Loading...
1995-07-05 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 777 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Wednesday, July 5, 1995, at 6:30 P.M. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Commissioners Sandra Barone; WilliamA. Caster; William E. Sisson, Jr.; vice-Chairman E. L. Mathews, Jr.; Chairman Robert G. Greer; County Manager, Allen 0' Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Chairman Greer called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone present. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Reverend Terry Stephen, Associate Pastor of the United Advent Christian Church, gave the invocation. Commissioner Caster led the audience ln the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Introduction of Human Relations Director Chairman Greer introduced Mr. Anthony Wade, the new Director of Human Relations, and his wife, Dorothy. He welcomed them to New Hanover County and wished Mr. Wade success in his new position. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general public would like to present an item not listed on the Regular Agenda or comment on a item listed on the Consent Agenda. The following items were presented: Concern for the Recommendations by the Board of Fire Commissioners for the provision of Fire Service in New Hanover County Mr. Michael Rhodes, Chief of the Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department, commented on the recommendations from the New Hanover County Board of Fire Commissioners and expressed concern for the following issues: (1) provision of Fire Service to the Highway 421 North Industrial Corridor: In January 1993, the Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department was asked to provide fire protection to the Highway 421 North Industrial Corridor for a period of 90 days with backup from the Winter Park Volunteer Fire Department after the North Wilmington Volunteer Fire Department had been dissolved. The Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department was glad to perform this service for 90 days and was told at that time if the fire service needed to be continued, discussion could be held with the Board of Fire Commissioners to receive additional funds to provide fire protection to the area. Two years later, no additional funds have been received nor has additional funding been approved by the Board of Fire Commissioners. The total operating budget for FY 1994-95 was $125,857 and $165,000 for FY 1995-96 because of $42,000 budgeted to pay for a new fire apparatus and a $27,000 payment for a cabin chassis to be placed on the pumper truck to be used to pump water from ponds for hauling water. This leaves approximately $90,000 for operation of the Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department. An increase was requested in the proposed budget with denial of this request by the Board of Fire Commissioners. The Wrightsboro Volunteer Department has no choice but to eliminate fire service to the Highway 421 North Industrial Corridor unless additional funding is received for providing this service. A letter was written to the Board of Fire Commissioners notifying them that fire service would be discontinued as of September 1, 1995, unless an agreement could be reached on additional funding. It now appears funding will be NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 778 eliminated for the Wrightsboro Fire District by the Board of Fire Commissioners unless the department continues to provide fire service to the industrial corridor. After computing figures, it was found that the per call cost was $368 dollars. The Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department has responded to 35 calls on the industrial corridor which would represent a cost of $12,880. This figure represents 10% of the operating budget for the Wrightsboro Fire Department, and the department is in need of the additional funds. (2) Death Benefits: There is question by the State concerning death benefits when crossing the boundary of a fire district into another district without a fire department in that district to provide mutual aid. Currently, the death benefits to a family are $50,000 from the State and $75,000 from the federal government. In order to address this issue, the contract should contain language to allow the Wrightsboro Fire Volunteer Department to provide fire service on the Highway 421 North Industrial Corridor. (3) The Procedure being Used for Appointments to the New Hanover County Board of Fire Commissioners: According to the by-laws of the New Hanover County Board of Fire Commissioners, the Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department was to appoint a representative to serve on the Board of Fire Commissioners effective July 1, 1995. The Board of County Commissioners postponed filling all vacancies on the Board of Fire Commissioners until after the vote on consolidation to be held in October. The Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department feels the by-laws should be followed and a member of the Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department should be appointed to fill that vacancy to provide some input from the community on the proposed consolidation of fire service. The Commissioners were requested to appoint Mike Rhodes as the representative to serve on the Board of Fire Commissioners. (4) Revisions to the Contracts with the Volunteer Fire Departments: The Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department properly executed the fire contract with the County for FY 1995-96 on June 15, 1995, and returned the document to the Director of Emergency Management, Dan Summers, as instructed. Last week, revisions to the contract were received on Friday by the Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department with a request to execute the proposed changes. The Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department did not feel ample time was given to review the changes, nor should changes in the contract be made at the last minute after the old contract had expired on June 30, 1995. At the present time, the Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department is operating without an executed contract. The Fire Department feels this was a threat by the Board of Fire Commissioners because the department will not be responding to calls on the Highway 421 North Industrial corridor after September 1, 1995. Comments on the Proposed Southern Alternative for the US Highway 17 Wilmington Bypass Mr. Chuck Demeres spoke in opposition to the Southern Alternative because of the disruption to the Wrightsboro Community. He commented on faulty traffic counts and difficulty in believing that environmental concerns could not be addressed with selecting the Northern Alternative. He requested the N. C. Department of Transportation to consider the human impact of the Southern Alternative on the Wrightsboro Community. Ms. Trudy van Luyn, a resident of 42 Holland Drive, commented on the date of July 5, 1995, being appropriate after the annual celebration of Independence Day on July 4, 1995, and reported the citizens of Wrightsboro were attending the meeting because of the idea that this country was founded on representative government, which is directly related to the destruction of a well, established racially, mixed community if the proposed bypass becomes a reality. The Commissioners voted on May 15, 1995, to rescind the endorsement of the Southern Alternative because of misinformation about the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 779 negative impacts to the Wrightsboro Community if this route was chosen by the N. C. Department of Transportation. The Commissioners were requested to consider the following factors when hearing the presentation to be made by the N. C. Department of Transportation and Griener, Inc.: (1) Further study of the aerial map used at the Public Hearings held by the N. C. Department of Transportation reveals that the Castle Hayne Road interchange would be constructed only one-sixteenth of a mile north of the Wrightsboro School. This prompted the New Hanover County Board of Education to oppose the Southern Alternative because of concerns for increased traffic around the Wrightsboro Elementary School and the transporting of hazardous materials by the school. (2) The Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department has expressed opposition to the Southern Alternative because of concerns about access to the area and the number of existing roads that will be cut into half, which could impede the response of emergency vehicles. (3) The Wrightsboro Community is concerned about the N. C. Department of Transportation, in many instances, acting as an un-elected governing body with authority to exercise its own power. This agency uses well intended mandates of elected officials to justify maneuvers it has already decided to carry out, such as hiring a consultant, in this case Griener, Inc., to find ways to justify the route selected. (4) The Public Hearings held by the Department of Transportation are a mockery of the democratic process. The public felt the opinions of the citizens of the Wrightsboro Community would be respected; however, the Public Hearing held before the Board of County Commissioners on May 7, 1991, revealed that the Department of Transportation heard the public comments, but did not listen. On May 25, 1995, the same public comments were presented to the Board of Transportation, but they, too, were not heard. (5) A letter written by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers requested the Department of Transportation to respond to the following pertinent questions: (a) It appears that the starting point for all thirty-six alternatives of this initial phase of the project was one point on 1-40. How was this particular starting point selected, and were any others considered? If so, why were they eliminated from further consideration. (b) As of July, the only reply to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers was a copy of a Preliminary Alternatives Analysis. No direct answer was forwarded to the Corps. (c) Out of concern for no direct response to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, residents of the Wrightsboro Community requested information from the Federal Highway Administration. It was found there were several points of conflict between the N. C. Department of Transportation proposal and the Federal Highway policy. It appears that most of the expense of the bypass will be paid by federal funds. (6) Does the general public want tax money spent for placement of required noise barriers as recommended in the Environmental Impact Statement. The barriers will go through heavily settled residential and business areas. In one area along Oakley Road, one barrier will be 1,400 feet long, ten feet high at a cost $12,100 per protected residence, which is considered economically reasonable by the Department of NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 780 Transportation; however, the other barrier on Oakley Road will be 1,300 feet long, nine feet high at a cost of $29,900 per protected residence, which is not considered economically reasonable by the Department of Transportation; therefore, the residents in this area will have no protection from the noise. Mrs. van Luyn, on behalf of the residents of Wrightsboro, expressed appreciation to the Commissioners for rescinding the resolution of support for the Southern Alternative on May 15, 1995, and allowing the residents of the Wrightsboro Community to express their concerns about the proposed bypass. Consideration for Adoption of Resolution to Request the Resignation of District Attorney Jerry Spivey Dr. Earl Sheridan, representing the New Hanover Branch of the NAACP, read and requested adoption of the following resolution: WHEREAS, the District Attorney, Jerry Spivey, who serves New Hanover and Pender counties, was reported in the Sunday Star- News to have uttered a racial slur and engaged in disorderly conduct, and since these actions have been confirmed; and WHEREAS, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners representing the citizens of New Hanover County cannot tolerate such insulting and bigoted language and behavior on the part of an official elected to impartially carry out the laws of North Carolina; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners requests that Jerry Spivey resign from the position of District Attorney. Chairman Greer requested direction from the Board of County Commissioners. He stated, for the record, he agreed with the statements in the resolution and felt Mr. Spivey could not fairly represent the office of the District Attorney; however, he did not feel one elected official should be requesting another elected official to resign. vice-Chairman Mathews agreed with Chairman Greer and reported he did not condone the actions of Mr. Spivey; however, he could not request another elected official to resign. He advised the persons in attendance that anyone could file a complaint with the Clerk of Superior Court, and the case would be heard by the Superior Court Judge. Commissioner Sisson commented on being ln a difficult poli tical position because he and Mr . Spivey were of the same party; however, morally he felt the actions admitted by Mr. Spivey were not acceptable and that no public official should remain in office after committing this type of action. In his opinion, Mr. Spivey cannot impartially carry out the duties of the District Attorney, and he had no problem in calling for his resignation and supporting the resolution presented by Dr. Sheridan. Commissioner Caster reported he had been out-of-town over the weekend; however, politics should not have anything to do with this situation. He asked Dr. Sheridan if he had considered carrying this matter to Superior Court? Dr. Sheridan responded this procedure could be followed; however, it would be better for Mr. Spivey to resign without being requested to resign. The NAACP felt adoption of resolutions from the various elected officials throughout the community would encourage Mr. Spivey to resign. Commissioner Caster noted that Mr. Spivey should step down because of his actions; however, as an elected official, he would have a problem asking another elected official to resign. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 781 Commissioner Barone commented on being uncomfortable with supporting a resolution that would be non-binding and reported Mr. Spivey was aware of what he should do; therefore, whether he decides to resign or continue to remain in office, he would never be re-elected to office because of this unacceptable behavior. Mr. Buzz Davenport, on behalf of Mr. Spivey, requested the Commissioners to consider the fact that when Judge Jacqueline Morris-Goodson was attacked by the Star-News over an incident, Mr. Spivey was the first person to stand up for Judge Morris-Goodson. When Ernest Fullwood ran and was elected as Judge, Mr . Spivey campaigned for Mr. Fullwood feeling he was the best man for the job. In his opinion, to say that Mr. Spivey is a racist is just not true. For twelve years, Mr. Spivey has performed a good job, and he feels to request a man to resign from his profession for one horrible mistake, when under the influence of alcohol, is not right. He was wrong and he has apologized. Also, Mr. Spivey will suffer throughout the remainder of his career for this unfortunate incident. Mr. Richard Irving, a resident of Wilmington, reported Mr. Spivey, the District Attorney, went into a bar and called a man a bad word (racial slur) without provocation. He left the bar without apologizing to this person. In his opinion, Mr. Spivey should suffer the same consequences as anyone else under the same condition. During his term in office, some questions of fairness have arisen such as the incident where Mr. John Jones, a black man, was shot down by Police Officer Gibson with the shooting witnessed by another Police Officer who stated that Police Officer Gibson put a gun behind Mr. Jones' head and pulled the trigger while the man was not resisting arrest. After review of this case, Mr. Spivey ruled this incident accidental and this decision was recommended to the Grand Jury. On another occasion, a black Police Officer in his apartment accidentally fired his pistol through the floor with the bullet striking and killing a woman. Mr . Spivey ruled this incident as questionable, and the Police Officer had to stand trial before being found "not guilty" of a crime. After these incidents and the racial slur made over the weekend, it is difficult to believe that Mr. Spivey can render fair and impartial decisions. The Commissioners were asked to publicly admit that this action was wrong and adopt the resolution requesting the resignation of Mr. Spivey. Mr. Harper Peterson, a citizen of New Hanover County, expressed deep regrets for the action of the County's District Attorney. In his opinion, the public trust has been broken by this action. The ability for his office to operate has been compromised; therefore, his resignation should be sought. In order to move forward as a community, this type of remark cannot be condoned; therefore, as elected officials, the Commissioners should support the resolution requesting Mr. Spivey to resign in order to avoid tearing the community apart. Chairman Greer responded he felt the action was wrong and the District Attorney should resign; however, he did not feel he could request another elected official to resign. Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED to adopt a resolution not condoning the actions of the District Attorney and request Mr. Spivey to consider resigning from office. The floor was opened for discussion. Chairman Greer reported he did not mind making a public statement not condoning the actions of Mr. Spivey; however, he did not feel a Board of elected officials should tell another elected official what he should do. Commissioner Caster requested the Clerk to the Board to read the motion. The Clerk read the motion. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 782 Chairman Greer called for a SECOND ON THE MOTION. Commissioner Caster SECONDED THE MOTION. The floor was opened for discussion. Commissioner Barone expressed concern for telling another elected official to resign from office. Chairman Greer called for a vote on the resolution to request Mr. Spivey to resign. Upon vote, the MOTION DID NOT CARRY AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster Commissioner Sisson Voting Nay: Commissioner Barone Vice-Chairman Mathews Chairman Greer Request for Michael Rhodes to be Appointed as the Wrightsboro Representative to Serve on the New Hanover County Board of Fire Commissioners Mr. Kelvin Powell, a citizen of the Wrightsboro Community, requested the Commissioners to appoint Michael Rhodes to serve on the Board of Fire Commissioners as the representative of the Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department. Chairman Greer responded the Commissioners postponed appointments to the New Hanover County Board of Fire Commissioners until October because of the consolidation effort. He informed the persons present that later in the meeting discussion would be held on revisions to the contract with the Volunteer Fire Departments to protect the volunteers when responding to calls out of their particular district. He explained it was unfortunate that this item was not decided and placed in the renewal contract for the next fiscal year; however, this matter has come up as an additional item. Chairman Greer recommended that in the future, the Board of Fire Commissioners should have items of this type planned well in advance and obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners so that all amendments can be incorporated into renewal contracts with ample time for the Volunteer Fire Departments to review and understand the changes. He emphasized the importance of the Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Department understanding that this department was not being singled out, and he felt their concerns could be resolved. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Barone requested approval of the minutes of June 5, 1995, with clarification remarks as corrected by the Clerk to the Board. Motion: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson to approve the minutes with the clarification remarks as requested by Commissioner Barone and approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 5, 1995, with the additional comments as requested by Commissioner Barone. Acceptance of Grassroots Science Grant and Associated Budget Amendment The Commissioners authorized acceptance of the Grassroots Science grant in the amount of $5,000 and approved the associated NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 783 Budget Amendment. The funds will be used as follows: (1) to prepare the outreach materials for teachers for the Michael Jordan Discovery Gallery; and (2) develop and prepare a textile kit for circulation to the area schools. Adoption of Proclamation Designating the Week of July 2-8, 1995, as "Hurricane Awareness Week in New Hanover County" The Commissioners adopted a proclamation designating the week of July 2-8, 1995, as "Hurricane Awareness Week" in New Hanover County. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXII, Page 38. BREAK Chairman Greer called a break from 7:40 P.M. until 8:00 P.M. PRESENTATION BY THE N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND GREINER, INC. CONSULTANTS ON THE STATUS OF THE U.S. HIGHWAY 17 WILMINGTON BYPASS Mr. David Griffin, representing Greiner, Inc. of Raleigh, North Carolina, introduced the following members of the N. C. Department of Transportation: Ms. Lea Cobb, Mr. J. A. Bissett, Jr., and Mr. Franklin vick. The following overview of the u. S. Highway 17 Wilmington Bypass was presented: A map was presented showing the project extending between u.s. Highway 421 and 1-40. To the east it connects with the R-2405 project which extends over to U. S. Highway 17 approximately eight miles east of 1-40. To the west, the project was originally planned to extend into Brunswick County; however, because of Governor Hunt's 2001 Transportation Plan, this portion of the project between 1-40 and U. S. Highway 421 was accelerated and studies were undertaken for this portion of the proj ect. The Brunswick County portion of the project will follow. Presently two alternatives have been chosen, the Northern Alternative and the Southern Alternative. Interchanges are proposed at 1-40, Castle Hayne Road, and U. S. 421. A great deal of consideration has been given to the two alternatives selected and the placement of the interchanges during the preliminary planning process with a review of 36 alternatives including the Brunswick County portion. The location of 1-40 was fixed with many interchange locations reviewed including the Sidbury Road overpass and the existing Holly Shelter Road Interchange. The reconstruction of the Holly Shelter Road Interchange to the freeway standards would have caused substantial impact to businesses and residences in the Castle Hayne area. The next possible location to the north of the proposed 1-40 Interchange would be two miles north of Holly Shelter Road, in accordance with federal guidelines on spacing between rural interchanges. This spacing requirement would place the proposed interchange in Pender County, north of the Northeast Cape Fear River. This location would not meet some of the State's goals for constructing a bypass around Wilmington as listed below: (1) The interchange would not meet the goals of the U. S. 17 Intrastate Corridor System, which is to provide a convenient and efficient four-lane highway around Wilmington. A more northerly route would be about ten miles longer than the current routes under consideration. (2) The interchange would not conform with the current Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the N. C. Department of Transportation, City of Wilmington, New Hanover County, and Brunswick County. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 784 (3) The interchange would require crosslng of a new drainage basin (Island Creek) and an additional crossing of the Northeast Cape Fear River, resulting in greater impacts to wetlands and other natural habitats. (4) It would not meet the commercial needs of the State Ports Authority or the requirements of the Camp LeJeune U. S. Marine units deployed through the Wilmington Port and the Sunny Point Army Terminal due to distance. The possibility of Sidbury Road as an alignment for an 1-40 Connector was considered, but it was eliminated because it was within 1.8 miles south of the existing Holly Shelter Road Interchange. Federal guidelines recommend a minimum of two miles between rural interchanges. Also, there is a CP&L substation just west of the location which would cause substantial disruption to the substation as well as business and residential relocations. Consequently, the 1-40 Interchange is fixed in that approximate location. To move the interchange further south would involve heavier development as you move south on College Road. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project was signed January 31, 1995, and distributed in February. Copies for review have been placed in the New Hanover County Library and the local Department of Transportation office located at 124 Division Drive. A Public Hearing was held on April 25, 1995, at which time the Northern Alternative and Southern Alternative were presented for comment and review. The Southern Alternative has been designed as the "preferred" alternative of the two routes. Public comments revolved around residential displacements and community disruption, particularly to the Wrightsboro Community. A map was outlining the Environmental general public presented starting from the west to the east lssues that will be addressed in the Final Impact Statement and concerns presented by the on April 25, 1995: (1) Crossinq of the Northeast Cape Fear River: As indicated at the Public Hearing, there is a tug boat/barge operation that delivers hazardous materials to Cape Industries. The tug boat captain requested the N. C. Department of Transportation to review several crossings of the Cape Fear River to provide safe passage for his tug boat operation as well as others. (2) Concern Expressed by Residents of Apple Valley, Walnut Hills, NorthChase, and Wriqhtsboro Communities: Comments were received about the disruption of the Apple Valley and Walnut Hill communities. Due to the acceleration of Governor Hunt's Transportation 2001 Plan, NCDOT has proceed with some preliminary design of the Southern Alternative in anticipation of this route being selected in order to comply to project schedules. Specific areas have been reviewed with regard to further detailed design for corridors 1,000 feet wide, identified as alternative corridors, within which a roadway could be placed. The roadway would be approximately 300 feet wide of the right-of-way, widening out at certain locations where field slopes become higher, particularly at interchange areas where ramps and diamonds must be placed. Preliminary design has been reviewed for the Walnut Hills area, where it appears the interchange will be 300 feet from the property line of any residences. This distance should increase as the bridge location is selected for crossing the Cape Fear River. It appears the southern portion of the corridor will be more suitable for a bridge crossing than the northern portion, although this has not been determined by the N.C. Department of Transportation. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 785 Concerns were expressed from residents in Apple Valley because the core of the corridor would pass through a portion of the south side of the community. Based on the preliminary design to date, there are no structures to be taken by the corridor in Apple Valley. The project limits appear to be at least 500 feet south of the area with the possibility of this distance increasing once the river crossing is determined. The project passes through the Oakley Loop Road area crossing Castle Hayne Road to the north of the Wrightsboro Elementary School as well as north of the Wrightsboro Baptist Church, which lies to the north of the school and will not be disturbed. Wrightsboro Elementary School lies on the south side of the Wrightsboro Baptist Church, approximately 300 feet away from the north end of the church, which is where the southern most ramp is proposed. Concern was expressed about the safety of children attending the Wrightsboro Elementary School, primarily by Holland Drive. Because of this concern by the public, serious consideration is being given to provide an overpass at Holland Drive to allow that road to remain open at both ends. The Southern Corridor traverses a large amount of agriculture land toward N. C. Highway 132, which created concern by residents living in the NorthChase community. The preliminary design indicates there will be minimum properties taken within NorthChase that have been developed or are under construction. There is an extreme northwestern portion of the NorthChase Subdivision, which has not been platted, where several lots may be impacted. No lots on the eastern and northern portion of NorthChase will be taken by the corridor. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is currently under review by federal, state, and local agencies, and the comment period remains open. Several agencies have requested extensions to the Environmental Impact Statement with the Environmental Protection Agency reviewing the document. Also, a number of agencies have expressed preference for the Southern Alternative, including the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N. C. Division of Environmental Management. A response was prepared to Mr. Wainwright at the Corps of Engineers regarding the 1-40 Interchange and other issues. The Final Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared following a review of all comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, including those comments from the review agencies, the Public Hearing transcript, and written comments received, including phone calls from the general public. In conclusion, a final selection of the Northern Alternative vs. the Southern Alternative will be made, and an evaluation of all public comments received will be reviewed by the N. C. Department of Transportation. Mr. Bissett responded the Environmental Protection Agency was concerned about the negative impact on approximately 200 acres of wetlands and endangered species in Brunswick County from the extension of the bypass, whether from the South or North. He reported the Northern Alternative would be longer and go further into the northern part of Brunswick County with more of an impact on natural areas and endangered species. Mr. Griffin presented a report entitled, "The Development of Projects R-2633A/B, R-2633C, and R-2405 Contained in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's Transportation Improvement Program," prepared by Greiner, Inc. He requested the Commissioners to review the report in order to understand the impact of the routes in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties. The report is on file in the Clerk's office. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 786 Commissioner Sisson commented on the number of federal and state agencies reviewing the two proposed routes and inquired as to how a route would be chosen if the federal and state agencies do not agree on a particular route? Mr. Bissett responded the northern or southern route will be selected by the agencies that have control over the permitting process. In this project, there are three major permits: (1) a permit issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, at which time, the Corps has agreed to the Southern Alternative as the least environmentally damaging route; (2) a permit from the N. C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) for a 401 Water Quality Certification permit, at which time the DEM has agreed with the Southern Alternative; and (3) a Coast Guard Permit for the crossing of the Northeast Cape Fear River, at which time no concurrence has been received for either route because the curve in the river is being studied. The Environmental Protection Agency must agree with the route selected even if the Southern Alternative is acceptable to the Corps of Engineers. Discussion was held on the importance of considering the disruption of the community. Commissioner Sisson expressed concern for not considering the input from the community and stated, in this case, the human equation needs to be considered when an entire community will be disrupted by the Southern Alternative. Discussion was held on moving the bypass route further north into Pender County. Vice-Chairman Mathews inquired as to whether the N. C. Department of Transportation had considered moving the route further north? Mr. Bissett responded moving the route further north would increase the length of the bypass by approximately ten miles at a construction cost of $10,000,000 per mile, which would increase the projected cost from $100,000,000 to $200,000,000. Also, problems would be experienced with obtaining permits from the Environmental Protection Agency because of the impact on natural areas, and the traffic volume would be cut in half, which would make the project difficult to justify. Vice-Chairman Mathews asked if the general public was aware of the Public Hearings to be held on the proposed alternatives. Mr. Griffin reported there would be no further hearings through the environmental process unless new alternatives were considered. Once the Final Environmental Impact Statement is completed with a Record of Decision issued, the design phase would begin with a Public Hearing held at that point. No date has been selected because this Public Hearing will not be scheduled for the next twelve to eighteen months. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the input from the Commissioners lS worth anything in the selection process? Mr. Griffin advised that support of the Board was an important part of the highway construction project; however, if the Commissioners decide not to endorse the project, the State may question why $100,000,000 should spent for an unwanted project. Also, since this project was written into the 1989 Highway Trust Fund Law for the construction of a bypass for Wilmington, New Hanover County and Brunswick County, the State will probably construct the bypass, but support is needed from the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County regardless of the route selected. Chairman Greer expressed concern for people not understanding the project and not becoming involved in the public process until long after the project had begun. He reported with only one Public Hearing being held in 1990, three Public Hearings held in 1991, with one Public Hearing held in 1994, people do not realize the impact of a proposed route on their homes and communities until it NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 787 is too late to change the proposed routing. He stated, in his oplnlon, the people and homes in the Wrightsboro Community and other neighborhoods should be a major consideration. As to the Board of County Commissioners, the Board was requested to adopt a resolution in support of the Southern Alternative as recommended by the Transportation Advisory Committee and adopted by the City of Wilmington. At that time, the Board was told only six residences would be disturbed. Now, the Board has been told that at least 58 residences will be disturbed by selection of the Southern Alternative. Chairman Greer pointed out that a bypass was needed to improve the traffic flow, but stated not at the cost of its citizens. He recommended that the Department of Transportation consider placement of the route more northerly through both Pender and New Hanover County to avoid disruption of the Hampstead Community and Wrightsboro Community. He expressed concern for no simple solution, and asked how the Commissioners could protect the residents and support the N. C. Department of Transportation? Mr. Bissett reported the study area had been extensively reviewed. Moving the route further north would negatively impact more natural resources, and the traffic use would be greatly reduced, which becomes a problem with justification of the bypass at the projected cost. Mr. Franklin vick, Manager of the Planning and Environmental Branch of the N. C. Department of Transportation, reported the planning process for the Wilmington/New Hanover County area had been on-going for a number of years. The Southern Alternative, as proposed, was very near the adopted route in the Thoroughfare Plan which was mutually prepared and adopted by the local governments and State; therefore, this route should not be a surprise to local officials. As to public concerns about disruption to the Wrightsboro Community, the N. C. Department of Transportation has been acutely aware of these concerns and certain processes are being reviewed to minimize these impacts and the number of persons being displaced. However, any route selected will create a certain displacement of residences. When going through the Thoroughfare Plan process, one of the goals of planning was to inform people in advance of where a route would be placed. The Southern Alternative is very close to the route proposed in the Thoroughfare Plan and is not a departure from the planning process. Also, the proposed US Highway 17 Bypass has been part of the economic development package for eastern North Carolina since 1959. The goal was to provide a continuous route other than 1-95 to serve the coastal states. With the State Port located in Wilmington, it was felt the bypass would be economically beneficial in better serving the Wilmington/New Hanover area. Chairman Greer expressed appreciation to the N. C. Department of Transportation for the work and effort given to obtain the Smith Creek Parkway. He noted the Smith Creek Parkway will alleviate some traffic on Market Street; however, he felt a majority of the citizens in the County feel the outer loop should be constructed further out; therefore, he would be willing to spend more time in selecting the right location for the outer loop than moving forward with a route that may not be right in the future. Mr. vick reported that he understood the position of the Board of County Commissioners; however, because of conflicts about the location of the Smith Creek Parkway, the project was prolonged for a number of years because of a disagreement. In his opinion, it would be tragic for a similar situation to develop with the outer loop, which will deprive economic development to the citizens of eastern North Carolina without the highway facility. The Southern Alternative has been extensively studied with the areas of concern addressed, and the N. C. Department of Transportation feels this is the most effective route to remove traffic from College Road around Wilmington to Highway 421 with access to the State Port, or south to Brunswick County. This route will impact some residences in the Wrightsboro Community but these concerns will be minimized. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 788 Commissioner Caster inquired as to the time frame on R-2405 to the East? Mr. vick responded the section from Highway 17 to 1-40, and the section from 1-40 to Highway 421 will be developed on the same time frame; therefore, the Wilmington bypass portion of Highway 17 will be started in the 2001 time frame. Commissioner Barone inquired as to the purpose of the northern outer loop? Mr. vick responded the purpose of the northern outer loop was twofold: (1) to provide a bypass of Wilmington for Highway 17; and (2) to provide an urban loop for Highway 17 down through New Hanover County to serve the Wilmington urban area by providing a beltway around the western and northern sides of the community. Commissioner Barone reported if the purpose of the outer loop was for the movement of commercial traffic, she felt the argument of placing the route further out would receive less use just did not make sense. In her opinion, if truckers know they are going to bypass Wilmington, it would make no difference if the bypass was placed further out in the County. Mr. vick agreed with Commissioner Barone and reported the persons using Highway 17 desiring to bypass Wilmington would not have a problem with using a more distant location. However, the people living in the Wilmington urban area having to pass through Wilmington using the service street system, now in place, would use the bypass in lieu using maj or roads, such as College Road or Market Street. This would greatly relieve the current traffic flow problem in these areas. Commissioner Barone inquired as to whether the outer loop and Smith Creek Parkway should be so close to each other? Mr. vick responded both projects are integral parts of the Thoroughfare Transportation Plan. He reported the bypass had been studied in detail with the determination that both projects would serve a viable function in moving traffic in and around the Wilmington area. Chairman Greer expressed appreciation to the N. C. Department of Transportation for taking time to make the presentation and he urged them to consider the concerns of the Wrightsboro Community. Commissioner Sisson inquired as to when the permits for the Southern Alternative would be received from the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Bissett responded no definite time had been established for approval of the permits. The Atlanta Federal Highway Regional Office will meet with the Environmental Protection Agency office in Atlanta. It is felt a decision on the permits will be made within the next two weeks. Also, the comments received tonight will be forwarded to the N. C. Department of Transportation before the project will begin. BREAK Chairman Greer called a break from 9:00 P.M. until 9:10 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CONTROL LAWS ON THE NORTHERN END OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH Assistant Health Director, Lynda Smith, reported the Board of Health at its meeting on April 5, 1995, voted unanimously to request the Board of County Commissioners to discuss with the Wrightsville Beach Board of Aldermen the feasibility of allowing the Town of Wrightsville to enforce animal control at the northern end of Wrightsville Beach. After review, the Wrightsville Beach NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 789 Board of Aldermen agreed to provide the enforcement of animal control at the northern end of Wrightsville Beach contingent upon the following stipulations: (1) The County would be required to adopt animal control regulations currently being enforced in the Town of Wrightsville Beach for the northern end of the beach. (2) The Town of Wrightsville Beach would charge the County $1,200 per year for enforcement of animal control regulations. (3) The County would assume the liability associated with extending the animal control service to the northern end of Wrightsville Beach, including any legal cost or claims that would result from the Town of Wrightsville Beach enforcing the animal control regulations. (4) The County would be required to provide appropriate signs informing citizens in the northern area of the beach about the regulations that will be enforced. Assistant Health Director Smith reported an interlocal agreement had been prepared if the Commissioners decided to authorize the County to enforce these regulations at the northern end of Wrightsville Beach. Discussion was held on the number of complaints received from citizens in this area of Wrightsville Beach. Town Manager, Tony Caudle, reported the number of complaints were not excessive; however, the Animal Control Officer did have some concerns about a few incidents. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether Animal Control Officers were frequently seen at the northern end of the beach? Mr. Caudle responded Animal Control Officers do not come to the beach unless called, and quite frequently, the matter lS resolved before an Animal Control Officer reaches the beach. Commissioner Barone commented on this issue being blown completely out of hand and recommended allowing the policy to remain unchanged with enforcement by the County. Commissioner Sisson disagreed and reported many people feel threatened by dogs running freely on the northern end of the beach; therefore, he feels the regulations should be enforced. Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED to adopt the interlocal agreement as proposed to allow the Town of Wrightsville Beach to enforce animal control regulations at the northern end of Wrightsville Beach. THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO NOT RECEIVING A SECOND. No action was taken. REAPPOINTMENT OF ROLAND G. REGISTER AS TAX ADMINISTRATOR Chairman Greer advised that NCGS 105-294 requires the Board to reappoint the Tax Administrator for two or four years. He recommended appointing Roland G. Register to serve as Tax Administrator for a two-year term. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barone to reappoint Roland G. Register as the Tax Administrator for a two- year term with the term to end July 1, 1997. The floor was opened for discussion. Commissioner Sisson reminded the Commissioners that the two- year term would end in 1997, the first year after the revaluation of properties; therefore, he would recommend the appointment for a four-year term. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 790 Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Barone Commissioner Caster Chairman Greer Voting Nay: Commissioner Sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY DAVID SWAIN TO REZONE NINE (9) ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILITARY CUT-OFF ROAD NORTH OF LANDFALL TO B-1 BUSINESS FROM O-I OFFICE AND INSTITUTION (Z-536, 5/95) Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing. Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board voted 6 to 1 to recommend approval of the applicant's request feeling the rezoning would not cause significant impacts on nearby uses or be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan. The option of conditional use zoning was discussed, but the applicant felt this approach would hamstring his ability to react to market demands. The Planning Board member opposed to the petition felt the rezoning would not be consistent with the Land Use Plan because it would lead to strip commercial development as well as make it more difficult to suppress similar requests on adjoining properties, especially those fronting Military Cut-Off Road north of the site. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general public would like to comment. The following remarks were received: Attorney David Barefoot, representing the petitioner, David Swain, advised the property was approved for rezoning by the Planning Board because the property is an extension of the northeast quadrant of the Military Cut-Off and Eastwood Road area. The requested rezoning is a local extension of the present B-1 zoning. He requested Mr. Swain to explain the proposed use of the property. Mr. David Swain, the petitioner, presented a design of the office building to be placed on the site. The office space will consist of 8,500 square foot with a large portion of the building occupied by his company. The two buildings facing the highway will be used for upscale restaurants. The building to the rear will be for multiple uses with potential retail use on the first floor, which will require B-1 Business zoning. He commented on being a proven developer in the business for the past 25 years and presented background information on his company. The Commissioners were requested to approve the B-1 zoning request. Chairman Greer closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Sisson reported the first approval of 0&1 for the area was to provide a buffer between the existing planned development and residential area as well as square off the line between the northern most extension of the planned development. Now, three years later, a request is being made to zone the site to B-1 Business without any control over the site plan. The B-1 zoning will allow for strip commercial zoning and create more traffic at an already heavily congested area. In his opinion, there is no need for additional office space; therefore, he feels 0&1 zoning is appropriate. Attorney Barefoot reported with the growth pattern in this area, there is a need for office space and reported the most logical use of the property is B-1 zoning. Mr. Swain reported the demands and needs for the community are for mixed uses in lieu of office space. In his opinion, to develop NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 791 the site strictly office and institution will create more traffic during peak traffic hours. The project will be a campus type setting to accommodate the setting of the community and adjacent neighborhoods. There have been no objections to the proposed plan for the project, which will be an asset to the area. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the building ln the back will be used as an office building. Mr. Swain reported the property will be used for multiple uses; however, no plan had been made until a decision was rendered by the Board of County Commissioners on the requested B-1 Business zonlng. Commissioner Sisson strongly objected to additional road cuts on Military Cut-off Road, and the problems that will be incurred from additional retail space. Mr. Swain responded a prudent developer takes access points into consideration, and reported this had been done on the proposed proj ect. Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED TO DENY the rezoning request based upon no control of the site plan for the B-1 use, increased traffic at an already congested intersection, and no need for additional office and retail space in this area. THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO NOT RECEIVING A SECOND. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Chairman Greer to approve the rezoning request as recommended by the Planning Board. The floor was opened for discussion. Discussion was held on limiting commercial development along Military Cut-Off Road. Chairman Greer advised that discussion had occurred about limiting commercial zoning to a certain point; however, no action had been taken. Commissioner Sisson requested the petitioner to apply for a Conditional Use Permit since this is a transitional area, which would avoid opening the land up to any use in the B-1 zonlng. Planning Director Hayes reported a Conditional Use would have to be resubmitted to the Planning Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Barone Commissioner Caster Vice-Chairman Mathews Chairman Greer Voting Nay: Commissioner Sisson A copy of "AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA NO. 2 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED DECEMBER 15, 1969, is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 2, Page 35. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY PAM SIGMON TO ESTABLISH A CHILD DAY CARE CENTER IN AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 6230 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD (S-377, 6/95) Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing and announced the special use process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, persons wishing to testify must be sworn in by the Clerk to the Board. The following persons were sworn in: Dexter Hayes, Director of Planning Pam Sigmon NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 792 Eddie Lewis Esther Wilson Leo J. Nowak Joseph E. Martin Cleve Goodnite Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board, ln revlewlng the applicant's request, had some concerns about traffic impacts and whether or not Beau Rivage Drive was a private or public street. This led the Planning Board to recommend denial of the applicant's request by a 4 to 2 vote. A large number of people in opposition to the request attended the meeting. They argued the request could not meet minimal zoning requirements, and it would create traffic safety problems. They, also, argued that the land was part of the common area of Beau Rivage Plantation, which subjected it to direct covenants that limited land development in the subdivision to residential uses only. Concerns were raised about the impact of the use on property values. The applicant's attorney informed the Planning Board that the land was not part of the common area within Beau Rivage; therefore, it was not subject to private land use restrictions. The attorney, also, argued that Beau Rivage Drive was not a private road, but a public road because motorists in general had unrestricted access to the golf course which was open to public play. Planning Director Hayes referenced the following items in the agenda packet: (1) the proposed findings that were made by Staff based upon a cursory review of the application as well as site visits to the property; (2) a summary sheet describing the zoning history of the area and other nearby land uses; (3) a copy of the Special Use Permit Application signed by Ms. Pam Sigmon; and (4) a rendering of the site plan being proposed for the property. The site plan consists of an abandoned sales office that was developed as part of the initial Beau Rivage Subdivision. This building has been in disuse for several months and could easily accommodate a day care facility with the addition of a play area sized to accommodate the number of children in the back of the building. Planning Director Hayes reported the Board could impose any kind of restrictions or conditions appropriate based upon the comments or findings made at the meeting. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general public would like to comment. The following public comments were received: Attorney Lonnie Williams, representing the applicant Pam Sigmon, requested Planning Director Hayes to step forward to respond to questions relative to his name, education and years of experience in the planning field. Chairman Greer expressed concern for this type of questioning and requested Attorney Williams to respect the late hour of the evening and move forward with the testimony. Attorney Williams explained that adequate time was needed to present the evidence into the record because this matter could be reviewed by the courts. Attorney Williams presented the following questions with the following responses from Planning Director Hayes. Question: Are you the Planning Director for the County, if so how long, and briefly provide us with your planning experience and training? Response: I am and have been the Planning Director for New Hanover County since 1980. Before coming to New Hanover County, I had five NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 793 years of planning experience in Guilford County, Masters in Regional Planning from Virginia Tech. and I have a Question: Was an enlarged map in conjunction with the Beau Rivage project included in the agenda packet advising the Commissioners of the various commercial enterprises located along US Highway 421, South? Response: That is correct. The map inserted in the agenda packet described the adjacent zoning, the location of nearby properties, and properties adjacent to the applicant's petition. Attorney Williams requested the Clerk to the Board to mark the map as Exhibit #1. Question: Are some of the surrounding businesses just north of the Beau Rivage entrance a mobile home park, a used car lot, an abandoned fast food building, and across the road, a ceramic shop with a convenience store on the south side of the road down from the Cathay Intersection and further south on US Highway 421, the Masonboro Commons Shopping Center? Response: That lS correct. described. Those businesses are located as Question: Do you know the approximate distance from the Carolina Beach Road to the first home sites in Beau Rivage Plantation? Response: Approximately 2,000 feet or more. Question: Is the clubhouse located before reaching any residential lots, and does it include club suites, restaurant facilities, grill facilities, a pro shop, and clothing sales? Has that facility been used for those purposes and for golf since the clubhouse opened? Response: Yes, the building is the first structure as you enter the subdivision and it is located before the residential lots. The clubhouse has been used for club suites, restaurant facilities, grill facilities, a pro shop, and for a golf course since it opened. As to clothing sales, I am not sure of this use. Question: Explain the terms, abutting or adjoining properties, as defined in the County Zoning Ordinance. Response: An abutting or adjoining property is one that has a property boundary contiguous to the subject property. The Planning Staff is required to notify adjacent or adjoining property owners any time we have a zoning or Special Use Permit request as shown on the map in the agenda packet. Question: What properties have a contiguous boundary to the property in question? Response: Parcels A and F in Beau Rivage Plantation, which are in care of Lewis Realty. They are the only two properties that are contiguous to the site except for the State owned property on US Highway 421, South. Question: During the notification process, did you notify people in close proximity to the site in question, and did you receive any responses from any of the persons notified? Response: The people across the road were notified even though their property was not contiguous to the site. No responses were received from any persons notified. Question: Do you recall if the preliminary approval for Beau Rivage Plantation was for a maximum of 1,153 dwelling units? Response: This figure appears to be correct. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 794 Question: With the consideration of wetlands, was this number dramatically reduced to slightly over 100 dwelling units in the Beau Rivage Plantation? Response: Wetlands were taken into consideration when figuring acreage calculations; however, there are approximately 120 to 125 dwelling units, but I am not sure of the precise number. Question: With respect to the requirements of Section 72-20, did you refer to a map in the agenda packet presented to the Commissioners as a site plan? Response: The drawing showing the existing, or old sales facility, was included as the site plan in the agenda packet for the Commissioners. Attorney Williams requested the Clerk to the Board to mark the site plan as Exhibit #2. Question: As referenced by the site plan, Beau Rivage Drive intersects us Highway 421, and the tract of land in question adjoins the right-of-way of US Highway 421 as well as the northern boundary of Beau Rivage Drive, does it not? Response: That is correct. Question: Is there a divided entry into Beau Rivage Drive, and would you estimate that entrance to be 250 feet from Carolina Beach Road? Response: Yes, there is a median that extends to the entrance of the project, and this entrance is approximately 200 feet from Carolina Beach Road. Question: Is there a driveway that goes through the property ln front of the building? Response: Yes, there lS a circular drive in front of the building. Attorney Williams: The first requirement of Subsection 72-20 references dimensional requirements. Please define the dimensional requirements for a R-15 District, and does this land meet those requirements? Response: The lot must be 15,000 square feet. Question: Is this tract of land 1.37 acres? Planning Director Hayes: The tract of land is more than adequate to comply with acreage and setback requirements for the proposed use. Question: Does it meet the off-street parking requirements under Article 8 in the County Zoning Ordinance. Response: It has more than adequate off-street parking on the south side of the structure. Question: driveway? Does the site have a paved or otherwise improved Response: It has a paved driveway providing access. Question: Now, you have mentioned in your introductory remarks to the Commissioners a question regarding the definition of a public street. How has the County interpreted a public street heretofore? Response: In issuing Special Use Permits, the County has basically determined that if the road satisfies the County's requirement for access, either built to County standards or State standards, then NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 795 the County considers it a public right-of-way even though it may not be maintained by the N. C. Department of Transportation. Question: Have the County Commissioners approved a number of Special Use Permits for day care centers in New Hanover County that were not on publicly maintained roads? Response: The Board has approved other day care centers that were not on State maintained roads. Question: It is true that the interpretation is simply a well- maintained road that provides access to a facility? Response: It is assumed this was the County's intent when this section was written. Adequate access must be available to serve the day care facility other than just a private driveway. Question: The next requirement is the ability to be able to enter and exit the property without backing into the street right-of-way. Does this property meet that requirement? Response: The circular driveway satisfies that requirement. Question: The entire play area is enclosed with a fence having a minimum height of four (4) feet and constructed according to maximum safety. Does this property meet that requirement? Response: The property presently does not have that play area, but it will be required, and the acreage needed will be based upon the number of children that reside in the day care facility. Question: The location of the play area shown on the diagram, referred to as a site plan, was presented for the purpose of illustrating the location of the play area, and not the size. Is that true? Response: Yes that lS correct. Question: Does the licensing board for day care centers enforce both the construction and operation requirements? Response: The licensing board sets the standards. Question: Would signage be a condition of the Special Use Permit in compliance to County requirements if the permit is granted? Response: That is correct. site plan. No signs are actually shown on the Question: Would the construction and operation of the facility have to comply with the Statutes of the State of North Carolina and other applicable federal, state, and local codes that are enforced by the local licensing board, and if the permit is granted, would it be subject to meet those requirements? Response: All requirements would have to be met including the various agencies with jurisdiction. Question: With respect to the use not endangering the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved, did the Planning Department check into this matter? Response: The Planning Department made preliminary findings that were included in the package circulated to the Planning Board as well as to the Board of County Commissioners. Question: Did you find anything in the proposed findings that would materially endanger the public health or safety? Response: No, not in the preliminary findings. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 796 Question: With respect to traffic being a concern of the Planning Board, did the Planning Staff investigate the traffic situation and the possible impact on traffic from the proposed facility? Response: As far as the materials that were presented to the Planning Board, the Planning Staff did not perform traffic counts. Question: Did you make some reference to traffic counts in the Planning Board meeting? Response: There were some questions about how the traffic pattern would work. With a day care center you would have peak traffic flows in the morning when children are dropped off and in the afternoon when children are picked up from the facility. In the afternoon, pick-up is spread over a longer period of time. Traffic counts will depend upon the number of children to be kept in the day care center. Question: Is US Highway 421 a four-lane divided highway? Response: That is correct. Question: Is this the highest standard of highway or roadway that we have in New Hanover County? Response: arterials. Yes, as far as New Hanover County Transportation Question: In addition to a four-lane highway, is there a right turn lane for traffic entering Beau Rivage Plantation that extends approximately 440 feet before you enter Beau Rivage Drive? Response: There is a tapered turning lane that accesses this property; however, I am not sure of the distance. Question: Have you had any occasion to talk with the State Traffic Engineer? Response: I believe you or the petitioner had a conversation with Roger Hawkins, who provided a letter of his analysis on the traffic counts that might be generated from the day care facility. Question: Is there also a continued turn lane that extends past Beau Rivage Drive down to Cathay Drive, and is Cathay Drive controlled by a traffic-signal? Response: There is a continued turn lane that extends past Beau Rivage Drive down to Cathay Drive with a traffic-signal, which has been installed within the last eighteen months. Question: Is there a left turn lane at Cathay Drive for vehicles to turn back toward Wilmington? Response: Yes. Question: Is it true that traffic exiting Beau Rivage Drive can only make a right turn onto 421? Response: Yes, this is a right-in, right-out intersection. Question: There is no crossover. Is this correct? Response: That is correct. Question: Were you aware of these factors at the time of the Planning Staff investigation? Response: Yes. The Planning Staff made a field investigation of the site. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 797 Question: Do you have a copy of the DOT map showing those intersections? Response: Mr. Hawkins provided a map with traffic counts that were performed prior to installation of the traffic signal at the intersection. Question: Was this a DOT map? Response: Yes. Attorney Williams requested the Clerk to the Board to mark the map as Exhibit #3. Chairman Greer interrupted the testimony process and expressed concern for the number of items being presented at the meeting instead of in advance as required by the County's policy. He inquired as to whether the Commissioners could legally accept the additional documents since the policy had been violated? County Attorney Copley responded the recently adopted policy does request that all information be submitted to the Clerk as a part of the record prior to the hearing. As to limiting the presentations to a specific period of time, no regulation was ever adopted. A copy of the policy was forwarded to Attorney Williams and Attorney Guyton. Attorney Williams reported the instruction sheet forwarded to him did not mention any advance filing with the Clerk to the Board prior to the hearing. Attorney Williams reconvened to questioning the Planning Director, Dexter Hayes. Question: Were maps presented showing the location of day care centers granted by Special Use Permits since 1990? Response: Yes, there were copies of maps showing the location of those facilities. Question: Do the maps reflect a number of day care centers located within residential lots and areas? Response: Yes. Most of the day care centers located ln existing neighborhoods are smaller facilities. Attorney Williams requested the Clerk to the Board to mark the maps as Exhibit #4. Question: What did you find with respect to the availability of water and sewer on the proposed site for location of the day care center? Response: Water and sewer are available through a private utility. Question: With respect to traffic on US Highway 421, would you anticipate any substantial increase in traffic on US Highway 421 as the result of a day care center being located on the proposed site? Response: There would be some additional trips generated by a facility located on the proposed site. Question: Is it true that most of the people uSlng the day care center would be using us Highway 421 anyway? Response: It is difficult to say because people may actually be living on Myrtle Grove Road or some other outlying roads. This assumption could be made. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 798 Question: Is it true that any lncrease in traffic by reason of this facility on US Highway 421 would be negligible? Response: Because of the capacity of the day care facility, it would have very little impact. Question: Do you consider the following items safety factors or traffic hazards: (1) the divided median that enters the Beau Rivage Plantation; (2) the fact a right-turn lane can only come into the facility; and (3) a right-turn lane only can only exit the facility? Response: Those are safety factors. Question: Did you find anything that indicated any substantial lnJury or value of adjoining or abutting properties? Response: No, not in the preliminary information. Question: Did you find the building aesthetically in harmony with the area? Response: The building was constructed to resemble a residential structure. Question: Is the building in general conformity with the development of New Hanover County? Response: The structure itself fits ln with the other surroundings ln the area. Attorney Williams requested Mr. Eddie Lewis to step forward to answer questions for the record. The following questions were presented by Attorney Williams and answered by Mr. Eddie Lewis. Question: Please state your name and tell us if you own the property located at 6230 Carolina Beach Road? Response: My name is Eddie Lewis, and my wife and I own the property located at 6230 Carolina Beach Road. Question: Are you the developer of Beau Rivage Plantation? Response: I am. Question: Is this a copy of the deed under which you and your wife acquired title to the lot that is in question, and if so, when was it acquired? Response: Yes, this lS a copy of the deed, and the property was acquired on August 7, 1986. Attorney Williams requested the Clerk to the Board to mark the copy of the deed as Exhibit #5. Question: Does this property adjoin Carolina Beach Road and Beau Rivage Drive? Response: Yes, it does. Question: Is the Colonie Rue referred to ln the deed the same as Beau Rivage Drive? Response: That is correct. Question: Is this the reduced copies of the maps showing the first section, Phase I, Section A of Beau Rivage Plantation? NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 799 Response: Yes it is. Attorney Williams requested the Clerk to the Board to mark the maps as Exhibit #6. Question: With respect to Exhibit #6, Map Book 26, Page 80, which was referred to earlier at the Planning Board meeting, is there any lot in Beau Rivage Plantation laid off on that page? Response: No. Question: Does Beau Rivage Drive extend down to where the clubhouse facilities are located at the left upper corner of the map? Response: Yes it does. Question: Has any residence or any residential use ever been made of any of the property from Carolina Beach Road to the clubhouse? Response: No. Question: With respect to the properties lying along Beau Rivage Drive, what use for these properties is indicated on the map? Response: Future development. Question: On Exhibit #6, Map Book 26, Page 81, are there some lots that appear on the page, and are they located after you pass the clubhouse building? Response: Yes there are lots on Page 81, and they are located after you pass the clubhouse building. Question: Is that the nearest lot that would be located to the property in question? Response: Yes. Question: On Exhibit #6, Map Book 26, Page 82, do these lots lie past the clubhouse building? Response: Yes. Question: On Map Book 26, Page 83, do these lots lie past the clubhouse building? Response: Yes. Question: Do you know what date the maps were recorded of Beau Rivage Plantation? Response: September 2, 1986. Question: involved? Was this after you had acquired title to the tract Response: Yes it was. Question: As presented ln the Declaration of Restrictions, can you identify this document as the first set of restrictions that were recorded for Beau Rivage Plantation? Response: Yes. Question: What date was this document recorded? Response: September 11, 1986. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 800 Attorney Williams requested the Clerk to the Board to mark the Declaration of Restrictions as Exhibit #7. Question: Did you later organize a corporation for a Beau Rivage Homeowners Association? Response: Yes. Question: Is this lS a copy of the Articles of Incorporation? Response: Yes sir. Question: When was it incorporated? Response: In '89. Attorney Williams requested the Clerk to the Board to mark the Articles of Incorporation as Exhibit #8. Question: Is it true that the roadways in Beau Rivage Plantation, as shown on the map, are private roads and/or common areas? Response: Yes this is true. Question: Are the roads maintained by the Homeowners Association? Response: Yes they are. Question: Do you pay the same assessment for every lot you own as is paid by the other property owners of Beau Rivage? Response: Yes I do. Question: Has Beau Rivage Drive in Beau Rivage Plantation always been open to the public from the time the facility was opened? Response: Yes. Question: Are there signs out at the highway showing that the road is open to the public? Response: Yes Slr. Question: What benefits do the property owners receive for the maintenance of Beau Rivage Drive from US Highway 421 to the clubhouse? Response: The road helps the golf course and restaurant to remain open as well as keeping other things in operation. It would be difficult to operate a golf course and keep it in operation with eighty (80) members. Question: After hearing Highway 421, do you concur about very little impact proposed day care center? testimony relative to traffic on us with the Planning Director's response on the traffic with location of the Response: Yes I do. Attorney Williams requested Ms. Pam Sigmon, the petitioner, to step forward to answer questions. The following questions were presented by Attorney Williams and answered by Ms. Sigmon. Question: Please state your name. Response: Pam Sigmon. Question: Are you and your sister the applicants? NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 801 Response: Yes we are. Question: At the time you filed the application, did you request approval for 95 children to be kept at the day care center? Response: That lS correct. Question: In view of the fact that questions were raised at the Planning Board meeting about traffic concerns and the number of children to be kept at the day care center, are you now requesting approval for a smaller number? Response: Yes, we are requesting approval of a permit to keep 50 children instead of the 95 originally requested. Question: What would be the maximum number of employees required to keep 50 children at the day care center? Response: A total of seven employees. Question: Are there 26 existing parking spaces at the facility? Response: Yes. Question: Is the driveway paved, is the address of the property 6230 Carolina Beach Road, and does it adjoin Carolina Beach Road/US Highway 421? Response: Yes the road is paved, the address is 6230 Carolina Beach Road and it adjoins Carolina Beach Road/US Highway 421. Question: question? Does the deed to your father cover the tract ln Response: Yes it does. Question: What is the Slze of the tract? Response: 1.37 acres. Question: Was the building formerly used as a sales office and an office for Lewis Construction Company? Response: Yes, it was used for both purposes. Question: Has Beau Rivage Drive always been open for the public to reach the facilities at the clubhouse? Response: Always. Question: What are the facilities that are available to the public at the clubhouse? Response: There are offices for the real estate company, the construction company, a formal restaurant, a grill, a bar, a pro shop, a golf course, and clubhouse suites. Question: public? Have those facilities always been available to the Response: Yes. Question: Does that benefit the homeowners ln Beau Rivage Plantation? Response: I feel the homeowners benefit from the clubhouse. They frequently use the clubhouse suites when guests visit. Presently, there is a family reunion with twelve of the suites being used to accommodate out-of-town guests. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 802 Question: Does the circular driveway provide ample access for vehicles to get in and drop children off without backing into the street? Response: It has excellent access for getting into and out of the facility. Question: Was the play area as shown on Exhibit #2 intended to be drawn as a scale for the actual size? Response: No. It was drawn to show where the play area would be placed, not to show the size of the play area. The State has certain regulations that must be followed for the play area as well as for the building itself. These regulations will be followed. Question: With respect as to signs that will be placed on the property, do you intend to comply with the County Ordinance? Response: Yes. Question: Is the construction operation of a day care subject to State regulations? Response: The facility Those regulations will inspections will have to opened. lS subject to many State regulations. be followed and proper permits and be received before the facility can be Question: Does the building have to meet State inspection before a license is granted for operation of the facility? Response: Yes. Attorney Williams: operator in order facility? Do you have to obtain a to have a licensed qualified State license to operate the Response: Yes. Question: From your research into the subject, do you believe the operation of a day care center on the proposed site would create additional traffic on US Highway 421? Response: I do not believe that opening a day care center on this site will add a significant amount of traffic to US Highway 421. From my observation, the traffic going north on Highway 421 in the morning is much heavier than going south. I feel we have a good situation with the four-lane divided highway, the right-hand turning lane, and the left turning lane at the stoplight located at Cathay Road. I think that is an excellent situation for people to get in and out of the day care facility. Question: Do you know the occupants of all of the houses ln Beau Rivage? Response: I have met all of the residents. Question: How many occupied residences or dwellings are ln Beau Rivage Plantation at this time? Response: There are currently 103 occupied homes. Question: Do you know how many of those occupants are retired persons? Response: There are 42 retired households in Beau Rivage. Question: Do you know how many of the residences have children, either of preschool or school age? NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 803 Response: Twenty-four residences have children. Question: Are you licensed as a real estate broker by the State of North Carolina? Response: I am licensed as a real estate broker, and I have been licensed for sixteen (16) years. Question: Do you have an opinion as to whether any injury would occur to the value of any adjoining or abutting property by reason of this facility? Response: I do not feel any property that adjoins or abuts this facility would be adversely affected in value by the location of the day care facility. Question: With respect to the sale of homes, have you had any sales of homes in Beau Rivage since this application has been pending? Response: We have sold five houses. Question: Have you ever sold more than five ln the time frame that has been involved in the pending request? Response: I have not. Question: Have the persons who signed the sale contracts been made aware of the pending application for this Special Use Permit? Response: They have all been made aware of the application, and at closing they are being required to statement saying they were informed about this matter. pending slgn a Attorney Williams reported he had concluded his presentation; however, he would like an opportunity for rebuttal after the other side had presented its case. Chairman Greer asked if the property ln question was or was not part of Beau Rivage Plantation? Attorney Williams responded the property ln question was not part of Beau Rivage Plantation. Chairman Greer questioned why Ms. Sigmon signed an affidavit saying the property was part of Beau Rivage Plantation on the Special Use Permit Application? Attorney Williams reported the documents shown have proven that the property in question is not part of Beau Rivage Plantation; therefore, if she signed off in that manner, it was an error. Ms. Sigmon reported she location of the building which Rivage Plantation; however, recorded lots in Beau Rivage This property is owned by Mr. was trying to indicate the exact does lie within the entrance of Beau the property is not part of the as indicated on the maps presented. Eddie and Mrs. Peggy Lewis. Commissioner Sisson commented on Ms. Sigmon being a real estate broker and inquired as to whether she was also an appraiser? Ms. Sigmon responded she was not an appraiser. Attorney Williams reported this concluded his presentation. Attorney Nancy Guyton, representing the Homeowners Association of Beau Rivage Plantation, referenced the packet of information forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners and reported she NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 804 would make a brief summary of the maj or points followed by testimony from three homeowners. that would be Attorney Guyton reported the initial point lS that Beau Rivage Plantation is a private residential subdivision. The community is entered from Carolina Beach Road through a narrow entrance and is completely walled and separated from all adjoining commercial uses on Carolina Beach Road. In addition, the map for Section 1 of Beau Rivage Plantation shows the first few houses, referred to as Attachment E in your packet, are included within the subdivision and are platted as part of the subdivision. They are not set apart as separate property as indicated by the Attorney for the petitioner. This map was recorded after the deed to Mr. Lewis was recorded. There are only three entrances to Beau Rivage Plantation: (1) an entrance on River Road; (2) an entrance from Sanders Drive, which is a gated entrance; and (3) an entrance from US Highway 421. An important point to remember is the distinction between the public versus a private road. The definition of roads within the County Zoning Ordinance defines roads as being any road, highway, alley, lane, court, drive or easement, whether public or private, used as a means of access. The definition of a street as defined in the County Zoning Ordinance is a dedicated and accepted public or private right-of-way for vehicular traffic, which affords a principal means of access to abutting properties. If the Ordinance was intended to mean a roadway that met the County standards, it certainly would not fit within the definitions set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. If the definition meant just a street, the Ordinance could have said street, but it specifies a "public street" which is a distinction made obviously in the definitions of the Zoning Ordinance. Another point is that public school buses are not allowed in Beau Rivage to pick up school children. The children have to wait at the mobile home park on US Highway 421 because Beau Rivage Drive is a private street. The State Statute dealing with school buses, which is included in your packet, allows school buses to travel only on State Maintained roads; therefore it would be consistent with school bus use to identify this as a private street. As to the traffic pattern in the area, it is important to remember the narrowness of streets coming in at the median, which has to be gone around on Beau Rivage Drive to come in and go out of the subdivision. Also, with the size of the deceleration lane, people going north coming out of the day care center would have a short distance in which to cross three lanes of traffic to get into the left turn lane to go north on US Highway 421. Again, the entrance way to Beau Rivage was clearly designed only for residential use. The use of this property as a sales office is consistent with the property being used as residential development. It is not consistent with any type of other commercial use. The homeowners purchasing property in Beau Rivage relied upon the fact that this was a residential community. They purchased the property in reliance on the recorded maps and the restrictions which limit it to residential use. The substantial business use of the property for a day care center would not be in keeping with the tenor or type of use for this residential community. Discussion has been held tonight about the placement of day care centers on private roads. We would assert that just because the issue has not been raised does not mean that it is appropriate, given the definition of public versus private. Also, the day care centers located on private roads are small home day care centers, not large centers as the one being proposed tonight. In summary, please consider the people who have purchased residences in this strictly residential community. The narrowness of the entrance into Beau Rivage Plantation when entering or NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 805 leaving the subdivision to US Highway 421 contributes to why there is no development on either side of the road. It is felt that Mr. Lewis would have already developed the property if the road was more accessible. The narrow entrance way is set off as the primary access into a residential subdivision. Clearly, the location of a day care center of this size and character would not be in harmony with the area. It is felt a day care center of this size would adversely impact property values. Mr. Leo J. Nowak, representing the residents of Beau Rivage Plantation, commented on the number of persons attending the meeting from Beau Rivage Plantation, who were opposed to the placement of the day care center on the site, and he requested them to stand up to be recognized. He passed out a revised map to show traffic counts that had been performed by the homeowners. He advised after contacting the State of North Carolina Department of Transportation and requesting a traffic count for the Cathay Road area, they were informed this could not be done without planning in advance. Therefore, a couple of homeowners spent two days performing a traffic count. On Monday, June 19, 1995, and on June 26, 1995, traffic counts were performed from 7:00 A.M. until 9:00 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. until 6:00 P.M. on US Highway 421 South. As indicated by the numbers, there were 1,100 vehicles passing the Beau Rivage entrance from 7: 00 A.M. until 9: 00 A.M. and 2,560 vehicles passing the Beau Rivage entrance going south on US Highway 421 from 4:00 P.M. until 6:00 P.M. The residents of Beau Rivage are very concerned about a traffic accident occurring in the morning or afternoon if a day care facility is located on the proposed site. with parents being in a hurry to drop-off their children and get to their jobs in the morning, the possibility exists for many accidents to occur. The residents are also concerned about the value of the properties with the location of a day care center in a residential community. Beau Rivage is a planned urban development. It has a wall in the front that addresses it as Beau Rivage Plantation. Once going through the gate or wall, it becomes a residential district with private roads. There may be surrounding commercial properties, but Beau Rivage is buffered with mounds, trees, and shrubs to protect the residents from any surrounding commercial uses. In summary, the homeowners of Beau Rivage Plantation feel this use is not appropriate in a residential community and are very concerned about traffic becoming a hazard with establishing a day care center of this size in the community. They are also concerned about the adverse impact on property values. This use is not in character or in harmony with the area. The Commissioners were requested to deny the issuance of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Cleve Goodnite, a resident of Beau Rivage Plantation, reported on his personal loss in property value when a day care center was placed in his community in Clinton, North Carolina. At that time, the residents were not aware of the proposed use and did not react quickly enough to stop the day care center from locating within the residential neighborhood. After appeals through the court system, the N. C. Superior Court ruled in favor of the day care center because the developer had violated all of the covenant restrictions in the subdivision in 1947 when selling the property to a group who constructed a church on part of the property and later sold a section to the county for construction of a school. He commented on having to sell his property at a 42 percent discount of the appraised value because of this incident, and urged the Commissioners to consider the adverse impact to homeowners with location of a day care facility in a planned urban residential development. He requested denial of the request. Mr. Joseph E. Martin, a resident of 6140 Sugar pine Drive, commented on signing his contract with Mr. and Mrs. Eddie Lewis and reported at that time, he was shown the different lots, homes, and NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 806 structures, including the reception center, which is now being proposed as the site for a day care facility. As indicated in the brochure, the building was called a reception center in a planned residential community. After reading copies of documents, the literature never referred to any type of commercial use within the community. Beau Rivage is listed in the Golf Digest as a semi- private course. The road leading to the golf course is not a public road, and the homeowners pay $300 per year for maintenance of the road and common areas. In summary, the residents of Beau Rivage are concerned about traffic becoming a hazard, which will eventually involve a fatal accident, and the fact that allowing a day care center of this size to locate in a residential community will set a dangerous precedent for all residential communi ties throughout New Hanover County. Attorney Guyton advised she would be brief in her closing comments. She reported as to whether or not the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety, testimony has been heard that clearly shows that traffic safety would be a concern, and this is set forth in Attachment F of the packet forwarded to the Commissioners. As to whether the use meets all required conditions and specifications, it is felt this is a private road that is privately maintained by the homeowners. As to the use substantially injuring the value of properties, you have heard testimony indicating that this type of use has substantially injured the value of property. As to the location and character of the proposed day care center, it is clearly not in harmony with this type of planned development. To locate a substantial business use at the entrance of this type of community would change the character and nature of the community. I think it is important to note that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Williams asserted this was not part of Beau Rivage, but it is part of the recorded plat, as set forth in Exhibi t E in the packet forwarded to the Commissioners. The Commissioners were requested to consider the materials that had been presented in the packet when rendering a decision. The following information was handed to the Clerk to the Board and marked as exhibits in opposition to the request: (1) a copy of traffic counts marked as Exhibit #1; (2) a copy of the Beau Rivage brochure marked as Exhibit #2; and (3) a copy of the Beau Rivage Homeowners packet, including Attachments D, E, and F, forwarded to the Commissioners prior to the meeting marked as Exhibit #3. Attorney Williams briefly responded to the remarks made by Attorney Guyton and reported he had put in the record that the lots were restricted for residential use, and everybody who acquired property in Beau Rivage knew from the time they first saw the entrance to Beau Rivage that it was opened to the public. Also, they knew that there was a commercial development at the clubhouse. In order to support the clubhouse with its restaurant and golf course, the public must go there. As to public safety, it has been stated, it would be perfectly safe to place a day care center accommodating 112 children a short distance down the road, just because it is not in their subdivision. How these residents feel this it is safe to enter that proposed facility coming off of a 55 mile per hour traffic lane is difficult to understand. The arguments from the residents have been very biased. They do not object to a day care center as long as it is not next to them. The residential use was protected by not laying out lots until passing the clubhouse. The traffic from this commercial portion of the subdivision will not pass a single residential house. The building is 4,100 square feet and can be used for many purposes without having to receive a Special Use Permit. The location of a day care facility on the site is a modest use of the property. The driveway, as you have seen from the maps, is well suited to the proposed use. The only person who is qualified to speak about the impact of traffic, is Planning Director Hayes. If one listened to arguments made, there would never be another house built in Beau Rivage Plantation because any use would add to the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 807 current traffic on US Highway 421. The location of a day care center on this site would add the least traffic because everyone using the facility would be a person already traveling US Highway 421. Finally, the only competent evidence you have heard is from the Planning Director, which reflected that everyone of the requirements had been met. When you review the general application of the findings with respect to the Special Use Permit, there is no evidence to justify declining this request. It becomes a right as a matter of law. The law states if all the specifications have been met and competent testimony concludes the specifications have been met, the Special Use Permit should be granted because the qualifications have been met. A Special Use Permit is not something that mayor may not be granted. A petitioner is entitled to the Special Use Permit if all the qualification have been met. There is no competent evidence before you showing that traffic will create a substantial hazard by reason of this facility being placed in the building. It has been suggested that a new interpretation be given to the definition of a public road. A public road is only defined in the General Statutes of North Carolina, not in the County Zoning Ordinance. In closing, we expect the same interpretation as you have applied when granting other Special Use Permits for day care centers. We expect to be treated the same as all of these other applicants who have come before you. As Mr. Howell, a member of Planning Board, stated at the meeting, it was the least intrusive day care center that had ever been presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Williams requested approval of the request and asked the persons in favor of the day care center to stand. Chairman Greer closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Caster inquired as to whether discussion has been held with the residents and two attorneys to see if this matter could be resolved. He reported on driving to the site and stated the tremendous amount of information presented by Attorney Williams, he needed more time to read the new information. Commissioner Sisson commented on the remarks made by the Planning Director concerning the impact of traffic on US Highway 421 and inquired as to whether the Planning Director had seen the traffic counts presented by the residents of Beau Rivage? Planning Director Hayes responded he had not seen the traffic counts presented by the residents; however, traffic counts performed by the N. C. Department of Transportation prior to installation of the traffic light at Cathay Road were on file in the Planning Department. Commissioner Sisson asked Planning Director Hayes if he was a specialist in transportation planning or transportation engineering? Planning Director Hayes responded he was not. Chairman Greer asked Planning Director Hayes if he was referring to the number of cars going up and down US Highway 421, or the number of vehicles turning or exiting? Planning Director Hayes responded he was referring to the design capacity of US Highway 421, which is a four-lane divided highway, which is the most desirable type of road to handle any kind of additional traffic. Commissioner Sisson commented on roads in subdivisions that have to meet State standards and asked Planning Director Hayes if this was correct. Planning Hayes responded this was correct. Commissioner Sisson inquired as to whether the entrance was constructed to State specifications? NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 808 Planning Director Hayes responded the entrance was ln compliance with State specifications as to lane widths and entrance widths; however, the State discourages the use of landscaped medians because they do not want to be involved with maintaining these types of medians. Chairman Greer asked who had authority to issue a Special Use Permit, the Planning Director or the Board of County Commissioners? Planning Director Hayes responded it was the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners, and he did not have authority to grant a Special Use Permit. Chairman Greer requested the County Attorney to clarify if a public or private road would make a difference ln rendering a decision in this case? County Attorney Attorney, Kemp Burpeau, Copley requested the Assistant to respond to the question. County Assistant County Attorney Burpeau advised that questions and matters of this type would probably be decided ultimately by a court. The original intent was that a public road is a road that has been built according to N. C. Department of Transportation specifications or County specifications. You are looking at whether the road was simply limited to being publicly dedicated or privately maintained. It is felt that the original intent of the ordinance would not in any way preclude a day care facility from coming in to a communi ty wi th pr i va te roads. In the pas t , the Commissioners have approved some day care facilities located on private roads in the County; however, the centers were smaller in Slze. Chairman Greer pointed out that the decision rendered should not be based on one scenario, whether a day care facility is located on a private or public road. In his opinion the questions to be answered are whether the use will endanger the public safety, or if the use will be in harmony with the area. County Attorney Copley reported the Board should consider the evidence presented on the four requirements for issuance of a Special Use Permit with specific findings being listed as to whether the request is approved or denied. Commissioner Sisson commented on the value of adj oining properties and reported the Commissioners must consider whether or not the use is harmonious or disharmonious with the area as well as whether the traffic during peak hours is a potential risk for an injury to occur. Motion: After further discussion, Chairman Greer MOVED TO DENY the Special Use Permit based upon the evidence presented not concluding that the proposed use satisfactorily meets following requirements: -The first general requirement; namely that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed based upon the following findings: (1) the difficulty of motorists entering and exiting the site would jeopardize public safety; and (2) the limited access from US Highway 421, and the need to cross over the median would cause traffic problems; -The second general requirement; namely the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area based upon the following findings: (1) the proposed use would not be in harmony with the intent of the development plan for Beau Rivage, which is a private residential community. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 809 Commissioner Sisson SECONDED THE MOTION stating the use of the area as a sales and information office was not equivalent to the use of the area for a day care center. Upon vote, the MOTION TO DENY GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster Commissioner Sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews Chairman Greer Voting Nay: Commissioner Barone A copy of the order denying a Special Use Permit is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in SUP Book II, Page 12. BREAK Chairman Greer called a break from 11:25 P.M. until 11:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM HOWARD PENTON TO REZONE .24 OF AN ACRE ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF OLEANDER DRIVE NORTH OF THE SALT WORKS RESTAURANT EAST OF THE GREENVILLE LOOP ROAD TO B-1 BUSINESS FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL (Z-538, 6/95) Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing. Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planing Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the B-1 rezoning request. The Board felt that expansion of the B-1 District at this location would create few impacts and would be consistent with the policies for Growth and Development for commercial uses. There was no opposition present at the Planning Board meeting. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general public would like to comment. No comments were received. Chairman Greer closed the Public Hearing. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews to approve the rezoning of .24 of an acre on the northwest side of Oleander Drive north of the Salt Works Restaurant to B-1 Business from R-15 Residential as recommended by the Planning Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of "AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA NO. 6 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA" is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 6, Page 61. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM CATHY WEAVER TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CHILD DAY CARE SERVICE LOCATED AT 1214 SIDNEY DRIVE (S- 375, 6/95) Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing and announced the special use process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, persons wishing to testify must be sworn in by the Clerk to the Board. The following persons were sworn In: Dexter Hayes, Planning Director Cathy C. Weaver Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board voted unanimously to approve issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow an existing In-home Child Day Care Service located at 1214 Sidney Drive to expand its facility to care for eight instead of five children. No special conditions were applied to the Special NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 810 Use Permit except the applicant would have to select the type of turn-around that would be utilized for pick-ups and drop-offs without backing into the street. Planning Director Hayes presented the following preliminary Staff findings: General Requirement #1: materially endanger the proposed and developed approved based upon the The Board must find that the use will not public health or safety if located where according to the plan as submi t ted and following findings: A. No upgrade to the existing water and sewer system will be required. B. The site has direct access to Sidney Drive. General Requirement #2: The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance based upon the following findings: A. The site is zoned R-15 Residential. Child day care is permitted by Special Use Permit conferment in this district. B. Adequate area lS available to meet off-street parking requirements. C. with some minor improvements, ingress and egress to the site can be arranged so that pick-ups and drop-offs can be made without backing into the street. D. No signage is proposed. E. Fenced play area is located to the rear of the house. General Requirement #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 based upon the following findings: A. No evidence has been presented to indicate that an in- home child day care serVlce will diminish property values. B. The applicant states in his application that his property value has risen $37,500 in the last fifteen years. During that period, a small child day care service has been in operation at the site. General Requirement #4: The Board must find that the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan 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 based upon the following findings: A. No exterior improvements will be made to the existing dwelling. B. Child day care services have been provided at this site for the last fifteen years without record of complaint. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone present would like to comment. The following public comments were received: Ms. Cathy Weaver, the petitioner, reported she had operated a small day care center on this site for fifteen (15) years, and she was requesting a Special Use Permit to expand the facility. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 811 Chairman Greer asked the petitioner if she concurred with the findings as presented by the Planning Director. Ms. Weaver concurred with the findings as presented. Chairman Greer closed the Public Hearing. Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barone to grant the Special Use Permit contingent upon acceptance of the turn-around or circular drive selected, based upon the findings of fact satisfactorily meeting the following requirements: (1) the proposed use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submi t ted and approved; (2) the proposed use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance; (3) the proposed use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity; and (4) the proposed 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. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the Special Use Permit is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in SUP Book II, Page 12. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM JOEY GEBBIA TO CONSTRUCT A CHILD DAY CARE CENTER ON THE WEST SIDE OF CAROLINA BEACH ROAD SOUTH OF CATHAY ROAD (S-376, 6/95) Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing and announced the special use process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, persons wishing to testify must be sworn in by the Clerk to the Board. The following persons were sworn In: Dexter Hayes, Planning Director Joey Gebbia Norma Humphrey Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit, subject to the following conditions: A. The posting of one-way signs to direct traffic flow around the circular drive. B. The erection of a "No Entrance" slgn at the southernmost driveway entrance. C. Revise the site plan for the playground area to show the actual minimum square footage required by the State. Planning Director Hayes reported one resident from Monterey Heights expressed concern about the size of the playground area and the impact it could have on his property. He was also concerned about an extension of Burbank Road to Carolina Beach Road. Planning Director Hayes presented the following preliminary Staff findings: General Requirement #1: materially endanger the proposed and developed approved based upon the The Board must find that the use will not public health or safety if located where according to the plan as submi t ted and following findings: A. The site has limited access to Carolina Beach Road. B. Water and sewer would be provided from on-site sources. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 812 General Requirement #2: The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance based upon the following findings: A. The property lS zoned R-15 Residential. Child day care is permitted by Special Use Permit in this district. B. The site consists of two acres. Adequate land area lS available to accommodate off-street parking. C. Ingress and egress can be provided so that pick-ups and drop-offs can be made without backing into the street. D. A site identification sign is shown on the plan. The maximum square footage of the sign cannot exceed 12 square feet. E. A fenced play area lS proposed at the rear of the building. General Requirement substantially injure that the use is a findings: #3: The Board must find that the use will not the value of adjoining or abutting property or public necessity based upon the following A. With the exception of houses located at the western end of the site in Monterey Heights Subdivision, the are no residential uses nearby. The applicant proposes a setback of 195 feet from the adjacent subdivision. A planted buffer of 27 square feet wide is proposed along the common property line of the subdivision. 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 based upon the following findings: A. There are numerous commercial activities in close proximity to the proposed day care center. Further south is a mid-sized shopping center. B. The size and scale of the day care center would be compatible with existing commercial structures and those currently under construction. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone would like to comment. The following public comments were received: Mr. Joey Gebbia, the petitioner, reported he would be glad to answer any questions, and requested approval of the Special Use Permit. Chairman Greer asked Mr. Gebbia if he concurred with the findings as presented by the Planning Director. Mr. Gebbia agreed with the findings and the size of the play area as requested by the Planning Staff as well as the posting of one-way signs to direct traffic around the circular drive and erection of a "No Entrance" sign at southernmost driveway entrance. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether there was a 20 - foot planted buffer on the south side, and a 27-foot planted buffer on the left side? Mr. Gebbia responded he would comply to the planted buffers as required. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 813 Commissioner Sisson inquired as to whether there was any objection to the proposal by Mr. and Mrs. George Talman? Mr. Gebbia responded no concern was expressed by Mr. and Mrs. George Talman. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone had obj ected because of public safety concerns? Mr. Gebbia responded the only complaint received was from the neighbor behind the proj ect, which has been resolved with the revised plan for the play area. Commissioner Sisson asked Mr. Gebbia if he understood that he would have to comply with the proposed site plan? Mr. Gebbia responded that he understood all conditions of the site plan would have to be met. Chairman Greer inquired as to why the number of 112 children was selected? Ms. Norma Humphrey responded there was a 25 requirement per child for indoor space, and a 75 per requirement per child for outdoor playground space. are age level requirements that must be met. square foot square foot Also, there Commissioner Sisson inquired as to whether all requirements had been met with the Health Department and State regulations? Ms. Humphrey responded all requirements had been met. Chairman Greer inquired as to the distance of the next U-turn area down Carolina Beach Road? Planning Director Hayes responded approximately 1,000 feet. Commissioner Barone commented on hearing that a concerted effort had been made to defeat the day care center at Beau Rivage Plantation, and she inquired as to whether this was true? Ms. Humphrey responded this statement was not true. She advised that she kept Pam Sigmon's child in her day care center. When looking for a facility to lease, she did check into the possibility of leasing the building at Beau Rivage; however, she felt the facility was not adequate in size to care for 112 children, nor did she feel it had adequate playground space. Commissioner Barone, again, asked Ms. Humphrey if there was an on-going campaign with the residents in Beau Rivage to defeat the day care effort? Ms. Humphrey responded she made no attempt to defeat the day care effort in Beau Rivage. Chairman Greer closed the Public Hearing. Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews to grant the Special Use Permit for construction of a Child Day Care Center on the west side of Carolina Beach Road south of Cathay Road, to house up to 112 children contingent upon posting one-way slgns to direct traffic around a circular drive, installation of a "No Entrance" sign at the southernmost driveway entrance, and acceptance of the revised site plan for the playground area based upon the evidence presented satisfactorily meeting the following requirements: (1) the proposed use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved; (2) the proposed use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance; (3) the proposed use will NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 814 not substantially lnJure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity; and (4) the location and character of the proposed 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. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the Special Use Permit is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in SUP Book II, Page 12. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM SETBACK FOR DENSITY PROJECTS WHEN LOCATING ADJACENT TO UNDEVELOPED UNPLATTED RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY (A-261, 5/95) Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing. HIGH AND Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Text Amendment feeling that clarification was needed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Text Amendment will establish a minimum setback of 25 feet for high density development. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general public would like to comment. No public comments were received. Chairman Greer closed the Public Hearing. Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster to approve the Text Amendment as recommended by the Planning Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the Text Amendment is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXII, Page 38. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CLOSING AN UNNAMED ROAD IN BRADLEY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing. Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported John Lawhorne, an adjoining landowner, requested the closure of an unnamed road 580 feet south of the Victory Garden-Oleander Drive intersection. The unimproved road is situated between two residential lots and has a 30-foot right-of-way that is 156 feet in length. The Parks Department has expressed an interest in the 4.2 acre site as a neighborhood park. Presently an unmaintained ball field and community building exist on the site. Planning Director Hayes reported since the unopened road is not functional for vehicular use and the County Engineering Department has no desire for a utility/drainage easement within the road, the Planning Staff recommends that a 10 to 15-foot pedestrian easement be retained from Victory Gardens Drive extending to the 4.2 acre site in the event some public or community organization would like to utilize the site for recreational purposes. Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general public would like to comment. Mr. John Lawhorne, a resident of 225 Victory Gardens Drive, expressed concern for cars and motorcycles driving through the road at nights, and reported this was why he petitioned to close the road. Discussion was held on retaining the 10-foot easement as recommended by the Planning Department and whether this easement would be closed or remain open. Planning Director Hayes advised that a 10-foot opening would be a narrow path that could not accommodate vehicles. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 815 Mr. Lawhorne reported he would be placing a fence across the road to avoid passage through the property. If a 10-foot easement was retained, he would request that the easement be closed at dusk in order to avoid people using the easement. A fence would be installed by the owners of the ball field so the gate could be closed at dusk. If the easement cannot be closed at dusk, he would like for the easement to be completely closed. Discussion was held on the entrances to the property off of Peiffer Avenue. Mr. Lawhorne reported there were two entrances to property on Peiffer Avenue. Commissioner Caster inquired as to why the easement was needed if there are two ways to access the property? Planning Director Hayes reported a fence could be placed along the property line of the Junior Order Corporation's property at the end of the road. This would cut off the access to that property. If civic ownership or public ownership should occur in the future, the fence could be removed. Chairman Greer closed the Public Hearing. Due to the late hour, Commissioner Barone left the meeting at 12:05 A.M. Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster to close the unnamed road in Bradley Heights Subdivision with a 10- foot pedestrian easement being retained from Victory Gardens Drive extending to the 4.2 acre site as recommended by the Planning Staff. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster Commissioner Sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews Chairman Greer Absent: Commissioner Barone A copy of the order lS hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and lS contained ln Exhibit Book II, Page 38. MEETING CONVENED FROM REGULAR SESSION TO HOLD A REGULAR MEETING OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER & SEWER DISTRICT Chairman Greer convened from Regular Session to hold a meeting of the Water & Sewer District at 12:06 A.M. Chairman Greer reconvened to Regular Session at 12:32 A.M. ADDITIONAL ITEMS - COUNTY MANAGER Discussion of Cut Throughs on Interstate I-40 County Manager O'Neal reported the Fire Commission voted to request the County Commissioners to consider contacting the N. C. Department of Transportation for the provision of cut throughs on Interstate 1-40 to benefit both the Castle Hayne and Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire Departments in responding to calls. Presently, when responding to calls, the trucks have to go up to the Holly Shelter exist or down to the Gordon Road exit to turn around, which can delay the response time. He reported if this concept is endorsed by the Board, he would prepare a resolution for the Chairman's signature to be forwarded to the Department of Transportation. Commissioner Sisson explained there were no hardened crossovers, which creates a problem for the heavy fire apparatus. Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews to direct the County Manager to prepare a resolution for the Chairman's signature to be forwarded to the N. C. Department of Transportation. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 816 Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster Commissioner Sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews Chairman Greer Absent: Commissioner Barone Discussion of Proposed Changes to the New Hanover County Flood Plain Regulations County Manager O'Neal advised that the Assistant County Manager had been requested to discuss the proposed amendments to Flood Plain Regulations; however, due to the late hour, the Board may wish to discuss matter at the next meeting. After discussion, it was agreed to schedule this item on the agenda for July, 17, 1995. Acceptance of Operating Grant Award for the Criminal Justice Partnership Program Deputy County Manager Atkinson reported the County had received a grant award in the amount of $180,000 for the purchase of the Princess Street property, and an operating grant award in the amount of $155,000 for the Criminal Justice Partnership Program. The Commissioners were requested to accept the grant awards. Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED to accept the operating grant award in the amount of $155,000 and to accept the $180,000 grant award for the purchase of the Princess Street property. The floor was opened for discussion. Commissioner Caster requested the grant awards to be voted on separately. Amended Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Vice- Chairman Mathews to accept the Criminal Justice Partnership Program operating grant award in the amount of $155,000. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster Commissioner Sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews Voting Nay: Chairman Greer Absent: Commissioner Barone Motion: Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews to accept the Criminal Justice Partnership grant award in the amount of $180,000 for purchase of the Princess Street property. Upon vote, the MOTION RECEIVED A TIE VOTE AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews Voting Nay: Commissioner Caster Chairman Greer Absent: Commissioner Barone Deputy County Manager Atkinson reported Staff could not move forward with the program without being able to close on the property. Chairman Greer suggested re-voting on this lssue at the meeting to be held on July 17, 1995. County Manager O'Neal responded this item would be placed on the agenda for July 17, 1995. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, JULY 5, 1995 BOOK 24 PAGE 817 Proposals from the Fire Commission on Revisions to the Contracts with the Volunteer Fire Departments County Manager O'Neal commented on Volunteer Fire Department contract revisions that had been recommended by the Fire Commission, and asked if the Board would like to discuss this matter at the next meeting? Chairman Greer commented on the need to have ample time to discuss this matter and recommended placing this item on the agenda for August 7, 1995. Consensus: It was the consensus of the Board to place this item on the agenda for August 7, 1995, with ample time for discussion of this issue. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Greer adjourned the meeting at 12:40 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Lucie F. Harrell Clerk to the Board