In addition, the act rewrites existing language to clarify that performance guarantees are intended to assure successful completion of required improvements. The final and perhaps most important addition is language that declares that if a performance guarantee is required, the local government must provide a range of options or types of performance guarantees that are available to the developer. These may include, but are not limited to, surety bonds and letters of credit. The new law then provides that the type of performance guarantee to be used shall be at the election of the developer, not the unit of local government. Scope of land subdivision regulation One subtle change can be found in the definition of "subdivision" in G.S. 160A-376 and G.S. 153A- 335. Before, a land subdivision ordinance applied to divisions involving "two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions for the purpose of sale or building development." Some local governments (mainly counties) have interpreted this language to allow the owner of a tract of land to sell a single building lot created from it without being subject to regulation. The amended language provides that a regulated subdivision includes divisions into "two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions when illlY--.illle or moreQLtl1Q~edi.Yisions~cre~ted for the purpose of sale or development." (Underlining added.) The act effectively removes all doubt about whether the ordinance applies to the "first lot out." Remedies for subdivision ordinance violations The remedies and sanctions available to local governments when there are violations of a subdivision ordinance have always been weak. Section 3.(a) and 3.(b) amend G.S. 160A-375 and G.S. 153A-334 to make two sets of changes. First, local governments will now be able to withhold building permits for lots that have been illegally subdivided. This change may be viewed as a successful attempt to overcome the ruling of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Town of Nags Head v. Tillett, 314 N.C. 627, 336 S.E.2d 394 (1985). In that case the court ruled that there was no statutory authority for a local government to withhold a building permit for a lot merely because the lot was part of an illegal subdivision. Local governments, however, could withhold such a permit if the lot violated the current zoning ordinance. This new power to withhold a building permit for a subdivision ordinance violation must be used carefully since it will have special consequences when an innocent purchaser of an illegal lot applies for the permit. However, the availability of this remedy will also give local governments greater leverage over subdividers that ignore local regulations. file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \S u... 1/26/2006 _..~,-----~-, ---~---~---_. ..._w________.____._____ 100 Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 4 of6 The subdivision statutes have for some years provided that a local government may also enjoin illegal subdivision and obtain a court order requiring the offending party to comply with the subdivision ordinance. However, it has been unclear to what extent a court may also prevent or restrain unlawful subdivision activity from occurring or whether it may issue an order to correct or abate the violation. S.L. 2005 - 426 (S 814) provides a statutory basis for a local government to seek and a court to authorize the use of these remedies. Pres ale of lots allowed One section of the act that has caused some alarm among planners is a section designed to allow developers to enter into contracts for the sale or lease of lots before a final, surveyed plat is approved and recorded. Some developers to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed development to lenders use these so-called "pre-sale" or "pre-lease" contracts. Although the North Carolina Attorney General has rendered the opinion that entering into a sales contract to sell a lot from a parent tract constitutes a "subdivision", the practice of developers entering into such contracts before a final plat is approved and recorded is not necessarily rare in this state. Section 3 of S 814 thus may be viewed as providing authorization for a not uncommon but arguably illegal practicc. The new section amends G.S. 160A-375 and 153A-344 to allow pre-sale and pre-lease contracts, but only after a preliminary plat has been approved. The requirement that a preliminary plat be approved by the local government before these contracts are executed, a last-minute addition to the legislation, should help insure that planners are at least aware that a particular subdivision is being undertaken. The act provides that the closing and final conveyance of the lots subject to these contracts may not occur until after the final plat is approved and recorded. G.S. 160A-375(c) and G.S. t53A-334(c) allows subdividers to pre-sell or pre-lease lots to builders and commercial intermediaries without any additional protection for these purchasers. It: however, the lots are to be sold to those who are not engaged in the construction business (i.e., consumers), then a variety of protections apply. The buyer must receive a copy of the preliminary plat at the time the contract is executed. In addition, the buyer must be notified that no final plat has been approved and that there is no guarantee that changes will not be made to the plat before final approval. Also, the seller must furnish a copy of the final plat to the buyer prior to the closing. The contract or lease may be terminated by the buyer or lessee if the final recorded plat differs in any material respect from the preliminary plat Infrastructure Agreements Section 8 of S.L. 2005-426 (S 814) includes enabling authority for local governments to enter into reimbursements agreements with land developers that construct or install infrastructure in behalf of the public. Developers, as a condition of development permission, routinely install or construct infrastruetural improvements on property that is eventually dedicated to a public agency or governmental unit. When a city or county uses it regulatory power to compel the developer to furnish the improvement, it is generally understood that developer will determine who docs the work and that no formal contract is required. However, in some cases it may desirable for a developer to construct facilities and improvements that serve more than just the developer's own property. Local governments may offer to reimburse the developer (or his contractor) to the extent that the improvements are "oversized," and a local government may better make these arrangements through an agreement than through regulation. Enabling legislation for several different types of infrastructure agreements is included in S 814. Each piece is patterned after local legislation on the same subject. Section 8. (a) and (b) provide one model for cities and counties to use, adding new G.S. 160A-499 and G.S. t 53A-451. These provisions apply to the construction of local government infrastructure anywhere within a local government's planning jurisdiction. The new law authorizes reimbursement agreements with developers and property owners for a wide variety of purposes, including water and sewer utilities and street and traffic control improvements. In order to qualify, the facility or fi le://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes. Data \S u... 1/26/2006 - -----_.._-----~~~~--~---- 101 Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 5 of6 improvement must be included on the local unit's capital improvement plan. The city or county must also have adopted an ordinance setting out the procedures and terms under which it may entcr into such an agreement. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of section 8 is the following requirement. If the work would have required competitive bidding had the project been undertaken by the local government, then the developer or property owner that actually undertakes the work must use the same bidding procedures as the local government would have used. Section 8. (c) and (d) provide an alternative model for public enterprise improvements if they are adjacent or ancillary to a private land development project. This section adds new G.S. 160A-320 ands G.S. 153A-280 to allow a city or county to reimburse those costs associated with the design and construction of improvements that are in addition to those required by local land development regulations. The public bidding requirements of G.S. Chapter 143, article &, do not apply if two requirements are met. First, the public cost may not exceed $250,000. Second, thc city or county must determine either that (i) the public cost will not exceed thc local government's estimated cost of using force account labor or the cost of a public contract let through competitive bidding procedures, or (ii) the coordination of separately constructed improvements would be impracticable. The act clarifies that the improvements may be located on land owned by the private party or by the local government. It also authorizes the private party to help the city or county obtain any necessary easements that may be required. Section 8. (c) adds a new G.S. 160A-309 and offers authority similar to that described in the last paragraph. It, however, allows cities to enter into reimbursement agreements for intersection and roadway improvements that lie within city limits. Development agreements Infrastructure agreements discussed above are good vehicles for allocating the costs of oversized public facilities that benefit both private development and the public. The state, however, has recently seen development projects that are far larger in scope and that are built out over longer periods of time than ever before. Local governments have noticed that the off-site impacts and public facility implications of such projects outstrip the ability of their regulatory tools to manage them. Developers have major concerns of their own, particularly the risks involved with committing substantial funds to projects without adequate assurance that local development standards will not bccome more demanding as the full extent of the project takes form. Even procedures for establishing vested rights, established under North Carolina legislation enacted over fifteen years ago, may not adequately satisfy the concerns of developers and local governments in these unusual circumstances. A new tool or mechanism has been needed. At least fifteen states have authorized so-called "development agreements." Section 9. (a) and (b) provide this authority to North Carolina cities and counties by making substantial additions to the North Carolina statutes in the form of G.S. 160A-400.20 to --400.32 and G.S. 153A-379.1 to - 379.13. South Carolina legislation served as the model. The development agreements enabled by the new legislation are limited in scope. Under an agreement a local government may not impose a tax or a fee or exercise any authority that is not otherwise allowed by law. The development agreement must be consistent with the local laws that apply when the agreement is approved by the local government. The new legislation does not provide express authority for a local government to commit its legislative authority in advance. Cities and counties may not make enforceable promises to refrain from annexing the property or from using their taxing power in a particular way in the future. The ordinances in effect when the agreement is executed do remain in effect for the life of the agreement, but the development is not immune from changes in state and federal law. The agreement may specify that the developer furnish certain public facilities, but it must also provide that the delivery date of these facilities is tied to successful performance by the developer in completing the private portion of the development. (This feature is designed to protect developers from file:IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local%20Setti ngs\ T emp\C.N otes. Data \S u... 1/26/2006 ._----~'_._-- .. _.-.----_._--~_.._--_._--"._._..__._-_..__._-_._~-~ 102 Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 6 01'6 having to complete public facilities in circumstances where progress in buildout may not generate the need for the facilities.) A development agreement may specify that the project be commenced or completed within a certain period of time. It must provide a development schedule and include commencement dates and interim completion dates for intervals no greater than five years. However, the act expressly provides that failure to meet a commencement or completion datc does not necessarily constitute a material breach of the agreement. The act does provide a procedure by which a local government may declare that the developer has materially breach the agreement and cancel the agreement. But it is remains unclear whether traditional remedies for the breach of the contract (e.g., an action for damages, specific performance) are also available. The property subject to a development agreement must be at least 25 acres in size. The agreements may last no more than 20 years. In order to be valid the agreements must be adopted by ordinance by the governing board. The same public hearing requirements that apply before a zoning text amendment may be adopted also apply before a development agreement may be adopted. Once executed by both parties, the agreement must be recorded and binds subsequent owners of affected land as well the current owner. Easements Within Certain Public Rights-of-Way In most municipalities it is understood that if a subdivider offers to dedicate to the public a street in a new subdivision, the street interest dedicated also accommodates various public utilities that are typically located within street rights-of-way. However, in some unincorporated areas of the state a subdivider of land may establish the necessary easements within new public or private road rights-of- way to accommodate telephone, cable television, and other public utility services only if the service provider is prepared to pay the subdivider for doing so. Utility easements are viewed as "burdens" on a highway easement that are not included or accommodated within it. 2005-286 (H 1469) will alter these arrangements insofar as new publicly dedicated roads outside city limits are concerned. It adds a new GS 62-182.1 to provide that the recordation of a subdivision plat for an unincorporated area that reflects the dedication of a new public street or highway shall automatically serve to make that public right-of- way available for use by any telephone, cable television, or other public utility for the installation of lines, cables, and other facilities to provide service. The act requires utility service providers who wish to take advantage of this accommodation to comply with standards established by the Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), for accommodating utilities or cable television systems within its highway rights-of-way. It also applies only to plats that subdividers properly record under GS 47-30 (requirements for the recordation of maps in the office of the register of deeds) and that comply with GS 136-102.6 (dedication of roads to NCDOT). S.L. 2005 - 286 (H 1469) applies only to maps and plats recorded on or after August 22, 2005, the effective date of the act. file:IIC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \S u... 1/26/2006 ------, -..------- 103 Summary Analysis of S Page 1 of 6 Brief'.SltlIlmary of 2005 Arnelldments toNQrth CarolinaJ)lanning 8tatutes~_ 8.._518 andS._814 David Owens Institute of Government The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The Institute of Government will publish its usual bulletin summarizing all planning related legislative activity by the 2005 General Assembly later this year. In the interim, this memo briefly summarizes the key provisions in two major bills affecting planning and development regulation-S.L. 2005-418 (S. 518), An Act to Clarify and Make Technical Changes to City and County Planning Statutes, and S.L. 2005-426 (S. 814), An Act to Modernize and Simplify City and County Planning and Land-Use Management Statutes. Both bills received final legislative approval on August 24,2005 and were signed into law by Governor Easley on September 22, 2005. The bills generally become etlective January I, 2006. The exception is that the amendments relative to development moratoria become effective for moratoria adopted or extended after September 1,2005. This discussion is organized by the changes made by both bills in particular areas-general provisions, zoning, subdivision regulation, infrastructure agreements, and development agreements. Unless otherwise noted both of these bills amend the laws for both cities and counties. The general format used in both bills is for subsection (a) of each section to amend laws in G.S. 160A affecting municipalities and subsection (b) to amend the comparable law for counties in G.S. 153A. Throughout the statutes the bill modernizes the references to "planning agency" in the statutes to reflect the change in terms to "planning boards." Both bills also have provisions that provide that they do not override previously adopted local legislation on these matters. l. _Gemrm PrQyisiolls Unified development ordinances. Section 1 ofS. 518 revises G.S. 160A-363 and G.S. 153A-322 to specifically allow cities and counties to combine various planning and development ordinances into a single ordinance. An increasingly common way of accomplishing this is to merge zoning, subdivision, and other development regulations into a single unified development ordinance. Some local governments have felt local legislation is necessary to allow this; others have been uncertain whether tools and institutions used under one authority could be used in a different context. This clarification recognizes internal coordination and simplification efforts. It allows a single set of definitions, organizational structure, and procedures to be used for any and all development ordinances unless there is a specific restriction of authority. The ordinances that may be combined under this authority are those authorized by the Articles of G.S. 160A and 153A related to planning and development regulation. It does not include separate ordinances adopted under the general ordinance-making authority (noise ordinances, nuisance lot ordinances, junk car ordinances, etc.). Other amendments in both bills include reference to unified development ordinances in the zoning and subdivision statutes. II. Zoning Hearing notices for rczonings. Local governments are now required to do an on-site posting of the notice of hearings on all zoning map amendments. Section 4 of S. 518 creates G.S. 160A-384(c) and G.S. 153A-343(c) to require that site posting be used to notify persons of hearings on rezonings. The county exemption for mailed notice of zoning map amendments that initially zone a parcel is repealed (there was no comparable city exemption). This section of the bill also amends 160A-384(b) and G.S. 153A-343(b) to simplify the alternate notice provision for large-scale rezonings (those affecting more than 50 properties) by requiring the half-page newspaper advertisement to be published twice rather than four times. file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\sw)'nn\Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes. Data \S u... 1/26/2006 ""._"--,.,...._,~.,--_...__._-,.__.~.~-".- .- ----~-------- 104 Summary Analysis of S Page 2 of6 Protest petitions. Section 5 of S. 518 substantially revises the definition of a qualifying area for a zoning protest petition in O.S. 160A-385. It simplifies the definition of a qualifying area for a protest so that it is 5% of the land included within a 100-foot wide buffer around each separate area proposed to be rezoned (rather than 20% of anyone of four sides). Street rights-of-way are not considered for the 100- foot buffer unless the right-of-way has a width greater than 100 feet. Oiven that many rezonings are of irregularly shaped parcels, this will significantly simplify application of the protest calculation. This section also changes the law to provide that when less than an entire parcel is proposed to be rezoned, the qualifying buffer is measured from the property line rather than the zoning district boundary. It provides that the three-fourths majority required if there is a qualified protest is calculated on the basis of the number of council members eligible to vote on the matter (excluding vacancies and those who have a financial conflict of interest and are prohibited by law from voting on the matter). It also simplifies the protest provision by limiting its application to zoning map amendments. The amendment also adds references to the increasingly common practice of conditional zoning and treats protests regarding amendments of these in the same manner as the previously provided for conditional use district and special use district zoning. There is no comparable county statute on protest petitions. The bill as introduced authorized optional county protest petitions; the bill as passed deletes that authorization. Section 6 of S. 518 amends O.S. 160A-386 to clarify that a person filing a protest against a proposed zoning amendment may withdraw the protest any time prior to a vote on the rezoning. Comprehensive plan. Several sections of these bills strengthen the role of the comprehensive plan and any other officially adopted plan (such as a small area plan, a corridor plan, or a transportation plan). Section 7 of S. 814 amends O.S. 160A-383 and O.S. 153A-341 to require that planning board review of zoning amendments include written comments on the consistency of the proposed amendment with the comprehensive plan and any other relevant plans that have been adopted by the governing board. The amendment provides that a statement from the planning board that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with a plan does not preclude the governing board from adoption of the amendment. This governing board is then required to adopt a statement on plan consistency before adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment. This statement must also explain why the board believes the action taken is reasonable and in the public interest. The statement adopted by the governing board on plan consistency is not subject to judicial review. Section 7 of S. 518 amends O.S. 160A-387 and O.S. 153A-344 to clarify that planning board recommendations are required prior to initial adoption of zoning. It mandates referral of proposed zoning amendments to the planning board for review and comment (this was previously mandated for counties, but not for cities, though virtually all city zoning ordinances already in practice provide for such review). It allows the governing board to proceed with consideration of the amendment if no comments are made within 30 days of referral and specifies that the planning board recommendations are not binding on the governing board. Conflicts of interest. For legislative and advisory decisions, Section 5 ofS. 814 creates O.S. 160A-381(d) and O.S. 340(g) to codify existing law prohibiting financial conflicts of interest on zoning amendments. Members are not to vote on ordinances (or recommendations) if they have a direct, substantial, readily-identified financial interest in the outcome ofthe decision. It also applies that same rule to planning board advisory recommendations on zoning text and map amendments. For quasi- judicial decisions, Section 8 ofS. 518 amends O.S. 160A-388 and I 53A-345 to create a new subsection (el) to codify existing case law on the constitutional limitation requiring impartial board members for quasi-judicial decision-making (and applies this same rule to any board exercising the functions of a board of adjustment). Members must not participate in or vote on any matter where they have a fixed opinion on the case prior to the hearing, they have undisclosed ex parte communications, have close family, business, or associational ties with an affected person, or have a financial interest in the outcome of the case. Moratoria. Section 5 ofS. 814 creates O. S. 160A-381(e) and O.S. 340(h) to explicitly recognize the authority of cities and counties to adopt temporary moratoria of reasonable duration (now generally file ://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn\Local %20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \Su... 1/26/2006 _ _ _________..__._m"._....~______,_.___,._ 105 Summary Analysis of S Page 3 of6 assumed to be an implied power) and codifics thc constitutional limitations on the use of moratoria. It requires cities and counties at the time of adoption of a moratorium to expressly state the reasons for the moratorium and why other alternative actions are deemed to be inadequate, its scope and duration, and set forth an action plan to address the issues that led to its imposition. It specifies that temporary moratoria of 60 days duration or less may be adopted with a public hearing that has one notice published seven days in advance (unless there is an imminent and substantial threat to public health and safety, in which case a hearing is not required). Longer moratoria (and extensions beyond 60 days) require the same notice and hearing as routine land use ordinance amendments. Moratoria may be renewed or extended only if the government has taken all reasonable and feasible steps to address the problem leading to the moratorium and if new facts and conditions warrant an extension. Unless there is an imminent threat to public health and safety, moratoria do not apply to projects that have already received a vested right under current law; nor do they apply to preliminary or final plats or to special and conditional use permit applications that have been accepted for rcview prior to the call for a hearing on the moratorium. Provision is also made for expedited judicial review and the government has the burden of showing compliance with the procedural requirements of the statute in such challenges. Conditional zoning. Section 6 ofS. 814 amends G.S. 160A-382 and G.S. 153A-342 to incorporate reference to the conditional zoning technique now approved by the courts (the conditional zoning is entirely legislative, as opposed to the conditional use district zone (also still allowed) that also includes a required concurrent conditional use permit). It clarifies that specific conditions imposed in conditional zoning and for special and conditional usc district zones may be proposed by the owner or the city and its agencies, but only those mutually approved by the owner and government may be put into the regulations and permits. It limits conditions and site-specific standards to those that address conformance of the development and use of the site to ordinances and offIcially adopted plans and those that address the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development and use of the site. Spot zoning. Section 6 ofS. 814 amends G.S. 160A-382 and G.S. 153A-342 to codify the exi sting court mandated analysis of the reasonableness of small-seal e rezonings. It requires a statement analyzing the reasonableness of the proposed rezoning be prepared as part of all rezonings to special/conditional use districts, conditional zonings, and other small-scale zonings. The statute does not specify who must prepare this statement or when it is required, thus leaving some flexibility to local governments in this regard. For example, the petitioner for a rezoning could be required to address this issue as part ofthe application process, it could be prepared by staff for presentation at the hearing, or it could be addressed by the planning board (or any combination of these). Special and conditional use permits. Section 5 ofS. 814 amends G.S. l60A-38l(c) and G.S. 340 (cl) to clarify that planning boards may be authorized to issue special and conditional use permits (as opposed to having to use the BOA authority). It confirms that governing boards and planning boards must follow quasi-judicial procedures when acting on special and conditional use permits and provides that both planning boards and governing boards need only a simple majority (not a 4/5 vote) to approve these. It provides that vacant seats and disqualified members are not counted in computing required majority votes. It simplifies the law by replacing detailed provisions on appeals of these special and conditional use permits with a simpler cross-reference to an existing statute that already has those details. Variances. Section 5 ofS. 814 amends G.S. l60A-38l(bl) and G.S. 340(c) to codify current law that use variances are impermissible (as changes in permitted uses must be addressed by ordinance amendment rather that by variance). Section 8 of S. 518 makes this same amendment to G.S. l60A-388 (d) and l53A-345( d). It also provides that any conditions imposed on a variance be related to the variance standards. Board of adjustment. Section 8 ofS. 518 makes several amendments to G.S. l60A-388 and l53A-345 regarding board of adjustment procedures. The revision to subsection (a) clarifies that file :IIC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn\Local%20Settings\ T emp\C. Notes. Data \Su... 1/26/2006 106 Summary Analysis of S Page 4 of6 alternate members of a BOA may serve either temporarily (as when a member is disqualified from participation on an individual case due to a conflict of interest) or to fill a vacancy, as well as serving for an absent member. The revision to subsection (c) clarifies that the term "special exception" is limited to modest, non-use related modifications and that this authority includes provisions for special and conditional use permits (as is now commonly assumed). The amendments to subsection (e) clarify that the size of the board for purposes of calculating the requisite four-fifths vote is reduced by vacancics and members who are disqualified from voting if there are not alternate members available. The county provision also adds a new subscction (g) to give county boards of adjustment the same subpoena power that now exists for cities. III. Subdivision Ordinance~ General. Section 2 ofS. 518 revises G.S. 160A-37l and l53A-330 to add reference to sketch plans and preliminary plats, which are now commonly used in addition to final plats. It also confirms that different review procedures can be established for different classes of plats (e.g., distinguishing major and minor subdivisions) and that the subdivision ordinance can be consolidated into a unified development ordinance. This amendment also codifies existing case law that only those standards explicitly set forth in the ordinance as criteria for decision may be used in making individual plat approval decisions and requires that if a subdivision ordinance uses standards for approval that require judgment, the ordinance must provide adequate guiding standards (as is the case with special and conditional use permits). One lot out. Section 4 ofS. 814 revises the definition ofa "subdivision" in G.S. l60A-376 and G.S. l53A- 335 to clarify that the creation ofa single new lot or parcel may be considered a subdivision. It also explicitly notes that a local government may provide for expedited review of specified classes of subdivisions. Authorization for plat approval by staff. Section 3 of S. 518 amends G.S. l60A-373 and l53A- 332 to clarify that decisions on preliminary and fInal plats may be assigned to technical review committees. It also allows delegation of review and approval of plats to a designated staff person. This would allow, for example, an expedited review of a designated class of subdivisions (e.g., minor plats for intrafamily transfers) to be handled by staff. Performance guarantees. Section 2 ofS. 814 revises G.S. 160A-372(a) and G.S. 153A-331(a) in several ways. It updates the reference to coordination of "streets and highways" to the more contemporary coordination of "transportation networks and utilities" and clarifies that the regulations must "substantially promote" (rather than be "essential to") the public health, safety, and welfare. It revises G.S. l60A-372(c) and G.S. l53A-331(c) to modernize the language allowing performance guarantees. It provides that the ordinance is to provide a range of types of performance guarantees from which developers may choose for individual plats. Enforcement. Section 3 ofS. 814 amends G.S. 160A-375 and G.S. l53A-334 to extend the same routine enforcement options available for zoning enforcement (including denial of building permits) to subdivision ordinance enforcement (as opposed to limiting enforcement to criminal citations and injunctive relief under the current statute). Presale contracts. Section 3 ofS. 814 creates a new subsection (b) ofG.S. 160A-375 and G.S. l53A-334 to allow use of pre-sale and pre-lease contracts to obtain development financing for subdivisions that have received preliminary plat approval but have not yet had final plats approved and recorded. The section provides detailed requirements for these contracts, specifying notices that must be provided to prospective buyers and grounds for cancellation of the contract. The prospective buyer must receive a copy of the preliminary plat at the time of contracting and must receive a copy of the final plat prior to closing. The prospective buyer must be clearly notified that final plat approval has not yet bccn secured, that approval is not guaranteed, and that the contract may be terminated if the final plat is file:IIC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local %20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \Su... 1/2612006 ---------------- 107 Summary Analysis of S Page 5 of6 materially different from the preliminary plat. This amendment also allows contracts to sell lots to the developers ofthose lots after the preliminary plat is approved but before final plat approval. Thc final conveyance may not take place until after the final plat is approved and recorded. IY. Developmen~Agre~ments Section 9 ofS. 814 creates a new tool for public-private cooperation in North Carolina. A number of states allow cities and counties to enter into development agreements. Among the states with these statutes are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. This section incorporates a version of the South Carolina development agreement statute into the North Carolina statutes as G.S. l60A-400.20 to l60A-400.32 and l53A-379.l to l53A-379.13. The use of development agreements is optional for cities and counties. If used, each agreement must be adopted as an ordinance by the governing board (with the same standard notice and hearing required for zoning amendments). The agreement cannot impose any tax or fee not otherwise authorized by law. The minimum land size to be included is set at 25 developable acres (exclusive of wetlands, mandatory buffers, unbuildable slopes, and other areas precluded from development) and the maximum term is set at 20 years. The contents of the agreement are specified, including a clear identification of the exact land involved, the duration of the agreement, a description of the uses ofthe property, the population density, and building types, intensities, placement, and design. It must also include a description of any new public facilities that will serve the development, who will providc them, and when they will be provided. It must also include a list of all local regulatory approvals required, any conditions need to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and any provisions for preservation and restoration of historic structures. Provisions are made for amendment, extension, and cancellation of the agreement. The development agreement must be consistent with the local laws in effect at the time of agreement approval. The ordinances in effect at the time of the agreement generally are to remain in effect for the life of the agreement, with specified exceptions (such as changes in state and federal laws affecting the development). The agreement must be recorded and is binding on subsequent purchasers of the land. v. Infrastmcture AgretlPlents Section 8 of S. 814 provides statewide authority for cities and counties to adopt infrastructure agreements with developers. These are agreements where developers construct infrastructure that serves the development but that is beyond the regulatory requirements of the city or county. The developer is then reimbursed by the government for these extra expenses. These sections are similar to previously adopted local legislation that authorized these agreements for several cities and counties. Several different mechanisms for these agreements were created. First, G.S. l60A-499 and 153A-451 are created to allow agreements for a variety of infrastructure purposes. To use this authority, the infrastructure needs must be included within the government's capital improvement plan and developer must solicit bids for the work if that work would have been subject to the competitive bidding requirements if done directly by the government. Second, it creates G.S. l60A-320 and l53A-280 to allow such agreements for public enterprise improvements that are adjacent or ancillary to a private land development project, up to a cost of $250,000. Based on the initial experience with similar provisions in local bills, these statutory provisions may well be the most widely used vehicle to allow these agreements. Bidding by the private developer is not required, but in order to use this tool the government must find that the cost of securing the improvements would be less than if done directly by the government or through a public contract. file :IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local %20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \S u... 1/26/2006 108 Summary Analysis of S Page 6 of6 Third, G.S. l60A-309 is created to allow cities to enter into similar agreements on intersection and roadway improvements up to a cost of $250,000. file :IIC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynl1 \Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \S u... 1/26/2006 ____"'_._"..M___._______._~_.._._~__ 109 November 1,2005 Page 1 of 8 November, 2005 Local Ordinance Amendments to Secure Compliance with 2005 Legislation David Owens Richard Ducker Institute of Government UN C-CH In 2005 the General Assembly adopted two major bills that amend the state's planning and development regulation statutes, S. 518 and S. 814. Several other bills making individual changes were also adopted. The checklist below highlights the potential changes in local zoning, subdivision, and development ordinances that need to be considered as a result. Most of the state law amendments take effect on January 1, 2006. Exceptions are the provisions on moratoria, city zoning of state lands without a involvement of a building, and restrictions on flag regulations, all of which are already effective. The table below lists the topics that need to be considered. For each item, the table lists thc reference to the new statute involved, the section of the bill amending the statute, a brief explanation of the provision, and the relation ofthe statutory language to the need to amend local ordinances. In many cases where the law involves a statutory mandate it will be useful or even necessary for local land development ordinances to be amended. In other cases the legislation takes thc form of enabling authority so that local governments will need to choose whether to take advantage of new options. In any event it is important that local ordinances not include anything that is contrary to state law. In the chart below "Z/UD" refers to a zoning ordinance or to a unified development ordinance. The letters "S/UD" refers to a land subdivision ordinance or to a unified development ordinance. "LG" refers to a local government (city or county). A second chart (using this same format and order of presentation) that also includes the new statutory language that is involved for each of these items is available on line from IOG. A link to that chart is posted at: http://ncinfo.iog.ufl.(:, eduLQIgill1izations/planning.llegisinfo/S tat W orkSbeet~StatL(l ngU(lg~. htm. file :IIC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local %20Settings\ T emp\C. N otes.Data \Le... 1/26/2006 _u_.__._ 110 ZOniD!! Item Topic Statute Bill Explanation Relation to Local Ordinance 1. Planning G.S. 160A- 387 S.518, Requires referral of all Statutory mandate. board G.S. 153A-344 Sec. 7 proposed zoning Conforming amendment to reVIews amendments to planning ZIUD ordinance highly board for review and recommended. Also check .. " comment ordinance establishing planning board for possible amendment. 2. Planning G.S. 160A- S.814, Prohibits participation Statutory mandate. board 381(d) Sec. 5 on any zomng Conforming amendment to conflict of G.S. 153A- amendment ZIUD ordinance or interest 340(g) recommendation by ordinance creating planning member with direct, board recommended. Check substantial financial also for possible amendment interest to PB rules of procedure 3. Planning G.S.160A-383 S.814, Requires written Statutory mandate. board G.S. 153A-341 Sec. 7 recommendation from Conforming amendment to statement planning board on all ZIUD ordinance proposed zoning recommended. Amendment I amendments; requires may also identify planes) that recommendation referred to and set forth address plan standards for determining consistency. consistency 4. Published G.S.160A- S.518, Reduces required Relaxes a particular notice hearing 3 84(b ) Sec. 4 alternative half-page requirement. Conforming notices G.S. 153A- published notices for amendment to ZIUD 343(b) large rezonings from ordinance recommended. four to two times Failure to amend ordinance may result in ordinance requirements that exceed state standards. 5. Posted G.S.160A- S.5l8, Requires on-site posting Statutory mandate. hearing 384(c) Sec. 4 for all proposed zoning Conforming amendment to notices G.S.153A- map amendments ZIUD ordinance practically 343(d) essential. 6. Mailed G.S. l53A- S.518, Requires mailed notice Statutory mandate with hearing 343( c) Sec. 4 when counties initially limited applicability. notices zone property Conforming amendment to county ZIUD ordinances recommended, but counties with countywide zoning may choose to ignore '") L ---- ~-~--~--~------ 111 7. Protest G.S. l60A- S.5l8, Requires that protest Statutory mandate. petition 385(a) Sec. 5 petitions only apply to Conforming amendment to applicability zomng map ZIUD ordinance amendments; no longer recommended, even though applicable to text overwhelming majority of amendments such petitions protest map, not text, amendments 8. Protest G.S. 160A- S.518, Requires that vacant Statutory mandate. petition 385(a) Sec. 5 seats and members who Conforming amendment to voting ..... are recused from voting municipal VUD ordinance not be considered in amendment practically calculation of three- essential since rule might fours majority otherwise be overlooked 9. Protest G.S. l60A- S.518, Requires that area for Statutory mandate. petition 385(a) Sec. 5 valid protest be 20% of Conforming amendment to qualifying area included or 5% of municipal Z/UD ordinance area 100- foot perimeter practically essential since buffer; requires that failure to determine properly property boundary be the validity of petition can used to compute buffer affect validity of rezoning if less that full parcel proposed for rezoning 10. Protest G.S. 160A- S.518, Limits applicability of Statutory mandate. J petition 385(a) Sec. 5 protest petition for some Conforming amendment to applicability conditional zoning municipal Z/UD ordinance amendments (same as recommended for those for CUD amendments) cities using or intending to use conditional zoning 11. Protest G.S.160A-386 S. 518, Requires that petitioner Statutory mandate. petition Sec. 6 can withdraw protest Conforming amendment to verification any time up to vote on municipal Z/UD ordinance rezorung recommended 12. Governing G.S. l60A- S.814, Prohibits participation Statutory mandate. board 381(d) Sec. 5, on any zomng Conforming amendment to conflict of G.S. l53A- 5.1 amendment decision by ZIUD ordinance interest 340(g) member with direct, recommended. Consider G.S.160A-75; substantial fmancial also possible amendment to G.S. l53A-44 interest governing board's rules of procedure, if any. 13. Conditional G.S.160A- S.814, Allows use of purely Enabling statute. Boilerplate zorung 382(a) Sec. 6 legislative conditional from statute need not be G.S.153A- zorung incorporated into Z/UD 342(a) ordinance. Provides opportunity for LG to consider whether conditional zoning is an 3 - -----~,_._._------ 112 . appropriate technique fo~ that LG to use. 14. Conditions G.S.160A- S.814, Requires that site Statutory mandate. in CUD, 382(b) Sec. 6 specific conditions in Conforming amendment to SUD, G.S.153A- zoning districts be ZIUD ordinance Conditional 342(b) limited to those needed reconunended.Arnendment zones for conformance to may identify the plan to plan, ordinance, or to which conditions must address project impacts conform. 15. Statement G.S. 1-60A- S.8l4, Requires statement Statutory mandate. for small- 382(b ) Sec. 6 analyzing Conforming amendment to scale G.S. l53A- reasonableness for all Z/UD ordinance strongly rezonings 342(b) small-scale rezonings recommended. May provide (also see # 16) opportunity to designate who prepares such statement, when it is prepared, and how it is to be used. 16. Governing G.S. 160A-383 S.814, Requires written Statutory mandate. board G.S. 153A-341 Sec. 7 statement on all zoning Conforming amendment to statement amendment decisions Z/UD ordinance strongly (adoption and reconunended. May provide rejections); requires that opportunity to identify "an I statement address plan adopted comprehensive consistency, plan". May also provide reasonableness, and opportunity to clarify what public interests it means for governing furthered. board to "reject" a proposed zoning amendment. 17. Government G.S.160A-392 S.669 Repeals provision that Statutory mandate. land made governmental use Conforming amendment to ofland with no building ZIUD ordinance not involved subject to city essential. Ordinance should zomng be checked to ensure conformity with legislation. 18. Regulation G.S.144-7.l H.829 Limits regulation of Mix of statutory mandate of flags official national and and enabling authority. state flags; allows Conforming amendment to reasonable regulation of ZIUD ordinance not so flag size, number of important, but ordinance flags, and location and should be checked to ensure height of flagpoles conformity with legislation 19. Forestry G.S. l60A- S.68l Limits regulation of Primarily a statutory regulation 458.5 forestry that is not mandate. LG may need to G.S. 153A-45l associated with repeal or amend any development if land is ordinance regulating clear 4 ,-.._-- 113 subject to forestry use- cutting or forestry. value taxation or Conforming amendment to forestry management zoning, land subdivision, or plan development ordinance strongly recommended if LG wishes to withhold development permission for tree harvesting "in anticipation of r" development. " 20. BOA G.S. l60A- S.518, Allows alternates to Enabling authority. membership 388(a) Sec. 8 serve on individual Amendment to ZIUD G.S.153A- matters based on a ordinance to take advantage 345(a) member's temporary of this option recommended. disqualification Consider also possible amendment of BOA rules of procedure 21. Conflicts on G.S. 160A- S.518, Prohibits and defines Statutory mandate. quasi- 388( el) Sec. 8 conflicts of interest for Conforming amendment to judicial G.S. 153A- all quasi-judicial ZIUD highly recommended, matters 345(el) decisions; requires that particularly since statutory rest of board votes to provisions apply to all resolve objection if boards exercising powers of" member does not recuse a board of adjustment. him/her self (applies to Consider also possible BOA, planning board, amendment of applicable governing board) board's rules of procedure 22. BOA voting G.S.160A- S.518, Requires that vacant Statutory mandate. 388(e) Sec. 8 seats and disqualified Conforming amendment to G.S. l53A- members are not ZIUD highly recommended 345(e) considered in since failure to ascertain calculating 4/5 votes if properly the validity of vote there are no qualified affects validity of decision. alternates 23. SUP ICUP G.S.160A- S.814, Requires that only Statutory rnandate. voting 38l(c) Sec. 5 simple majority vote is Conforming amendment to G.S. l53A- needed for planning z/UD highly recommended, 340(cl) board and governing particularly since statutory board approval of provisions apply to all SUP/CUP; requires that boards exercising powers of vacant seats and a board of adjustment. disqualified members Consider also possible are not counted in amendment of applicable computing majority board's rules of procedure 24. Special and G.S.160A- S.814, Allows planning boards Enabling legislation. conditional 381(c) Sec. 5 to decide SUP/CUP Conforming amendment to 5 114 use permits G.S. 153A- ZIUD ordinance 340(cl) unnecessary since provision restates existing law. Provides opportunity to consider appropriate role for planning board 25. SUP/CUP G.S.160A- S.8l4, Requires use of quasi- Statutory mandate. procedures 38l(e) Sec. 5 judicial procedures for Conforming amendments to G.S.153A- all SUP/CUPs by all ZIUD ordinance 340( c1' ) decision-making boards recommended. 26. Use G.S. l60A- S.5l8, Specifically prohibit use Statutory mandate. Largely vanances 388(d) Sec. 8; variances (under either restates existing law, but G.S. 153A- S.814, variance or special amendment to ZIUD 345( d) Sec. 5 exception power) ordinance recommended so G.S. 160A- language may serve as a 38l(bl) reminder. G.S.153A- 3400 27. County G.S. 153A- S.518, Allows county BOA to Enabling statute. BOA 345(g) Sec. 8 issue subpoenas Amendment of county ZIUD subpoena ordinance to take advantage of this option recommended 1 Subdivision Item Topic Statute Bill Explanation Relation to Local Ordinance 1. Plat approval G.S.160A- S.518, Allows staff member and Enabling legislation. 373 Sec. 3 committees to approve Amendment to SID G.S. 153A- subdivisions ordinance to take 332 advantage of these options recommended, even if these options are already being used. 2. Standards for G.S.160A- S.518, Requires all standards to Statutory mandate. reVIew 371 Sec. 2 be used in subdivision Boilerplate from statute G.S decisions to be set out in need not be incorporated ordinance; into SIUD ordinance, but 3A- LGs will want to review 0 ordinances to ensure compliance with statute. 3. Review G.S. l60A- S.518, Allows for differing types Enabling legislation. procedures 371 Sec. 2; of review for differing Largely codifies existing G.S.153A- S.814, classes of subdivisions authority. LGs may \",ish 330 Sec. 4 to review S/UD ordinance 6 115 G.S.160A- to determine whether 376 (b) establishing classes of G.S. 153A- subdivisions is desirable 335{b) 4. Performance G.S.160A- S. 814, If performance guarantees Best viewed as a statutory guarantees 372(c) Sec. 2 required, must provide mandate since many G.S.153A- range of options from S/UD ordinances require 331(c) which developer chooses financial performance for individual project guarantees. If so, then ,,-" SIUD ordinance may need to be amended to allow range of options, including either letters of credit or bonds, or both. 5. Pre-sale G.S. 160A- S.814, Allows subdivider to Statutes effectively contracts 375(b) Sec. 3 enter into contracts to sell establish a special G.S.153A- or lease based on plats exception to rules 334(b) with preliminary approval governing saleslleases of lots. Transfer of statutory boilerplate to S/UD ordinance recommended, although exception unlikely to affect LG , procedures directly. 6. Enforcement G.S.160A- S. 814, Expands enforcement Enabling authority. , 375(a) Sec. 3 options for subdivision Amending to SIUD G.S.153A- violations to include ordnance to take I 334{a) building permit denial and advantage of authority to any other appropriate deny building permit action (including recommended, although injunctions) many ordinances include such language already. Other conforming language also recommended 7. Definition G.S.160A- S.814, Provides that fIrst lot out Statutory mandate. 376(a) Sec. 4 from parent tract is a Conforming amendment G.S. 153- subdivision to SfUD ordinance 335(a) affecting definition of .'subdivision" practically essential 7 116 Other 1 Moratoria G.S.160A- S.8l4, Requires hearing Statute both enables and 381(e) Sec. 5 procedure for moratoria if restricts use of G.S. 15.3A- no imminent threat to moratorium authority. 340(h) health or safety; requires Conforming amendments statement of rationale to Z1S/UD and perhaps from board at time of other ordinances adoption; sets projects recommended. LGs will "" exempted from coverage; want to have moratorium limits extensions; authority in place in provides for prompt ordinance since need for judicial review moratorium may come quickly. Moratorium restrictions may also apply to land development approvals (and ordinances) other than zoning. 2. Unified G.S.160A- . S. 518, Allows definitions, Enabling statute. No need development 363(d) Sec. 1 procedures, organizations to repeat statutory ordinance G.S. I53A- for all land use language in any 322((d); regulations to be ordinance. Provides LGs ' combined with opportunity to {also explicitly authorized consider consolidation of in zoning and subdivision ordinances. statutes} 3. Development G.S. I60A- S. 814, Allows use of binding Enabling statute. agreements '400.22 - . Sec. 9 ; development agreements . Conforming amendments I 160A-40032 that lock in regulations to Z'SIUD ordinances G.s.153A- and infrastructure recommended only for 379.1 to provision for up to 20 jurisdictions with I 53A-379.13 years substantial staff capability where very large-scale developments are expected 8 .._-~--,--- -~----- 117 This page intentionally left blank. 118 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Regular Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenters: Pastor Robert Campbell, Chairman John Ranalli, JDTC Director Contact: Patricia A. Melvin SUBJECT: Presentation of Project Results to Date on the Problem of Disproportionate Minority Contact BRIEF SUMMARY: This project has been supported by a grant from the Governor's Crime Commission. Year one of the grant gathered data from a variety of sources (including the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Sheriff's Department, Wilmington Police Department and New Hanover County Schools) to examine and assess the extent of disproportionate contact of minority youth with the juvenile justice system in New Hanover County. Year two (the current budget year) is designed to integrate the results of the data collection and interpretation and compare to existing programs to determine where gaps still exist that need to be filled to address this problem. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Make the County Commissioners aware of the results of this project and the recommendations being suggested while at the same time giving them the opportunity to ask questions. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions: Explanation: This is just a project update for the commissioners. ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Hear presentation. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Heard presentation. 119 This page intentionally left blank. 120 MEETING OF THE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ASSEMBLY ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE 24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301 WILMINGTON, NC ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page TIMES No. 9:15 p.m. 1. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes) 9:20 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes 123 121 This page intentionally left blank. 122 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Water & Sewer Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Presenter: Sheila L. Schult Contact: Sheila L. Schult Item Does Not Require Review SUBJECT: Water and Sewer District - Approval of Minutes BRIEF SUMMARY: Approve minutes from the January 23,2006 Regular Meeting of the Water and Sewer District. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve minutes. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: Number of Positions: Explanation: ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved 4-0. 123 This page intentionally left blank. 124 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 02/06/06 Additional Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter: Patricia Melvin Contact: Patricia Melvin SUBJECT: Consideration of Procurement of Additional Bracelets for Electronic Monitoring BRIEF SUMMARY: Electronic monitoring is an effective tool currently employed by New Hanover County to reduce the jail inmate population. The County contracts with Reliant Management Group, Inc. for this service. The current contract provides electronic monitoring for up to 70 court-ordered pretrial release detainees. The contract was amended in December 2005 to expand the capacity of the program from 60 slots to 70, at no additional cost to the County. There is currently a need to expand the capacity to provide services for ten to twenty more slots. Last week judges referred eight to ten subjects to pretrial release for electronic monitoring, but all available equipment was in use. A minimum of ten additional bracelets for electronic monitoring are needed to address the current need, though staff and law enforcement officials feel it may be prudent to expand the capacity by twenty. The additional cost to provide the services for the remainder of the contract is $12,025 for ten and $28,025 for twenty. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Consider expanding the capacity of the electronic monitoring contract with Reliant Management Group, Inc. and approval of associated budget amendment to budget the funds from contingency. FUNDING SOURCE: Will above action result in: Number of Positions: Explanation: ATTACHMENTS: Pricing matrix REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: FINANCE: BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved twenty additional bracelets 4-0 and associated budget amendment. 125 Turnkey Electronic Monitoring Expansion Pricing Matrix #5 I ots Cost p/dav Annualized Monthlv FY 2005-06 Current 70 $ 11.61 $ 296,720.00 $ 24,726.67 rounded +10 slots 80 $ 11.15 $ 325,580.00 $ 27,131.67 rounded +20 slots 90 $ 1108 $ 363,978.00 $ 30,331.50 FY 2006-07 90 $ 11.08 $ 363,978.00 $ 30,331.50 Please note the followina specific answers to reauested scenarios: 1) To add 10 slots (for a total of 80) through the end of June, 2006 would increase the monthly cost by approx. $~ 2) To add 20 slots (for a total of 90) through the end of June, 2006 would increase the monthly cost by approx. $5,605. 3) To add 20 slots (for a total of 90) for FY 2006-07, annual contractual cost would increase by $67,258 to $363,978. This represents a daily per slot reduction of .53 [cents] from the current contractual pricing. 126