Agenda 2007 01-08
AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Assembb Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse
24 North Third Street, Room 301
Wdmington, NC
WilLIAM A. CASTER, CHAIRMAN. ROGERT G. GREER, 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
January 8, 2007 5:30 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman William A. Caster)
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No.
5:40 p.m. 1. 37
Carolina Beach Road (Z-85 L 10/06)
5:45 p.m. 2. Consideration of Request for Oualifications for Architectural/Planning 39
Services tor Parks Bond Projects
5:50 p.m. 3. Appointment of Legislative Liaison to the North Carolina Association of 41
Countv Commissioners (NCACC)
5:55 p.m. 4. 43
Countv Scal/Logo
6:05 p.m. 5.1 49
Rezoning (Z-849, 10/06) - Request by Worsley Investment & Development
to Rezone Approximately 12 Acres Located at 5939 Judges Road near 6009
Market St. from 1-1 Industrial District to R -10 Residential Zoning District
6:25 p.m. 5.2 Public Hearing 57
Conditional Use Rezoning (Z-853, 11/06) - Request by SENCA Properties,
LLC to Rezone Approximately 50.35 Acres Located in the 9000 Block of
Market Street as Follows: 31.31 Acres from R-15 Residential to CD(O&I)
Conditional District for Expansion of New Hanover County Regional Medical
Center Facilities and Stormwater Facilities; and 18.47 Acres from R-15
Residential to CD(B-l) Conditional District for a Variety of Mixed Uses
7:05 p.m. 5.3 Public Hearing 75
Rezoning (Z- 855, 12/06) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for E & B
Properties to Rezone Approximately 19.25 Acres in the Aquifer Resource
Protection Land Classification at 1916 Rockhill Road from R-20 to R-15
Residential District
7:35 p.m. Break
7:45 p.m. 5.4 Public Hearing 85
Rezoning (Z- 856, 12/06) - Request by Rockford Partners, LLC to Rezone
Approximately 144.14 Acres at the Western Terminus of Rockhill Road in the
Conservation and Wetland Resource Protection Land Classifications from R-
20 to R -15 Residential District
8: 15 p.m. 5.5 93
Conditional Rezoning (Z- 858, 12/06) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for
Thomas Sellars, Sf. to Conditionally Rezone 8.57 Acres at 6210,6212 & 6224
Carolina Beach Road near Beau Rivage Plantation in the Transition Land
Classification from R-15 Residential to CD(R-I0) Residential and for
Approval of High Density Development According to a Site Plan Showing 99
Residential Units
8:35 p.m. 5.6 Public Hearing 103
Special Use Permit (S- 572, 12/06) - Request by James Eldridge for Brad &
Sherry Dunker to Locate a Child Development Center for Up to 204 Children
in the R-15 Residential Zoning District on 2.98 Acres at 547 Sanders Road
9:05 p.m. 6. 115
Special Use Permit (S-13, 06/71) - Request by David Ward to Deny Validity
of Original Special Use Permit Issued at 1512 Burnette Road
9:35 p.m. Break
9:45 p.m. 7. Meeting of the Water and Sewer District 157
9:55 p.m. 8. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
10:00 p.m. 9. Additional Items
County Manager
Commissioners
Clerk to the Board
County Attorney
10: 10 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
ASSEMBL Y ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE
24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301
WILMINGTON, NC
ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No.
9:45 p.m. 1. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
9:50 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes 159
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. 9
Budget Amendmcnt 07-102
3. 13
Funds for a Multi-Purpose Room at Forcst Hills Elcmentmy School
4. Approval of Board of Education Budget Capital Outlav Fund Budget Amendment 15
Carrying Over $122_249_941 from FY 05-06 to FY 06-07_ and Transferring
Funds ($375A75) from Completed Projects to Fund Balance
5. 21
Council (JCPC)
6. 29
7. Approval for the Juvenile Dav Treatment Center to Submit a Grant Application 31
to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council for the Management ofthe
Psvchological Services Program
8. Approval to Submit Grant Application for the Youth Disproportionate Minoritv 33
Contact (DMC) Task Force
5
This page intentionally left blank.
6
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Consent Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Governing Body Presenter: Chairman Caster
Contact: Sheila L. Schult
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Approve minutes from the Regular Meeting and Closed Session Meeting held on December 18, 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 5-0.
7
This page intentionally left blank.
8
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Consent Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Aging Presenter: Annette Crumpton
Contact: Annette Crumpton
SUBJECT:
Approval to Accept a Grant Award from Champion McDowell Davis Charitable Foundation to Fund the Prescription
Drug Assistance Program
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Department of Aging was awarded a grant from Champion McDowell Davis Charitable Foundation in the amount of
$9,300 to fund the Prescription Drug Assistance Program from January 1,2007 through December 31,2007. The
Prescription Drug Assistance Program assists senior adults in choosing and enrolling in a Medicare prescription drug plan
that best suits their health needs. In addition, the program helps persons find low or no cost medication through
pharmaceutical companies.
Grant monies will cover the cost of one temporary staff person (existing) 15-20 hours a week and operating expenses.
Since County funds have been used to help pay for the temporary position, $1,706 of these funds will be remitted back to
the County's Appropriated Fund Balance Account.
A copy of the grant application is available for review in the County Manager's Office.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Recommend Commissioners accept grant funds from Champion McDowell Davis Charitable Foundation in the amount of
$9,300 to fund the Prescription Drug Assistance Program for the calendar year 2007 and approve the accompanying
budget amendment 07-102.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
Award letter from Champion McDowell Davis Charitable Foundation
~
........
07-102.dGlc
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A
9
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
10
THE CHAMPION McDOWELL DAVIS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION
POST OFFICE BOX 2178
WilMINGTON, NC 28402
December 7, 2006
Ms. Annette Crumpton
New Hanover County Department of Aging
2222 South College Road
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Ms. Crumpton:
The Foundation is pleased to enclose a gift of $9,300.00 for the New Hanover
County Department of Aging. This grant is made in response to your 2006 grant
application requesting support for the Department of Aging Prescription Drug
Assistance Program.
Very truly yours,
tU~ C.~.J{r~/Y.
William O. J. Lynch
Enclosure
WOJUvJlns
.--.-
11
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Budget Amendment
BUDGET AMENDMENT Number: 07-102
DEPARTMENT: Aging
BE IT ORDAINED by the New Hanover County Commissioners that the following amendment be made to the annual
budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007.
Section 1. The following appropriation is hereby made to the General Fund, and that the following revenue is estimated to
be available to meet this appropriation.
Expenditure Decrease Increase
Medicare Transition Program:
Temporary Salaries $6,259
FICA $478
Printing $542
Postage $195
Employee Reimbursement $120
Revenue Decrease Increase
Medicare Transition Program:
Champion McDowell Grant $9,300
Appropriated Fund Balance:
Appropriated Fund Balance $1,706
EXPLANATION: To budget funds received from Champion McDowell Davis Charitable Foundation to fund the
Medicare Prescription Drug Assistance Program for calendar year 2007. Since County funds have been used to
pay for the temporary position, $1,706 of these funds will be remitted back to the County's Appropriated Fund
Balance account.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
12
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Consent Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Budget Presenter: Cam Griffin/Carmen Gintoli, Director NHC Schools Facility Planning and Construction
Department
Contact: Cam Griffin
SUBJECT:
Approval of Schools' Application for $815,000 in Public School Building Capital Funds for a Multi-Purpose Room at
Forest Hills Elementary School
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Board of Education is requesting the County Commissioners approve their request for $815,000 in Public School
Capital Building Funds for the inclusion of a Multi-Purpose Room at Forest Hills Elementary School. The Board of
Education will match one dollar of local funds for each three dollars of state funds. Local funds will be from the 2005 Local
School Bond Fund.
When the funds were budgeted for the additions and renovations to Forest Hills Elementary School, the object was to bring
the school up to current NHCS Educational Specifications. After the Design Consultant began preliminary investigation into
the cost of upgrading the building, it was determined there were not sufficient funds for the Multi-Purpose Room. The
NHCS Board of Education felt Forest Hills, as other schools, should be upgraded to meet the Educational Specifications,
and asked that the Multi-Purpose Room be built now rather than in the future when cost of another construction project
would probably escalate.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Review and authorize Chairman to sign the request for $815,000 in Public School Capital Building Funds.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
Application Public School Capital Building Fund
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
13
12-:'19/2005 10:58 NHCS FACILITY PLANNING ~ 97987277 NO. 960 ~02
Revised 10/5/06
APPLICATION
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL BUIl.DING FUND Approved:
ADM (Corporate Tax) FUND Date:
County: New Hanover County Contact Person: Carmen Glntoli
Address: 6410 Carolina Beach Road Title; Director, Facility Planning & Construction
School Admin, Unit: 650 Phone: ( 910) 254-4325
Project Title: Forest Hills Elementary
LocatiOrl: 802 Colonial Drtve. Wilmington. NC 28403
Type of Facility: Elementary Bctlool
G.S. 11Sc-546.2(b) "Counties shall use monies In the Fund for capital outlay projects including the
planning, conslruction, reconstruction, enlargement, improvement, repair, or renovation of public school
buildings and for the purchase Of land for public scneol buildings: for equipment to implement a local
school technology plan that is approved pursuant to G.S 11 5C-' 02.6C: or for bOlh. Monies used to
implement a local school technology plan shall be transferred to the State SchoOl Technology Fund and
allocated by tnat Fund to the local school administrative unit for equipment. As used in tIlis ~ection
'public sehool bulldlns::ls' only includes facilities for individual schools that are used for instructional and
related DUI'DOSeS and does not include centraliled administration. maintenance. or other facilities."
Short Description of Constl'\Jclion Project:
Rl!lnovations of orialnal buildinQ and new construction of: classrooms. kitchen , dining room, art and music rooms
And mull-nummul room
Estimated Costs: State Local Total
Purchase of Land $ $ $ 0.00
Planning $ $ $ 0.00
Constl'\Jction $ 815.000.00 S 9,999,507.00 $ 10,814,507.00
Renovation S $ $ 0.00
Enlargement $ $ $ 0.00
Repair $ $ $ 0.00
School Technology $ $ NIA S 0.00
Debt Service/Bond Payment $ $ $ 0.00
Total $ 815,000.00 $ 9,999,507.00 $ 10,814,507.00
Bid DatesNendors: 4/15/07
Contracts signed/Dates: 5/19/07
Estimated date of beginning of construction: 5/19/07
Estimated date of completion: 6/30108
Match: The matching funds of one dollar of local funds for every three dollars of state funds are from
(source): 2005 local School Bond Fund
$ of the matching funds have been expended for/date/description:
Reoortina reQuirements: We, the undersigned, agree to submit a statement of statellocal amounts
expended for this project within 60 aays of completion of the prOject.
The County Commissioners and the !:Ioard of Education do hereby jointlY request approval of the above
project and request release of $ 815,000.00 from the PubliC School Building Capital
Fund. We certify that the project herein described is within tM parameters of 115C-546.2(b) and that
all of the match Is available and designated as match of this project.
(Date)
14
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Consent Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Budget Presenter: Cam Griffin
Contact: Cam Griffin
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Approval of Board of Education Budget Capital Outlay Fund Budget Amendment Carrying Over $122,249,941 from
FY 05-06 to FY 06-07, and Transferring Funds ($375,475) from Completed Projects to Fund Balance
BRIEF SUMMARY:
On December 6, 2006, the Board of Education approved Capital Outlay Budget Amendment number one. The Budget
Amendment transferred balances from several projects to fund balances ($375,475). The Budget Amendment also carried
over balances from FY 05-06 to FY 06-07.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Review and approve Board of Education Budget Amendment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
15
Budget Amendment
#1
New Hanover County Administrative Unit
Capital Outlay Fund
The New Hanover County Board of Education at a meeting on the 4th day of December 2006, passed
the following resolution.
Be it resolved that the following amendments be made to the Budget Resolution for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2007.
Amount
Code Number Description of Code Increase (Decrease)
Various See Attached $ 122,625,416.89
Revenue:
Various See Attached $122,625,416.89
Explanation: Carryover of Project Budgets
Total Appropriation in Current Budget $ 4,100,000.00
Amount of Increase/(Decrease) of above Amendment 122,625.416.89
Total Appropriation in Current Amended Budget $126.725,416.89
Passed by majority vote of the Board of Education of New Hanover County on the t H-_ day of
'De0~::?-"......... 20u, .
16
Capital Outlay Fund Amendment #1
To budget project savings from completed prior year projects:
Furniture and Equipment for Isaac M. Bear High School Building
4 9248 401 462 340 911 7 Remaining Technology 90,699.00
4 9248 401 411 340 933 7 Furniture (1/2 Classrooms and offices) 68,790.00
4 9248 401 412 340 931 7 Custodial Equipment 6,000.00
4 9248 401 412 340 931 7 Exterior Lights, Extra Sink & Door 4,000.00
4 9248 401 529 340 931 7 Security (Fire & Burglar Alarms) 50,000.00
Project Expansion for Holly Tree Chiller Replacement:
4 9191 401 529 339 945 7 Miscellaneous Contracts 48,650.00
Project Expansion for Storage Container Replacements:
4 9193 401 529 0 945 7 Miscellaneous Contracts 107,336.00
375,475.00
revenue:
4 4910 0 Fund Balance Appropriation (375,475.00)
Carryover Balances:
FUND PURP PRC OBJ SCH DEPT USE DESCRIPTION Balances
4 9300 120 551 0 0 o SCHOOL BUSES (FINANCED BY 220,429.40
4 9101 401 523 0 945 6 HVAC UPGRADES 16,950.00
4 9101 401 526 0 945 6 HV AC UPGRADES 1,500.00
4 9102 401 526 316 945 5 COLLEGE PARK ROOF RPLMT 5,420.00
4 9102 401 529 316 945 5 COLLEGE PARK ROOF RPLMT 144,747.72
4 9107 401 522 0 945 5 GENERAL CONTRACT ANDERSON 294,565.89
4 9107 401 526 0 945 5 ANDERSON ELEM-DESIGN SERV 12,661.97
4 9107 401 529 0 945 5 ANDERSON ELEM-MISC CONTRA 106,722.05
4 9108 401 529 0 945 5 OGDEN ELEM GEOTECHNICAL 239.89
4 9130 401 149 0 945 5 PROJECT MANAGER 7,760.00
4 9135 401 522 0 945 o MURRAYVILLE ELEM GEN CONT 40,458.04
4 9135 401 526 0 945 o MURRAYVILLE ELEMENTARY 3,349.05
4 9146 401 522 0 945 6 ALP - GENERAL CONTRACT 1,685,314.00
4 9146 401 526 0 945 6 ALP - DESIGN 59,507.18
4 9146 401 529 0 945 6 ALP - MISC CONTRACTS 141,244.36
4 9147 401 524 0 945 6 ELECTRICAL UPGRADES 21,286.07
4 9147 401 526 0 945 6 MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS -
4 9147 401 529 0 945 6 MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS 27,096.66
4 9150 401 526 0 945 6 MINOR REPAIRS/RENOVATIONS 3,500.00
4 9150 401 529 0 945 6 MINOR REPAIRS AND RENOVAT 53,341.38
4 9151 401 529 0 945 6 REPLACE PA SYSTEMS 2,749.39
4 9154 401 526 0 945 6 CARPET REPLACEMENT 9,920.00
4 9154 401 529 0 945 6 CARPET REPLACEMENT 77,420.78
4 9155 401 529 0 945 5 KITCHEN AC/HOOD UPGRADES 55,554.71
4 9158 401 526 338 945 6 BELLAMY TRAFFIC IMPROV 12,600.00
4 9158 401 526 350 945 6 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 25,200.00
4 9158 401 529 338 945 6 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 129,898.80
4 9158 401 529 350 945 6 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 511,711.10
4 9160 401 529 0 945 6 ASBESTOS ABATEMENT 6,339.50
4 9165 401 526 0 945 5 UST REMOVAL & SOIL REMED 26,102.00
4 9165 401 529 0 945 4 UST REMOVAL & REMEDIATION 397.66
4 9165 401 529 0 945 5 UST REMOVAL & REMEDIATION 73,898.00
4 9170 401 524 0 945 6 ELECTRICAL UPGRADES 0.95
4 9173 401 529 0 942 o FACILITY STUDY - CAPITAL 9,397.50
4 9185 401 529 0 945 4 PRE-K CERTIFICATION & ADA 2,311.20
4 9186 401 526 0 945 4 CODE REQUIREMENTS OSHA EP 1,164.75
4 9186 401 529 0 945 4 CODE REQUIREMENTS-OSHA,EP 27,832.30
Capital Outlay Fund - Page #1
17
Capital Outlay Fund Amendment #1
Carryover
FUND PURP PRe OBJ SCH DEPT USE DESCRIPTION Balances
4 9187 401 526 0 945 5 MOBILE UNIT RPLMT (DES CO 2,990.63
4 9187 401 529 0 945 5 MOBILE UNIT RPLMT (MISC) 29,762.93
4 9187 401 529 0 945 6 MOBILE CLASSROOMS 1,191.05
4 9192 401 526 0 945 20 ROLAND-GRISE - UST ENGINE 19,312.50
4 9192 401 529 0 945 20 ROLAND GRISE - UST 32,931.65
4 9201 401 412 0 933 6 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 46.06
4 9203 401 462 0 911 6 LAB UPGRADE 34,102.64
4 9204 401 462 0 911 6 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 26,039.52
4 9204 401 462 320 911 6 MEDIA CENTER COMPUTER REP 10,000.00
4 9205 401 542 0 911 6 SERVER REPLACEMENT 32,798.14
4 9206 401 462 0 911 6 2200 UPS REPLACEMENTS 11,000.00
4 9207 401 541 0 945 5 FURNITURE & EQUIP-ANDERSO 451,667.18
4 9207 401 561 0 945 5 LJBRARY BOOKS- ANDERSON 94,974.64
4 9208 401 311 0 911 6 NETWORK & INTERNET WIRING 16,852.01
4 9215 401 542 0 911 o COMPUTER EQUIPMENT> $500 13,717.56
4 9235 401 541 0 945 o EQUIPMENT> $5000 835.51
4 9246 401 541 0 945 6 ALP-FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 141,557.69
4 9247 401 541 0 945 6 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 153,293.76
4 9287 401 411 0 945 5 FURNITURE - MOBILE UNIT R 1,053.92
4 9301 401 551 0 923 o VEHICLES 3,134.32
4 9301 401 551 0 923 6 VEHICLES 22,635.79
4 9910 401 211 0 945 5 EMPLOYERS SOC SEC COST 483.92
4 9910 401 221 0 945 5 EMPLOYERS RET COST 446.45
4 9910 401 231 0 945 5 EMPLOYERS HOSPITAL COST 706.74
4 9135 483 526 0 945 o MURRAYVILLE EM EM (DES CON 427.82
4 9135 483 529 0 945 o MURRAYVILLE EM EM (MISC) 9 42,665.66
4 9235 483 412 0 945 o MURRAYVILLE ROAD ELEM SCH 64.95
4 9110 820 511 0 945 o PURCHASE OF NEW SITES 4,399,495.00
4 9110 820 526 0 945 o DISGN CONSUL 69,322.60
4 9110 820 529 0 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 2,576,248.59
4 9111 820 522 0 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 11,505,218.00
4 9111 820 526 0 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 608,808.25
4 9111 820 529 0 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 918,030.00
4 9112 820 522 0 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 18,973,232.00
4 9112 820 526 0 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 1,000,493.15
4 9112 820 529 0 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 1,517,343.00
4 9113 820 522 356 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 10,107,541.50
4 9113 820 526 356 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 175,589.74
4 9113 820 529 356 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 1,046,867.86
4 9114 820 522 308 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 5,597,777.00
4 9114 820 526 308 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 133,300.07
4 9114 820 529 308 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 692,598.00
4 9115 820 522 328 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 7,731,722.00
4 9115 820 526 328 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 600,332.00
4 9115 820 529 328 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 783,706.00
4 9116 820 522 400 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 4,741,640.00
4 9116 820 526 400 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 470,137.00
4 9116 820 529 400 945 o MISCElLANEOUS CONTRACTS 714,681.00
4 9117 820 522 384 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 5,748,935.00
4 9117 820 526 384 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 554,078.00
4 9117 820 529 384 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 860,718.00
4 9118 820 522 404 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 3,022,756.00
4 9118 820 526 404 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 271,668.48
4 9118 820 529 404 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 638,158.00
Capital Outlay Fund - Page #2
18
Capital Outlay Fund Amendment #1
Carryover
FUND PURP PRC OBJ SCH DEPT USE DESCRIPTION Balances
4 9119 820 522 332 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 7,280,961.00
4 9119 820 526 332 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 614,330.00
4 9119 820 529 332 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 1,302,454.00
4 9120 820 522 368 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 3,496,181.00
4 9120 820 526 368 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 300,738.00
4 9120 820 529 368 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 398,770.00
4 9121 820 522 342 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 158,418.37
4 9121 820 526 342 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 20,006.00
4 9121 820 529 342 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 69,747.34
4 9122 820 522 364 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 425,952.00
4 9122 820 526 364 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 23,247.91
4 9122 820 529 364 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 72,562.14
4 9123 820 522 0 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 606,853.00
4 9123 820 526 0 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 62,016.00
4 9123 820 529 0 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 82,473.00
4 9124 820 522 346 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 131,135.00
4 9124 820 526 346 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 18,153.00
4 9124 820 529 346 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 35,041.03
4 9125 820 522 320 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 146,349.50
4 9125 820 526 320 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 2,250.60
4 9125 820 529 320 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 34,456.04
4 9126 820 522 325 '945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 66,015.00
4 9126 820 526 325 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 780.16
4 9126 820 529 325 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 9,564.61
4 9127 820 522 0 945 o GENERAL CONTRACTS 454,215.00
4 9127 820 526 0 945 o ARCHITECTS FEES 38,933.00
4 9127 820 529 0 945 o MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS 4,325.00
4 9129 820 149 0 945 o PROJECT MANAGERS SALARY 1,033,278.19
4 9129 820 529 0 945 o PROGRAM MGT VARIOUS VENDO 1,144_05
4 9129 820 699 0 945 o UN8UDGETED 864,015.25
4 9211 820 541 0 945 o ELEM SCHOOL E FURNITURE 1,122,679.00
4 9212 820 541 0 945 o MIDDLE SCHOOL FURNITURE 1,791,696_00
4 9213 820 541 356 945 o OGDEN ELEM FURNITURE 1,122,681.00
4 9214 820 541 308 945 o CAROLINA BEACH FURNITURE 687,693.00
4 9215 820 541 328 945 o FOREST HILLS ELEM FURNITU 796,593_00
4 9216 820 541 400 945 o WINTER PARK ELEM FURNITUR 597,311.00
4 9217 820 541 384 945 o SNIPES ELEM RENOV FURNITU 658,266.00
4 9218 820 541 404 945 o WRIGHTSBORO RENOV FURNITU 425,465.00
4 9219 820 541 332 945 o GREGORY RENOV FURNITURE 729,311.00
4 9220 820 541 368 945 o SUNSET PARK RENOV FURNITU 473,148.00
4 9228 820 418 0 911 o COMPUTER SOFTWARE & SUPPL 1,321,079.68
4 9228 820 462 0 911 o COMPUTER HARDWARE 3,000,764.72
4 9229 820 412 0 945 o FURNITURE & SUPPLIES 4,160.40
4 9229 820 418 0 945 o COMPUTER SOFTWARE & SUPPL 19.75
4 9229 820 461 0 945 o FURNITURE/EQUIP < $5000 -
4 9229 820 462 0 945 o COMPUTER EQUIPMENT < $500 96.32
4 9900 820 699 0 945 o UNBUDGETED CONTINGENCY 1,125,833.00
4 9910 820 211 0 945 o SOCIAL SECURITY 79,436.82
4 9910 820 221 0 945 o RETIREMENT 70,470.01
4 9910 820 231 0 945 o HOSPITALIZATION 65,191.42
122,249,941.89
Capital Outlay Fund - Page #3
19
Capital Outlay Fund Amendment #1
revenue:
4 4390 120 DPI Allocation for Bus Lease 220,429.40
4 4910 0 Fund Balance Appropriation 4,699,696.71
4 4810 483 1997 Bond Revenue 43,158.43
4 4810 820 2005 Bond Revenue 117,286,656.55
122,249,941.09
Total Increase in Capital Outlay 122,625,416.89
Capital Outlay Fund - Page #4
20
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Consent Item #: 5 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenter: Dolores Williarns, JCPC Chairperson
Contact: Patricia Melvin, Assistant County Manager
SUBJECT:
Approval of Amendments to the Bylaws of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At its regular meeting on December 15, 2006 the JCPC voted unanimously to amend its bylaws as attached. Generally, the
bylaws were amended to conform with the JCPC State statute, to add a conflict of interest provision and to be consistent in
terminology. They were also reformatted for ease in reference. The Board of Commissioners' approval is necessary.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approval of amendments to the JCPC Bylaws.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
........
. ..
JC PC Bylaws .revisions 12:nS.dQC
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
21
New Hanover County, NC
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Bylaws
ARTICLE I
NAME AND PURPOSE
1.1 Name.
The name of this JCPC shall be known as the New Hanover County Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council (JCPC).
1.2 Purpose.
The purpose of the JCPC shall be to:
(1) Annually review and assess the needs of juveniles in New Hanover County
(County) who are at risk of delinquency or who have been adjudicated
undisciplined or delinquent, evaluate the adequacy of resources available to meet
those needs, and develop or propose ways to address unmet needs, giving
particular attention to the needs of status offenders and juvenile delinquents, and
report those findings to the Board of County Commissioners (Board of
Commissioners).
(2) Assist the County in planning and administering intervention and delinquency
prevention programs for court involved and at risk juveniles by providing funds
for service for treatment, counseling, or rehabilitation for juveniles and their
families. These services may include court-ordered parenting responsibility
classes.
(3) Evaluate the performance of juvenile services and programs in the community
and evaluate each funded program as a condition of continued funding.
(4) Increase public awareness of the cause of delinquency and of strategies to reduce
the problem.
(5) Develop strategies to intervene and appropriately respond to and treat the needs of
juveniles at risk of delinquency through appropriate risk assessment instruments.
(6) Plan for the establishment of a permanent funding stream for delinquency
prevention services.
ARTICLE II
MEMBERSHIP
2.1 Appointment.
2.1.1 JCPC members shall be approved and appointed by the Board of Commissioners for
two year terms.
22
2.1.2 Appointment shall be arranged so that the term of approximately one-fourth of the
members noted in section 2.3 below in positions 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 19 shall
expire each year.
2.2 Replacement.
The Chairperson shall advise the Board of Commissioners of members who should be
replaced because of resignation, limited interest and participation, or conflict of
interest. Appointments to fill vacancies shall be for the remainder of the former
member's term. Members shall be removed for malfeasance or nonfeasance as
determined by the Board of Commissioners.
2.3 Composition.
The membership shall be no more than 26 persons and should include, if possible:
(1) local school superintendent or designee
(2) chief of police or designee
(3) local sheriff or designee
(4) district attorney or designee
(5) chief court counselor or designee
(6) director of mental health or designee
(7) director of social services or designee
(8) county manager or designee
(9) substance abuse professional
(10) member of faith community
(11) county commissioner or designee
(12) two persons under 18
(13) juvenile defense attorney
(14) chief district court judge or designee
(15) member of business
(16) health director designee
(17) United Way or nonprofit
(18) parks and recreation representative
(19) up to 7 members appointed by the Board of Commissioners.
2.4 Conflict of Interest.
2.4.1 No member shall participate in the hearing, consideration or determination of any
matter in which he or she has a conflict of interest (Conflict). A Conflict exists when
a member engages in any business or transaction or has a financial or other personal
interest, direct or indirect, that is incompatible with the proper discharge of his or her
official duties or would tend to impair his or her independence of judgment and action
in the performance of his or her official duties. A Conflict exists when any member:
(1) Has a financial interest as owner, member, partner, officer, employer, stockholder
of or other participant in a private business or professional enterprise that will be
affected by the outcome of any matter under consideration before him or her in
his or her capacity as a member.
2
(revised)
23
(2) Has such interest in any matter which may be adverse to the public interest and
the proper performance of his or her duties as a member.
(3) Has an interest in speculative or investment activities that will benefit from use of
confidential information obtained as a member.
2.4.2 Personal as distinguished from financial interest includes an interest arising from
blood or marriage relationship, by consanguinity or affinity within and including the
third degree.
2.4.3 No member shall vote on any matter in which he/she has a Conflict.
ARTICLE III
OFFICERS
3.1 Officers.
The officers shall include a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary-Treasurer.
3.2 Election.
These officers shall be elected by the JCPC membership at the May meeting of each
year. New officers will assume office on July 1.
3.3 Term.
Officers shall be elected for one year terms and may succeed themselves.
ARTICLE IV
MEETINGS
4.1. Meetings of Members.
4.1.1 Regular Meetings. The JCPC shall meet at least bimonthly in accordance with a
schedule adopted by the JCPC. Meetings are to be held on the 3rd Friday of the
month at the Office of Juvenile Justice, 138 North 4th Street, Wilmington, NC.
4.1.2 Special Meetings. The Chairperson may call such special meetings as deemed
necessary to carry out the duties of the JCPC and notice shall be given to all members
of the JCPC in writing or by phone at least two (2) days in advance.
4.2 Cancellation. If a meeting must be cancelled, the Chairperson shall notify the JCPC
members in writing or by phone at least two (2) days prior to the scheduled meeting.
4.3 Open Meetings. All meetings shall be open to the public.
4.4 Quorum. No official business can be transacted unless a quorum is present. A
quorum is a majority of the total members on the JCPC. A majority vote of the
quorum is required for passing a motion.
4.5 Minutes. Minutes shall be taken at every meeting and distributed prior to or at
subsequent meetings.
3
24
ARTICLE V
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
5.1 Composition.
The Executive Committee will be composed of all officers and Standing Committee
Chairpersons.
5.2 Duties.
The Executive Committee shall evaluate the progress of the JCPC and make
recommendations as to its direction.
5.3 Meetings.
5.3.1 Biannual. The Executive Committee shall meet no less than twice each fiscal year.
5.3.2 Call. The Chairperson of the JCPC, or two Executive Committee members, may call
such meetings as deemed necessary to carry out its duties.
5.3.3 Notice. The membership of the Executive Committee shall be notified of all
meetings in writing or by phone at least fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting.
ARTICLE VI
STANDING COMMITTEES
6.1 Membership.
The JCPC Chairperson shall appoint at least three members ofthe JCPC to each of
the following standing committees:
(1) Planning Committee (Risk & Needs), whose purpose shall be to plan and
carry out the process of reviewing and assessing the needs of juveniles in the
County who are at risk for delinquency or who have been adjudicated
undisciplined or delinquent and putting those needs in priority order, determining
the resources available to address those needs, proposing ways to address any
unmet needs, and report its findings and make recommendations for prioritizing
needs for funding to the JCPC.
(2) Program Funding Committee, whose purpose shall be to review the grant
proposals and make recommendations to the JCPC for the use of DJJDP funds, or
any other funds available to the County that would meet the needs as prioritized
by the JCPC and recommend the level of funding to the JCPC.
(3) Program Evaluation & Monitoring Committee, whose purpose shall be to gather
information about JCPC funded programs and monitor the performance of those
programs and report to the JCPC.
(4) Publicitv and Public Awareness Committee, whose purpose shall be to keep
juvenile service agencies, appropriate governmental and community boards, and
the general public aware of the causes of delinquency, strategies and services
available to reduce the problem and the unmet needs in the community and to
4
25
report to the JCPC.
6.2 Chairpersons.
The JCPC Chairperson of the JCPC shall appoint the Chairpersons of the Standing
Committees.
6.3 Additional Committees.
The JCPC Chairperson may at his/her discretion, appoint any other committees which
he/she deems necessary to carry out the general purposes of the JCPC.
ARTICLE VII
SELECTION OF PROGRAMS
7.1 Review of Proposals.
7.1.1 All proposals to fund programs submitted to the JCPC will be reviewed by the
Program Funding Committee.
7.1.2 Proposals will be presented to the JCPC individually by the Program Funding
Committee and will be scrutinized by the JCPC in terms of its meeting the JCPC
prioritized needs, effectiveness, staffing, amount requested and expectations.
7.2 Funding Vote.
The JCPC will vote on each proposal individually to determine if it should be funded
at the level recommended by the Program Funding Committee.
7.3 Approval Process.
7.3.1 Proposals approved by the JCPC for funding shall be submitted to the Board of
Commissioners for their approval. If approved by the Board of Commissioners, the
proposal(s) shall be submitted to the regional consultant for review. Following
review, the proposal(s) is submitted to the DJJDP for final approval.
7.3.2 Proposals not approved for funding shall be notified in writing.
7.4 Evaluation Process.
Funded proposals shall be evaluated by the Program Evaluation & Monitoring
Committee.
ARTICLE VIII
GENERAL
8.1 Amendments.
The bylaws may be amended or repealed and new bylaws adopted by the affirmative
vote of a majority of the membership at any regular or special meeting of the JCPC.
8.2 Policies.
Policies shall be formulated by the JCPC and revised from time to time as necessary.
5
26
8.3 Funded Agencies.
A current copy of the bylaws and policies of the JCPC should be made available to
agencies whose program proposal was funded upon request and shall be deemed
acceptable to such funded agencies unless the JCPC is otherwise notified. An effort
should be made by the Chairperson to cause a copy of the bylaws and policies to be
furnished to such agencies after each amendment.
8.4 Manuals.
Manuals shall be furnished by the JCPC to each of its members at the time of
becoming a JCPC member so that such member may be informed fully of JCPC
duties and responsibilities. The manual shall contain a current copy of the bylaws
and policies adopted by the JCPC. The manual shall contain a description ofthe
programs funded on advice of the JCPC and may contain important procedural
documents from funding agencies.
Amended and adopted by the JCPC at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of
December, 2006.
Chairperson
Attest:
Secretary - Treasurer
6
----.-
27
This page intentionally left blank.
28
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Consent Item #: 6 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Juvenile Day Treatment Center Presenter: John Ranalli
Contact: John Ranalli
SUBJECT:
Approval to Submit Grant Application to the Governor's Crime Commission
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Juvenile Day Treatment Center would like permission to apply to the Governor's Crime Commission for a CAMP grant
in the amount of $1 00,000. CAMP stands for Critical thinking, Attitude adjustment, Meaningful relationships and a Powerful
life. These are therapeutic interventions based on the Developmental Assets youth framework model founded by the
Search Institute. The funding will provide for three existing Behavior Intervention Specialist positions that perform art and
recreation therapy and family advocacy which form the core of the CAMP programming. The 25% match for this grant
would come from Medicaid reimbursement.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Permit the JDTC to submit a grant application to the Governor's Crime Commission in the amount of $100,000 for CAMP
and; if awarded, accept the grant and approve the related budget amendment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: This grant would continue funding for three existing Behavior Intervention Specialist positions at the JDTC that
are currently funded by Medicaid reimbursement. If grant funding ends, positions will continue to be funded through
Medicaid reimbursement. No County funding would be required.
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
29
This page intentionally left blank.
30
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Consent Item #: 7 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Juvenile Day Treatment Center Presenter: John Ranalli, Dr. Art Costantini, Robert Speight
Contact: John Ranalli
SUBJECT:
Approval to Submit a Grant Application to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council for the Management of the
Psychological Services Program
BRIEF SUMMARY:
This program is currently being managed by Southeastern Center (SEC). In light of the state mental health reform plan,
SEC must divest itself of all direct services by June 30, 2007. To avoid the creation of a gap in a needed service to our
community, and maintain its current operation at the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP),
the JDTC would like to apply to the JCPC to assume management of this program. We are already endorsed by the mental
health reform plan to provide Diagnostic Assessment Services which the Psychological Services program offers. The grant
is in the amount of $275,000. Since the DJJDP has jurisdiction over both New Hanover and Pender County $72,000 will
come from the Pender JCPC and $203,000 from the New Hanover JCPC. The funding covers four clinical psychologist
positions, and two administrative support staff part time. The cash match for this grant would come from Medicaid
reimbursement. These positions will result in the transfer of four (4) full-time and two (2) part-time staff which currently
perform said services for SEC, to the County's employ. However, the positions will be discontinued when the grant funds
cease to be awarded.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Request permission to submit a grant application to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils of New Hanover and Pender
County in the amount of $275,000 for the Psychological Services program; and if awarded, accept the grant and approve
the related budget amendment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: New Position(s) Number of Positions: 4 FT and 2 PT
Explanation: The Psychological Services program personnel would transfer employment from SEC to NHC JDTC in
keeping with County Policies and Procedures.
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
31
This page intentionally left blank.
32
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Consent Item #: 8 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Juvenile Day Treatment Center Presenter: John Ranalli and Robert Campbell
Contact: Nequan Peartree
SUBJECT:
Approval to Submit Grant Application for the Youth DMC Task Force
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Project would like permission to apply for a grant from the NC Governor's
Crime Commission in the amount of $80,000. The budget will cover the project coordinator's salary, project evaluator,
travel, training, items pertaining to the Youth DMC Task Force, office supplies, and the Adopt a School Program. This grant
does not require a match. The County is not required to continue funding after the grant has ended. The DMC Project will
establish future funding sources through collaboration with community agencies.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approval to submit a grant application to the NC Governor's Crime Commission in the amount of $80,000 and if grant is
approved accept grant and approve related budget amendment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: The DMC Project consists of one hired personnel, a project coordinator. She has been the coordinator since
the beginning of the project in 2004.
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
33
This page intentionally left blank.
34
REGULAR AGENDA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No.
5:40 p.m. 1. Consideration of Final Action on Conditional Use Rezoning Request by Ward 37
and Smith, P A for Bill Clark Homes of Wilmington, LLC at 5025 and 5031
Carolina Beach Road (Z-851, 10/06)
5:45 p.m. 2. Consideration of Request for Qualifications for Architectural/Planning 39
Services for Parks Bond Projects
5:50 p.m. 3. Appointment of Legislative Liaison to the North Carolina Association of 41
County Commissioners (NCACC)
5:55 p.m. 4. Public Hearing and Consideration of Creation and Utilization of New Hanover 43
County Seal/Logo
6:05 p.m. 5.1 Public Hearing 49
Rezoning (Z-849, 10/06) - Request by Worsley Investment & Development
to Rezone Approximately 12 Acres Located at 5939 Judges Road near 6009
Market St. from 1-1 Industrial District to R -10 Residential Zoning District
6:25 p.m. 5.2 Public Hearing 57
Conditional Use Rezoning (Z-853, 11/06) - Request by SENCA Properties,
LLC to Rezone Approximately 50.35 Acres Located in the 9000 Block of
Market Street as Follows: 31.31 Acres from R-15 Residential to CD(O&I)
Conditional District for Expansion of New Hanover County Regional Medical
Center Facilities and Stormwater Facilities; and 18.47 Acres from R-15
Residential to CD(B-l) Conditional District for a Variety of Mixed Uses
7:05 p.m. 5.3 Public Hearing 75
Rezoning (Z- 855, 12/06) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for E & B
Properties to Rezone Approximately 19.25 Acres in the Aquifer Resource
Protection Land Classification at 1916 Rockhill Road from R-20 to R-15
Residential District
7:35 p.m. Break
7:45 p.m. 5.4 Public Hearing 85
Rezoning (Z- 856, 12/06) - Request by Rockford Partners, LLC for Cameron
Company to Rezone Approximately 144.14 Acres at the Western Terminus of
Rockhill Road in the Conservation and Wetland Resource Protection Land
Classifications from R-20 to R-15 Residential District
8: 15 p.m. 5.5 Public Hearing 93
Conditional Rezoning (Z- 858, 12/06) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for
Thomas Sellars, Sf. to Conditionally Rezone 8.57 Acres at 6210,6212 & 6224
Carolina Beach Road near Beau Rivage Plantation in the Transition Land
Classification from R-15 Residential to CD(R-I0) Residential and for
Approval of High Density Development According to a Site Plan Showing 99
Residential Units
35
8:35 p.m. 5.6 Public Hearing 103
Special Use Permit (S- 572, 12/06) - Request by James Eldridge for Brad &
Sherry Dunker to Locate a Child Development Center for Up to 204 Children
in the R-15 Residential Zoning District on 2.98 Acres at 547 Sanders Road
9:05 p.m. 6. Public Hearing 115
Special Use Permit (S-13, 06/71) - Request by David Ward to Deny Validity
of Original Special Use Permit Issued at 1512 Burnette Road
9:35 p.m. Break
9:45 p.m. 7. Meeting of the Water and Sewer District 157
9:55 p.m. 8. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
10:00 p.m. 9. Additional Items
County Manager
Commissioners
Clerk to the Board
County Attorney
10: 10 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.
36
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Chairman Caster
Contact: Wanda Copley
SUBJECT:
Final Action on Conditional Use Rezoning Request by Ward and Smith, PA for Bill Clark Homes of Wilmington,
LLC at 5025 and 5031 Carolina Beach Road (Z-851, 10/06)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
This item is NOT a public hearing. The purpose ofthe item is to vote on a final action on the rezoning request at 5025 and
5031 Carolina Beach Road.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Vote on final action.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Vote on final action.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
A motion to deny was passed 4-1, Caster opposing.
37
This page intentionally left blank.
38
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Parks Presenter: Neal Lewis
Contact: Neal Lewis/Max Maxwell
SUBJECT:
Request for Qualifications for Architectural/Planning Services for Parks Bond Projects
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Parks Department wishes to begin the process to develop a Request for Qualifications (RFQ's) for design and
construction of certain projects included in the 2006 Parks Bond based on the attached guidelines. Once the RFQ's are
received, architects/planners will be selected to design and build these projects. No decision will be made on how the work
will be grouped until after the RFQ's have been reviewed. A review committee will be set up to review the submittals, made
up of representatives of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, Parks Department, NHC Capital Projects Manager,
interested Commissioners, and others as needed.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Permission for the Parks Department to solicit RFQ's for a portion of the projects included in the 2006 Parks Bond.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
. ......
... .
RFQ Guidelines.doc
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
39
GUIDELINES TO DEVELOP
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PARKS PROJECTS
New Hanover County will seek professional architectural services for the design and construction of various County Parks
throughout New Hanover County.
The project scope will require:
. Design development.
. Preparation of construction documents.
. Construction administration.
The parks to be included in this project include:
. Arrowhead Park
. Middle Sound Park
. Monterey Heights Park
. Parkwood Recreation Area
. Smith Creek Park
The parks projects may include but are not limited to the following improvements:
. Demolition and/or renovation of existing facilities
. Site work
. Walking trails
. Observation/fishing pier / kayak launch facilities
. Athletic fields
. Playgrounds
. Basketball courts
. Picnic shelters
. Disc Golf Course
. Rest Room buildings
. Roads/Parking
. Signs and park amenities
To be responsive, firms will be asked to submit (this list in not all inclusive):
. Statement of qualification ofthe firm and the key personnel that will work on this project.
. Resumes of project manager and design team members.
. Track record ofbrining in projects on time and within budget.
. A list of similar projects performed in the past including the client contact information for reference, and a
complete detail of fees paid for those projects and the project cost.
. A list of subcontractors to be utilized (New Hanover County has a goal of 20% minority/women owned business
participation).
. Current workload and percentage of availability.
. Other information which may be helpful in evaluating the submittal.
40
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Governing Body Presenter: Chairman Caster
Contact: Bruce Shell
SUBJECT:
Appointment of legislative liaison to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners is requesting that alii 00 counties appoint one county
commissioner as its Legislative Liaison. Each county's Legislative Liaison will serve as a conduit of information between
the Association (via District 4 Director Sammie Jacobs of Columbus County) and your Board of Commissioners.
Responsibilities will include:
Ensuring other county commissioners are aware of legislative developments concerning issues of
importance to counties
Placing items of statewide importance on county Board of Commissioners agendas to generate
discussion and elevate public awareness
Providing a local voice that local media can rely upon for information on legislative issues
Setting up or making sure regular meetings with local legislators are taking place
Providing feedback to your county's Association District Director on what local legislators, fellow
Board members, other officials and the general public are saying about bills and issues, and
what issues are elevated in your county
The NCACC will provide counties with regular agenda items and will provide Legislative Liaisons with talking points and
educational materials that can be used to boost media and public awareness of legislation that impacts counties. The
Legislative Liaisons initiative is one part of the NCACC's strategic goal to enhance the ability of county officials to represent
counties and the NCACC on local and statewide issues.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Consider appointment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A
41
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Consider appointment.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
A motion to appoint Commissioner Kopp was approved 5-0.
42
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenter: Mark Boyer, Public Information Officer
Contact: Mark Boyer, Public Information Officer
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and Consideration of Creation and Utilization of New Hanover County Seal/logo
BRIEF SUMMARY:
In order to have only one clearly recognizable emblem signifying New Hanover County government, staff has been working
to create a new official seal for use by the County and its departments. The proposed seal incorporates and updates the
unofficial 'logo' that has been in use in various capacities since approximately 1997. The first public use ofthe Courthouse
tower as the County's logo was approved by the Board of Commissioners in August 2000 on the electronic sign located at
Legion Stadium. The existing 'seal' incorporates a ship, railroad boxcar, rail lines and the words Imports, Exports, Industry.
In researching the origin of the Seal of New Hanover County, very little information was discovered as to how, when, orwhy
it was developed.
Prior to this development, New Hanover County has used the former seal on all official documents, while less formal
documents, marketing materials, and other visualizations have utilized the courthouse logo. Its use varied from department
to department.
With input from Board members and County staff, the unofficial 'logo' has been updated to reflect the very recognizable
historic New Hanover County Courthouse clock tower, placed within an oval, with the words "Established 1729". The clock
hands are both in an upwards position representing good fortune.
The use of the new combination seal/logo would be on all County documents, letterhead, vehicles, flags, and marketing
materials. If approved, each department would be encouraged to utilize existing stationery, decals, etc., to minimize the
cost of converting to the new combination seal/logo.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Ask for public comment on utilization of a new combination seal/logo.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attached is the proposed seal/logo in black and white Upg) and color (pdt), email from Beverly Tetterton to Mark Boyer, jpg
version of 1997 editorial.
;::,. ~ ~
Ij- 11
.. !
... .:..
. (. . .li:IU' ........ :../ ".
. ...". ~ ... .
.=-
8\VLOGO.jpg ~~j EVI,'. LOGO .Dd 8Ts e!T:c:d.doc ~~ He S5C:~ Ed~o~c:~ .jpg
43
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Conduct public hearing and direct staff.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Conducted public hearing. A motion to table the item until the next meeting passed 4-1, Caster opposing.
44
.
· ~S \11-'"
J'ABLISHf,\)
45
Hi Mark,
I don't know the exact date but I think that the seal was adopted after the state ports authority
was founded. The North Carolina State Ports Authority was created by an act of General
Assembly in 1945. The ports at Morehead City and Wilmington were opened in 1952, thus
imports, exports and industry.
I looked this up in the early 1990s when there was a move to create a new logo for the county.
Folks were asked to submit designs and I think the county received a few. There was also a
strong sentiment about leaving it alone.
To find out exactly when it was approved would take reading the commissioners minutes-- I
would start in the mid-forties and work through the mid-fifties. It could be older but I don't think so.
I am also going to ask my friend at the NC archives to find out if and when there was a state-wide
push for county seals. Perhaps we adopted one at the same time. Traditionally, only cities had
them. The following editorial was against a new seal.
.
~
NHC Seal Edilorial.jpg
best,
BT
-----------------------
Beverly Tetterton
Special Collections Librarian
North Carolina Room
New Hanover County Library
201 Chestnut Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
910798-6305
Fax 910798-6313
46
47
This page intentionally left blank.
48
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 5.1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Chris O'Keefe
Contact: Chris O'Keefe
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Item 1: Rezoning (Z-849, 10106) - Request by Worsley Investment & Development to Rezone Approximately 12
Acres located at 5939 Judges Road near 6009 Market Street from 1-1 Industrial District to R-10 Residential Zoning
District
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At its October 2, 2006 meeting, the Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval of this request. No one spoke in
opposition to the rezoning.
At the petitioner's request, this item was continued from the November 13 Commissioners' agenda.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the petition.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~ ~
........
... .
Z-V;&-Staff Summa~' .doc Z-848 Petition Summary.doc
adjacent property owner map, applicant material, and topographic map
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
The item was withdrawn at the request of the petitioner.
49
CASE: Z-849, 10/06;
PETITIONER: Worsley Investment & Development
REQUEST: From 1-1 Light Industrial to R-I0 Residential District
ACREAGE: Approximately 12 Acres
LOCATION: 5939 Judges Road, behind 6009 Market Street
LAND CLASS: Urban
At its October 2, 2006 meeting, the Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval of
this request. No one spoke in opposition to the rezoning.
At the petitioner's request, this item was continued from the November 13 Commissioners'
agenda.
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located on Judges Road near Market Street. Access is from an adjacent
residential lot on Judges Road which connects to the interior parcel as part of the proposal.
Judges Road was not rated for level of service since it is classified as a local road. The site does
not directly access Market Street, which is a principal arterial roadway less than a block from the
site. Market Street level of service is F, meaning traffic exceeds capacity. Traffic counts are not
available for Judges Road. Market Street average daily traffic increased over 27% between 200 I
and 2005.
The subject property consists of two lots. The smaller parcel on Judges Road is currently
developed with one single family home and the larger interior parcel is vacant. Properties
surrounding the site are currently developed. Adjacent parcels to the south are zoned I-I and
developed as Judges Road Business Park. West of the subject property is zoned R-IO
(Wildflower, Crestwood and Weatherwood subdivisions) and developed with single family
residential use. North of the subject property, zoning is 1-1 Industrial and is developed with
automotive sales and repair uses. The City's jurisdiction begins directly adjacent to this site on
the east side along Market Street.
The property is located within the Smith Creek watershed drainage area but is not within the
regulatory floodplain. The site is in a primary recharge area for the principal aquifers. Public
water and sewer are available at the site. There are no known locally protected conservation,
historic or archaeological resources on the site.
Land Use Plan Considerations:
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the urban classification as areas providing
for continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban areas. These areas are
already developed at a density approaching 1,500 dwelling units per square mile. Urban services
are already in place or scheduled within the immediate future.
50
Policies in the land use plan encourage designation of sufficient land area and suitable locations
for the various land uses and encourage preservation of the character of existing neighborhoods
and quality of life with the primary strategy to integrate development and growth with input from
residents, and also to develop design standards to replace use standards. Transition of lands from
one use to another is not specifically addressed.
This rezoning petition proposes a change to allow the County's highest residential density in an
expansion of an existing R-l 0 district (Wildflower Subdivision), thereby eliminating 12 acres of
future industrial opportunity. Such a change would be an expansion ofthe residential density
policy in the area and allow residential use on this acreage of3.3 units per acre where none is
currently allowed. High density residential would not presently be allowed because the property
does not front on an identified collector or higher level street. For this parcel, the resultant
maximum residential potential under current conditions would be about 39 single family units. If
a collector street were platted and constructed to serve the site, a high density proposal could be
considered. Maximum output on a high density project would be about 200 units. Other
permitted uses in the R-lO district include agricultural uses, wholesale nurseries and greenhouses,
towers and antenna, golf courses, parks and recreation areas, residential care, schools, churches,
libraries, landscape landfill, mobile homes, outdoor bazaars and a variety of special uses.
Traffic will likely feed primarily to Market Street but impacts may also be felt through the
existing neighborhoods as travelers take alternative routes to Market Street via Harley Road,
Gordon Road via Wood Sorrell Road in Weatherwood or N. College Road via indirect routes
through Kings Grant or Crestwood subdivisions. Weekday average trip generation for single
family detached units is estimated to generate 9.57 trips per day (ITRE manual). With the
requested change of zoning, anticipated residential trip generation would be approximately 383
trips per day compared to a variety of potential industrial generators which could generate as
much as 7 trips per 1,000 square feet of building area.
Based on the adjacency to an existing R-l 0 district and the anticipated improvements to traffic
flow from the Martin Luther King Parkway, Military Cutoff and the 1-140 bypass staff
recommends approval of the rezoning.
ACTION NEEDED:
Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A-341 which requires that "prior to
adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement
describing whether the action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and
explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public
interest."
EXAMPLE:
The County Commissioners find that this request for zoning map amendment from 1-1 Light
Industrial to R-I0 Residential District is (or is not):
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the Urban land classifications and the
associated land use policies adopted in the 2006 land use plan;
2. Reasonable and in the public interest to allow transition of acreage from industrial
zoning class to residential zoning class with base density of 3.3 units per acre in this
location adjacent to existing R-IO Residential development and within close
proximity to a major arterial roadway.
51
Case: Z-849, 10/06
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: Worsley Investment and Development
Existing Land Uses: Vacant and Residential
Existing Zoning I -1 Light Industrial Proposed: R-I0
Zoning History: August 18, 1971 and 11/03 (Area 6)
Land Classification: Urban
Water Type: Public
Sewer Type: Public
Recreation Area: Ogden Park
Access & Traffic Volume: Market Street (Major Thoroughfare) ADT 52,231(8/05);
ADT 41,000 (2001) and Judges Rd. (No Counts)
LOS: Market Street F (Breakdown of flow. Traffic exceeds capacity.)
Fire District: Ogden FD
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Smith Creek (C;SW)
Aquifer Recharge Area: Primary recharge for principal aquifers.
ConservationlHistoric/ Archaeological Resources: None
Soils: Seagate (Se), Murville (Mu)
Septic Suitability: Class 11- moderate limitations (Se); Class III- Severe
limitations (Mu)
Schools: Blount Elementary
52
c ~ v ~
"
E
a.
0
Q; c . ,\<.\~G'J~':'P~'l
> ';;;
" Q. o gm ~~~ - ..\J"t'r1.-e.lt
C "0 vp.I't\\~ ~ ~
oll 0
"'C 0 j ffi 00 ~ ~ w ~ & ~ ----;',,\I;-\G-'\'?;?
C I: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
" Ql ;(\\\'l.\:..\r\"~
E Cl
10 Ql ~~~~~~~ ~m ~8~~~~~~~~;!;
" ...J
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
0.5
c,g ":" >- m ~ m ffi ~ < ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o !k:,! ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ffi ~ m g ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ 00
......... .s ~ w - ~ 0 <( d ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ::;:~ ~Z ~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ggg~
en ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8i~~~ISi~i~g~~gg~ ~~~~~~~~
:i 'g~ ~ ~8~ ffi ~ "It <u lL O(!)(9C>...J
N ~ 8: ' b5
!k:<(
53
APPLICANT MATERIALS
54
WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE
ZONING OF PROPERTY
Your intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district
proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance
with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on a Land Use Plan, you
must explain in the space below howyourrequest satisfies each ofthe following requirements:
I. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and
Development?
Rezoning of this property to R-lD is consistent with the CAMA Land Use Plan's objective to use
projected needs and available services to designate sufficient land area and suitable locations for
various land use types. There is a need for homes close to the county's major thoroughfares as
more people are drawn to urban centers, convenient to various services and workplaces; these
are the same people who are the market for the denser resident types as listed in the R-I0 district.
There are adequate public water and sewer services available to provide for all uses permitted in
the R-10 district. The property in question totals approximately 12 acres and provides enough
area for a residential community.
The subject properties currently abut R-lD on two sides. Rezoning will result in the extension of
the existing R-10 district by one lot. The integrity of the zoning map will remain intact.
2. How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classi-
fication Map?
This property is classified as Urban and provides for intensive development and higher densities
compared to other classifications. The R-lD is the most dense residential zoning district available
and permitted uses are appropriate for Urban areas.
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or howis
the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning?
Many of the uses permitted in I-I would be inappropriate in this setting. Several of the
manufacturing uses would constitute a nuisance to residents of the single family homes abutting
this property. Some of the uses require water frontage (marina, etc) missing at this property.
BusfTaxi services would generate too much traffic for this location. Agricultural uses would be
inappropriate in this Urban area and requite more nutrient-rich soil than what is existing. Retail
uses would be risky, if not unsuccessful, as this property has no frontage on Market Street.
In signing this petition, I understand thatthe existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that!
have the burden of proving why a change is in the public interest. I further understand the singling
out of one parcel ofland for special zoning treatment unrelated to County policies and the surrounding
neighborhood would probably be illegal. I certifY that all information presented in this application is
accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
Signat~~rowner
55
This page intentionally left blank.
56
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 5.2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Chris O'Keefe
Contact: Chris O'Keefe
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Item 2: Conditional Use Rezoning (Z-853, 11/06) - Request by SENCA Properties, llC to Rezone Approximately
50.35 Acres located in the 9000 Block of Market Street as Follows: 31.31 Acres from R-15 Residential to CD(O&I)
Conditional District for Expansion of New Hanover County Regional Medical Center Facilities and Stormwater
Facilities; and 18.47 Acres from R-15 Residential to CD(B-1) Conditional District for a Variety of Mixed Uses
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At its November 2,2006 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of the request by a vote of 3-1. Two
members of the Board recused themselves based on financial conflict of interest. Speakers from the public spoke both in
favor and against the proposal. Chief among the concerns expressed by the opponents was the traffic impact on an
already overburdened system and the water quality impact of impervious coverage in the Futch Creek drainage basin.
At the request of the petitioner, this item was continued from the December 4, 2006 Commissioners' agenda.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the conditional use rezoning portion of the request.
If the zoning is approved, the County Commissioners must approve or approve with conditions the accompanying special
use permit.
FUNDING SOURCE:
ATTACHMENTS:
~ ~
........
... .
z-s.~3-Staff Summa~' .doc Z -853-Petition Summary. doc
adjacent property owner map, applicant materials, and site plan
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
A motion to recuse Vice-Chairman Greer was approved 4-0. The conditional use rezoning was approved 4-0. The
accompanying special use permit was approved 4-0 with the two conditions proposed by staff as well as the following:
3) Only a not-for-profit hospital, which provides health care regardless of a patient's ability to pay, consistent with federal
and state guidelines, be allowed on the site.
4) The project must be able to accommodate public buses.
57
CASE: Z-853, 11/06;
PETITIONER: SENCA Properties, LLC
REQUEST: From R-15 Residential to CD(O&I) and CD(B-l)
ACREAGE: Approximately 50.35 Acres
LOCATION: 9000 block of N. Market St. (US 17)
LAND CLASS: Transition
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
At its November 2, 2006 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval ofthe request
by a vote of3-1. Two members of the Board recused themselves based on financial conflict
of interest. Speakers from the public spoke both in favor and against the proposal.
Chief among the concerns expressed by the opponents was the traffic impact on an
already overburdened system and the water quality impact of impervious coverage
in the Futch Creek drainage basin.
At the request of the petitioner, this item was continued from the December 4, 2006
Commissioners' agenda.
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located on N. Market Street, just south of the intersection with Scott's Hill
Loop Road. In September of2005, this request was denied by the County Commissioners. One
lot within the former proposal master plan was rezoned CD(O&I) for an outpatient surgery
facility which is currently under construction. The applicant requests that 31.31 acres of the total
acres be changed to a Conditional District (CD) for Office and Institutional (0&1) use by New
Hanover County Medical Center (26.93 acres) for use options of hospital, personal care facilities
and/or offices for professional activities, and for a stormwater facility (4.95 acres) that will help
serve the overall development. The remaining 18.47 acres is requested to be changed to
Conditional District (CD) for Business District (B-1) uses predominated by private medical
offices with associated retail and restaurant uses, but also including other potential mixed uses,
such as second-story residential dwellings, food stores, barber/beauty shops, dry cleaners, drug
stores, health club, convenience food stores, and others.
Market Street (US 17) is an identified arterial on the thoroughfare plan. Level of service was
rated F, by the MPO in 2005, meaning traffic volume exceeds capacity. The site is located north
of the 1-140 by-pass, so there is no traffic flow offset at this time, however, road improvements
are currently under way by NCDOT to install a "super street" concept along this segment. Within
the next 10 years, a Hampstead by-pass project could help manage traffic flow in the vicinity as
well. A traffic impact analysis has been completed. Since 2001, average daily traffic has
increased by about 27 %. The site is within a Special Highway Overlay District and subject to
special standards to preserve visual appeal. Traffic within the site is facilitated via a network of
radial streets and driveways converging at a traffic circle in the center of the project.
58
The subject property is currently undeveloped, partially cleared acreage. Public water and sewer
will be required and is available in the general vicinity.
The subject property is located within the Futch Creek watershed drainage area. None of the
subject property is located in a flood hazard area. The site is in a primary recharge area for the
Castle Hayne and PeeDee aquifers.
As a condition for rezoning, the applicant proposes that the uses will be restricted to those noted
on the site plan. A companion special use permit will bind the proposed use and restrictions to
this property. The project design has attempted to avoid development in the most sensitive areas
of the property and has incorporated a stormwater infiltration system into the design to treat
runoff before it flows off of the property.
Land Use Plan Considerations:
The 2005 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the Transition classification as areas
providing for future intensive urban development on lands that have or will have urban services.
One of the specified goals described in the plan reads, "Our region will offer outstanding,
affordable health care systems and facilities." For the portion of this project that focuses on the
aspects of medical care and service, this project would appear to offer opportunity to help address
that goal in a rapidly developing portion of the region. Many individual policies in the plan have
applicability to this proposal. They encourage environmental sensitivity in project design and
provision of standards and facilities to maintain quality of life and reduce dependence on the
automobile. Two policies appear to particularly support the type of concept proposed.
4.3 Maximize effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring that land is available for commercial
uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring that such uses do not
diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas.
5.1 Promote mixed use development away from sensitive areas within the urban services area and
higher density mixed use in redevelopment projects in order to maximize benefits from available
infrastructure, preserve valuable natural resources including open space, and reduce dependency
on the automobile.
This conditional rezoning petition proposes a change from moderate density R- I 5 residential use
to an array of institutional, office, retail, service and residential uses envisioned to serve the
medical and related needs of an expanding population in northern New Hanover and southern
Pender counties.
Based on the foregoing, this proposal would appear to be generally consistent with the Land Use
Plan. To better address quality of life considerations and to address the healthcare needs of the
areas growing population, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning.
ACTION #1 NEEDED:
Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A-341 which requires that "prior to
adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement
describing whether the action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and
explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public
interest. "
59
EXAMPLE:
The County Commissioners find that this request for zoning map amendment from R-15
Residential District to CD(O&I) Conditional Use Office & Institutional and CD(B-I) Conditional
Use Neighborhood Business District is (or is not):
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the Transition land classifications and the
associated land use policies adopted in the 2006 land use plan;
2. Reasonable and in the public interest to allow transition of acreage from a medium
density residential zoning class to a conditional use district associated with a site
specific plan of development for office, institutional, and commercial uses in this
location adjacent to existing R-15 Residential and CD (0&1) development and with
access to a major arterial roadway.
PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE COMPANION SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
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. Public water and sewer has been extended to the property by the developer.
B. The property accesses an identified arterial with a Level of Service F, indicating
that flow exceeds current capacity. Internal circulation of traffic and external
improvements to the existing roadway as shown in the traffic Impact Analysis
anticipate mitigating traffic impacts on the overburdened N. Market Street
arterial.
C. Fire Service is available from the Ogden Fire Department.
D. The property is not located in a flood hazard area.
E. Stormwater retention facilities have been included on the proposed site plan.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of
the Zoning Ordinance.
A. This request is made concurrent with conditional rezoning to CD(O&I) and
CD(B-I) as indicated on the site plan.
B. The proposed uses will be limited to those listed on the approved site plan for
each portion.
C. Petitioner proposes up to 40 upper-story residential units within the CD(B-l)
portion of the proposal.
D. Petitioner proposes off-street parking of 631 total spaces for the CD(B-I) portion
and 898 spaces for the CD(O&I) portion. Parking for the upper-story residential
units can be accommodated as dedicated or shared parking within the CD(B-I).
E. Traffic circulation system will be via internal streets and driveways with three
drive accesses to N. Market Street (US 17). A traffic impact analysis has been
prepared for this project which includes certain recommendations to mitigate
traffic impacts of the overall project.
F. The property is subject to the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD).
G. A tree survey has been provided. The eventual method of protection or mitigation
will be developed in compliance with Section 67 of the County ordinance.
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.
60
A. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of
residents who live nearby.
B. Stormwater management systems must be designed in accordance with the
County's ordinance in order to reasonably protect adjoining properties from off-
site runoff impacts.
C. Recent NCDOT "Superstreet" improvements along US 17 (Market Street) in this
vicinity have been designed to improve traffic flow.
D. Recommended improvements outlined within the Traffic Impact Analysis for this
project will be required.
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 2006 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Transition Classification, meaning
an area where intensive urban development is anticipated and where services are
or will be provided.
B. Policies in the plan support mixed use projects away from sensitive areas and in
the urban services area in order to reduce dependence on the automobile.
C. An existing Conditional Use District with Office and Institutional use is currently
approved and under construction adjacent to this proposal.
Staff suggested conditions:
1. NCDOT and MPO technical staff must concur with the TIA recommendations
for road improvements.
2. Internal street system must provide adequate access and maneuverability to
accommodate emergency vehicles to the satisfaction of County Fire Services.
ACTION # 2 NEEDED:
(Choose one)
1. Motion to Approve (with or without conditions) based on positive findings of
fact.
2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or
documentation (Specify).
3. Motion to Deny based on specific findings in any of the 4 categories above,
such as lack of consistency with adopted plans or determination that the
project will pose public hazards or will not adequately meet requirements of
the ordinance.
61
Case: Z-853 (11/06)
Petition Summary Data
OwnerIPetitioner: SENCA Properties
Existing Land Use: Vacant (R-15) Requesting 31.31 acres to CD(O&I) and 18.47
acres to CD(B-l)
Zoning History: July 6, 1971 (Area 5); Prior Request denied 10/05
Land Classification: Transition
Water Type: Public in vicinity
Sewer Type: Public in vicinity
Recreation Area: Ogden Park
Access & Traffic Volume: Market Street, an identified Arterial
Traffic LOS is F(2005) with ADT approximately
26,597(4/05)
Fire District: Ogden FD
Watershed & Water Oualitv Classification: Futch Creek (SA)
Aquifer Recharge Area: Primary Recharge for Castle Hayne and Peedee aquifers
Conservation/Historic/Archaeological Resources: SHOD; no other protected areas
Soils: Ly- Lynn Haven fine sand, Kr- Kureb sand, Mu- Murville fine sand, Wa-
Wakulla sand, Ke- Kenansville fine sand
Septic Suitability: Mu & Ly are Class III, severe lirnitations; Kr, Wa & Ke are
Class I, suitable
Schools: Blair Elernentary
62
s-
o
"'
".
It)
,..
I
a:
'"
"C
o
.r:::
(/)
Z
~
o c
<( 'm
- ~ Ci .- .,.... iN ,(I')!V l/)]o:o;r-- ,CO (0 ......1C\l It") ,..,!It'I (0 If'-. jCOja))O ,... I~ (f) ,,,,, i<n 1<0 "'" lco I"' 0 I...... IN 1M I~ U) 1(0 i.!O '.lll
"';"0 CJ"O f6 ;~ i ! 1 ! i :' i"- -1-)-1....1..- -l"-rr-iC\Jri (\J,Nt N1NIC\l C\l!M,<n,M(' .(<):(")! )
OJ -! "a .~ g '? ;~ : I. i ~ 1 t.;! I I: ! i! i!.!i i , ]1 I i.
-- C C) i:j:: N : i:;," i i \ :' : I j j ~:
8 gf Gl ....~..... 0 " , " i' I' !, I I I I
o "- ~..:. '. I I I : ,I 1 I a !' I I I I l! I
- i ..J. .. .... ~ ,I I I II I' Iffi :; I I, I" I~ I I'm I I '
U) a. . . "' ,'I , , I O. II, , I ::f 0: I :'i I "
";" 0... >-0: WF 1m .. '^ lID I I ~ j ~CD I, ~ w i !~ 1, I, J I! I'~ I~ z ia:: I . I --.l' .;; () ~
r- on I..... l ;:)1 J:: I I I -.J 1= z <I '<:(' :-. -' -1
a: a.. a: 'W ~ cc w! I~ I w ~ 0 1m \ I I I 1 IS: l "I 0 <:( 0 I I I Ill: a:' I~..J (/)
~ ~~ ,ffi ~:~I~:~I~, '~I~:~i ~I~'!!i !~JI~'~ ~I i8' : ! '~; I i~I~1 I~I~ ~ ~1~1~1~:~I~I~r~ ~!tB:~ ~
.......... ;a Z I~ ffi 10 lif IU 10 \ g 10 I~ I> f31f3 I:; \ !" '" Icc ..J l Ig. ,!w I <( P'I::i >- 10 ~ :It: fl; f3/m ffi 1f31~ 10 l~ ~ i~ Its c
.,... 0 W Q!O -'!~ ~ I~ I~; ;0 f(ij!5 ~ 11m ~ ~ I~! 51~ ~ >- I iw ," ,> I l~ 1>- ~!~ ~ I'm l~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~'~ ~ 1U51~ ~ la r~ 'g
.,... -U) a Cl ~ I 'F F- 1m d..... IF ill W w lw - I IF ill I 0:: ~ I <( 0 1~ '2 0 10 W wI 2"""') ill ill ill fw ...J ill _ I 'w
M 8 E . ~ ~ Ii rffi:~ I~ I~'~ I~:~ ~ IB I~ I~ I~;~!~ il~:~ Itsl~,~'~ Its:~ I~II~:~ I;!~!~ I~ ~ I~ I~ I~ !~,~ I~ I~ Iffi ~!~ i~;~
o m z.~ ~ ~ ",>-J~i~l~ ~1~i~I~!~!a!~ ~IO:: ~!OO ~iffil~!I F ~:~iw!~ ~I~l~~o::!al> ~I:'il~ a!~:al~J~!ffi O::I~I~ ~
~ ~~a. ~ >-o,'~w:I~I~ ::~I~!~I'~I~!lgl!~I~:~I~i~l~lzjgll;l~ ~lgl;;wwz[~IIWm~'o~I~!91~'I~I~ ~ ~11~i~~~I'~lcI2~~10~1'~ ~
""" u "- ,- U1 R ~ -12 0:: Z 12 ,...J <( 1- I...J I'" 1- :> -' :2 -:> '- I 10 III: I~ ~ I~ ~ 12 2 12 Z 0:: >- z 1.,,11 "'""
I "';" CL ~ CI) 0 JO <( ,0:: :I:!_ ~ i- '0:: W Ie( lill!W 0 a: Ia: I:J W 0:: ill I _ 0:: lill '0:: 10:: 10 I l-'- c( c( c( :J F ill W ill lill jc( 10 I=> 10 10 JW W
N CC c:( m W '0 ilD CI) Z I"'" 2 tlD un to.. (() (J) CJ l:D IlD 1::2 !D 0.. tz 0 '(f.I Ia.. 12 CJ a. ,0:: > '(f.I lL ::2 ~ ,:2 ,00 (/) r.n CI) en J: lD m C) C/) ,m to
63
APPLICANT MATERIALS
64
PRELIMINARY REZONING PLAN
Scotts Hill Village
,/ ~~ I--
" -
.1 -~-I
.4MNPlNBISZUQUDm,unJlUltA
'\
.lI.
" '......,g
.Scotts Hill Village .
SITE DATA;
..
\ \
105.250 sf , ~~.NlfCJl-J.5
. .
APPROXIMAlE BUILDING LOT COVERAGE - 157- I
APPROXlMAlE IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE - 50'; .
NOTE WELL: MAXIMUM TOTAL AREA OF RETAlL USAGE \
ALLOMCD IS TO BE UMITED TO BO,OOO SF.
NOlE WELL: NO PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT I.
IS TO EXCEED 25.000 SF. I
USES ALLOMCD IN B-1 CONDI1l0NAL DISlRICT:
MISC-
OFFICES FOR BUSINESS &: PROFESSIONAL ACTIVlllES
ACCESSORY BLDGS INCIDENTAL TO PERMITIED USES "-
SINGLE FAMILY DWElliNG ATTACHED. SECOND STORY '\
ONLY. MAXIMUM OF 40 UNITS
GOVERNMENT Of ACES &: BUILDINGS
PRINCIPAL USE SIGN "N.H.R.M.C. Tract"
TEMPORARY SIGN
RETAIL - SITE DATA: ZONED: Proposed Od.:l (CD)
APPAREL & ACCESSORY STORE
CONVENIENCE FOOD 5TORE lot Area = 26.93 acres
DRUG STORE Disturbed Area = 25 acres :t
EATING &: DRINKING PLACES B/dg.Height = J5'max. or as per- NHC ordinances
FOOD STORES 858 Regular spaces or as per NHC ordinances
4 Loading spaces or as per NHC ordinances
GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORES 36 Handicap spaces or os per NHC ordinances and ADA
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL lMPER\lJOUS ARrA TABULA nON:
FINANCING - Predeveloped - 0.00 acre
BANKS. CREDIT AGENCIES, SAVINGS &: LOANS Postdeveloped -
SERVICES - o. Buildings - not to exceed 3.3 acres
BUSINESS SERVICES INCLUDING PRINTING b. Parking & Street - 10.7 acres :f:
DRY CLEANING
MEMBERSHIP SPORTS & RECREATION CLUBS APPROXIMATE BUILDING LOT COVERAGE - 157-
PERSONAL SERVICES APPROXIMA IT IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE = 607-
BARBER / BEAUn' SHOP
UTlUTlES - USES PERMITTEO IN 0&1 CONOITIONAL OISlRICT:
TELEPHONE &: TELEGRAPH FACIUTIES _ FERSONAL CARE FACILITIES
_ (,ffICES FOR PROFESSIONAL AC.IVlTlES
- HOSPITAL
--"-"
65
., - . .
SCOTTS HILL VILLAGE PROJECT
RE-ZONING SUMMARY
10/26/06
SENCA Properties, LLC, a partnership of 105 physicians, proposes a comprehensive plan to
locate a wide array of medical services in one location to serve the fast growing communities of
northern New Hanover and southeastern Pender Counties.
The first step, a new, four operating room, out patient surgical center is currently under
construction. The petition recently submitted to New Hanover County proposes rezoning 50.35
acres adjacent to the surgi-center as follows:
26.93 acres shall be sold to New Hanover Regional Medical Center. An 0&1 Conditional
District (CD) is proposed to accommodate their future extension of medical services to
northern New Hanover County.
18.47 acres will be developed under a B.1 Conditional District (CD), providing
predominately private medical offices with complementary retail and restaurant uses
planned.
4.95 acres within the 0&1 (CD) zone will serve as a storm water facility for both sections
above.
Question: What is a Conditional District?
The conditional district approach effectively allows creation of a site-specific zoning. Detailed
conditions are imposed, which very specifically limit the uses allowed, as well as the amount of
open space, and other factors. Effectively a "special use" permit, the planners and citizens have
assurance that a project will be built as specified. Any significant change with the plan would
require a new permit be applied for and be approved.
The specific uses requested in each Conditional District are listed on the attached site map.
Question: Will storm water runoff impact the creeks?
A storm water system has been designed and permitted to capture and contain runoff. Extensive
study concludes the geological substrata and the surface soils create rather unique conditions that
allow all storm water to be contained and infiltrated. The system shall not discharge into Futch
or Foy Creeks. Geologist Paul Clark and engineer David Hollis have provided brief written
summaries. The detailed studies and analyses have been shared with several local environmental
groups and are available for review upon request.
66
- .
.-
.
Question: Will the project overburden the roadways?
The county-mandated Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) from last year was updated to
include:
A. The 2000 acre residential and commercial project planned for Sidbury Road and Hwy 17;
and
B. A hypothetical full build out of the entire 240 acre "Skipper Property", well beyond the
scope of the 50 acre rezoning
The detailed report by traffic engineers Kimley Horne of Raleigh concludes:
".. . all of the study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service
at project build out in 2010."
And as a practical matter, most nearby residents who receive medical services at this complex
will have been saved a 20-plus mile round trip into the heart of Wilmington.
Question: Will exterior lighting be regulated?
Yes, New Hanover County ordinance requires commercial lighting be buffered. Scotts Hill
Village will utilize "shoebox" style low light emissions fixtures with cut-off features.
Question: Will green space be preserved within the project?
The design illustrates a total impervious area (buildings, roads and parking) of23.25 acres within
the 50.35 acre rezoning area, or about 46% overall. Generally speaking, most commercial
projects range from 75-85% impervious area.
Part of that green space will be the natural ridge adjoining the main entrance road to the south.
Rather than being grated flat for development, this ridge will be left with its natural slope intact
and most trees preserved.
Question: Will wetlands on site be disturbed?
Yes, just under 1/10th of an acre will be filled for a road crossing under a permit issued by the
Corps of Engineers. However, the remaining 7.15 acres of delineated 404 wetlands (98.6%)
remain undisturbed over the development of the entire 240 acre Skipper Property.
Question: Will septic tanks be utilized?
No, SENCA has extended both the water and sewer mains from the Plantation Landing
subdivision up to highway 17 to service the entire property. Further, by county mandate, a 16"
main will extend south along Highway 17 to create a loop system, enhancing pressure.
67
i'age 1 01 1
-
Mike Nadeau
From: "Mallin, Michael A." <mallinm@uncw.edu>
To: <mike@creativeproperties_biz>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 1 :23 PM
Attach: Mike Nadeau letter. doc
Subject: Senca Properties
Dear Mr. Nadeau,
Attached please find my comments on the interesting Scotts Hill Village project.
best wishes,
Mike Mallin
Dr. Michael A. Mallin
Research Professor
Center for Marine Science
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
5600 Marvin K. Moss Lane
Wilmington, N.C. 28409 USA
phone 910 962-2358
fax 910 962-2410
email mallinm@],JD~w.e~tLJ
lab website: httR:llwww. Urr~\fV~clulcm~rL<:lquj!ticec_olQgy:/Lal2oratoJY
11/20/2006
68
.
.
Mr. Mike Nadeau
Creative Properties
15894 Highway 17
Hampstead, NC 28443
Dear Mr. Nadaeu, November 20, 2006
Per our recent phone conversation you indicated that Senca Properties "Scotts Hill Project" is
under consideration again and asked me to take another look at the stormwater facilities designed
for it. As a water quality expert with much experience on the nearby tidal creek system I am
happy to say that I am quite impressed with the stormwater management plan. As I understand it
the on-site stormwater will be captured by an infiltration system beneath the development. The
geology report noted the Karst topography with sand-filled channels, which should both rapidly
convey and properly treat the runoffbefore it reaches the aquifer. The estimated infiltration rates
of 1 to 8 inches per hour will handle the vast majority of storms; should excess runoff occur it
would enter a wet detention pond and from there enter a wetland, keeping it well away from
Futch or Foy Creeks. As nitrate and some chemicals are able to pass through sand infiltration
systems, I do wish to reiterate a couple of suggestions. I suggest landscaping using native plants
only - this will limit fertilizer use on site. Also, pesticides should be used only in dry conditions
and in limited amounts as welL Finally, in these fossil fuel-limited times I do hope Scotts Hill
Village will take advantage of new advances in solar and energy-efficient technologies. This
will save the occupants money in the long run, make less of an impact on our natural resources
and perhaps make the development a showcase for new green development.
Regarding the latter statement, I want you to be aware that there is a new program called the
Lower Cape Fear Stewardship Development Program, which honors both residential and
commercial developments that make a commitment to utilizing "green" building techniques,
going above and beyond the norm for water quality protection and wildlife habitat enhancement.
Those developments that meet the criteria can receive either an Outstanding Achievement A ward
or a Significant Achievement Award. The Program is administered by the New Hanover Soil
and Water Conservation District and has the backing of the Home Builders Association and other
entities. The contact person is Ms. Shelly Miller, 910 798-6032, shelly.miller@nhswcd.org.
Best regards,
Michael A. Mallin, Ph.D.
Center for Marine Science
University of North Carolina Wilmington
69
" If;
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stormwater Infiltration Study
for the
Proposed Scotts Hill Village Project
October, 26, 2006
SENCA Properties, LLC, engaged The Clark Group to
evaluate site-specific geological circumstances at the proposed
project site in order to determine whether infiltration could be
utilized as a viable stormwater management strategy. The
studies involved the installation of seventy-five piezometers
and test wells, the conduct of extensive hydraulic testing of
surficial and subsurface materials, and the generation
hydrogeologic models to assess the feasibility of stormwater
infiltration. The purpose of the studies was to provide
information to the project architect and engineer to be
considered in the design process.
In the course of the investigation, it was determined that the
site is situated in a karst geologic terrane, whereas an
underlying limestone unit has been chemically weathered to
develop a system of collapsed cavities (dolines, aka sinkholes),
which are filled with overlying permeable sands. The resulting
sinks are natural recharge areas for the underlying limestone
aquifer. These features are also uniquely suited to stormwater
infiltration.
70
"<"
" .
Measured hydraulic loading rates were adequate for the design
to anticipate zero runoff, although the engineered design does
incorporate a safeguard route of overflow via a grassy swale
buffer to an existing isolated wetlands system.
Measured infiltration rates in the project area ranged upward
from one to over eight inches per hour, which are well in excess
of the state-required minimum of one-half inch per hour under
similar permitting scenarios. The project engineer's design of
the stormwater infiltration system utilized areas of high
capacity.
Overall, the unique characteristics of this project site have
allowed the design of a system that should ensure no
stormwater leaves the site via surface water discharge.
71
I
From: "David Hollis" <dhollis@hdsilm.com> Hanover Design Services, P.A.
To: "Mike Nadeau" <mike@creativeproperties.biz> 319 Walnut Street
Cc: "Greg Wayne" <gwayne@hdsilm.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 26,200610:50 AM Wilmington, N.C. 28401
Subject: RE: Scotts Hill stormwater management practices Phone: 910-343-8002
Mike:
All stormwater management systems are to be designed to or above State and New Hanover County
requirements.
State regulations govern water quality and treatment methodologies could include BMPs (best management
practices) such as infiltration, wetlands storage, vegetated "rain gardens", ponds, porous pavement, filter strips
and swales, as well as other accepted practices. Plans are approved by DENR / Division of Water Quality.
County regulations govern stormwater rate and are among the strictest in the State, restricting the post-
development runoff rate to or below predevelopment levels for the 2-,10-, and 25-year events. Existing on-site is
an approved, constructed stormwater management pond sized for the existing Surgicenter site and future
commercial planning as reflected on the rezoning Conditional Development Plan. This pond discharges into an
essentially landlocked delineated wetlands conservation easement for recharge and preservation. All plans are
approved by New Hanover County Engineering.
A third set of regulations govern sedimentation, and the prevention of any erosion or deposition of sediment into
waters or wetlands. Engineered methodologies include filter fabric, inlet and outlet protection, sediment traps and
basins, vegetated berms, swales and diversions, as well as construction sequencing and maintenance
scheduling. Plans are approved by New Hanover County Engineering under authority of the State Land Quality
Section.
All future phases of construction require individual permits from the appropriate agencies, involving detailed
scrutiny of stormwater management plans.
David
--------~---- - ---~--- .--_.._------_.._-----_._--~.._--~- .-. ..---.-_._-.---
From: Mike Nadeau [mailto:mike@creativeproperties.biz]
Sent: Thursday, October 26,200610:11 AM
To: David Hollis
Subject: Scotts Hill
David, I know you were leaving town today but I do not know what time. If you get a chance, please write a
short summary of the stormwater system.
Thanks, Mike
10/26/2006
72
~ ,
~=n K'unley-Hom
and Associates. Inc.
Memorandum .
PO Ilolm&
RaIIIP. NoItI ClIdina
To: Mike Nadeau, Creative Properties 27e3&3l6ll
From: Richard C. Adams, P.E. \
Date: November 16, 2006
Subject: Scotts Hill Village Rezoning - Trip Generation, Level of Service
Per our discussion, below are some supplemental facts regarding tIle trip
generation of the proposed Scotts Hill Village rezoning, and the Level of Service
(LOS) of US 17 in the site vicinity.
Trio Generation
. Trip generation for the rezoning creates a net increase of around 12,800
daily trips for the site (over existing zoning)-
. Most of these additional trips will be trips that would be made with or
without this rezoning This development will not create patients,
injuries, or illnesses; they will come from the existing population and
massive growth expected for this part of the region (with or without this
development).
. To better explain this, consider that approximately two thirds of the
rezoning trip generation is medical, and the remaining one third is retail.
. The primary purpose of constructing a medical campus here is to serve
the demands of this area of New Hanover and Pender County; thus it is
reasonable to assume that the vast majority of the trips to the proposed
hospital and medical office facilities will be trips that would otherwise be
on the roadway network in the region, but would be drawn to this facility
rather than other (likely more distant) facilities.
. Thus it is reasonable to assume that at over one half of the trips to and
from this development will be trips that would be made otherwise on the
surrounding street network, rather than new trips that would otherwise
not exist without this development.
. To a lesser extent. many of the retail trips will also be drawn ITom
background traffic, since this center will provide small to medium sized
retail services that are otherwise available throughout the region. This
center will target homes, businesses, and travelers already in or coming
to this specific area,
.
TEL 919 517 2000
FAX 919 6T1 21l5O
73
.
,
.
.
US 17 Level-of-Service (LOS)
. The current Level-of-Service on US 17 should be revised to reflect the
current 4-lane "Superstreet" configuration that has been constructed in
the site vicinity. Common guidelines for this type of facility would give
this road a Level-of-Service "B" based on the most recent traffic count
from NCDOr (24,000 vehicles a day).
. Additionally, planning and environmental documentation has begun for
the Hampstead Bypass, which will route US 17 traffic around this area
via a bypass from 1-140 to US 17 north of Hampstead in Pender County.
While construction of this road is several years off, for 10ng-telTT1
scenarios this road will provide relief to the expected traffic growth on
US 17 in this area.
74
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 5.3 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Chris O'Keefe
Contact: Chris O'Keefe
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Item 3: Rezoning (Z- 855, 12106) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for E & B Properties to Rezone Approximately
19.25 Acres in the Aquifer Resource Protection land Classification at 1916 Rockhill Road from R-20 to R-15
Residential District
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At its December 7,2006 meeting, the Planning Board was unable to reach a recommendation on this item. Motions to
approve and to deny the request both tied at a vote of 3-3. Four people from the area spoke against the rezoning,
expressing concerns about drainage, traffic, quality of life, character of the area, and potential for mobile home
development. Written statements were also received from neighbors.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the petition.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~ ~
........
... .
z-s.~5-Staff Summa~' .doc Z -855-Petition Summar}'. doc
adjacent property map, applicant materials (2 items)
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
The item was continued at the request of the petitioner.
75
CASE: Z-855, 12/06;
PETITIONER: Withers & Ravenel for E&B Properties, L.L.C.
REQUEST: From R-20 Residential to R-15 Residential District
ACREAGE: Approximately 19.25 Acres
LOCATION: 1916 Rockhill Road
LAND CLASS: Aquifer Resource Protection
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
At it's December 7, 2006 meeting, the Planning Board was unable to reach a
recommendation on this item. Motions to approve and to deny the request both tied at a
vote of 3-3. Four people from the area spoke against the rezoning, expressing concerns
about drainage, traffic, quality of life, character of the area, and potential for mobile home
development. Written statements were also received from neighbors.
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located along Rockhill Road in the vicinity of Kennedy Drive. Rockhill
Road is classified as a collector roadway off Castle Hayne Road near the 1-140 bypass. No Level
of Service (LOS) is available for Rockhill Road. LOS was F (exceeds capacity) on Castle Hayne
Road as of April 2005.
The subject property is currently vacant and wooded. Low density single family development is
prevalent on all sides. To the south, the property abuts an R-15 residential district on Oakley
Circle.
The subject property is located within the Ness Creek watershed drainage area but is not
influenced by flood zone or protected wetland soils.
Water and sewer are currently available along Rockhill Road. Sewage from the site would be
treated at the Northside Treatment facility. Currently, capacity at the facility is limited and is
being allocated in 15,000 gpd (approximately 41 single family homes) units. NHC Engineering
Department advises it is possible the project would not be allowed to connect to the District
system, even after design, permitting and construction, if flows through the Northside WWT plant
reach maximum limits. The projected date of increased capacity available in the Northside plant
is 2009.
Land Use Plan Considerations:
The 2006 Update ofthe Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Resource
Protection class as providing for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic,
scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources_ The Aquifer Resource Protection Area is a subclass
of this classification and recognizes the location of the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee aquifer
recharge areas needing protection from diminished recharge and potential contamination.
Protection strategies in the plan encourage larger lot development if septic systems are used.
Related Policies:
76
3.26 "Ensure that all land use and development decisions protect groundwater aquifers."
3.28 "Preserve the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee aquifers in their present unpolluted state as the
primary groundwater resources for the County."
3.28.4 "Allow density to increase to urban densities in the Aquifer Protection Areas as sewer
service is provided."
3.28.5 "Require on-site infiltration to the extent soils allow."
4.1 "Designate sufficient land area and suitable locations for the various land use types."
5.5.5 "Encourage development within the urban services area where existing infrastructure is
available."
5.7 "Preserve the character of the area's existing residential neighborhoods and quality of life."
6.5 "Require street connectivity and prohibit cul-de-sacs that impede connectivity through better
collector street planning."
6.6.2 "Continue to require traffic impact analysis in the development review process for major
development and redevelopment projects."
10.4 "Protect water quality by ensuring that drainage from land use activities has a rate offlow
and volume characteristics as near to predevelopment conditions as possible."
This rezoning petition proposes an increase in residential density for property adjacent to an
existing R-15 district (Oakley Circle). Such a change would expand the residential density policy
in the area and increase density on this acreage from 1.9 units per acre to 2.5 units per net acre on
performance residential design or 4.25 to 10.2 per acre for high density by special use permit.
The maximum potential development scenarios would be:
R-20 R-15
Performance Residential 37 units 48 units
High Density (Not an option because of Land Classification)
Traffic flow along Rockhill Road and its impact on Castle Hayne Road is a consideration;
however, Oakley Circle to the south has been designed with street stubs for interconnectivity
between Rockhill Road and Oakley Road. Weekday average trip generation for single family
detached units is estimated to generate 9.57 trips per day (ITRE manual). Approximate traffic
additions would be:
R-20 R-15
Performance Residential 354 459
High Density (Not an option because of Land Classification)
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the above analysis, and with caveats relating to reliance on public sewer, the proposal
appears to be consistent with the Land Use Plan and staff recommends approval of this rezoning.
ACTION NEEDED:
Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A-341 which requires that "prior to
adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement
describing whether the action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and
explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public
interest."
77
EXAMPLE:
The County Commissioners find that this request for zoning map amendment from R-20 low
density residential to R-15 medium density residential district is (or is not):
1, Consistent with the purposes and intent of the Aquifer Resource Protection land
classifications and the associated land use policies adopted in the 2006 land use plan;
2. Reasonable and in the public interest to allow increased residential density from a
base density of 1,9 units per acre to a base density of2.5 units per acres in this
location adjacent to existing R - I 5 Residential development and fronting on a
collector street.
78
Case: Z-855 (12/06)
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: Withers & Ravenel for E&B Properties
Existing Land Use: Vacant (R-20) Requesting (R-15)
Zoning History: July 1, 1974 (Area lOA)
Land Classification: Aquifer Resource Protection
Water Type: Public available at site
Sewer Type: Public is possible, but not guaranteed due to lirnited capacity
Recreation Area: Cape Fear Optimist Park
Access & Traffic Volume: Castle Hayne Rd., an identified Arterial
Traffic LOS is F (April 2005) with ADT
approximately 18,793 (8/04) and 15,000 in 2001
(+25%)
Fire District: Wrightsboro FD
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Ness Creek (C, SW)
Aquifer Recharge Area: Secondary Recharge for Castle Hayne and Peedee
aquifers
Conservation/Historic/Archaeological Resources: No protected resources
Soils: Se- Seagate fine sand; Wo - Woodington Fine Sandy Loam; On - Onslow
loarny fine sand
Septic Suitability: Class II soils - Moderate limitation with moderate rnodification
and maintenance required
Schools: Wrightsboro Elementary
79
1 I I \
---m i 1 ,).., \ \ \ \ \
t1I ) \ ~
r'~ [1 '\
11 .
h~
I L/7 liT
r--3~~^/~a J / / / /
Nl,,:uJ,no I I RUSTIC.tNb
Nltl/;L
iT Q I
~ T' T I In
- ttrfl I : ' 1111 '" I~
~o A03NN3l/ ~ ~ \ f-' I
rj ~ 1 N \ \
I 'I~ . ; ,\\ 1
QlI~) m ,,~ OAKLEY CIR
Q" ." ~ TIT
C'l! ..,(~~ D::: LL
'1
I m m
~ ~ c
r---I~ I I.Q">'lielV/for ""',\
:=-1 -=[33:L\f^I~d ~ ~ '&~ -/
i t\~ 'C-
...." ~ "OW- ~
o ~,'ij, ~
-c::::::1I.L~^/~d '~ ," 'i%,
lo\ElllOii'! \.Il :~- "r-r-
':a~i
1< / /1
...~~
~'-~~M! cTf!lP(~'3::!SINIW3~ ~""'\,,:r\ "
_ hLL}fj.,-
~ t._...m.::~--QJ l,-~
~ ~ ~ :: ~ ~ :t ~ ~ ~ r ~ . ,3_::'-'Q.<lJ'WL\~3
~ .!:
~ ~ I --
CD " "' 'r-
G;'D.~g~
c c:: Cl;;:;; N
, . ,n cc ' ~
'" g'. :[:",'f8 " g: w Jm N~
~ -I .. ..llid::~:J III ~ ~ f2 ~ ~ L 000M'N0.w.0::>
(0 ~.~ 1)5Q ;t;t ~ ;t~1li
~ . i ! I"'.'" ~ g." i!! '''- a~,",
...."';::e ~il!~ffi~~~li;ili'''' ""um ;::'m ~
_ "';" .. 0.. ' :!! .. u. " U ,.: Ii z ili! Ii; gj - 1; ~ lfj 15
CO"'Q.Ol' ;.. ~ '" III is .... Q
, N ~u ,"\ " jld l!l!' Ii ~U I,,! "i i::::;-' "' ;,
." "'J'\ ~";It:;IIlI>lg: VA1~ ~ \\
. ~JIftC~~ (f
I IT 7JJJ
80
APPLICANT MATERIALS
81
WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE
ZONING OF PROPERTY
Y ourintended useofpropertyupon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district
proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance
with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based onaLand Use Plan, you
must explain in the space belowhowyourrequest satisfies eachofthe following requirements:
1. Howwould the requested change be consistent with the County's Polides for Growth and
Development?
The policies for growth and development encourage safe and affordable housing to be
available to every citizen. Rezoning this property for a slightly higher-density of residential
development would be consistent with the concept of transitioning uses, and in-filling
vacant parcels where existing utilities can readily be extended and urban services are
available.
2. Howwould the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classi-
fication Map?
The 2006 Land Classification Plan identifies this area as Aquifer Resource Protection.
Larger lots are recommended if septic tanks are used, but density to 2.5 units per acre
would be appropriate with public sanitary sewer service. The tract is within the 2006
Urban Service Boundary, which considers areas intended for more intensive
development. Water & sanitary sewer mains are within a reasonable distance for
extension to the site.
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to makethe original zoning inappropriate, or howis
the land involved unsuitable fortheuses pennitted uoderthe existing zoning?
The availability of public water and sanitary sewer make a medium-density zoning district
more applicable for the subject tract. Commercial services are available nearby along the
Castle Hayne Road. The difference in total units permitted between the R-20 (@ 1.9
units/ac.= 36) and R-15 (@ 2.5 units/ac.= 48) densities would be an increase of twelve
(12) units if the project were developed under "performance residential" criteria.
In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that I
have the burden of proving why a change is in the public interest. I further understand the singling
out of one parcel ofIand fur special zoning trestmentunrelated to County policies and the sulTounding
neighborhood would probably be illegal. I certifY that aD infonnation presented in this application is
accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief
10
er'S
~~~lr-)
82
>-<
f-< 0 '"
<>. S ~ !iiPII q l- ~
~ (~ 0 < ' ",I.ll " U ! f n II M:H~! ~ 9d~! M
~ .U~ 1111'" iI II COO ~ "III ! I ~
Q( a _', ~ ~ 0 ~~ ~ ~ 11!lt . . i N
g; ~~ ~~~~Uj~~ .. M
8~ ~ ~ II"!! ~ Q.
o aU uO ~ "lI'
~ ~ 15 !l!!i'-'-"- ffi ~ ~ ~ ~I~ <(
>:Ii "I"~~~
~ i'ii .;;.mmi~ oD::: I- (of) IS lIu I ::E
~o 0 <( .. illliJ
o 0 t ~ i lid~!
Z i . i~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~iib
~ 0 1'- "
~ II i;i;~i; ~~ I'! ~ 'I'il
~ is I~lll~l~"l ~@ ~ ~ l.!I'1
~ dlill!iiilii =:." <( d~ ~"'
U) .mm~!!Ini ~ ~ illill
iKi!~!I.Jm a. i!:l~~
~ .,
-~
.
!
,
H
,
,
--
-,.
83
This page intentionally left blank.
84
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 5.4 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Chris O'Keefe
Contact: Chris O'Keefe
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Item 4: Rezoning (Z- 856, 12106) - Request by Rockford Partners, llC to Rezone Approximately 144.14 Acres at the
Western Terminus of Rockhill Road in the Conservation and Wetland Resource Protection land Classifications
from R-20 to R-15 Residential District
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At its December 7,2006 meeting, the Planning Board recommended denial of this request by a vote of 4-2. There were no
public comments from adjacent property owners.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the petition.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~ ~
........
... .
Z-S.~E-Staff Summa~' .doc Z -856-Petition Summary. doc
adjacent property owner map, applicant materials (2 items)
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Denied the request 4-1, Caster opposing.
(revised)
85
CASE: Z-856, 12/06;
PETITIONER: Rockford Partners, LLC
REQUEST: From R-20 Residential to R-15 Residential District
ACREAGE: Approximately 144 Acres
LOCATION: Rockhill Road near 1-140
LAND CLASS: Conservation and Wetland Resource Protection
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
At its December 7,2006 meeting, the Planning Board recommended denial of this request
by a vote of 4-2. There were no public comments from adjacent property owners.
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located on Rockhill Road west of Walnut Hills Subdivision and to the
terminus of the road on both sides of the 1-140 overpass. There is no access to 1-140 at this
location. Rockhill Road is classified as a collector roadway off Castle Hayne Road. No Level of
Service (LOS) is available for Rockhill Road. LOS was F (exceeds capacity) on Castle Hayne
Road as of April 2005.
The subject property is made up of three parcels, the largest of which has been bisected by the
construction ofI-140. West ofI-140 is a 22.42 acre parcel and approximately 38 acres of the
bisected parcel. Only about 6 acres of the 22 acre parcel is high land, and the majority of the high
acreage on the 38 acre partial parcel has been used as a borrow pit. To the east ofI-140, the
remainder ofthe bisected parcel accounts for about 63 acres, but only about 11 acres of that
parcel is high land and that portion is primarily located close up to the highway right-of-way.
The third parcel is 19.7 acres and represents the only cohesive high ground well suited for
development. The land to the east ofI-140 is vacant and wooded.
The subject property is located within the Little Creek watershed drainage area and is heavily
influenced by brackish marsh, swamp forest, flood zone and protected wetland soils. Relic rice
fields from old Rock Hill Plantation are noted in the deed. The better soils on the bisected parcel
have been used for borrow pits.
The applicant intends to use septic systems. Water and sewer does not currently extend to this
area ofthe county. Water could be extended to the NHC system from the current lines on Rock
Hill Road. A regional lift station would be required to serve the site if public sewer were desired.
Land Use Plan Considerations:
The 2006 Update ofthe Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose ofthe Resource
Protection class as providing for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic,
scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources. The plan states that density in the Conservation class
----------.-
86
shall not be permitted to exceed 2.5 units per acre and may be required as low as I unit per acre
or less, depending on the environmental constraints within a particular area.
This rezoning petition proposes an increase in residential density for property
overwhelmingly influenced by environmental sensitivity. Furthermore, much of the high ground
area has been altered for the 1-140 bypass in such a way as to make development awkward and
impractical. The change requested would expand the residential density on this acreage from 1.9
units per acre to 2.5 units per net acre on performance residential. Staff estimates that only about
44% of the total acreage is high ground. The maximum potential development scenarios are
particularly difficult to represent on this property because of the dominance of wet areas. Since
the ordinance allows for protected areas to be left as open space and still be calculated for density
purposes, the maximum potential would be:
R-20 R-15
Performance Residential 217 units 285 units
High Density (not an option because of Land Classification)
Traffic flow along Castle Hayne Road is a consideration. There is no opportunity for
interconnectivity with other collectors or local streets in this location. Weekday average trip
generation for single family detached units is estimated to generate 9.57 trips per day (ITRE
manual). Approximate traffic additions would be:
R-20 R-15
Performance Residential 2,077 2,727
High Density (Not an option because of Land Classification)
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the above analysis, the reliance on septic systems in an environmentally sensitive area,
and the physical limitations of the property, staff feels the R-20 designation is the most
appropriate zoning for this sensitive area, and that the proposed change is not reasonable nor in
the public interest. Staff recommends denial of the rezoning, but would support rezoning only
the 19.7 acre tract adjacentto Walnut Hills, an existing R-I 0 district, since it does not share the
same environmental sensitivity and development impracticalities ofthe other tracts.
ACTION NEEDED:
Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A-341 which requires that "prior to
adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement
describing whether the action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and
explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public
interest. "
EXAMPLE:
The County Commissioners find that this request for zoning map amendment from R-20 low
density residential district to R- 15 medium density residential district is (or is not):
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent ofthe Conservation and Wetland Protection
land classifications and the associated land use policies adopted in the 2006 land use
plan;
2. Reasonable and in the public interest to allow an increase in residential density in this
location from a base density of 1.9 units per acre to 25 units per acre with access to
an existing collector street.
87
Case: Z-856 (12/06)
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: Rockford Partners, LLC for Kirkpatrick Associates and
Carneron Company
Existing Land Use: Vacant (R-20) Requesting (R-15)
Zoning History: July 1, 1974 (Area lOA)
Land Classification: Conservation and Wetland Resource Protection
Water Type: Public (available near site)
Sewer Type: Septic Proposed
Recreation Area: Cape Fear Optirnist Park
Access & Traffic Volume: Castle Hayne Rd., an identified Arterial
Traffic LOS is F (April 2005) with ADT
approximately 18,793 (8/04) and 15,000 in 2001
(+25%)
Fire District: Wrightsboro FD
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Little Creek (C, SW)
Aquifer Recharge Area: Chiefly a discharge area for groundwater flows
ConservationlHistoric/Archaeological Resources: Brackish Marsh, Swarnp Forest,
Class IV soils
Soils: Do-Dorovon; Kr-Kureb sand; Be-Baymeade fine sand
Septic Suitability: Class IV (DO) and Class II soils - Moderate lirnitation with
moderate modification and maintenance required
Schools: Wrightsboro Elementary
Other: 1-140 SHOD
88
\ L--=. rIfitrLfl11Jl \
-- ':',
_--........ 'T\~~f\S1-.
1--, ::::-.J -r--- 'B.
iE ,---~~,k!.~~_J ,1_ ~ ~~ 11'--
l------~--_______~ l ______J{ - r'.
'-- ~ -i---r--r-- \. &f----j
J I I ,.l 1 ~
r J JJ i""rDl""" ~, .,".'.
-[7 1W1 W 7' /../ ---- is'''""38 ~ il>:.i
/IT/I! ~ r 'I--
.,
~ ~of- Di_~,,~ I - j.,~Jj( :'
i!~ ~ ~L/$ · ~ Ii ~11 >
&'--,J':--I~ ~ It f- ~
C< -1 nj"-- ~ J ~-
-J--::-O""3N""S 011 \ ',,, il":: SJf ...:;,,: ",:.'""",.":.:'.. ....':.::.,..
~ ;\ ro 0 ~ ;., ~V\ ,,'- "'I.,..{",;>
-- "- -"." ~~& ,,"I(:~~__---
. .. ;: t-J::: V,
>". : ~ J.; vl",."..:,",:,,:,.,,::.,',.:
~ J ,,'
~; ~ ~ 1-~
l? ,,";Wfr r:;
~';.." .... ~ '11
'" ;: ~~ I-- 'r-T
~.,. _" . '" 0 -J.. r-. ,,,''"'
~~ '. ~.
~-_.:"'~.,. ~ ~ ,. '.":'.,
~ '.... ..~1. ,.i,'i..,
'-':
" " "~ G
.
>'}.
".,,',
M
'\
"
,'.1 .,
',<.,'
:i.
1\):0 Iii " ~ ;Zi'
olJ ~ ',' T""" t'\I C") ~ I.rl <0 I'- IX)!O> 0 ..... c-.: I~ ~ It'J (0 II'- lX) en 0 ..... C\l C"') ...... lO ~ r- lX) m 0 .- r\I ~ I~ Ir 1(0 ...... co m [0 I~
2 ~:: ~ J ............... 1"- ..... ..... ..... .... N N N N N r\I N r\I t'\I N t") M M (OJ I I' 1<"'> 1M C'") M (") l'<:t '<t
~ ,~ S! .,;:l i ' ! [
J 15. '!! '" I I
o '8 <!? ll)
.... "C 0 .!!! OJ) ....J
III f E: ~ .~ N < i ~
~" l!l. :..,1. .~ ~ Iii
ri: r;: .. k). . ffi I ffi ,u. ffi f- ~ 1e ffi
o 1ii ..J Gj. . " l1 'z '" :0 II " W l1 " lli " I~ "", ,,<l "
- ~ .. IIi 0<( tfi ...J [[j Z - Z if; [jj a:: ill ! w I OJ ct
CO ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ CO ~ h ~ ~ Is ~ L >- ~ ,p ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ I ..: a ~
~ ~ ~ ~,I~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~~ ~ ; ~ '" i L ,h d ~ L II~ U H U I~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ m ~ ~ ~ I~ ...
~~~~ ~~~~g ~~ ~~~~'f~~'z~~<l ~G~~~<l<l~<l~8~mi~Oj~~ if
........~ oJ ufi]-.J~ > tb~q rnu<(W <Wffiot5 ::2: aJ1:( o~~3ffi
:8 .r iij E .~. ~ ~ .: I~ ~ i'l ~ ~ ;;l ~ x g h ~ ~ ~ U i [0 ~ I~ n U ~ ~ ~ IB ~ I~ ~ 51'~ I~
c: ,0 C'lJ T I l:t Ci:i z If ~ (5 z 0 r.....l w"'" 0 I Iff rf ~ 5C 5C a :::!: I I:IJ
~ ! J~' H ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ H ~ H h n ~ H B ~ Ih Jig Id I~ d I~ /8
89
APPLICANT MATERIALS
90
WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE
ZONING OF PROPERTY
Your intended use ofpropertyuponrezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district
proposals The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance
with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on a Land Use Plan, you
must explain in the space below howyourrequest satisfies each ofthefollowing requirements:
1, Howwould the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and
Development?
/"'161'''' (',b'on dIS-h,C+ OI(c,V0S fc>\- ;)"6~ UJlrlS pel
L,' -, , I \i ' , ., , ',' .," , r " _
'. ,-, ---:", \<c Ci ry\/ts, the lil~,()2 I'Vi CU':; ,)?,ZA- CjCe.- CU"CC,
l\L.lt, __l~ L - , " ,. .. ~" ", .},ii A"
'J'- ('/. ,. " \ \ ('() IlleJ..l/\ be \O\/~, +h, S S+O,I!ldc!, ! ... c",
"In ',',) C we LL \ 'C. , , , , , '.
v , '-.' 't ".to.. J So ' (I c:+; (/ be... nlQ+ \.;,:.t ,,,'\ \ I ,*' \ I Iy I ' J v,ell
S(\ Ln C. Ie ',-, LLI v rc.' \..1,,1 :>, ., " _ _.,
- , \! i II ('f'CJ'" \ \ ~ d' - It, c'lt'- I t\l( )[.l'1~1
"\-lru' CllpOIUJllY D .1..{' \.lh'lf c.n" ,,,,- ~:>' _ ',~
Ve IDpvy\Cnt CUUJI mONt-Dnll.]'
2. Howwould the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classi-
fication Map?
n,t C:.tIYf9YVCl.tTo,"\ CII'St"n' c I' AllcV2,S tZY :;{.5 lAi\;1~ ptc'j' Au"
e\l'lc'. ~"C{onir15 [;~IOLUd, o.l(Ol~ -({'liS A:::~(1aV\+. ~)'Drkt':cJ -lvii-v
c')lH'\hY.'(A~'\ I," Zl)VlctJ R-IU, u,1-t n\.y\ tr'1J! C'('\JcLlQ 'l \ prcpiic) ie,
+h( f)or-\-Y\ (,^-;1(\ CU(!. ilor rt(~'L.lQS~/':5' c\ t-(lC:YIIYI'~J CkCI-i'iCf> i:fCNfI p. .~c'
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, 0'- how is
the land involved unsuitable forthe uses pennitted under the existing zoning? fc\
]-=-10 hel'::., c\1 V \ctc,j t~LQ pr<,:;p'r'ttj-\V1iL bc,rDU PI-\-
C\I~ -\- (rV:lS ckU'II1f:'\~,,",~ C\. VH[jr:'. pOr-lrOY\ ck +1-\.(1. bl..\.JkAo.bLc 0.)( (),
Gn)Uli\c,,' lol-s (}j' \I 01\0[;2, f(')(' /YlOlt' , Optn 5pClCe dS [ucll (),S,
Ik"i'ko..bCCSO.(s 'l1)r' <:,-(("XC, SincQ.. 5c,u...,E".-- js, nc+ OYClito.J'J\J?,
1(\ \-\vI O.J'Co.t...)e V\Cl..V0jXlXtorlt\Q.& (\ 50',1 Su..t\-",,-b Ilt~j ~iv.o\\.j
(,(,\iICV\ u,,)\\\ C\\\01.0 se.ptic., OllSi"\f" .
In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that J
have the burden of proving why a change is in the public interest. I further understand the singling
out of one parcel ofland for special zoning treatment unrelated to County policies and the surrounding
neighborhood would probably be illegal. I certifY that allinformation presented in this application is
accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
Signature ofpetitioner and/or OwneT
91
This page intentionally left blank.
92
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 5.5 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Chris O'Keefe
Contact: Chris O'Keefe
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Item 5: Conditional Rezoning (Z- 858, 12106) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for Thomas Sellars, Sr. to
Conditionally Rezone 8.57 Acres at 6210, 6212 & 6224 Carolina Beach Road near Beau Rivage Plantation in the
Transition land Classification from R-15 Residential to CD(R-10) Residential and for Approval of High Density
Development According to a Site Plan Showing 99 Residential Units
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At its December 7,2006 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of this proposal by a vote of 5-1 on the
conditional rezoning portion and 6-0 on the special use portion. There were no public comments from neighboring property
owners.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the conditional use rezoning portion of the request.
If the zoning is approved, the County Commissioners must approve or approve with conditions the accompanying special
use permit.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~ ~
........
... .
Z-S.~8-Staff Summa~' .doc Z-858 Petition Summary.doc
adjacent property map, applicant materials, and site plan
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
The rezoning was approved 4-1, Kopp opposing. The accompanying special use permit was approved 4-1, Kopp opposing.
93
CASE: Z-858, 12/06;
PETITIONER: Withers & Ravenel for Thomas Sellars, Sr.
REQUEST: From R-15 Residential to CD(R-IO) Residential District for
high density residential use
ACREAGE: Approximately 8.57 Acres
LOCATION: 6210,6212,6224 Carolina Beach Road
LAND CLASS: Transition
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
At its December 7, 2006 meeting, the Planning Board recommended approval of this
proposal by a vote of5-1 on the conditional rezoning portion and 6-0 on the special use
portion. There were no public comments from neighboring property owners.
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located on Carolina Beach Road, just south of the intersection with
Sanders Road. Carolina Beach Road is an identified arterial on the thoroughfare plan. Level of
service has been rated F, meaning traffic volume exceeds capacity.
The subject property is currently a Mobile Home Park with several derelict units among the
occupied homes. It is an internal parcel with adjacent properties to the east fronting on Carolina
Beach Road. The property shares its northern boundary with South Ridge Mobile Home Park and
an area of B-2 commercial zoning. West and south of the site is Beau Rivage Plantation, zoned
R-15.
The subject property is located within the Lords Creek watershed drainage area. The property is
not influenced by flood hazard or protected natural resources. The site is in a primary or
secondary recharge area for the principal aquifers. Private water and sewer systems are available
in the vicinity through Aqua of North Carolina.
As a condition for rezoning, the applicant proposes that the use will be restricted to 99 residential
units with 230 parking spaces (including garages); 4.8 acres of improved recreational space;
62.3% open space and a maximum of37.7% impervious area. All other minimum requirements
of local, state and federal rules will be met. A companion special use permit will bind the
proposed use and restrictions to this property.
Water and sewer will be provided by a private provider (Aqua NC) serving the area.
Land Use Plan Considerations:
This conditional rezoning petition proposes a change from moderate density R-15 residential use
to the County's highest density R-lO residential designation. The change would create a new R-
10 residential district with limited linkage to another R-l 0 sliver that runs through Beau Rivage
from Monterey Heights. The resulting high density increase as proposed would be 12 units.
94
Between 2001 and 2005, average daily traffic volume increased by about 8% on Carolina Beach
Road in this vicinity. No points of interconnectivity are proposed within the surrounding area.
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Transition class as
providing 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.
Based on the foregoing, this proposal would appear to be consistent with the strategies for the
Transition classification. Staff recommends approval.
ACTION #1 NEEDED:
Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A-341 which requires that "prior to
adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement
describing whether the action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and
explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public
interest."
EXAMPLE:
The County Commissioners find that this request for zoning map amendment from R-15
Residential District to CD(R-l 0) Conditional Use District is (or is not):
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the Urban land classifications and the
associated land use policies adopted in the 2006 land use plan;
2. Reasonable and in the public interest to allow an increase in residential density on a
conditional basis in this location and based on a binding plan for site specific
development defined under a companion special use permit.
PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE COMPANION SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
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. Private water and sewer provider will serve the property.
B. The property accesses an identified arterial.
C. Fire Service is available from the Myrtle Grove FD.
D. The property is not located in a flood hazard area.
E. Stormwater retention has been included in the proposed site plan and must meet
the design standards of the County's storm water ordinance.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of
the Zoning Ordinance.
A. The property is zoned R-15 Residential. This request is made concurrent with
conditional rezoning to R-I0 Residential.
B. The use as proposed by the applicant is limited to attached single family
residential use and appurtenant garages and recreational facilities.
C. Applicant has limited density for this project to 99 units on 8.57 acres, compared
to 146 maximum potential density under the provisions ofthe ordinance.
95
D. Petitioner proposes off-street parking that exceeds the requirements of Article
VIII of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance by providing 230 spaces
compared to 192 spaces required.
E. Petitioner states the project will provide 4.8 acres of improved recreational space
compared to 1.7 acres required.
F. Petitioner states the project will be developed with 62.3% open space.
G. Petitioner states the maximum impervious surface for this project will not exceed
37.7%, compared to 50% allowed within the ordinance.
H. Traffic circulation system will be via internal driveways and must provide
adequate access for emergency service vehicles.
I. A traffic impact analysis was not required by NCDOT for this project.
J. Buffer of at least 20 feet will be required along all property boundaries.
K. A tree survey has indicated regulated trees that must be protected or mitigated as
required in Section 67 of the zoning ordinance.
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. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of
residents who live nearby.
B. Stormwater management must perform in compliance with the requirements of
the County ordinance.
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 2006 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Transition, which provides for
future intensive urban development on lands that have or will have urban
servIces.
B. Policies in the plan support higher density transition areas when public services
are available. Aqua North Carolina will serve the project.
Staff Comments:
1. Staff finds these findings of fact to be positive.
ACTION # 2 NEEDED:
(Choose one)
1. Motion to Grant the Special Use Permit and adopt positive findings of fact
(with or without conditions)
2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or
documentation (Specify).
3. Motion to Denial based on specific negative findings in any of the 4
categories above, such as lack of consistency with adopted plans or
determination that the project will pose public hazards or will not
adequately meet requirements of the ordinance.
96
Case: Z-858, 12/06
Petition Summary Data
Petitioner/Owner: Withers & Ravenel for Thomas Sellars, Sr.
Existing Land Uses: Vacant (R-15) Proposed: CD(R-10) High Density
Residential
Zoning History: Apri17, 1971 (Area 4)
Land Classification: Transition
Water Type: Private (Aqua NC)
Sewer Type: Private (Aqua NC)
Recreation Area: River Road Park; Carolina Beach Road Park; Veterans Park
Access & Traffic V olurne: Carolina Beach Road - Arterial- ADT 37,797 (4/05) ADT
35,000 (2001) +8%
LOS: F (Breakdown of traffic flow. Traffic exceeds capacity.)
Fire District: Myrtle Grove VFD
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Lords Creek (C;SW)
Aquifer Recharge Area: Primary recharge area of principal aquifers (combined Castle
Hayne and Peedee aquifers - confined and artesian).
Conservation/Historic/Archaeo10gica1 Resources: No protected resources
Soils: Ku-Kureb Sand
Septic Suitability: Class I - Suitable or slight 1imitiation
Schools: Bellamy Elementary
Additional: No SHOD
97
It')
...
I
tt::
N
~
Z
~
0 C
~ ~
_ "C ~g~
~ 1;i ~~(~ "
> . tn. . .".,:,) ~ '" III ~
t2 US j : : f)::":l ~ ~ w w ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~
oil r! .. ,-", ffi 8 '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8
cg .,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - '" w
52 ~~;;; ~ ~ < ~ _ ~ woo>
U ' ~ w ~ w ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ " rn z ~ ~ ~ ~
N~'" . ffi ~ ~ ffi 0 ~ ~ 00 ~ c > 00 0 a
~ 0';:; w ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 c G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..0.... ra " ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ w ~ z w
CIO-CE ' ~ 5 ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ Q ~ ~ ~
L() .s rI 0 *" i~' ~~8w~~'8ww~~~ffi~
'9 ~~.= '" '" ~ ~~~~~S~~~~~!~~~~~~
N Q:~.e ~
, ,:.: w w w
98
APPLICANT MATERIALS
99
WI-IAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE
ZONING OF PROPERTY
Y our intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district
proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance
with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on aLand Use Plan, you
must explain in the space below howyourrequest satisfies each of the following requirements:
I. How would the requested change be consistent with the COlll1lty'S Policies for Growth and
Development?
The policies for growth and development encourage safe and affordable housing to be
available to every citizen. Rezoning this property for a higher-density of residential
development would be consistent with the concept of transitioning uses, and in-filling
vacant parcels where existing utilities can readily be extended and urban services are
available.
2. How would therequestedzone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classi-
fication Map?
The 2006 Land Classification Plan identifies this area as Transition. The Transition
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 in
based upon land use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in land utilization and
public service delivery. Water & sanitary sewer service is available to the project from a
private system. Regional business uses are being developed within the area to provide
other services.
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is
the land involved unslJitablefortheuses pennitted under the existing zoning?
The busy. corridor along Carolina Beach Road has been developed for a variety of
commercial uses. The subject tract has been historically used for mobile home
residences. The ~~oposed zoning would provide for residential housing opportunities that
can act as a transltron between the business zones and the established single-family
community behind.
100
4. List proposed conditions and restrictions that would mitigate the impacts of the proposed use.
Reference the attached site plan.
" I
, ,
! 'ill! PI \'\ I
X Tract boundaries and total area, plus location of adjoining land parcels and roadways.
'X Existing zoning of the tract and neighboring parcels and proposed tract zoning.
X Proposed use ofland, stl1.lctures and other improvements. For residential uses, this shall
include number, height and type of units and site plan outlining are to be occupied by each
structure and/or subdivided lot boundaries. For non-residential uses, this shall include
approximate square footage and height of each structure, an outline of the area it will occupy
nk. and the specific purpose for which it will be used.
Development schedule including proposed phasing.
/< Traffic and Parking Plan to include a statement ofimpact concerning local traffic near the
tract, proposed right-of-way dedication, plans for access to and from the tract, location,
width and right-of-way for internal streets and location, arrangement and access provisions
>< for parking areas.
All existing and proposed easements, reservations, required setbacks, rights-of-way,
buffering and signage.
",k. The one hundred (I 00) year floodplain line, if applicable
'X Location and sizing of trees required to be protected under Section 67 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
"/. Any additional conditions and requirements, which represent greater restrictions on develop-
ment and use of the tract than the corresponding General Use District regulations, which are
the minimum requirements in the Conditional Use District, or other limitations on land which
)< may be regulated by State law or Local Ordinance.
Any other information that will facilitate review ofthe proposed change.
----~
In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that I
have the burden of proving wby a changeisin the public interest. I furtherunderstand the singling
out of one parcel ofland for special zoning treatment ullrelated to County policies and the surrounding
neighborhood would probably be illegal. I certifY that alIinfonnation presented in this application is
accurate to the best of my knowledge, infonllation, and belief
er'S
AS~t- ')
101
.
What You Must Estnblish For A
Special Use Permit
Authority to grant a Special Use Pennit is contained in the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to section 71.. The
Zoning Ordinance imposes the following General Requirements Oil the use requested by the applicant. Under
each requirement, the applicant should explain, with reference to attached plans, where applicable, how the
proposed use satisfies these requirements: .(Attach additional pages if necessary)
Gllmeral Requirement #1
The Board must find "that the use will not matelially endanger the public health or safety iflocated where pro-
posed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved."
Statement by Applicant:
The subject property is not located within a 1 OO-year flood area. Access to the facility will be from
Carolina Beach Road, a major arterial thoroughfare. Any road improvements will be installed as
required by the N.C.D.O.T. to receive a driveway permit. Fire Service is available from the Myrtle
Grove Fire District. Water & sanitary sewer service is available to the project from a private
system.
General Requirement #2
The Board must find "that the use meets all required conditions and specifications" ofthe Zoning Ordinance."
Statement by Applicant:
The property is proposed to be zoned R-10. High-density residential development is permitted by
Special Use Permit in residential zoning districts in accordance with certain performance criteria.
The 99 units proposed are less than the maximum 146 units allowed. Building setback & height,
parking and impervious coverage calculations satisfy the requirements.
General Requirement #3
The Board must find "that the use will not substantially injure the vl1lue of adjoining or abutting property or that
the use is a public necessity."
Statement by Applicant:
Similar type facilities exist in other residential districts in New Hanover County. If properly located,
such as the proposed transitional area between business zones and lower-density residential
development, and adequately buffered from adjacent properties, any adverse effect to decrease
surrounding property values is mitigated.
General Requirement #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 hannony with the area in which it is to be located and in general confonnity with the plan
of development for New Hanover County."
Statement by Applicant:
The 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan Update identifies this tract as being in a Transition Land
Classification. The Transition 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 in based upon land use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in land utilization and
public service delivery. The property is adjoined by a mixture of commercial uses, a utility site,
mobile home communities and vacant land.
The Zoning Ordinance in some instances, also imposes additional specific requirements on the use requested by
the applicant. The applicant should be prepared to demonstrate that the proposed use will comply with each
specific requirement found in section 72_~ (as applicable). HelShe should also demonstrate that the land
will be used in a manner consistent with the plans and policies of New Hanover County. The Board ofCommis-
sioners may impose additional conditions and restrictions that they deem appropriate prior to the issuing of the
Special Use Pennit.
I certifY that all of the information presented in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, infonna-
tion, and belief
Owner's
~~t)
102
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 5.6 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Chris O'Keefe
Contact: Chris O'Keefe
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Item 6: Special Use Permit (S- 572, 12/06) - Request by James Eldridge for Brad & Sherry Dunker to locate a Child
Development Center for Up to 204 Children in the R-15 Residential Zoning District on 2.98 Acres at 547 Sanders
Road
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At its December 7,2006 meeting, the Planning Board was unable to reach a recommendation on this item. Motions to
approve and to deny the request both tied at a vote of 3-3. Adjacent neighbors spoke in opposition to the proposal,
expressing concerns related to traffic along Sanders Road and commercialization of the R-15 zoning district.
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: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~ ~
........
... .
S-~ 72-Staff Summa~' .doc S-572 Petition Summary.doc
adjacent property owner map, applicant materials (3 pages) and reduced site plan
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Denied 4-1, Caster opposing, based on findings that the project will pose a public hazard (increased traffic).
103
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
S-572, 12/06: First Choice Child Development Center for 204 Children
Request By: Sharon Walker & Brad Dunker
Location: 547 Sanders Road
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
At it's December 7, 2006 meeting, the Planning Board was unable to reach a
recommendation on this item. Motions to approve and to deny the request both tied at a
vote of 3-3. Adjacent neighbors spoke in opposition to the proposal, expressing concerns
related to traffic along Sanders Road and commercialization of the R-15 zoning district.
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. County water and sewer will serve the property.
B. The property accesses Carolina Beach Road, an identified arterial, by Sanders
Road, an identified collector.
C. Fire Service is available from the Myrtle Grove Fire Department.
D. The property is not located in a flood hazard area.
E. NCDOT traffic engineering department did not originally require a Traffic
Impact Analysis, however, applicant has now provided one, which notes
increased traffic of 1,016 trips per day associated with this project.
F. The applicant is proposing to voluntarily install an exclusive right
turn/deceleration lane westbound on Sanders Road, as suggested in the TIA.
Otherwise, the analysis relies on installation of combined improvements for four
nearby development projects to mitigate the potential impacts of the daycare
traffic.
G. Parents may be able to combine trips with the elementary school.
H. At the Commissioners' September 5, 2006 meeting, this request was denied. In
the minutes of the meeting, the same local concerns about traffic safety and
character of the area were raised by neighbors. Also at that meeting New
Hanover County Sheriff Sidney A. Causey stated that he was not speaking in
favor of, or in opposition to, the request. He provided an overview ofthe traffic
safety issues on Sanders Road and described how the Sheriffs Department has
tried to address them.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of
the Zoning Ordinance.
A. The property is zoned R-15 Residential.
B. Off-street parking requirements are met according to the requirements of Article
VIII ofthe New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance.
C. The entire play area will be within an enclosed fence with a minimum height of
four feet.
D. The applicant states the day care will be licensed by the State of North Carolina.
104
E. The site plan reflects Section 72-20 for sign dimension limits, when located on a
collector or arterial, which cannot exceed a maximum size of 12 square feet (i.e.
3 X 4).
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. Child care facilities exist in other residential districts in New Hanover County.
B. No appraisal evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property
values of residents who live nearby.
C. Buffers in accordance with Section 67 of the ordinance are reflected on the site
plan.
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 2006 Land Use Plan Update identifies this area as Urban.
B. Policies in the 2006 Land Use Plan do not address daycare needs.
C. Bellamy Elementary School is located adjacent to the proposed site.
D. A site evaluation for the presence of Venus Flytraps observed no plants on this
site.
Suggested Conditions:
1. Staff recommends that if approved the project be required to
participate in the cost-share of road improvements to Sanders Road
based on existing Traffic Impact Analyses and NCDOT requirements.
2. The Planning Board's failed motion to approve included a condition
that the project be shifted westward to provide a 50' setback and buffer
from the adjoining property to the east, including a fence along the
parking lot and a 50 foot buffer of natural and planted vegetation to
reduce impacts on the neighbor. If approved, staff would recommend
this condition be added.
ACTION NEEDED:
(Choose one)
1. Motion to Grant the special use permit (with or without recommended
conditions)
2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or
documentation (Specify).
3. Motion to Deny based on specific negative findings in any of the 4 categories
above, such as lack of consistency with adopted plans or determination that
the project will pose public hazards or will not adequately meet
requirements of the ordinance.
105
Case: 8-572, 12/06
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: Brad & Sharon Walker
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Zoning History: April 7, 1971 (Area 4)
Land Classification: Urban
Water Type: Public
Sewer Type: Public
Recreation Area: River Road Park
Access & Traffic Volume: 6,119 ADT (MPO-4/05)
LOS: A&B
Fire District: Myrtle Grove FD
Watershed & Water Qualitv Classification: Mott's Creek
Aquifer Recharge Area: Secondary recharge for Sandhill aquifer
ConservationlHistoric/Archaeological Resources: None with protected status
Soils: Le - Leon and Ke - Kureb Sand
Septic Suitability: Class III/Severe Limitations to Class I1Suitable
Schools: Bellamy Elementary
106
-
rJ
'" ~
a ~
-0 ___l2
" ~
~w
I
~
~
~
-~CJldr'lnl.a3aNYS~
\
\
t/ ~
"
:E ~
:Z
.0 ':E C) ~ ;:::
co c; Cl
LL ~ (J5
e
co " (9
0 "tl ,g ,,;
'"
.. c '5 U)
<:> ~=..~
,," m ':.?~.:J. . -' z
:E:2 j tsi'J:.; ~ '" , ~ s -'
<>-6 -'
co ." iii ~~~ B~d ~
o eco
- ~..
~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~
w < ~ ~ ~ 0 G ~
_ ill ~ *~ ~ 'ffi ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~
N ::I'C ~ ffi m ~ w ~ ~
to-. "iii <<l H~~~~ :?~ 1l
LO .u g . . ~
~ ~ m
I "c. ~ ~ ~ g ~ I ~ ffi III
CI) c. c.
me( '" 15.'I:.~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.. '''-.'','.- :;:;::"i;:.-.:<;{::: 0
107
APPLICANT MATERIALS
108
What You Must Establish For A
Special Use Permit
Authority to grant a Special Use Permit is contained in the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to section 71. The
Zoning Ordinance imposes the foJ/owing General Requirements on the use requested by the applicant. Under
each requirement, the applicant should explain, with reference to attached plans, where applicable, how the
proposed use satisfies these requirements: (Attach additional pages if necessary)
Generni Requirement #1
The Board must find "that the use will ~ot materially endanger the public health or safety iflocated where pro-
posed and developed according to the-plan as submitted and approved."
Statement by Applicant:
A. The current volume of use to design capacity ratio of Sanders Road defines the level of
service to be a grade A to B, more than acceptable for traffic circulation. The additional
trips that would be generated by the use of the tract as a child daycare facility would not
pose a public safety hazard if the proposed mitigation measure of a deceleration taper and
right turn lane were provided.
n. County water and sewer will serve the property.
C. The property accesses Carolina Beach Road, an identified arterial, by Sanders Road an
identified collector.
D. Fire Service is available from the Myrtle Grove Fire Department.
E. The property is not located in a flood hazard area.
F. NCDOT traffic engineering del' aliment did not require a Traffic Impact Analysis.
G. The applicant is proposingto voluntarily install a right turn/deceleration lane eastbound
on Sanders Road.
II. Parents i-nay be able to combine; trips with the eie:mentary schooL
General Reqlllirelli '.,1<' #2
The Board must find "that the use meets all required conditions and specifications" of the Zoning Ordinance."
Statement by Applicant:
A. The property is zoned R-] 5 Residential.
B. Off-street parking requirements are met according to the requirements of Article V!lI of the
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance.
C. 'file majority of parking spaces provided on site would be utilized by staff.
D. Tile entire pin)' Me" will be within an enclosed fence with a minimum height of four feet.
K Tlte apl,lir.iint states the day care will be licensed by the State of North Carolina.
F. The site plan reflects Section 72-20 for sign dimension limits, when located on a collector or
arteri"l, which cannot exceed a maximum size of]2 square feet (i.e. 3 X'I).
Geneml ReqllliB-emclat #3
The Board must find "that the use win not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting propelty or that
the use is a public necessity."
Statement by Applicant:
A. Child care facilities exist in other residential districts in New I-lanove,'
County.
B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease propeliy values of residents
who live nearby.
C. Buffers in accordance with Section 67 oflhe ordinance are reflected on the site plan.
D. Applicant volunteers to provide low profile lighting in the islands of the parking lot and an
opaque fence on the east side of the property in addition to the vegetative buffer screen.
General Requirement #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."
Statement by Applicant:
A. The 2006 Land Use Plan Update identifies this area as Urban.
B. Policies in the 2006 Land Use Plan do not address daycare needs.
C. Bellamy Elementary School is located adjacent to the proposed site.
D. An independent site evaluation for the presence of Venus Fly traps observeclno plants on this
site.
The Zoning Ordinance in some instances, also imposes additional specific requirements on the use requested by
the applicant. The applicant should be prepared to demonstrate that the proposed use will comply with each
specific requirement found in section 72~ (as applicable). He/She should also demonstrate that the land
will be used in a manner consistent with the plans and policies of New Hanover County. The Board of Commis-
sioners may impose additional conditions and restrictions that they deem appropriate prior to the issuing of the
Special Use Permit.
I certifY that aU of the information presented in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, informa-
tion, and belief.
109
First Choice Child Development Center
The developer proposes to construct a licensed facility with a capacity of up to 204
children. It will have hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and will range from infant to school age.
No drive-thru drop-off is permitted. All children must be walked into the facility by their
guardians.
The layout of the project has been prepared in accordance with all of the County Zoning
Ordinance regulations for setbacks, bufferyards & other landscaping requirements, and
parking layout. All design details will meet technical standards, and construction will
adhere to all regulations and specifications.
This project is certainly consistent with the characteristics of transitional development in
residential areas. Land Use studies identify the development trends of infill of vacant land,
and transitioning residential areas. Although household size, and the number of traditional
families are decreasing, households with families still make up the largest segment of the
community. That demographic statistic obviously impacts service and facility demands-
with case-in-point being child care & development centers.
We believe that this land qualifies as a perfect location for the proposed use based upon
the area's varied land use pattern. Sanders Road connects Carolina Beach Road with
River Road. Carolina Beach Road is a major thoroughfare, and routes a huge amount of
traffic between the southern portions of the County and the City of Wilmington.
There are objectives & strategies that would obviously deny and oppose commercial
development of this particular land. However, it is important to keep in mind that this use
is not considered in the same category as commercial uses. It is allowed by special use
permit in all of the residential zoning districts.
The procedure of a Special Use Permit is a valid option for approval of these kinds of
facilities, because its purpose is to allow particular uses to be established where there are
circumstances in which a use, if properly planned, could be appropriate for the subject
property.
The objective is to assure that new uses will enhance the functionality and promote the
economic vitality of the surrounding area. A daycare facility, with the site and building
design as proposed, can meet the strategy that allows in-fill development that can retain
aesthetic and functional compatibility with surrounding development.
The layout has been completed with sensitivity to the existing trees. It will remain a very
wooded site, with the only the trees being removed those within the building and parking
areas. Leaving the vegetation to the western portion of the tract provides a natural setting
for outdoor education, one of the many highpoints of the quality of care that the First
Choice Child Development Center would provide.
There are ample provisions for the visual screening and overall use buffering between the
facility and the adjacent residential lots. Not only is there a vegetated bufferyard around
the perimeter of the project, but there will also be a wooden fence. Detailed lighting design
110
will guarantee that night lighting will not shine outside the limits of the facility. Interior and
foundation landscaping will add to the overall aesthetic appeal of the project.
We also believe that this project is consistent with the widely accepted concept of
transitioning residential areas. Daycare facilities are an extremely low-intensity use for
property. The overall impervious surfaces are less than 35%. Stormwater management
will be provided by underground infiltration, reducing the vegetation clearing needs of a
pond. Daycare facilities are a very logical transitional use in a residential district.
A location along Sanders Road provides a facility that is easily accessible to the users
traversing the thoroughfares of Carolina Beach Road & River Road, and a better safety
factor for vehicular circulation. This project is not proposed on a residential street through
a neighborhood. Sanders Road is a public collector street with more than adequate
capacity available.
Daycare has a wide range of drop-off and pickup times, based on parent work and activity
schedules, throughout the day. The owner has agreed to the installation of a deceleration
taper and right turn lane, from the eastern approach, to further facilitate smooth traffic flow.
The project is west of the Beau Rivage entrance. It would have no impact on anyone
turning right, the prominent direction of travel towards Carolina Beach Road, out of Beau
Rivage Promenade. Its location East of the school only affects traffic in the morning peak
hours, and could be remedied by limiting drop-off times so as not to conflict with the brief
period of school drop-offs. There is no conflict with the afternoon school pick-up.
Overall, we firmly believe that the location and character of the proposed project, if
developed according to the plan as submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it
is located, and will be in general conformity with the County's plan of land development.
111
This page intentionally left blank.
112
n lelJods ',~
"eld OI!S l!WJOd 0' . I ~ ~ ~ 0
hl"nlQl"^""~H ^"'N I dIY'UMt'lIU!'ld I~"'P"~ ;;- i L g ,...-
""CON "","!WI!M N"W'-,","" ...., lSJ 1:1 , ! I; . " J
=""_O,"""M"~ ~"""., .^"aqwo~d!l"'L ""Je""Aeo a:J!04.J. '" " ~ . L>
,m.",",,", . "' .""5 ..:::;, .,,,^",,'''M o~, '.'''"0 A,,,,,,,, 1"'" ., oJ .. 'I
__0_._.'::""""""",,,, _,_ _____.
"","""""' "" .. "'''aH.L1M , ~
OSNaAV" ~ I:
- J
I . !
I ld, I
18 n ~
, niP~
I I lloh
I, II .."-
III I II
I..,.., 'II! ' i I
I..... I ~~.II: I, i
I d . ! .
.111111 h. I' II I
....1 ~
d,
. !(~ "
) '~.' ~~~~~
~ '.t .".
,; ~ ., ~ ~
~ i r IDt J~' .
1 d ei(I ~'l' ,
h .:.~ In
. , If.. ~
..., =
ri.
' . ~
Ii- t I .
I i- l. i , I
" I .;
to. H! ~
i ~l.' ~ , f 1 Jt .
~ Ii ia J~ J . .'[ ,I
i1!di In It Hj I~
] fl';: f'" f. II! I
J t!' II!! i .
~d!iI ~ !~! d
tiUI;I~nit
~ ~ I Hn · . "I , .;
Hl1fHf if lfl ~ I I k'! ';~:
if Iii". ~I h h 'li III ,. ,
I ti .,~ ihll!i P.. J ~:g Kl,l ,!::
.5 .- . . . Z:t t t~ .. .
' . ." . , , ':"
: ~:.
.,.
I '---- :u
-I ~t!!
. .
. .
.ft
113
This page intentionally left blank.
114
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Regular Item #: 6 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: David Ward
Contact: Holt Moore and Chris O'Keefe
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Special Use Permit - Request by David Ward to Deny Validity of Original Special Use Permit (5-13, 06/71) Issued at
1512 Burnett Road. The Planning Board Voted 6-0 to Recommend to the Board of Commissioners that the Validity
of the Permit be Affirmed.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The New Hanover County Planning Board in regular session on Thursday, December 1 , 2005 voted 6 to 0 to recommend to
the New Hanover County Commissioners that Special Use Permit 13 is valid and not a violation of the New Hanover County
Zoning Ordinance Section 109/1, paragraph (e).
The item was placed on the 01/09/06 and 05/01/06 agendas and withdrawn each time.
The item was placed on the 12/04/06 agenda and withdrawn. The item will be placed on the January 8,2007 agenda, at
which time the item will be heard.
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: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
........
... .
\\'a!"d attachment .doc
NOTE: Please see Interoffice Memo which lists the documents contained in the 37-page attachment. Item 5 on the memo
describes another attachment package containing 86 attachments. Due to the length this packet is not included in the
agenda packet, but the documents are available for review in the County Manager's Office.
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
A motion to recuse Commissioner Pritchett was approved 4-0. A motion to uphold the Planning Board's decision was
approved 4-0.
115
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
S- 13,06/71;
Request By: David and Violet Ward
Location: 1512 Burnett Road
Planning Board Recommendation
The New Hanover County Planning Board in regular session on Thursday, December 1,
2005 voted 6 to 0 to recommend to the New Hanover County Commissioners that Special
Use Permit 13 is valid and not a violation ofthe New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance
Section 109.1, paragraph (e).
Staff Summary
David and Violet Ward claim that a Special Use Permit issued in June of 1971 to Homer Ward
(deceased) is invalid. The permit issued to Homer Ward was to construct a bulkhead, boat ramp
and pier in Myrtle Sound near Carolina Beach. David and Violet Ward claim that Homer Ward
provided false information when obtaining the permit and are now challenging the validity of
Special Use Permit-13. The challenge is based upon the following section of the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment heard a similar appeal on August 23,2005.
The Board of Adjustment concluded that the permitted uses occurring on the site had vested the
permit.
Section 109: Vesting Rights
109.1: Any site-specific development plan approved by the County pursuant to this Ordinance
shall terminate as follows:
(e) Following recommendation of the Planning Board and upon findings by the County
Commissioners, by ordinance after notice and a hearing, that the landowner or his representative
intentionally supplied inaccurate information or made material misrepresentations which made a
difference in the approval by the approval authority of the site specific development plan.
116
f\' .'
I < I.. :"..," ,.1' . ' "
f ' I '
" ~,.,' ,. . I:.'. : .,' .' '1" . I t .Fl
. I. I' I
I ". 0:) : I ," I I I
_ /, _' I ',' ,e I I
,.., " ,,- ' , '
I' ~' -~ u., '.' I ". ".. I'
L.- . ." ~,Li:
-i _,_' 1:-' i'
'" , _ ",' "c::" , !, I
, " _, - I " I
" ,e ,,- ~ 'I
I, '.' ",,--' , ' ' ' -L,' 'I.'.
, -, ' ' , ~-
-+, ' ' , I " ' " 'L..
- "
, '>, .
, f..' , ' ... -- .;,." "."
- '
1 " : '.
.' -
, . ,~ 1f' .'''',~
j" I '.
"M ' , '
0" ' '
"" , r--
, )"" 1 COASTALAV .j ,:. .'. -'.,
>--- al ''', I . - ...,./--- .. . , .
II ' ' L' 1.\ I ',-' ' ..", ..,f .
I ~, 1" ,.'
~: t" T'TI
. Ln:!~ I --",,"'""; EEl r ' \I
L Ii' "!' ' "
>--L Il' ~ "II " ~
" "' ..11 ,'-
ro-.." \f"F!L' ~ t,1 ""~o91 - '" r
Ih~~'tL1L. lrol I) , .,
; NJ& ~F\e' - 1~ ~ -II' I
I I ',,-," ' " .. -'
0' -I --p "
,"" "' p
'15 L-.i'al I rnl~ .~. .' e-
, ~I ,-'
. / ~, ' ,,:!! ' ~ J I '
, I rlTim 'I 0: -"I ~ I- "M..~ ';
I' I - I I i=: II T: l'j;." '" '1 / ·
,;" ~ 11 r -HI-" ~
, jlr\\ ~,; 1,-1 " , \"
, I \.L ., I , ~ ! ' 'L '
/,/ .." 'T~~r==I-29 \Tl "> ~- I
r- T T I I Tsc:.. '::{;j, : ", ,~- V ,j ,
I" · I r' I - '-"'fi/ .
;:: c-.'-i ~Fc;:tJ' afJ.I;"~~~--::" L-- i:gj C l~H::::
~ -y.~ ~ ~ ' ''IIm>ri'. " _,JI '
-.1J l--=:=J~ll H- H ,U a IiJ7J~ D 1~~fJ t'O."3",. 1- I 1.---, \~
r -r I qr'o, - ,".,"'-l W '.J '\
] 1.= -n i DO ""\ '- ,---..c"'~ ~
~ I~I I'~ ~,~ w '~l-;-! ,,'-'fir! I ell C I ~ ['r--: ',~
c ~ w ~ I i ~ ~ I 00 f- ~rr~'
~;7j ~_ I: _~ i 1--1--
~~ 1! ~ ~ ~ ~I I I' I' I I _, ''''""" I '--1_ :"'f~"
;: ~ _ '" J, ,<{. ,.00 1'---
~. & _ ", .,' 1 '~"" - f- i-.
",,03 ,..R'l ' ~I' 'Co _ . , TTII h. ~ _'f--'
~~ ,....[0j 'ffi ,~, '~!~';;!!, I ~.f-l.....1 1.' ~
,....~:!2 '~,~' ..I~I~ ~~I. '-. ! I:'~(~:- --'--'
t: " ,0 , " ,~'. ,,, "",",' ' · ~ '-" ~
<0 "'c "I "'I""" ~ '" ' .-- ~ -
~~ '~~ .~ ~ ,~ I~ II~ ~ ~ I~ ~ I Q~- --~ , II !l-- -6 - c- if-_ f--'
'" ~ "In 8 Q ~ I~ IIIl ,'~I . '
.. o~ ' , ' ,I" 0 : , ". J'" d ' '
. ,. . 0'"'' ",. ~ " v' " "
I ~"~ '~I ,.,~;; {~hl~ I~ I fflj"';" n?' "flq''(3'7'7ltAN fie ~~~'~ ',---
.... I' ~ ", . "\1-L:":::Ufl~~-1-~~f-- f--
---, ,,~ "IL 0-' I--- -
I! III ~
. ......;.. Ii' I 1--1
. ii.r ...-\\ I /-
, -"/"'-------.J........ 1--1
~ "i-1
117
New Hanover County
Planning Department
Counfy Annex Building
230 Marketplace Drive, Suite 150
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dexter L. Hayes P 910.798.7165
Director F 910.798.7053
INTEROFFICE MEMO
December 30, 2005
Susan Wynn
Executive Assistant to the County Manager
Re: January 6,2006 CC Meeting
Dear Susan:
The following is a description for each of the documents submitted by the
planning department for Item 6 ofthe Public Hearings items for their January 9,
2006 County Commissioner Meeting. Let us assume that attachment one (1) of
thirty-seven (37) is the letter addressed to Holt Moore and signed David and
Violet Ward.
1. Attachment one (1) came from David and Violet Ward.
2. William A. Raney, Jr., Attorney for David and Violet Ward, submitted
attachments fourteen through thirty-seven (14-37).
3. Attachments 2-11 came from the planning staff file, but were originally
submitted by Kenneth Shanklin, Attorney for Tim and Donnie Ward.
4. Ann Hines, Chief Zoning Enforcement Official for New Hanover County,
submitted attachments twelve and thirteen (12 & 13).
5. The other attachment package containing eighty-six (86) attachments was
submitted by Kenneth Shanklin, attorney for Tim and Donnie Ward, as a
formal response to the formal complaint by David and Violet Ward.
Please contact our office if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Steve Candler
Senior Planner
118
.
Mr. Holt Moore October 21,2005 David N. Ward
Assistant County Attorney Violet P. ward
320 Chestnut Street 1508 Burnett Rd.
Wilmington, N.C. 28409 Wilmington, N.C. 28409
Dear Holt,
This is a request to be placed on the earliest available County Commissioner
meeting agenda. Citing county ordinance 109.1 (E) and upon the evidence that we have
recently acquired from The Army Corps of Engineers. We wish to formally ask for a
hearing with the Board of County Commissioners November 7, 2005. This is in reference
to Special Use permit 13 issued to Homer Ward at 1512 Burnett Rd. We have acquired
evidence that will show that Homer Ward did knowingly violate this ordinance. Several
weeks ago in a meeting with Ann Hines, David Weaver, and Kemp Burpeau; we
discussed this issue at great length. Also I have discussed this issue with you Holt, and I
do greatly appreciate your help, and respectively ask for this hearing. You have been so
kind, and helpful, and all of us in the Tucker Burnett Subdivision do wish to thank you.
Yours Truly,
David Ward
Violet Ward
119
- Hr. Gner/~i
, i <1,
i Mr. Sander ~
Col. Denison! s
Mail ~~f.
OPER ~r' /4-
SAwn: 14 ~nuary 1969
'f' j1/P,
/"",........,
J,..br
Mr. Homer H. Ward
2914 lake Sho1:'e Drive
V1~ V. C. 28401
fit ,. -- -.--...
- ......... ),
. Dear Mr., Wiari:
0 Reference is ~ to ..your application ~ 14 1MI-'>er .1968 fOJ'..& per-
1d1; ~o ~ a bu1k'heatt. boat rMp Bad pUr ita Myrtle Sound near
0 CarOlina Beaclt, N. c. .
f>\t. Irl response to . pub~ 'l!Otice dated 2 nee.ber 1968, 1ssued to announce
..... '. ~~ your proposal 'to .n knbtln lnte~ parties" tbe Stabilt of lIorth caro-
Una baa not tura:lshed theft eoasent to your~. In case.s where pro-
O. posed work is ~j~oub1e but _. $<tate authGrlttea decUneto give
their eonseut to the tiIOrk, it 15 DOt: USbIll for t:he eoz.ps of EDgiaeers to
0:- issue a perld.t s1ftee 1t becc8es pr:aet:ic8lly of DO vehle and lI8.y be re-
0'.' pried as 8ft _ ot ~~sy. . .
. V':'
~"., 'l'hexefore. you are t.n:tmlMd that: your ~;L :fa UDObjt!Ctionable and a
'.,..... "'5' pera1.1: win be '1Ssdet! .. the consem: of 1:be State 18 funlished this
~. -.. - --. ---
S1Qc!erel,y ]'0UJ.'8, .
PAUL S. DElfI$ON
Colonel, (:ozope of Ettginee.rs
Dlst:rict Engineer
Copy fundabed:
Db'., HC)1ept of WIrt;er. Air.
Reeout'cea. Ba1e~ He 27603
120
. . .u. ~~w~~f Z
Mr. Turner ,.
Mr. SandfJrS9~
Col. Denison/s(3\
Mail a;,.~ I
'. OPER ) 1<--.
sAWlS (Perldt lfo. 12-:69) 1.0 Karch. 1969
K:r. BGlIIln* H. Wud
2914 IBe Sbt.ft Drive
Wll.11ington, B. C. 28401
.. ~ . .
0 Dear Mr. WeN: . .
"'~ In ~ v11:b ,.our vr.I.ttea nca-at .... ]A 1!LN8IlIIIMtr 1968, tbe:re 18
Q- lnelo8ltcl . ~ ~ the .......4...ot1Ga of rbo<<t n.p, "l~t
and a pier 1D Myrt:la SouaiI...Cil'o1:ba..... iDlIew ~COuaty. B. C.
q... It .'" ~ chiIruces 1a t:lae 14Cat1OD or p1aJuJ oftbe. ~ or work
~" i!a1lJ fomld ~'P"'1- ~of _.8.r-m ., a1tend ~t10D8 or
~. ot:hrmd_. n'lieed ... ...,.. be ~tted ....-,tlF to the Di8'trl,ct En-
.~~ gtDller III ~ -e.t 'tM8e dt't8ed ,bIu. if tom.d UDObject1oll1!b:la. .,
Q. l'eee1ge tile ,,~1W'a1 z:equ1nd by 18 ~ ~0Il bbe&tm.
....... .
C;>. Your attat10D 18 caUed to eGQC1itioD (1) of tM taclD8ecl pua1t Wich :re-
quires ~ }'IltNittee 1:0 DGtlf7 ttd.8 otft.ce ~.. 1:0. the ~. T~
0-. . aDd ~_ clate8. . .:.1' .
~. In tea,.. to ., p01:lc Mtice dated t ~ 1968, 181188d 1:0 4IIlIM:lQnce
you pI'OpOMl to an k8OII8 1aWl___ ~ die State of 1(QrtJt carouna
and C. 8. .w., IDe... ~ c:- q. A COW Meh of t:ItitU letters
18 taeJoaed. 1a UtlI~ vith the last ~ In parec:rapb ''>Of ~
State'. letter. ,.r .LbtuUQD 1& lwltecl to ~.1. CODdlUOIl (k) 111 tbe
penit. 111 eGIIIliIlrtt_ wtt:ta the lat:bII: tftII.c. G. WiWa.'l1l!ei, your -attea-
ti01l1s inVited to t:be __ ... f11w .tt.ad.d to the ~1:. .
su.rely ,ours;
3 Incl.s PAUL 8. DlNISOR
1. l'exld:t 116. 12-69 -Co1oIIie1. Col'ps of ~~"8 \
v/WNe acu.oa flier Di8td.ct F.ag1Deer
2:. Cy ltr . MIll" 6t ta State I
\ ~
S. C, 1t:.I- 10 Dee 68 tit !
C. G. W!1Us, lac. t
,
.cow t'umlshed wI. :laelAu '.'
'\
lHr.t He Dept of ..... a Ail' ] \
J Resources, ~gb, HC 216&S \ - ~\
i ':~
J \ \
/ ;\
!
.
121
- .' ~
"
( --
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA
,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES
ROBERT W. tICOTf S. VERNON ~. .IR.
GoVEm<OR CHAIR......
P. D. DAVIS P. GiRIlER .I0HNS0N
WALTER II. FRANK1.JH VtCltoCH.URIIAN
.I. NELSON GIBSON. .JR.
.I. II. .IARREIT DR. ROBERT A. ROGII
WAYNE MABRY W. GRADY STEVENS
.I. EUGENE PENLAND RAYMOND S. TA1.TON
.I. AARON PREVOsT GLENN II. TUCKER
GEDRGE E. PICKETT. D~
Tna:P_ 821l.S00a
Eo C. HUBBARD ~. DIJnocToR
TEUPHoom 821l.S00s
P. O. 80>< IlSIl2
RAUElCHI. H. C. 27803
, .. :March 6, 1969.
-
... Colonel Paul S. Denison
C) District Engineer
u. S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington.
0 Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
N., Wilmington, North Carolina 28~Ol
- Dear Colonel Denison:
0 This is in response to your public notice dated December 2, 1968,
Q concerning an application by Mr. Homer H. Ward for a permit to construct
0">'. a bulkhead, boat ramp, and. a pier in Myrtle Sound in the AlWW near
Carolina Beach in New Hanover County, N. C. The views o:t~affeeted State
~. agencies ha'iJe JJeen obtained.
The state has no objection to the proposed work. The granting of
an easement to fill to Mr. Ward has been approved by the Governor and
Council of state. It is requested that the use of the pier be so controlled
as to not add pollution to -the adjacent waters. . - - ~ ,--
Request that the applicant be advised of the requirement that earth-
moving equipmenii which operates in publicly owned tidelands and navigable
waters within the state be registered by.the owner of the equipment with
this Department.
Sineerely, (ff;~
5~wtt
cc: Mr. Frank Turner
Mr. J. M. Jarrett
122
79001 200 ~ I I
\ - ~
! ~. I-'- @} ct" 0 t;I 0 ~
.~ ~. b.....!& g ct"
OJ ~ 2 ~ . < . fl!).. (I)
\j >i t-' (I) 0' -po 'i
(I) ~ 0' m (I) & OJ ~
. (I) m I-'- I-'- ;:r
"<I &~;:l (I)~o;:l1D
& g ~ 1\ t-' -~ .& ~ 'd -I
o m o'~~.t b~ '
;~ _ & (I) m ~(I) a p ~
~oo ....~mcl:&
:(1) 0 0 P I-'- 0" & ;:r &
\8 ~g g.o<<1 ~~:=.
ID >i & ~ 0 ~ o<l.
o (I) ~ - ~ ~ ~ I-'-
,~ il>. (I) g. 5 ~ !j (I) m
~ ;:i ~ 0 'i -jD
~ ~ ID g: & C f (I) t
':;$ 0' m CD 0" Wa (I) ~ I-'-
& ~ 'i 'd (I). ;:r; ,C t:: fll
::>" & (I) 'i >i .... -.~ j-I 8. ". i
(I) fll t-' o! 'i CI' ~
~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0' ~
.11> 0 <1 0 :00: (I) ~
i:l- .0 ,I-'- & 'd j\:l i:l-
1!l~~c-~Wa:.,.;gll1
C ~& ~ 0' ~ ID 0 :g
~ g;P' (I) 0..... 0''1,
. .... ID u. 0 lIIl .U DI 0 .
~'d~~<g~< .
(I) CD &to (I) m ~ ~ '
&lP.;(D m 1-'-0 j
o .... m 0'&0
I-'- I-'- (I) I-'- I-'- ....
g & (I) & .t-' t-' 0
po & ~ ... DI I-'- ~ &
t-'(II"""" c:+- P'
t-' CD ~ <<1 & (I)
g. 2. i P.gji6, g ~
& g: & to j1 ~
g 1 ~ ~. ij g ,:. i
~ ~ (I) cI: i:l- 'i
It:" g- t p". b CD
'dm o~P~
>i s:: ~~. ID
~ .g ~ ,~ ~ g: g' tl
.... CD 0 t-' t-' ID & 0'
e4 >i CII I-'-.CD m & ~
m ~ ~. m & ::>" CD
:;: & t-'. ;! ~ ~ ;
~ ~ & g: ~ 0 . 0 .-
CD m P'CD.!jc:+-g:;$
:;: g-: pOQ ~ ~ID
~ i a ~~ 'i
. ~ a
cI: I
".-'-';:;;'l='j~~'.
123
(a) That the work shall be aubjeet to the ~on and approval of the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers,
in charge of the locality. who may temporariJy S1IJlpeIld the work at any time, if in hia judgment the interests of navi-
gation so require.
(b) That any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein authorized shall be removed evenly and no
large refuse piles, ridges _ the bed of the waterway, or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause injury to
navigable channels or to-the blmb of the waterway shall be left. If any pipe. wire, or cable hereby authorized is laid
in a trench. the formation of permaJIIl!Ilt ridges across the bed of the waterway shall be a"VOided and the bad: lllling
shall be so done as DOt to inerease the cost of future dredging for navigation. Any material to be deposited or
dumped under this authorization. either in the waterway or on shore above high-water mark. shall be deposited or
dumped at the locality shown on the drawing hereto attaebed, and. if 80 preseribed thereon, within or behind a good
and substantial bulkhead or balJr:I-.Js, such as will prevent _pe of.the material in the waterway. If the mate-
rial is to be deposited in the 1Iarbor of New York. or in its adjacent or tn1lutary waters. or in Lang Island Sound, a
permit therefor must be previously obtained from the Supervisor of New York Harbor, New York City.
(e) That there shall be DO umeasonable interference with navigation by the work herein authorized..
(d) That if inspections or 8DJ" other operations by the United States are necessary in the interest of navigation.
all expenses connected therewith shaI1 be borne by the permittee.
(e) That no attempt shall be made by the pemdttee or the owner to forbid the full and fxee-use by the public of
all navigablewateras or edjacent to the wol"k or struc:tare.
('\if (f) That if future operations by the United States requfre an alteration in the position of the struetare or work
herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army, it shall cause unq;ponable obstruction to the free
- navigation of sai<i water. the IJWJM!l" will be reqahed upoI1 due notice from the Secretary of the Army, to remove or
alter the strw:turaI work or ~ caUlllld thereby withol1t expeIIllC to the United States. so as to render naviga-
V tion reasonably free, easy. and 1IIIOlIlstructe; and if, apon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure,
:6l1. euavation. or other ~ficm of the watereourae hereby autborised shaI1 DOt be completed. the owners shall,
0 without expense to the United StateS. and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Secret&ry of the Army
may require, remove an or &1Q' portion of the UllCllIII.pleted strueture or:6l1 and restore to its former condition the navi-
0 gable capacity of the watercoarl!Ie. No daim shall be made qainst the United States on account of any such removal
or alteration.
C'>4. (g) That the United States shaI1 in no case be liable for any damage or injury to the struetare or work herein
authorizoo which may be ~ by or result from future operations undertaken by the Gcmlmment for the CODllerVB-
- tioo or improvement of _-rigatiOD. or for other ~ and 110 daim or right to compensation shal1 aeerue from
any such damage.
0 (k) That if the display.of JigJUa and signals on any work \ereby authorlsed is not otherwise pnmded for by law,
such lights and signals as may be pnllICn"bed by the U. S. Coast Guard, shal1 be installed and maintained by and at the
0 expense of the owner.
(i) That the permittee shall DOtlfy the said district engineer at what time the work will be commenced, and as
0- far in advance of the time of ........-e--nt as the said district engineer may specify. and shall also notify him
promptly, in writing. of the e<-....~ of work, lIIlSpension of work, if far a period of more than one week,
J'elI1Unption of work, aDd its completion. 31st
" (;) That if the stnu:tme or wad< herein authorized is JIOt completed on ar before da7
. ... of l'ec~ . 19-12. this permit, if :not pre'rioua1y revoked or speciticaIly erleDded. shall cease and
be null and wid.
(k) t'hat; the pe1'II1ttee sba1l. C-.q prolIptl, with IDlY regulat1.ons, coadi1:ione,
or laeU lkl"tioaa affeetiftg the worlt he.reby &lItltt'Jrised if ud when le8ued by the
Federal Va1:er Po1.lIlt1on Centnl MIdntstrat:lca aMI- the State water po1..l.ut1on.
contrOt ageaey "Iaari.Dg j~ to Uat:e fill' "........all vater peUu.tiGDil'. Sucb reg-
ulatf.... eenal"ti_ or lD8t:ructi0n8 iD effect or .preecrtW b)t the FeHnl Water
Pollution Coatrol MdD18t:ratice .. State aiJeDc7 are hereby "'e a eoadiUon of
thts perrd.t.
By author1 ty of the Secretary of the Army:
-9~~...-~--
PAUL S. DEIlSON
~~ == of EDg1steer8
De&l'
~': 1721 (CivID 'l'IlIs.....__BD_.._IAJIO..__be_...-.
....~.-u.8.....:c -,........
124
- - - ..
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NOTE.-It is to be understood that this iDstrument does not give any property rights either in real estate or mate-
rial, or &1IJ' exd.usi.ve prlrileges; and that it does not authorize &1IJ' injury to private property or invasion of privata
rights, or any infringement of Federal, State, or Ioeallaws or regulatiODS, nor does it obviate theneeessityof obtaining
Bmte _B1tt to the work authoriled. Iw .-.,. - -ftIIl.. --JlI'8FmsF tI. {:9ftBt1BBHFr S8 I' All AS EJ8If
_fa _ P6IIIIfe _a tJ/1f NJ.1'IlM1'Illlf. (See CwMaings v. ChU:ago, 188 U. 8.,_410.) 16-111....
PERMIT
WilId.8gtOD Di8t:dc1:, Corps or Engineers.
WilatDgt:aD, Iorth CUo11Da __. 1%,
:to Much
Ml'. BGllIel' B. WUd
2914 Ia1ce Shore Drive
0- wt1Jd.Dgtan, N. C. .28401
Dear S1:r = ~~~. ,
-
.... Referring to written request dated 14 IioveIIber 1968
0 :-.' .. '
Q I have to inform you that. upon the recOBDendation of the Chief of Bagineers.
N and under the provisions of Section 10 of the .let of Congress approved Karch 3.
- 1899. entitled -AD act IIlllk1ng appropriations for the cODStl'l1ction. repair. and
0 --.
preservation of certain ~blic works on rivers and harbo~s. and for other pur-
0
0- poses. - you are hereby authorized by the Secretary of the ~.
" to eOD8trUet a bttlltbeacJ, 1MtIt.e!t.tu.~...-.>
121 Myrtle Sotmd about tIllVWaJIIy~.~!.:!JB t1ae A1:laid:ic Intra-
coastal Waterway.
....~!I!5h.~~J!.~lnm1los...._'-_dobIt6>>01Jtt1n
_ __ _ or"- or ~ -bF pobda "'_>
in aocordance with the plans shown on the dra..ing at tached hereto
(Or tIzawlap, 81ft. ..- or _ ~te ~_ _>
"P1:tlpoeec1 Pier PorttGD ruekel'..a.tIletL Sllb-D1v., ~le Grove SOdIld, November "
1968" .
SUbjeot to the following oonditions:
I
125
-~ +-~..- .~
,
-"in. ._
- - . ..i.-
"'",.. .. '-.
---".
, I
\ . IA I
if 1 ~ ~
O~ If .~~
~~~ 1-1~' If ~[[
~(;~. ,'-. ~
~ ~e
r'~
Iu' Ii
~: N
-. It I Il
. -* - . .
~.. . .J:... - .,;-
-- ~ At
- .... -- it
, f
~.B YIC.Nrrv MAP ., rt
. ~.' .", '"J . '. '"
SCA.t..t:: ," == ~'
,
, ' ('D' .t.10'
r .. 1
" 1#
.. \9 .zx~ ~_.
10" PII-{::...-."...
0
H.W.I-. -
.'n
..,
TYPICAJ. ""'1'4 ~PlS"
126
..D"
":......._~..../_"..,.-::,. .~.<...., ,__ ..;,_,. ___~"".._~' "u.<" _ _"""~:~-".. - _-..i.-.;;_'f-C,,;,~""",,:\._r>:,y~~;.t~/:"J:'iF-;--
0
~
0'
o.
N
-
0
0
0-
.....
.
127
'- ' - . .'
14
~ .
G
... ','
0
0
~"
-
0
~.
~',
r.o...;"
:
~~: ~ ~
128
. EXHIBIT
I-=L
~ Ii F ~.~.. if ! I r:' 7 I t
SOihf':.. }l,.~" C)~..'t ; 1 . to 6. \.,~,,~~
~_ { () \f'~ ' "T"i
r' " "
It-h) t<t ,.. Yu.. ~"\ P ~
UaS,
'"C~.,,,_...,,..,.,,,,,, ,
129
,
,
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA
ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION
OF CHIEF ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL
The Board of Adjustment for the County of New Hanover, held a public hearing on
August 23, 2005 to consider application number ZBA-756, submitted by Violet P. and David
Ward, an appeal from the determination by Chief Zoning Enforcement Official Ann Hines, that
Tim and Donnie Ward continued to have a valid special use permit for the property located at
1512 Burnett Road, in Wilmington, North Carolina, to use the property as a commercial marina.
Having heard all the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the Board makes the
following FINDINGS OF FACT and draws the following
CONCLUSIONS:
l. The Special Use Permit at issue became vested initially under the common law
principles found in the case law because there was sufficient activity and expenditures during
the period after the permit was issued to so vest.
2. The Board does note that the Appellants cited the failure to meet the vested rights
statute requirements as a basis that the permit either did not become vested initially or
eventually lapsed, but the Board [mds this irrelevant as staff has indicated that their basis for
concluding that the permit became vested initially was the common law vesting found in the
case law, not the vesting rights statute, and once it became vested under those principles, it
continued to run with land, regardless of the level of activity which followed, as described in
the findings below.
3. The Special Use Permit at issue did not lapse due to a lack of activity on the site
at some point after the issuance of the permit.
4. The Appellants' primary contention, as stated in the appeal paperwork, Was that
the subject permit lapsed because of inactivity on the site. However, the Zoning Ordinance
states that the conditions of a permit run with the land and shall be binding on the original
applicants, their heirs, and assigns. Inherent therein is the fact that the permit itself runs with
the land. In the absence of any legal authority to the effect that a permit, once activated,
lapses from inactivity, the Board concludes that the subject permit continues to be active and
runs with the land, regardless of whether the activity described in the permit is ongoing.
The preceding CONCLUSIONS are based upon the following findings:
l. The sale of fuel and snacks, along with some limited rental of wet boat slips
occurred on the site both before and after issuance of the special use permit.
2. Drinks, fishing supplies, fuel and motor oil were sold on the site in the early
1970s.
3. Boats docked at the subject property for the purposes described above during the
130
early j 970s.
4. A beer license was in existence for the subject property, issued to Homer Ward, at
a minimum, during the years 1974,1978, and from 1982-1983.
5. Gas tanks and pumps were installed on the site in 1975.
6. The site ceased being used as a marina in or around 1980, which cessation lasted
at least ten years.
Based upon the preceding Conclusions and Findings of Fact, the Board hereby affirms
the determination ofthe Chief Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Ordered this ~ day of 6Jr:.l , ;<c:ar
~
LA,L . . ,. "./..
S""""", to ilie Boaro Ce. ;;rn, .. -. - - .
NOTE: If you are dissatisfied with the decision of this Board, an appeal may be taken to the
Superior Court of New Hanover County within 30 days after the date this order is served on you.
See Section 123-1 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. (1/4/93)
131
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER PLANNING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF TERMINATION )
OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT #13 ) MEMORANDUM OF PETITIONERS
ISSUED TO HOMER H. WARD ON ) DAVID AND VIOLET WARD IN SUPPORT
JUNE 7, 1971 ) OF TERMINATION
)
BACKGROUND
A special use permit was issued on June 7, 1971 to Homer H. Ward
for a marina on land owned by Homer Ward on Burnette Avenue and
adjacent waters. The application was considered by the New Hanover
County Planning Commission prior to consideration by the County
Commissioners. The Petitioners, David Ward and his mother Violet
Ward, live on the property owned by Violet Ward adjacent to the Homer
Ward property.
The Petitioners contend that the special use permit was obtained
by the land owner or his representatives by intentionally supplying
inaccurate information or by making material misrepresentations which
made a difference in the approval by the County Commissioners of the
site specific development plan.
ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
!n09.1 (e) of the New Hanover County zoning ordinance provides in
pertinent part:
!l109.1: Any site specific development plan
approved by the County pursuant to this Ordinance
shall terminate as follows:
(e) Following recommendation of the
Planning Board and upon findings by the County
132
Commissioners, by ordinance after notice and a
hearing, that the land owner or his
representative intentionally supplied inaccurate
information or made material misrepresentations
which made a difference in the approval by the
approval authority of the site specific
development plani
OFFICIAL RECORD
The Planning Board is entitled to take official notice of the
County records. The County records on this issue consist of the
following:
l. Minutes of the Planning Commission (Board) at the time this
item was considered. (Exhibit 1)
2. Minutes of the County Commissioners meeting of June 7, 1971.
(Exhibit 2)
3. Site plan showing existing and proposed development of the
property. (Exhibit 3)
4. Special use permit dated June 7, 1971. (Exhibit 4)
REPRESENTATIONS AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY
HOMER WARD OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES
l. The Planning Commission (Board) minutes indicate that the
application is to expand a marina. This establishes that Ward
represented that a marina already legally existed at the site.
2. The County Commissioners minutes indicate that
representations were made as follows:
a. "Mr. Ward started the marina before the area was zoned. "
2
133
b. "Mr. Mallory (planning director) . showed the
commissioners a map on which Mr. Ward has shown what he
plans in the future. " (Presumably this is the site
plan contained in the County records) .
c. "Mr. Ward informed the planning commission he has
permits from the Corps of Engineers and State for
dredging. "
d. "[M]ost of the dredging and filling has been done."
THE REPRESENTATIONS WERE MISREPRESENTATIONS
l. There was no existing marina.
a. The structures authorized by a Corps of Engineers permit
issued in 1969 was for a pier and boat ramp only. No
mooring pilings were permitted and no dredging was
permitted. (Exhibit 5, 5 pages)
b. Two of Homer Ward's sons have offered sworn affidavits
in a related proceeding that the marina was constructed
and operated "after the issuance of special use permit
#13" (Exhibit 6, 2 pages) ; and "after the special use
permit was issued." (Exhibit 7, 3 pages).
c. Testimony of witnesses who lived near or frequented the
site during the period from March 7, 1969 when the Corps
of Engineers permit was issued and June 7, 1971 when the
special use permit was issued is that no marina
3
134
operations were occurring prior to the time the special
use permit was considered by the County Commissioners.
d. Services such as the fuel dock were not begun until 1976
(Exhibit 8).
2. "Mr. Ward started the marina before the area was zoned."
a. The sworn affidavits of Tim Ward and Donnie Ward
(Exhibits 6 and 7 show that the marina was not in
operation until after the special use permit was issued
on June 7, 1971.
3. Mr. Ward informed the Planning Commission he has permits from
the Corps of Engineers and the State for dredging.
a. The Corps of Engineers in 1969 did not permit dredging
(Exhibit 5) .
b. No State permit was ever issued for dredging (Exhibit
9) .
4. Most of the dredging and filling has been done.
a. Any dredging was done illegally (Exhibit 10).
b. No permit was ever issued to dredge (Exhibits 5 and 9).
c. It is a material misrepresentation to represent that
dredging has been done without indicating that the
dredging was not lawfully done.
MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THE APPROVAL
Virtually all of the factors considered by the Planning Commission
(Board) and the County Commissioners were misrepresentations. The only
4
135
conclusion that can be drawn is that the factors contained in the
minutes were the factors that were deemed important and were used as
the basis for granting the special use permit. Accordingly, the
standard for terminating the permit under ~109.1(e) is met and the
Planning Board should recommend a termination of the permit to the
County Commissioners.
A termination does not unfairly or unduly affect the property
owner as no marina operations have been carried out on the property for
many years. Even if the 1971 special use permit is terminated, the
property owners may still proceed with requesting a special use permit
for any new or expanded marina operations. In fact, the current owner
is currently pursuing a special use permit which has to go through the
same procedural process and findings whether it is considered a new
application or an amendment of an existing permit.
CONCLUSION
The Petitioners respectfully request that the Planning Board
recommend to the Board of Commissioners that they terminate special use
permit #13 in accordance with the provisions of ~109.1(e) of the New
Hanover County zoning ordinance.
5
136
Respectfully submitted this 1st day of December, 2005.
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
By: W.O.
William A. Raney, Jr
Attorney for Petitio rs
107-B N. Second Street
P.O. Box 1049
Wilmington, NC 28402
Telephone: (910) 762-7475
NC Bar No. 5805
WAR\environ\R05-304-001
6
137
Page 372
- 3 -
2. A nine acre .parcel of land (Shady Haven Subdivision) located East of nine acre p
U.S. 421 and West of S. R. #1492 at the western extension of Seaview of land (Sh
Road from R-15 (ResidentLal) to R-IO (Residential) Haven Subdi
j
, Mr. Mallory stated that t~is property was to be used as a Mobile Home
Subdivision. He also stated that the basic difference between the R-15 and
R-lODistrict. is size of individual lots for single family structure. R-IO
allows lot.s of 10,000 square feet. if a. wat.er. system is provided that meets
the requirements of the Health Department. Mr. Mallory said that the Planning
Department recommends approval of this petition. Mr. van Des en. asked about an
existing pond within the subdivision. Mr. Mallory stated that the.pond would
be filled prior to .approval of the. final plat.
Mr. Cant~ell.mad.e a motion. to iecommen~ approval of this r~quest to
County Commissioflers .... Mr. Emmart.seconded the motion and. it. was approved .by
the".members.
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE.PERMIT (COUNTY): Mt. Pilgrim
Missionary,
Baptis t Chu
1. Application to expand Mount Pilgrim Missionary Baptist Church on
Car.olina Beach Road (detached kitchen facility). The property is in an
.R-t5 Zone.
Mr. Mallory stated that the -Planning Department has no objections to the
Special Use Permit but the developer .should.be required to resubm'it a sketch
that is dralo!t1 to scale_, "showing th'e boundarie.s of the lot, church extensions
correctly located. and if the extension .is. to be .connected to .the church.
"Mr. Emmart made a motion to rec~end'approval to the County COmmissioners
subject.to the petitioner resubmitting his sketch. Mr. Davis seconded the .
mot-ion a~d it was appr~ved by t;he inemhers.
2. Application. to;~~and the Special Use ~MarinaL.located on lots. 1, 2, 3, .& 4 Special Use
between Burnet .. venue (g.R.. 15.27) and Myrtle Grove Sound. The. pr.operty (Marina) on
Js..in an R-15 ~Qt1e. - - ,. 1,2,3,&4 be
-"! . . , '-- Burnett Ave
;CC-=-Hi-. Mainf~ed thatthe.Plannlng Depanment recommends .approval of the Myrtle Grov
Special. Use Permit subject to. the. following conditions:
10 Thaf 50% of the off-street parking should be .25 feet in length.
2. That the. .sign .shOilld not be larger than 32. sq. ft. and should not
be. illuminated.
3. That no..cons~ructioti of boats shall be permitted on the lot.
4. That when th.e proposed club house is <:onsttucted, additional off-
street par~ing be provided in acc~rdance'with the Zoning
'Ordinance'.
5. That sales and services ,connected with the ope~ation of the club
ho.use facility sharI be ;inoidetital to the marina I s operation.
6. That. the sale .of boating and. fishing supplies except gasoline and
oil .;,hall be. in an enclosed structure.. .
7. That uo.smoking signs shall be posted at each gasoline point.
Dis'cussion followed concerning larger parking spaces for cars' with boat
trailers. It was agreed that. in: No. 1. above the length. of 50% of the off-
. street parking spaces be .increas,id to 32 feet in length.
Mr.. van Oese~ made., a motion to' r-ec-ommenrl approv~1. -of the' Special Use
Permit to the County Commissioners subject to the conditions .~isted by the
Planning Department.. It was seconded by Dr. Pickard and approved by the
; members.. ".
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TOCOllNTY ZONING ORDiNANCE:
1. Amend Article V'Sectiou.55, .Subsection 55-3.by adding the following:
(5) Research facilities
Mr. Mallory stated that this was the amendment. that hadbeen discussed
at the May 5,: 1971 mee~ing to allow' research facili~ies ~n a'B-2- Distr~ct as'
s Special Use~ . .
. . Dr.. Pickard moyed th'! t . the P1iinning Comrriissiot! recommend approval of the
amendment to~theCountyPomm~$Sioners, ~t was seconded by.Mr. Cantwell and
approved by i'hemembers; . .
.OT.HER iiUSINESS :., !___~. OTHER BUSlli
138
~ '
. ......c-.i~-
- ~-- ~,-
N.J-Il.l<:l!E!l. Oil, 'l'\.tli: m\:W1;l)\G ~.llnlB.7. 1911 - (OONTtNueD).- (j
\ .
Wt;t,tO tlEb.'alllG I3nUlAl> UeE P~Rl1ITS - .. . ' - :
~ Mr. Ha:t't':hu open,ll'd pu,b:l,ie hiix-if16' on tQllOlline; 'IlPo:.1Bl Ude pu.~ ; v
- '.. _ _ _.v
l.. APplication to ~xpahd Moun~ Pil,rt8 6i.810na~ Beptis\: Cburc~ on Oarolina neaoh
Rosa (de\:.oh~d. ki1;oben (aoUitt. Tbe p%'Oll"rty ill iQ an tt-15 Zone.
2. !ppueatiQn to expand. the apecial Un (Marina) located on 10M 1. 2 I ~. &: 4 lla-
t;ween Burnett Avenuo cd. Myrtle Grove Sound. The propert;r is in an tt-l; Zone.
No.1 _ Mount PUtrilllMiasioXUtq Baptist: Ch'u:roh was dieo\ll'llled. ti':<'Jt. !]!berc wu no
oom4ent fro. anrona present. ,
Mr. Mallor1 atated thifl request \lSB consid.81:ed 1);1 the n.anningCo!llljtbsiotl at. tbl:!l.r Iut
lleating and the COlllllbsiol1 recolllUlends app:r;oval of the rt>qv.8lJted ijeoial use pemit, Jlub.1eot ,.
to revis:l.on or the sketch plan thll~ WAS Elub1l1tted with tlieir appl ~..tion. . All of tbe items
that 'We~ 011 the plana wer!, round to be not lotlated properl., IiJnd 1r the01 1II0Uo1<1 t"llSubmi t the>
- plen &5 it. e-bol.1ld bedn.W11 to 8e81&, the Plannina CQIIIlliaaion doea r~o_end. that tbl. af'ecial
., use pendt be ltlllued.. ,/'
\. '- Ro. 2 _ "-rina \laa diecuesed ne~~. 'hert were no objection..
Mr. MaUor( stated Mr. Ward ll1lartl$d. the t\al"itlA before tha area "'$I! zoned and showed. the
Oaanlli.aaiOl1era 8 up on wb1<lh fu:o. Ward bu shoW11l11ha1i be 11mB i.n tlbfl tlXtue, 110 tl:lallhe will
not haY. to ooae baek req\\..t~ 8pec1al. uee vel"aits ellC ti... 1'S:t>,. WaN in!011lled the 1'lan-
n!tl.g Oocaiea10t1 he bAa :pe~it. rea the Corp. of Ece:ineere and State !:)r dretlging at:lll iIoat
oC tlhe dredlsi:ng ll1ld fj.l1iDg has 1)eeD. done. 'rhe l'labUin& Depttt't'aenl1 rMo_enda isSUlltICe or
IIp''oi41 uae pend.t, aub;1e<:.U 1;0 the lo11.ow~'
1. ~t ~ at the oft-street p.~ spaces b. 'at least 32 teet ~n lenstu.
2. Prop~sed sign not to be larser ~han 32 square feet. in si.. - ~n-il1u.ina~ed.
3. Tha"t no conetruo1;lon ot boll1;8 be portl\i:lsted on the 1011.
4. \1\1.011. proposed -01\\0 ho\1f1e 1a eODstrueted tldditic)7:lsl. orr-street parking SPM88 be pro-
vided in lilocordanee with the Zonins Ordinmce.
5. 111 sales aad servioes co~oC1;.d with the opera1;1oXl 01: the 01'-1'0 fao1l:Lt1" shall be in-
cidental to the lIIa:l:'iM operations. ""-
6. Sale of bo8ti~ and Uahiut!; IIUWU" except ee1,. of gasoU.ne -uld oil ah$1.1 be !'t'01'l
en enclQs(!d atruot.ure.
7. No lII1IoltiP6 eil!;nB shall.be pGsbedall each saao1.:1.ne poi.nt.
t1r. Ball IIOnd, aeoond.ed ~ Hr. Mal'kI\, tbAt e~ohl UIIe pet'ldta b<: sranbed in ~th 111-
atlUlCeII. ltU:!eot to ...tine; the ~re.ent. nOOMended bY the Planni:'l6 Oolllldaa1CI1. Motion
oarried \U18 1Il0ua~. '
r.-"'ZOUING ~ tiC Y1011n::s OF ~UUNo-'l'Otf oOI.iLllGE - .
. .. tlr. . allo17 atate the ill11nUig Jlepartllont be.a been ,"orking on ot\ler aree.stor count)'
zonine d ail 1Uleti~ ill MillY " 1IA1lWU pt'Gse1'l.tled.. to the 1>lannine Oo_i ~lIion tor trol'f)l!Ied
~oning of ~a'aroun Villl1ngton College and a~ tbat ti.. it W~l!I voted to hold t III public
. b.ear1l$ in June. but ~U$t triQr to ailnrtiallla they received. "ora \lUaiD.!rt9nOoUega 18 foing
to :nq\t$lIt; 1ll.:U:lexation !IIMc . wiU atreot the llfopoaed.. toning, fiG the Plmnins 00u.18s10n IS
going to .hel.. this area until later. -
~ Atter dl.scuss1.on.. Mr. lJarl'is8 r~lt)lle8ted Hr. 11111101:7 to p~eaent to the Plan.n1n15 QOlllm1euion
"the OOll\TlIissionet.'a' views or the de!Jil'abil1t3" of havi:ng a public beann.,; !at an. e"t'~ date on
-toMa m.atter. ~e BQ!l.rd \les ot the, opinion 111 should !!io Ilho.ad with :toning ot this area.
M1l11lG Qlr PQW.l!:ea' a :REO'! ~ ~ '
Hr. 11a11o:l17 pre:tilllntted i.ap ot l'orter' B Meek 11'll8 going 1000 teet O~l the northern side of
u. S. 17 vb.i.eh if! bU1eBl~ residl!1lbial end state/!. the 1'1anning DSl'art:lten.t wUl recolllllend. mosl
at it be zoned tt-15 01' Il- with exception of wo b\l,SmOllSeS I1t the in~llrlle<>tion. 'Eer:U.eet
date pubUc hearing elln be hllld 'Would b'EI first Co_iuaioMl'B' lle~tiDg in JulY, .
tb.'. Willia\ll.ll lllQ:'l.fld, seconded 1:>1'1'11'. OXenfeld, tb>>.tpublic \"1earine; be scheduled for l!:otlif'
A:.t'elil No. 5 for tbllt meeting inotu1-r which yiU be on 'r"u.e6d'l.ly. J1l1,. 6. Motion carri.ed
-unlll!ituouely.
mORT .ON WA'lIJW.SlrEtl l'ROOltAl1 -
_ fir. Sa1l1 <!i:llt., bfsliX:let Consel'va:tionistt U. S. Depa;r;.t\l1ent of' Af5ricu.ltUl.'C. and Mr. George
,,___ i"l....h',...n. \faterabed. Advisorr Colll1l1it eel reported on thE! 'tIatel.'Gh-',d Program.
~ .~-....~....^~.,....\""'O" MAt
..-..-
139
.. '.,.:::<:,,~,.,..: <;i""'.'::";'.'~""" :.....: ']"1:""
.. >. " '..., ,;, ~; . '. . ,'. ,.'1 .
. "";: :',: ;: ',' <' . .. ,. : I, :
.",. ::~ .:' "'.';li;~;~\;J:;' .... '.. rv) Ii':
· .,. :,'f",r, .. . ~,,~ ::tt'
',.?ii\-}i,,;:;. . 'j:I;~ .' or. ' ",;:;:::; ',.::= ~ ~ .: '.' '.'
J :," .',',' .k~;;~!:.;
". .,r,'}~19: {~. !ci-,; ^ ,;,j ~ co :1:.'
. 1i1l; . ..;':.?Jl ;,. . t..L ": ~ ~ :~ < ~.
',:. , .', ['>; q'..';'~:\<~.:' "'::i: \p:: ~ ,i( ;.,'~.
';,,' .".' . . ::f\J: '. ~ ",c,:~, .::, ,6, .,~ 1 0,~S . .,..
. . . .. . '~"<7 .~;")! .;'..' .;":"..:' ,
..' , . "'. .:.:'. ,.>.... ;,,'.
- .. ~. ,
' ,,: :'. . . ':-.,.: .~i. '.:
> ,
.' .'.. ""." ;. p'fe,'. ,. .
.' : . . . . n . ..' \..1. .;: ':\. ',',. !'. 'l!.: 1. Xi? :'/ ';,':
" ", :.. 5: ',";' ".,' .<"' v ,\"J.:: ;: :;
. '. .'.. :-:. .,.' : ': ."\. . , : ": '.
. .... ,.::.:'. -. .,\. :\'~c\~~~:,,:. ': .~
. .'. ....." .. ,.. ,.' " ,
il',1f ~. ",:. .'. . .!.,.~~~,,! , "': .. ",,>:.', ..
-. ;':;;;:>,'." .';:.' ."';.' '. ",.;":~:L:_ ; .... \~~~. . ',i-'
'. . ," "",.. :';: n . !".
. ~:.,. ".::-,".' .. :" '.:..' 'c" .:; .""'.':';.. . ., "..
~:' - :.' '.',,: "', :".'. .
. .' ..' ,:: , ,
..' ..... ..' . . '.
' . ,.:,.'.:: .:... ". .....\ ,.;~\ "', . .c'.," ,;
" " '.. . ".c., " <;. '. '. '. ~,' ,. _ . '.' . ..' '" .: ...
i;ri~~;t: ("',... .;" , . ,. .....',. '.!.."'" . ,';',,,",""
.. .." I'. ,'.'.;. . . .:.:,- , '.
.~,- " ".. ."." '" " . ...., ."......~.
.m',. ;:: . '.. . ...t..;,':( '." .. I, \. '., '''''. " I, '.,<.h;,
-" ," ;.' ";-". '.'. . \ ,.\......, .... .'.r"':i.. i
' "i. X ': ,.. .
. , ..: '> .'. :" .' ,.r.
'.;:~c." {~~:' '. '., . , \ ' \ I.,' .
1\
.. '\'!'~.
'., \\
!.'., . ,~,. ..... ".\" \-" )\... I.
' .. '~,. >i~!;~. <:'~k,:\-'~: '. ~\ . \ . -' ' ~>~, :'<\~," .:.
(.,:" .,.... .,i,,'e'tl<:r;'-' " ':\ B";; \\, .. .:;:;
., ..:".... '.: .cq:~,v.:',
:. '.;'" '-; ."'.\\\ . ~. ,\ , \.':"
":':: .'., .'-Ce,'",\" "\:~: ~_ .'i:~~~1J~,"~i~, ..'.,'
" :_;"J.:':, ,". .;.!'-. .:,.... "~'>J ":' .,; <'~
_: ','? ," .'~ c~ ,'. ~~ y '.;' , n', ~.;
. ", :'~3 ';;,'; ~A'."W,;
"" tP,:,\.;.:):,~.,r> .,.< ~;~ ':..' , ".l..
., >'. ." . ,'. '.: '..; ~~ .... r ,',
....... .' '\u ",. .,"
, .,' ;; '. "., ,.: , '
'. ,/': --,-~...:,'. . . '.'. :
. :r~t, ", ," '. ,,'. .
) //:;~'{.", 'j. .' ..........'.
~: L....' ,........ :. .". ',. ":N .:'.
":' ~, .." ;':';:. :..:,. . ,.;. ... '. . '. .,' , -.;.. "
:~;! . ",<,,:.'.::. ,:"'~~",.... ... ...... .'.
.. ,,}L ~,:;,", " ," ,"" ,
140
SPECIAL USE PERHIT
NE'"l'l HANOVER COUNTY
Permit No. 13
Application No. 14
Zone R-15
A Special Use Permit: is herehy granted. "by the Board of County Commissioners
after consideration by the Wilmington-New Hanover Planning Commission to
Homer H. Ward
to us e the .land located at Route 2. Box 241-DD, Burnette Av.e. ( s. R. 1527)
for Marina
based on the following conditions: (1) That 50% of the off-street parking spaces
be at least 32 feet in lenl1:th.
(2) Proposed sign not to be Lanter than 32 square feet in size - non-illumi.nated.
1) That no construction of boats be. permitted on the lot.
(4) When proposed club house .is constructed additional off-street: parkinJ;!; spaces be
provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
(5) All sales and services connected with the operation of th.e club facility shall
~~ncidental to tbe marina operations.
(6) Sale of boating and fishing supplies except sale of gasoline and oil shall be
from an enclosed structure.
-,
(7) No smoking si~ns shall be posted at each gasoline point.
~
This Speci.al Use Permit shall be subject to the conditions listed above and
the ~QQtM...Qrdinance of New Hanover ~!&-l!~X.lt".Jl~..F.he conditions so specified
or ar.y part thereof shall be held void or invalid, or iEany such conditions are
not complied. with, this Special Use Permit shall be void and of no effect. The
Special Use Permit is authorization for the Build~ng Inspector to issue a building
permit for the use listed above.
--.
June 7-" 1971 ...
LL Date
J"f m
.j IE~
141
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
. PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402.1890
October 3, 2005
Regulatory Division
Honorable Elizabeth Dole
United States Senator
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 122
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Senator Dole:
Thank you for your September 17, 2005, inquiry regarding correspondence you received from
Mr. David Ward (undated). Mr. David Ward wanted to know what Department of the Army permits
were authorized to Ho~r Ward .at 1512 Burnett Road for the_construction of a marina, in Myrtle _
Grove Sound, New Hanover County.
We have thoroughly searched our records and files and have concluded that a Department of
the Army pennit was issued to Mr. Homer Ward in 1969 (enclosed). This pennit authorized the
construction of a private bulkhead, boat ramp and pier on the property in question. In addition, I
have enclosed several general permits that have authorized the maintenance and repair of these
structures subsequent to the original permit (enclosed). According to bur records no other permits
have been issued to Homer Ward at this location.
As always, your interest in this matter, our regulatory program, and all Wilmington District
matters is greatly appreciated. Questions or comments regarding this correspondence may be
directed to Henry Wicker of the Wilmington Regulatory Field Office at (910) 251-4930.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
---
WI~~T ~~_
~~J~['~~'
142
Mr. Greer/p~~
Mr. Turner ~
Mr. SandQrs:~
Col. Denisonjs(3'
Mail J""r,,
. OPER "") J<"-.
SAWKS (Permit No. 12~69) 10 March,1'69
Mr. H~ H. Ward
29U IllKe Shot'fil Drive
WilIaington. N. C. . 2M01
Otc. -
a Dear Hr. Ward: ...
~,' In aceordaU(%e with .yOur written request dated 14 November 1968, there is
C).-. incl.oS$d a ~t' autborinng tbe~etlon of a~'boet r_p. bulkhead.
and a pIer in Myrtle Sound near CaroUnaBeach in New Han<Wel' COUnty, N. C.
"0, Itany ut::eri~l changes in the loeat1.on or plaAs of 'the $~e or work
~. .Ct:lM found ~es$l!lry on account or unforeseen or .11;e"" cl;toolt::tons or
0'tberw18e~ :revised plaDs ~1d be subIit1tted F'8pt:l1 to the Df.$uict En-
~;:. gineer in ord~:t that these :te"ti8ed plans, it foUnd unobjectio~1e. llIey
.~...
Q-. :receive t'l1e .p~al ~quUed by law befg:re COM1;ruqtion hbegun.
(f.,). Your attention is called b condition. (1) of the inclosed pemlt wbich re-
quires th~ ~ttee to no-tify this office !'!lla'tive to :~lie CQlDIlle~nt
0'0. and comp1et:lbn daus.3~
"'. . In response te>., public DOtice dated ~ Dec_er 1968, :issued to announce
your proposal to aU know intueeted. ~ea, the State of NortbCaroUna
an,d C.G. W11Us, Inc., fq:ttdahed c.OImlE!nts. A copy each Or 'their' letters ;'
:is inclosed. In connection with ~ 14at: sentenee :l.n paragraph ~hof the <::--
State's letter. yolU' attention is invited to ~a1 condition (k) in the
~ permit. In c.~tion wl1:h the .'lIatter trOlllC.. Q . WilUs"lne., Yl)uratten-
tj,on :is in\1ited to tbE! \1aVe wa$h f1ier attached to the pElt1n:tt:. .
Si~ce:tely yQuia;
a Inds PAUL S. 1)SNlSON
3.. Pennit No.. 12-69 Colonel, ~s or Eng.tneexos. \
w/Vla'Ve aotioa fllel: . District Engineer
2. Cy 1'b' 6 Mar ~9 fat State \ ~
3. Cy 1'b" 10 Dee 68 DB ,
C. (;. Willis. Ine. I
.Copy furnished w/o lnels: :,'
"\
Dir'j NC nept: of Wilter &: Air "
, 1
Resources.. ~~igh, NO 276&3 \"\
i
\'~
\ \
. ,
\
\
~ '~
. m mT
,< ;i?!
143
-' .'
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NOTE.-It is to be understood that this instrument does not give any property rights either in real estate or mate-
rial, or any exclusive privileges ; and that it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private
rights, or any infringement of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations, nor does it obviate the necessity of obtaining
Stat.. assent to the work authorized. IT HEBSU" ElIP<lE88E8 'FIlE A8SEN'F ElF <rilE FmllRAL CS'\'Dmr1lDlIT EO P III AS eBn
el3ltlfS THE l'treM8 !HGRT:'! 6F u.:.n81.'fillU. (See Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. S.,.410.) 115-1316&-1:
PERMIT
Wilmington DiStt'ict t Corps of Enginee~s.
Wilmington, North Carolina
------!O--Marc'b--------------, 1%9
Mr. Homer H. Ward
2914 Lake Shore Drive
0' WUnlington, N. C~ .28401
Dear Sir: ,;01;:-.-.:'_.
-
V". Referring ~o written request dated 14 November 1968
0 :0-..' ~. r
(:) I have to inform you that, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers,
N and under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of Congress approved March 3,
- 1899. entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction. repair, and
0 ~ ,',
preservation of certain ~ublic works on rivers and harbo;rs. and for other pur-
e>
0- poses,. you are hereby authorized by the Secretary of the A~y.
" to construct a bulkhead. bctlt f.-"thanW~ctu k.)
ere esc:r e pro re or wor
in Myrtle Sound about (ttW~tt!1;!..Ii,'{t~f:1j,t~q, !!U..m!r..~~~rnW the Atlantic Intra-
coastal Waterway.
1M n~arCJtoltn:a ~~h ~n !ew J!a:t\ov~ Co~ 1.. e. . .
(Here to nam e .nearee we - own oati -pr era T a W1J. or Clty- Jtt e cllstanee In ,mn~8 and tenths from some deAn Ita point In.
the aame. atatiulf whether above -or below or giving direction by points of. .CQD1Pa.&I.)
in accordance with the plans shown on the dl'aVJing attached hereto
(Or drawings = give .file number or other definite i!ientHication marks.)
"PrOposed Pier Portion Tuc~...Bttrnett Sub-DiV.t Myrtle Grove Sound. November 9,
~r .
SUbject to the following conditions:
I ~
. ~-'li'!I'H '" T
t:,.A"', ~
144
(a) That the work shall be subject to the supervision and approval of the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers,
in charge of the locality, who may temporariJy suspend the work at any time, if in his judgment the interests of navi-
gation so require.
(b) That any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein authorized shall be removed evenly and no
large refuse piles, ridges across the bed of the waterway, or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause injury to
\ ntlvigtlble channels or to.the banks of the waterway shall be left. If any pipe, wire, or cable hereby authorized is laid
in a trench, the formation of permanent ridges across the bed of the waterway shall be avoided and the back filling
shall be so done as not to increase the cost of future dredging for navigation. Any material to be deposited or
dumped under this authorization, either in the waterway or on shore above high-water mark, shall be deposited or
dumped at the locality shown on the drawing hereto attached, and, if so prescribed thereon, within or behind a good
and substantial bulkhead or bulkheads, such as will prevent escape of.the material in the waterway. If the mate-
rial is to be deposited in the harbor of New York, or in its adjacent or tributary waters, or in Long Island Sound, a
permit therefor must be previously obtained from the Supervisor of New York Harbor, New York City.
(e) That there shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work herein authorized.
(<1) That if inspections or any other operations by the United States are necessary in the interest of navigation,
all expenses connected therewith shall be borne by the permittee.
(e) That no attempt shall be made by the permittee or the owner to forbid the full and free-use by the public of
all navigable waters .at or adjacent to the work or structure.
N (f) That if future operations by the United States require an alteration in the position of the structure or work
herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army, it shall cause un~sonable obstruction to the free
- navigation of sail]. water, the owner will be required upon due notice from the Secretary of the Army, to remove or
alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby without expense to the United States, so as to render naviga-
V tion reasonably free, easy, and unobstructed; and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure,
fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed, the owners shall,
o without expense to the United StateS, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Secret~ry of the Army
may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navi-
o gable capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal
Or alteration.
N (g) That the United States shall in no case be liable for any damage or injury to the structure or work herein
. authorized which may be caused by or result from future operations undertaken by the Government for the conserva-
tion or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from
- any such damage.
o (k) That if the display,of lights and signals on any work ~~"reby authorized is not otherwise proVided for by law,
. . such lights and signals as inay be prescribed by the U. S. Coast Guard, shall be installed and maintained by and at the
expense of the owner.
o (i) That the permittee shall notify the said district engineer at what time the work will be commenced, and as
far in advance of the time of commencement as the said district engineer may specify, and shall also notify him
0'" promptly, in writing, of the commencement of work, suspension of work, if for a period of more than one week,
resumption of work, and its completion. 31st:
r..... (j) That if the structure or work herein authorized is not completed on or before ____________________________________ day
. . .. of Tlet"embet"._______--. 19_-72, this permit, if not previously revoked or specifically extended, shall cease and
be null and void.
(k) That tbe permittee shall comply pl"OlIlptly with 8Jt)l' regulations, conditiona,
or lU't1l'uations affecting the work hereby authorized if and when 1s$Ued by the
Fedel'~ Water Pollution Control Admin1st:ration end/or the State water pollution.
cOfitt'Ol agency ltav:tng jurisdiction to abate or prevent water pollutiont'o Such reg-
ulatlons, eond1.tions or instruetiona in effect or 'pl"ea<:rib$i by the Federal Water
Poll\1'tlon Control Administration or State aileney are hereby made a eondi'tton of
this pe:tmit.
By authori~y of the Secretary of the Army:
-9~~
PAUL S. DENISON
ColOM. l~ C...O):1)$ af En~e:r$
DistriCt: tnglnoor
?~{pO~~ 1721 (Civil) This fann supersedes ED J'o<m ~ dllted Upr 48, ....blch m.y be used nntne:<b....ied.
u. s. C'>>vn"'MlJfT tl"ltl"Go O'FICE t8-1318!l-&
. j if ~-
- -
145
\,5J
- -.' . . "." -- ......'~. ,..,
I . .. . .......
".: ..........:-..:' ','- :~.:.... . ,.~- . - ...., ,-.- .
-, -T-'
.~ . - \,-
," -,- . ........ "
i '''..._.' . ~.,c __. . _ .~
~ ./.
I. ~...<./j" .....'........'....".,,'.'.. I.................'..;:
o "
fIJ ~.
.,rt. g
.Ja " . !& . .
, '... - . S~' '-----f1-L' "':'\":',,'''i:'.'
.. '.. O. I- -"tsI!~'B:f.tER
;, '~~;;E;lt.V R .~Av~~t ..,8'-'4~.' {l:,;~~ ,..t~:ltr~ .'
}.' ~~ . .""/-, i1 -,[
; ;; ~~,w~;;','_"tl.(.,_.
: '",~.r, ::I, . gr:n:;Ii(~r:> ,f}
, '''.., In 4>~~RA:MP t. ,
~, ~.'T' "/~
;J f, ,I.'.'
,...' , J.!
'..' It I" ~..,
'-J'!i!i -, .,n-
-,.. ""'''''''' '".....,
'-,. J' . !.'J,.'
-'f~
, i
'FlI..'.....t:,".~.. ..,"'~' ,..'. ....~l .... ~ t\.AA' 'p. ',. . ~.,
:.:,'.'.i,.",6: Vie,","", t T, . _ I /
.., . 'l:':-"P'~-" ;"-- - ...., ,.-. . -", . . , ::~,~
~CAL..S:' t U == 1:5C1Cl'
: ;
. ~
. ! ~
; , , ,.'Ib' .l!: 1<>' "'
f
[
~ ,," n, .
!' ':n'Zx,fb~~K,6.Cf--
! .. \:I. ~~..._,~_,
!' 0 " ....
" H. \V.I-. - [:l1{4\VN ~y A.J:l.a~~v~"~~~i(H~'~i.~.~~
'. .. 1115:~.
:1': .HOM~H;~V'AS~i:
":iHR~~I~~~~!~ t1F p~~~,_ ,;~~!H.
146
.
/7"":....... _..-~,
, f ( .. ..", \ fC3) \V?
'. \':::;.-/~. J lJ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 04 CVS 2195
TIMOTHY H. WARD and DONNIE H. )
WARD, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) AFFIDA VIT OF TIMOTHY H. WARD
)
-vs- )
)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, )
)
Defendant. )
I, Timothy H. Ward, being first duly sworn, depose and say that:
1. I am one of the Plaintiffs in this action.
2. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein.
3. I am 47 years old, having been born in New Hanover County on October 22, 1956.
4. I am one of the owners of the property located at 1512 Burnett Boulevard,
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina, which property is identified as Lots 1,2,3 and
4 of Block 3 of Tucker-Burnett Subdivision, as more particularly described in that General
Warranty Deed dated and recorded on June 20,2001 in Book 2963 at Page 412 ofthe New Hanover
County Registry ("Subject Property" or "Father's Property").
5. My father was Homer H. Ward. My mother was Frances Ward.
6. I resided in New Hanover County until 1985, and I returned in 2001. I currently
reside in New Hanover County.
7. My father was an electrician by trade, and I helped my father and older brother,
Donnie, with his business, known as Azalea Electric, during high school.
8. In 1969, my father obtained a Permit form the Wilmington District of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to dredge the riparian area of the; ?l,Ibject Property for the construction and
operation of a marina. .
9. A copy of the Corps of Engineers' Permit is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit
"A."
fBIT 6.__.
147
.
10. As I recall, my Father's Property was dredged in 1971 after issuance of the Corps of
Engineers permit.
1l. On June 7, 1971, my father obtained Special Use Permit No. 13 from the New
Hanover County Commissioners.
12. After the issuance of Special Use Pemut No. 13, I assisted my father and brother,
Donnie H. Ward, in the construction, operation and maintenance of the marina that is located upon
the Subject Property.
13. The marina operation was called "Ward's Marina."
14. My father operated the marina on the Subject Property for a number of years until
his death in January 2000 in New Hanover County.
AND FURTHER THIS AFFIANT SA YETH NOT.
This the \ g- day of October, 2004.
~~~.~~
TIMOTHY H. WARD
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIB..fD
BEFORE ME THIS TIIE I ~
DAY OF OCTOBER, 2004
P~G--ai [Stamp-Seal]
","11'"",
Notary Public "" "'" CRAI ""
~ ~ ~""'''''''' G '';.
~.- -.,
~ /'~oiAAy"'" ~
- . . -
My Commission Expires: : : ~():.
: z i _e- j Z =
lo 12.0 101 ;. ~\. ,ous\.\U <t.-2
~ ~.... . .... .$
';. 'fAt. ........... 0'5 "
I", OVER C ""
1111'''111''''
2
148
~ '. , cg .~, ro.wl
'--.'/ \ j
. '~lf==j 'lJ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 04 CVS 2195
TIMOTHY H. WARD and DONNlE H. )
WARD, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) AFFIDA VIT OF DONNIE H. WARD
)
-vs- )
)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, )
)
Defendant. )
I, Donnie H. Ward, being first duly sworn, depose and say that:
l. I am one of the Plaintiffs in this action.
2. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein.
3. I am 52 years old, having been born in New Hanover County on February 20, 1952.
I have lived in New Hanover County my entire life.
4. I am one of the owners of the property located at 1512 Burnett Boulevard,
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina, which property is identified as Lots 1,2,3 and
4 of Block 3 of Tucker-Burnett Subdivision, as more particularly described in that General
Warranty Deed dated and recorded on June 20, 2001 in Book 2963 at Page 412 of the New Hanover
County Registry ("Subject Property" or "Father's Property").
5. My father was Homer H. Ward. My mother was FrancesWard.
6. From 1968 and continuing until my second year in college at the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington, I resided on the Subject Property with my father and mother.
7. My father was an electrician by trade, and I helped my father with his business,
known as Azalea Electric, during high school and college. I graduated from college in 1974 and
subsequently married and moved out of my father's residence on the Subject Property.
8. My wife and I lived in a trailer in Wheel Estates in Wilmington for several years
prior to building a house that is located in the Tucker-Burnett Subdivision, a couple of blocks from
my father's residence at the Subject Property.
U~~T 7
~a~ . . "_~
~
149
, 1 ,.
9. In 1969, my father obtained a Permit from the Wilmington District of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to dredge the riparian area of the Subject Propeliy for the constmction and
operation of a marina. / -(.
~
10. A copy of the Corps of Engineers' Permit is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit
''''A.''
11. As I recall, the property was dredged in 1971 after issuance of the Corps of
Engineers permit. ~~
12. On June 7, 1971, my father obtained Special Use Permit No. 13 from the New
Hanover County Commissioners.
13. I attended the Special Use Permit hearing in Wilmington with my father.
14. After issuance of these permits, I physically assisted my father with the dredging o[
the canal in the riparian area of the Subject Property next to the Intracoastal waterway, helped my
father with the construction of the improvements authorized by Special Use Permit No. 13, helped
my father with the erection of a business sign for the marina, sold gas, sodas, snacks, bait, food
stuffs, etc., to customers of the marina and other odd jobs as requested by my father.
15. My father and I wired the electrical facilities for the marina, as he was an electrician.
My father requested and obtained a special transformer from CP&L for providing additional
electricity to the Marina buildings. This special transformer still exists at the original location.
16. The marina operation was called "Ward's Marina," and I still have the original sign
used by my father to advertise the marina to the public. A photograph of this marina sign is
attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B." This sign is over 30 years old. My father operated the
marina on this property for a number of years, and I had the occasion to visit with him and assist
him with the operation almost e~y un!i1 his death in JanuaI1' 2000 in New Hanover County.
'"'- .... ~ ~ 0:::-.. ....
17. The lumber that my father and I used to build the pier house and other marina
stmctures was purchased from Godwin Lumber Company in Castle Hayne. I remember going to
Godwin's with my father.
18. My father also obtained a business license from New Hanover County for the
operation of his marina and for the sale of beer, gasoline, soft drinks and fishing and boating items
commonly found at marinas.
19.'>' All~~ _~E~l.'!!$..E..~!l)it was issued to my father, he operated the Subject
Property as a commercfal marina and sold gasoline, beer and other items to the public.
20. I personally recall an incident in the mid-1980s when a barge destroyed pmi one of
the marina buildings. My father was compensated by an insurance company for this loss.
2
150
21. During the early 197CJs, MontyEtheridge; one of my father's customers, operated a
boat, which he moored at the marina. As I recall, this was between 1972 and 1974.
, 22. My father receivf:d incoIlle from th~~perationof the commercial marina on the
Subject Property from moorings, boat slips, boat launchings, and sales of gasolIne, drinks, snacks
and other items.
-~"!!- 23. My father also had the marina dredged on occasion.
25. Twomedianical boat lifts had been used at my father's property for years after the
issuance of Special Use PetiIiit No. 13. __
AND FURTHER THIS AFFIANT SA YETH NOT.
. ., sl-
ThIS the _ day of October, 2004.
~~Jfl)J
SWORN TO AND SUBSC~ED
BEFORE ME THIS THE I L
DA Y OF OCTOBER, 2004
P ~ C,\ D...... ,\ \ \ tMttlitlprJeal]
", ~ CRAIG"",
Notary Public ~ " '?' ........... '-'
~ <( .- -... :.-$
~ ..... O,ARy"" ~
= ! ~. \0:
:z\ ~.... i~=
.~~ G ~-
My Commission Expires: ~ \. PUB\..~./ ~
'-$-:" "':0~
IOI2-0{<::>l " ...y~""""" 0 '
"'" OVER G "",
"'"111111\\
3
151
, '1 , ,1
.
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing and attached
AFFIDAVIT OF DONNIE H. WARD
was this date served by telefax before 5:00 p.m. and depositing said copy in the United States Mail,
postage prepaid, and addressed to the following attorneys at the indicated addresses:
Mr. E. Holt Moore, III
Assistant County Attorney
320 Chestnut Street, Room 309
Wilmington, NC 28401
Telefax: 341-4170
Mr. William Norton Mason
SHIPMAN, MASON & WRIGHT
II S. Fifth Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28401
Telefax:: 762-6752
This the 1 st day of October, 2004.
~~
KENNETH A. SHANKLIN, NCSB #05826
MATTHEW A. NICHOLS, NCSB # 23403
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
214 Market Street
P. O. Box 1347
Wilmington, NC 28402-1347
Telephone: (910)762-9400
TeJefax: (910) 251-1773
4
152
FEB-18-2005 FRI 05: 13 PM COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE FAX NO, 910 341 4170 p, 11
--' ._1 .-. -. .- ---
... ..". .._..",~- -~ .-_.. -_.._-.,-~~.
; DENR. SEc/['] ON TEL'919 733 9413 P GOS! OD
DEC, - ()~' 02 ) ",16' 51
FACILITY DATA SHfET - PAGE 01 OF 01
OWNfR NAlf-----e; HO~~~ H. WARJ fAC II..ITV 10: 0-0230aO
iJ~NER At) RESS-....;: l<T 2 aOX L41 -::JD it;;v-<( ~ JL ~
FACILITY ",,.,"\E-".-: HO"'lER K.. .....ARO
fACIkITY ADDRE~S: ~T Z 30k 141 -DQ ~Z~
IJA-/. ~tf1
TANK TANI< P"ROOUCr - DATE .
NU.,aER CAPAc"i. 1'f HORSO INSTALLED
'~~
. 200';) :Jlt:SEL cnv ~~ De/OJo.-/l!!!:....
2
1 4000 G4S0L.IN€: ~ r::-.r:.(~ ~ O!l/04/1976
-'j~
TO At.. F.='~ FOR "('t-1IS FACIUiY: :; ~ ~v-~0~
---_.....- - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - ~ - . - - - -\- - -
! .f/; TH::: I !U'P'!i,-!.E:i!. ( } Of' ~R..HOR OF tHIS FACIL!TY \.
"T.' ,,,"^ U TY 0 F LA W Ie.'" F< TKAT TH' INFO RK<T ION THAT t
HJ1vi; PkDVIU20 r-s ~C'URATE ~
id. Ii I I
1'1< r:J r 'Oft. "12: :.12........,.., e r H" -.i1.La 7'~
.' -' -~----......_- -..;...;- -_.-
SI~NArURE-~ _t~~~_~--~~ ------
DA n;------: _.I ~ .::::" t .: t?.!-"'-__-----
f)l,
,~
#
..
~qp~ 8' ~T ~~--
I't"'\'j ~ "S',
I.l l;, 0_ Iii
153
II....... 1-..... ___ I .... I .. ..... L. j' p.c
RA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
November 21,2005
David Ward
t 508 Burnett Road
Washington, NC 28409
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference is made to our recent telephone conversation concerning any permits that may have
becn issucd to Homer Ward at 1512 Burnett Road, adjacent to Myrtle: Grove Sound, Wilmington.
After a comprehensive search of our on-site permit files, as well as a search of our permit
tracking database, the only permits Coastal A.rea Management Act (CAMA) and/or State Dredge
and Fill Law permits thatT can find that have been issued to Homer Ward were (1) a general
permit for a boat slip in 1992, and (2) a general permit for a bulkhead in 1993. Additionally, two
general pcrmitli for bulkhead~ were issued to Mr. Tim Ward at the site in 2004.
1 would also like to let you /mow that Mr. Tim Ward is in the process of applying for a CAMA
Major Permit to dredge a portion of the property in front of his property, and to construct a
multi-slip docking facility. As an adjacent property owner, Mr. Ward will be required. to notity
you of his intentions to apply for this permit, and you may provide any specific comments you
have on the proposed project at that time. As we have previously discussed, the fact tlmt Mr.
Ward is applying for a permit does not mean that a permit will be issued. A decision on whether
or not to grdnt a permit w.ill only be made after COOrdinating with various state and federal
environmental review agencies.
1 hope that the abovc information is useful. Please let me know if! may provide any additional
permit histories at this location.
Sincerely, ~.
~///~
Doug Huggett
Major Pennit Coordinator
Cc: Jim Gregson
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: 252-808-2808 \ FAX: 252-247-3330 \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity' Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recyded , 10% Post ConsumEr Paper
J:"X I-i , FU? q
t~,~' .-' IL:}l, - - '
154
- . ~"~~r- p.3
. '!.<-' ... ~~
..-....... -..:--"""
.~f~:"tt.C" of~.crrt1r <!JarnLina -
::!9E:parintrnt uf '- ,'. f : /1.7 (
.0_
- ~
C!J.ong.crtttttion: 2mb" gJeb".e.LIpm.cnt ..!....;
I ~ t. .:;
~Il(cig~ 27611 -
RoDe,"", W, .C;COTT ~, '....,
COVI:.RNOA
J.:muf.lry 12, 1971;..>,'. .. \, ~ - DIVI~ION or- COMMERCIAL
ROY Go. 50WCRS. JR. ANO SPORTS r'l5HrrAI~~
D(~IZC'rOR ; '., ~ ",: . 'i ", ',' ,: . .1,. . '. '. I. 1\::.:: 'r'r':;LepJ10NE-~ B;::g-3'l(J:r
~}(: V .. :/:';!i ~!
MEMORANDUM: TO - T. L. Linton (Ed Wade)
:C. ram . Jim Brown
Subjecr: App. for C&D Permit _ H. H. Yard - dated 1-12-71
While flying with Pilol: Arthur Rose January II, ~e observed a dr~dging operacion
in Myrtle Sound on the west side of the lWW approximately If2 mile south of the
Carolina Beach Inlet. Mr. Ward waS having the dredging done by Harrelson &
l'homa.s (co-owners of dredge D~AR #1001). I stopped and talked with the dredge
owners and with Mr. Wo.rd. No C&D permit had been applied for. A federal permit
was obtained for construction of the bulkhead and to fill within the bulkhead,
but not for excavation of fill muterials from submerged bottoms. The f.ederal
permi.c is No. ~-66l dated December 2, 1968.
1 i.nfor,ned Mr. Ward that he must obtain ~ State permit for any dredge and fill
work begun aft~r January I, 1970, in addition to his federal permit, and also
that the federal permit obtained did not cover dr.edging which i$ presently being
dOlle. I also mentioned to Mr. Harrelson thac this is the second case in which
his dredge had been involved in unauthorozed dredging.
1 assistt!d Mr. Ward in completing application forms, maps, ~tc. to apply tor
the State perruic. these should reach your office at about r:he same I:ime as this
memar and UllI.
FrDm being on site, it was quite obvious that the dredging in progress was nav-
i.ng little effect on Eishel.-ies resouJ:'Ces of the area, and that all spoil materials
loIet:e bei~lt~ ade<juatcly confined behind existing bulkhead. Had an applic.o.ti.Oll been
filed, it is tny Opinion that there would havl' been no. objections Voiced al;ainsc
issuance of a pp-rmit_
Since the operation was approximately 2/3 completed, Hr. Ward aod the dre.dge
o~ners were quite concerned about tbe stoppage of thi.$ project. I i.nformed
them that I had no authoricy to allow conti,nunnce, but I would r~lay the ci.r-
CUlJiS I.;ance to the .E'ishcri.es Commissioner for his ..~on"i.deration in allowing con-
tinuatiOn oJ; the project.
Jim Brown
EXHIBIT /"Q--
~
155
This page intentionally left blank.
156
MEETING OF THE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
ASSEMBL Y ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE
24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301
WILMINGTON, NC
ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No.
9:45 p.m. 1. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
9:50 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes 159
157
This page intentionally left blank.
158
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Water & Sewer Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Governing Body Presenter: District Chairman Kopp
Contact: Sheila L. Schult
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Water and Sewer District - Approval of Minutes
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Approve minutes from the Regular Meeting of the Water and Sewer District held on December 18, 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 5-0.
159
This page intentionally left blank.
160
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 01/08/07
Additional Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenter: Dave Weaver
Contact: Dave Weaver
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Re-allocation of Budgeted Funds in the Carolina Beach Re-nourishment Project to Expand the
Borrow Areas to the AIWW
BRIEF SUMMARY:
A proposal has been developed to expand the borrow area for the Carolina Beach re-nourishment project to include not
only Carolina Beach Inlet but also the Atlantic Intra Coastal Waterway (AIWW). In order to do so, New Hanover County
would need to notify the U. S. Corps of Engineers stating that the County has no objection to re-allocation of its budgeted
funds for this purpose.
On August 14, 2006, the County voted to approve $1,344,000 for the Carolina BeachlKure Beach re-nourishment project, at
the recommendation of the Port, Waterway and Beach Commission (PWBC). The original project involved the placement
of 532,000 cubic yards of sand from the inlet to the beach. The proposal for this item would instead take 90,000 cubic
yards from the section of the AIWW, reducing the amount from the inlet to approximately 442,000 cubic yards.
Based on the lower than anticipated bid for the re-nourishment project, there are approximately $932,000 of County and
State funds remaining in contingency for the project. If the project required up to 25% more sand, the additional cost would
be approximately $500,000, leaving $432,000 available for extending the sand borrow area to the AIWW. It is highly
unlikely that these costs would exceed the amount funded by the County. This project allows for this modification because
the dredge to be used by the dredging company is suitable for use both in the inlet and in the shallower waters of the
AIWW. It is critical to note that this section of the AIWW is the most shallow section of the AIWW in North Carolina, with
depths approaching only 4.0 feet at low tide. It should be noted that if the County contributes to this AIWW dredging, which
is typically a Federal function, the County should emphasize this is a one-time County action.
The Port, Waterway, and Beach Commission recommended approval of the earlier request for the County to participate in
dredging of the AIWW. Based on conversation with Rick Catlin, Chairman of the PWBC, the PWBC likely would approve
this project also, but because of the short time frame, the PWBC could not meet to consider this project modification.
The County Commissioners recently considered a similar proposal for dredging of the AIWW. Key differences, however,
between this proposal and the earlier one include:
- All sand will be placed on the beach in front of structures, and not just on Freeman Park.
- The firm performing the beach re-nourishment project will use a shallower dredge that can work
in the AIWW and the inlet.
- This section of the AIWW is the worst in terms of navigability.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The Commissioners should consider the proposal.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
161
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-1, Davis opposing.
162