The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 1999 01-04NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION f~ Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Emergency Management Presenter: William Caster Contact: Dan Summers SUBJECT: Presentation of FEMA's Project Impact Award BRIEF SUMMARY: Debbie Pratt, Community Relations, Barnes & Noble and Lee McConnell, Manager, Lowe's, received national recognition in December at the first annual FEMA Mitigation Summit in Washington, DC. Debbie's award was given for public education and awareness campaign for mitigation and Lee's was given for~demonstrating to the community how to implement mitigation and prevention measures to withstand the damaging effects of disasters. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Chairman make a local presentation to Debbie Pratt and Lee McConnell FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: Summary of Awards Announcement ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGE ENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Present awards_ ~ MISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPRGVED p REJ~CiCD p REMOVED p: PO$TPONEQ f't HEA?.; ~z~ ,,, ~-~51 q ~' 1~ Outstanding National Businesspeople These joint ara~ard winners proi~ide an excellerrl example of employees from different businesses r+~orkins; together to protect their community. Debbie Pratt Community Relatiora Coordinator, Barnes & Noble Bbolistore Wilmington, North Carolina Debbie Pratt plays an integral part in the public education and awareness campaign for mitigation efforts in New Hanover Comity/Wilmington, North Carolina. She dedicated the month of June 1998 as Hurricane Awareness Month at her Barnes & Noble bookstore. Each Thursday evening during the month, the community was invited to visit the store and hear speakers discuss hurricane preparedness and mitigation techniques/methods. Children were invited to attend Story Time every Saturday morning at the bookstore to learn about weather-related disaster preparedness. These events were well attended. and provided participants with vital information on mitigation and prevention activities. In addition to her. efforts at the bookstore, Ms. Pratt also donates her time to visit public and private schools to host interactive disaster-related talks with students. Debbie Pratt's effective outreach efforts have been instrumental in providing the New Hanover County/Wilmington community with vital information on disaster mitigation and prevention. Lee McConnell Manager, Lowe's Companies, Inc. YVibnington, North Carolina i Lee McConnell demonstrates to the community of New Hanover County/Wilmington, ~ North Carolina, how to implement the mitigation and prevention measures necessary ~ to withstand the damaging effects of disasters. Mr. McConnell uses his store as a conduit for infonmation to the community by providing mitigation information and services. Under Mr. McConnell's direction, the Lowe's of Wilmington has distributed thousands of hurricane preparedness and mitigation brochures and has hosted and sponsored a Hwricane Preparedness Expo held in June 1998 to assist residents in their mitigation efforts. Some of the services provided at the Expo included generator operation and safety classes, and free plywood for hurricane shutters cut to order. Because of his efforts and ongoing support in disaster preparedness in Wilmington, he received an award from Lowe's Companies, Inc. Home Safety Council which allowed him to present a $10,000 corporate grant to the New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management. This grant allowed the county to purchase an all terrain ~ f vehicle, night vision equipment, and other specialized gear for the county's Search and ~ ~ : ,I,.k Rescue Team. Mr. McConnell's efforts to educate citizens on mitigation initiatives I~~~inridR.l+anilflio°wsth se"~ca i~reduce disaster related costs to homes and property has had a . _ signific~n~t~ir~npact~on his community. ~;~~d~~~ 7 2 - <' ~~~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01104/99 Regular Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter: Andy Atkinson Contact: Andy Atkinson SUBJECT: Evaluation of Old Airport Terminal Building. (Sheriffs Patrol Facility) BRIEF SUMMARY: The Sheriff and Airport Commissioner Matt Mathews requested an evaluation be made concerning the Old Airport Terminal Building to determine the scope of work required to bring the building to a reasonable habitable condition. The County owns the facility, but as a result of the lease with the Airport Authority, pays rent to the Airport Authority for use of the building by the Sheriffs Patrol Division. The amount of the rent is $60,000 annually. The agreement requires the County to pay for maintenance. Two walk throughs were conducted with County, Sheriff, and Airport Staff. On the second walk through, Paul Boney was asked to participate since his firm is the Architect of record for this building. As a result of that inspection, Mr. Boney recommended the following be undertaken: 1) Determine a cost estimate and feasibility study to upgrade the existing building, and 2) Determine the cost of building a new facility for the Sheriff Patrol Division. • With the above information, a long term plan can be developed concerning the use of this facility by the Sheriff or the Airport Authority. If it is determined that upgrading the facility is cost prohibitive, a plan for relocation of Sheriffs Patrol can be developed. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Authorize County Manager to enter into a contract with Boney Architects to provide services as detailed above. The contract will be on a per hour basis as outlined in the attached memo from Boney Architects, but will not exceed $15,000. FUNDING SOURCE: General Fund ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider approval of contract with Boney Architects to provide services as noted and outlin ab COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COMMISSI(', ~, e AP'ROVi~D ^ RC.IECTED ^ REMOVED 'POSTPONE.' ' ~ ,- ~ S December 1998 Andy Atkinson New Hanover County Managers Office 320 Chestnut Street, Room 502 Wilmington, N.C. 28401 RE: Sheriffs' Patrol Facility l~~C~~~ML~© DE( 1 8 ''~ f ~ f~EVJ HANCVtR CO. ~1ANAGcR'S OFFICE ~~ Dear Andy, Thank you for calling yesterday concerning the Sheriffs' Patrol Facility at the New Hanover County Airport. I would propose the following scope of work to be included in an agreement with New Hanover County: Bonet' Architects, Inc. 2528 Independence Blvd. Suite Two Hundred ^ Provide cost estimate and feasibility study to upgrade the existing wiimington, NC building. 28412 ^ Provide cost estimate to build anew facility. tel: 910.790.9901 ^ Have discussions with the County and Airport Authority as necessary to tax: 9to.79ost 11 complete the study. www. boneyarch.com ~ Appear before the County Commissioners as necessary to keep them informed. The total scope of work shall be a not to exceed maximum of $15,000. Our Leslie N. Bonet', Jr., FAIA firm will bill the County on a monthly basis for work, so that we can monitor Chorles H. Bonet', FAIA Poul Davis Bonet', AIA the costs. Our hourly rates and consultant.estimates are as follows: Chorles H. Bonet', Jr., AIA James A. Claywell, AIA Katherine N. Russ. AIA ^ Bonet' Architects, Inc. -Paul Davis Bonet', AIA $125.- per hour James E. Rains, Jr., AIA ^ Project Architect $100.- per hour Mark W. Seoly, AIA Estimatin Consultant See enclosed proposal George J. Jernigan, Jr., AIA ^ g Kenneth M. Phelps, AIA Please let me know if you have any questions. With kindest regards; Bonet' Architects, Inc. ~/~s Paul Davis Bonet', AIA Chief Executive Officer Founded.in~1~922aby~ ~~ Leslie~NBoney~Al;4 ~ '~~!.~~ 1880- 19~ ~- Enclosure: One Williom J. Bonet', AlA 'id~ ~ ~._.,,~~ 1922 - 19.,93 ~~~~ ~i~~, ~~i~~~~ .~.~ ~~. wilmin5 raleigh chariot :~:^:.rr-w.«n.eTN.~J.+r+.."JS-~~..vr.. •__ mr~s.~-a~-na~rcc'1,s-.:vy+'1.~:r-~5.-: ~?~^r..,-:.RC- .. ..~e..:3.:: c;.. Z-.:~, +.tr~~.:;-G>'="-r"~-+ :~rws~~`Pt~s .. ... _...~' 3taP,+~~`Y~`~ :!'~C: ~Ca ~SJ4 ~' • P~ofesslonal Consbreetion ® .~Lfnnagemene Services 321 North Front St. ^ C.ost Estlmatin0 Wilmington, NC 28401 ^ Pro)ect Manopement Tel; 91 Q-3A3.9701 INTERNATIONAL ^ Claims Andys~ ^ co~St+L~r,o~ cJ~,on+Y co~no~ Fox: 91 ~-3d3-9563 llcc 9 1 ~~)K Pau] Davis 13oney, A1A Boncy Architects, Inc. 2528 lnclepcndence Aoulevatd Suite ?UO WiltnirtKtcin, NC' 28412 Ucar' Paul, Sheriff's Building At Airport Facility Post•it- Fax Note ?6?t °°'° ~ _`~ •+ es n Qr ~ To Qti+Jr 13u ~ Frol„ ~~ c_.~ CoIDC01. p ~ e Go. Phony: w ~ Plwno N Fax ~ ~, -~~ 1 Fex x Following our recent discussion regardinb the proposed renovaliUns to the existing Sheriffs building we are pleased to advise you of our proposal to provided a cost estirnatr 8S: • Visit t~uilt9in~, for purposes of establishing scope bhrs Cost estimate ofre;ultant scope items 181rs Total (lours I~Tot To Lxceed 24hrs cr $60.00 - $1,440 The estimate will be presented using in place unit costs and will follow the list of scope items established Crum the site visit .Two topics oCthe final document will be presented tc~ you in a mutually agreeable timefra.n,e. Look forward to hearing from you.. Sincerely ,~-_ • ./ t- '~' Stewart ;~iulfi~rd President 5 ..... .___. .. . . _ ___.._~-....~...~~.._.......~.~-..«,-....~.......~..-..~..scrw.v...+,nv...i,......... ~..: sa~At~ypr'lu.+-~'." ..':- ~'.._.._~~.'Yy~;cA`~!.filYh~3i~ACtit-3~J`a2S.,.~...~.s:~t ^ ^ MEETING NOTES ATTENDEES: PAUL DAMS BONEY, AIA JEROME FENNELL DAVID WITTENBERG EDWIN COX MATT MATHEWS ~~^ DATE: 20 NOVEMBER 1998 RE: NEW HANOVER COUNTY Bonet' Architects, Inc. SHERIFFS OFFICE/pATROL OFFICE 2528 Independence Blvd. Suite Two Hundred Wilmington, NC PURPOSE: TO DEVELOP A REPORT CONCERNING THE 28412 CONDITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING tel: 910.790.9901 CURRENTLY USED BY THE SHERRIFF' S tax: 910.790.3111 DEPRATMENT AT THE AIRPORT www. boneyarch.com CC: ANDY ATKINSON -ASSISTANT COUNTY MGR. REPORT Leslie N. Bonet', Jr., FAIA p~pARED BY: PAUL DAMS BONEY, AIA Charles H..Boney, FAIA CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Paul Davis Bonet', AIA Charles H. Bonet', Jr., AIA /~ James A. Claywell, AIA ENCL: PHOTOGRAPHS J Katherine N. Russ, AIA \ Jomes E. Rains. Jr., AIA Mork W. Sealy, AIA George J. Jernigan, Jr., AIA Kenneth M. Phelps,. AIA ITEM 1: There was a significant amount of water damage to the building during the hurricanes. The upper roof had significant ponding water. The existing roof is abuilt-up roof with gravel. There are several roof-top heating and air conditioning units located on the roof. There is also. electrical conduit that has been placed on the roof in various locations.. Roof penetrations are associated with all of this equipment. A satellite dish is located on the low roof on the north side of the building. ITEM 2: Founded in 1922 by Leslie N. Bonet', AIA The windows a ear to be on final to the structure. They are metal painted 1880 - 1964 pp g windows with single pane glass. The windows are in very bad condition and William J. Bonet', AIA the caulking around them has deteriorated significantly. The steel lintels above 1922 - 1993 the window are rusting and can be seen in the brick work. ^ 6 wilming _ raleigh charloh -.gym. ~r_ .,ryas:~..,......_-....c-~.:.~~,.-,.s~6'a_i:!r.'4 _ _ ..~ln~P.w+i~~^s^.-+~7E.T9..~V~.~_.c~~..r.^•~•Te_:f1S;il4.~`iW~~...._~.~.`C'^-,:i;'~`,+i:.~i.t:,.,b~c^r~..u[~aJ.lev'1l~S.w..^._,..~u4- PAGE TWO OF TIiREE , • ITEM 3: The walls appear to have been caulked recently where the brick meets a stone fascia. The brick work will need'to be pointed as part of any renovation. On the north-east corner of the building, there is a mortar joint missing that could allow a significant amount of water to penetrate the building. honey ITEM 4: There are two doors that lead from the second floor onto the roof on the north and south sides of the building. The door frames are rotting and the doors are in very bad shape. ITEM 5: There are multiple areas where the building currently leaks. Ceiling tiles are damaged as well as other interior finishes. Indoor air quality issues may be affected in the future. • ITEM 6: The handrail on the steps leading from first and the second door does not meet the current building code. ITEM 7: The restroom facilities should be evaluated to determine if the fixture count meets the current plumbing code for this particular use. ITEM 8: The weight training facility located on the east side of the building floods during periods of heavy rain (hurricanes). It is also noted that no panic hardware exists on the exit door. ITEM 9: Parking for the facility appears to be very convenient. ITEM 10: There has riot been an environmental assessment of the building to determine if there are existing hazardous materials. wilrning 7 sleigh chariot, U PAGE THREE OF THREE _ RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Sheriffs Department should conduct a space utilization study of the facility to determine how much square footage they actually need. 2. A feasibility study should be conducted for this building to determine 'the cost. of stabilizing the exterior shell of the building and renovate the interior. 3. - The New Hanover County and the Airport Commission should discuss the terms of a lease arrangement for this facility: a. Will the .cost of stabilizing the exterior shell be paid by the county or the airport authority? ~ ~ ` b. Can this facility be operated as a multi tenant building? c. Depending on the cost and scope of the renovations necessary, should they consider another location for the current tenant and how would this affect the current airport master plan? • • rt-.~ ', -+a, ~~ ~.~=:i •g = '-' `T ~~~ ~ t t, +r~~l, t ~ _ s fir ~.ev~t-r~o~ ~; ;~, 1 ".~ y_ to ~ ~ 4 ~ wilminc raleigl~ chc~rlo ~, ~.i 10 (,v~t6HT ~~ C~W A ~1 wilmir raleig charlc ~~S'C ~~.~`'14T~o~ ~f~~f~' ~~•E V•4Ttn1u ~hSt' ~tc~t~ ~f ~~• ~'~c~ ' u ~A~.. ~r~~~ ~t ~E • .. ~-, ~.~ .~ ~S . . Jo ~ ~ t Iti-+I j~ ruG J '~ET~ 1 ~ N~kt 1 3 '~^~r/min c 1 l~aleigh chariot. f 12 ~~ c~" p I t ~. ~~ y J ~, .,.r '~T Y - 4.. ~. "'~ r ~ a c_ "<-' - ~ ~ ~ ~~: ~q- :_ t-. ~~r~~'` ..~ fK~L' ~ h~ ~~~ ~~~ l'~, ~ ~ ~ ;•,. •~ 4 .... r ,y ~~~ ~~~~~~ .. ~,.~~n r ~ -_'=s , ~'- ~.f ~. 1~ ~i li: +.Vllf7llll C r~~lei~rl, ~ ~~~~ a~ 5 i i j rJ ~~I ~ ~ ~~ .r 1'~ ~iG Y L 3 r ~ ~y~ ti 3 ~ `a LI ~- ~ ~-' ~~ r: .. ~ - -. -, i t 7 ' i i ~ ' 1 .i I ~ ~ . ~ i a ~ 4 ~ ` ~ •~ :.~ ~ Y 'raleigh chariot l G~ r r~ r '' ,'~ ,' ,~ .~ ~. I' i F- .~ .1 ~~~ ,~ ~`y ~ '~' •~3 ~~~ .~ ~ ~: ~ ., ~ '~ ~~ ~ L - r ~ e ~y Y L D '1 'tt y5: '~' ~ ~• ~.~ J t 4 S ~ ~' g ~.~-t• ~ • t F ~ ~ ~' t 4'~Y t. # < ~ ~; ;~. i _ f f ~':S `~~ ~.ti _ ~ ~. rw~wH `"'"' a :' ®®~, ,a '1®~ ~®!I'~ ®~ ~~ ~® ®®~~ ®~ ®® ~~ ~~ ®~~ Wllrl'llll ~ rc~ieigl- c; ~ crrlo • • ~^''' ~'.. ~ ~ - ..-.. - `?jam '.i, ., w.c._ _:•,: ;,~~r .I1~ ~ r :`.: ~.'~ ~. 1t:-:.[ .~ ~..~-".'.~ ..may ~~.:.fy.-.C, .:.;. r It ~~ "i'~ aJ /'. S, is ~ .•,.: d_ '< M :` J ~.:~ ~1} . ~ilminc 1 yaleigl- charlo ~r6~' Qoo~ Loo~Gt:r` W erST ;..K, +~ Sn CCU-;.A;=_.- ...- _. _ ....... .. _. {'s: 16 wilir~in _ raleigl chcrrlc i • • • ~,c~ ~- '~J/ilminc 1 Irc~leigh charlol ~' _ -~ t _ ~'~. - .ti loo~iN` wcs~ N N~~~- ~.o~F -~ 18 ~_•• _- T . .~'~~ r , ~, r.~ ~-~ ~, _ ,~ I ~ ~ ~ `~ r ~~ /`~ v _ ~ I ~ i ..... ~ Sw " ~.ti ~~rT't! ~¢.~ iii .. wilmir _ raleig~ . charlc N~c6~r R~~~ l,~e~.i~c wo~,ra+ • • • i.~.~A~tfc~II '~'.?e~~~7T.n; :b4 !4 CZ!3 Yt ~ ~p }= ti~ Y 1^ii y yip - ~ _ brae ^,:.tiei irx_. r ' ; i ?T1 ICY~~DL~7- C'371~,r~['{9.'1 ._ i - 35 ~~51.^r..Ti.~'~".+'tV R.1f~.<LY'.1~'~.S S~:• - ~ ~-.+ - a. :E ~ .. 77 ~.LS~.~~le r£~i~i~CX ACT S -M .~.w• ::r. '. fF2R ~.E 3i 733!9 tta7 wlra ~cc^. _ l11 ~ •. ••:` YO~aR^s'GS 7~Tirsmi oseia __-..i-~.. `^ --.....,. ti Z_CA' 6C~3113E211a 9<x'r. {,~s• _: ~_ i ~ v~n„e.....-w P~~"'" -t 1 _ 1,~` ~ _ ' o~~ l.o~ ~.iDD~ Lo~~t:~e sa, °~w :, , a ~--- 1 ~lmin~ raleigr charlo Nast boo F 20 wilrnir raleig ,~ hark • • ,G~, -. - -_~. ~ t~ t i c. . EAST ~ 1.E V~-Tto N ~S ~~ tee "~'~ t ~ ~ 2 ~ilminc charlo~ '' ~ ~ ,.. .. __ "T . / '~~ ~~~~ .+5.~ -:.~.. _ 1 ,y ~ ~_ ._~ ~ . .:. _~~- .. I~ - - '•~'~°-'sac ----~-3,-..~.~: J ~_~_ J - ~> :~Y i ~~ ~i ~-BORE • • • 2 ~ilmi~ raleic char! (~~F ~~ie~~ wE~Gar ~2oow. ' ~~.%a~'-.- . *, ' ~.- "' ~ ~ ~' _ '- '~'sa-c `` l - .. '!~ ; s Mr~W _ .; r .-~ J r 7 ~ W~ ~' C ' cG`•w1y ~~;~~ .r ~ '~' ..`4r' ~` ..ter •y ~~ ~ +i -ti zr:~ r ~ ~~- ""'~y ~ ~ •' ~:'l.~i r~ ~l ~~d''+r~` : tit's ~ 'Y ~ ~ ~ -mot ./^ .~ r ;Y F r idly i.~"'~ ? y5~$ ~ ~ L~r„TY1q ~'~, 1 ~, ~ r :fi;~~ :bone ~J 24 wilmi, r~~leic chary • • :-~ ,.:'_ ~~. .. - ..-~`'- ~~. u _ .•c-~- / ~ - :' `-'~,~.~ ~_ _ ~ r~ a ~ ; s d ~ r 5 ~,~~3.5. t,., r _ '.. ~~ i~~ ;- j ~ =" i , ~ ~n~ .i s ->. r ~:. 2 ~ilmin rai2igl c. haric s C~~ 1~ V 1~' ~A~ ~~~ n S~co~ s~-~~~~ ~~o~ ~m~.~~~~ 26 Uiilmir raleig charlc ~oo~ ~t.E ~cvilmin raleigl charlo -r 28.. ~_: . '~~~~. ~t.o o~ DF EG e t.~ '-<~ x 9.G s,, ~r~ e ~ 'E ii ~' tr F .tea,. d.*!`+~,, a=~~; . _ ~. ~ _;,.~ ~:.. . 2 '~V • !: ~._ r S~ ~. .' '. Y,,,.~~:'.""" 1115 i~.. ~I~1 E' s ~yN~[ h L W t~ _ ~: P wiimir~ rC7iei`) i,c,~i< • • • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Cooperative Extension Service Presenter: C. Bruce Williams, Ph.D., Director Contact: C. Bruce Williams, Ph.D., Director SUBJECT: Approval of Positions -Airlie Gardens Project BRIEF SUMMARY: Positions necessary for the development of the Airlie Gardens project have been identified as discussed with the Board at its November 21st workshop. Three (3) current Cooperative Extension positions will be eliminated and fourteen (14) Airlie Garden and Cooperative Extension Services positions will be created, making a net gain of eleven (11) positions. Those position classifications have been reviewed with the Human Resources Department and Management Team and are as follows: Superintendent of Gardens (1), Crew Leaders (2), Landscape Technicians (7), Administrative Assistant II (1), Administrative Secretary (1), Volunteer Coordinator (1) and Assistant to the Director (1). Those Cooperative Extension/Arboretum positions being eliminated are as follows: Arboretum Coordinator (1), Horticulture Technician (1), Administrative Assistant I (1). Funding was approved at the December 7, 1998 Commissioners meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend the Commissioners approve the identified positions and subsequent advertisement. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: orgcht1.WK REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve COUNTY MANAGER Recommend approval BUDGET: Approve HUMAN_RESOURCES: Approve .ND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COMMIS~N} APPROVED Y'~ REJECTED p REMOVED {~; POSTPONED t,T HEARD, DATE !~,~~2 9 C 0 .N K W L Q 0 U U ^L W C l~ 2 3 a~ Z cC t U O c~ N .~ cv L Q~ 0 L a `o U `o 0 d w o IS ~ ~ _ 1 .jr ~ L 'y \ ~ C C1 C -o .~ N ~ ~ O = L U lL U L T n cAa:;,~it~ ' qi~1 ~~r ~Ut4n ,~ ,~ ,.. w ~~~~~~~ v • ~ . ~~~~~~ ~,~'~~ 3 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ N .. -~ - ~.,._... t .. ~, .~ _. Y c d .a ' ~' ;~ m . ` Q ~ ~, ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ J ~U 3 t N U ~ U H ~I 'U `~ _C 0 0 0 ~ U ~C U L Q~ '..,. Q ~ L J U O 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q U ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ .~ .N Qa C NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Transportation Presenter: Patricia A. Melvin Contact: Patricia A. Melvin SUBJECT: Authorization to Submit a Proposed Wheels to Work Program to NCDOT BRIEF SUMMARY: New Hanover County is one of five counties in the State which has been invited to submit a proposed Wheels to Work Program to NCDOT. The purpose of the program is to provide opportunities for Work First participants to overcome transportation barriers to employment by becoming owners of personal vehicles. All participants will be pre-qualified for vehicle ownership by the Department of Social Services. The proposal includes vehicles being supplied and initial repairs for road worthiness completed by two agencies which have collaborated with NCDOT for development of Wheels-to-Work programs; and the local program being administered by anon-profit agency. The overall goal of the Wheels to Work Program is that participants will become financially self-sufficient If approved, the program will be funded by NCDOT for atwo-year period. This program will be monitored by the New Hanover County Department of Social Services and New Hanover Transportation Services. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Authorize submission of a proposal to NCDOT to establish a Wheels to Work Program in New Hanover County; execution of appropriate documentation by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and acceptance of funds, if approved by NCDOT. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: NIA BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A Recommend a GER' COMMISSIONERS' AgTIORPS/COMM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED '. ~ ~ RE.;~GT;=D ^ REM04lED ^ P05TPONED HEARD 0 e a Q.L~, ~ HATE g'o, ~m o -- [This page intentionally left blank) ~ n~:. T~ ~ 'G`am Vdif: J'.v rrru~aw~+~ ~~Vr44d~~~ 4 (Ss~J'~ 32 Y _ ~~~ i - _~ F; r~, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 5.1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Rezoning (Z-643, 12/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Allen and Debra Cobb to rezone 5.82 acres at 700 Military Cutoff Road to O-I Office and Institution from R-15 Residential. RECOMII/IENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED REJ~C r ED O RED"OVED POSTPONED p HEARD ~ 3 DATE ~ S,.~r ~• ITEM 5.1 CASE: Z-643, 12/98; Applicant: Allen and Debra Cobb REQUEST: R-15 to O-I ACREAGE: 5.82 LOCATION: 700 Military Cut-off LAND CLASS- Resource Protection: Limits residential density to 2.5 units per acre. Non- residential development is permitted provided important natural, scenic, historic and related resources are not severely impacted. This land classification is a result of the subject parcel's location in the upper drainage basin of Howes Creek, a high quality estuarine creek. It is classified SA(ORW)--shell fishing, outstanding resource water. Planning Board Summary The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. In support of that position; the Board cited the rezonings approved for land across the road, the current zoning pattern taking shape along the road and the need to treat similarly situated properties fairly and equitably.. No one spoke in opposition. The applicants told the Board that three nearby and/or adjacent property owners had filed letters with the Planning Department in support of their petition. Staff Summary The recent rezoning of 85 acres to the southeast (Trask property) as well as the rezoning of other properties to the south just north of Landfall has spurred the interest of owners of similarly . situated properties along Military Cut-offto seek rezoning. A subdivision plan for a portion of the Trask property (Westfall) is pending approval. Staff's long-standing position has been to limit non-residential expansion along this major road by containing it at or near the intersection of Military Cut-off and Eastwood Road in hopes of limiting the ill-effects commonly associated with strip commercial development. However, the piecemeal rezonings noted above have made it possible to extend the commercial activity to the north so that now the zoning pattern more closely resembles strip development, a land use pattern specifically discouraged by the Land Use Plan. The County's efforts to make the policy work in in the past has been replaced with the need for a different approach to control the land use pattern that is now taking shape along this important transportation corridor. The Land Use Plan Update under consideration attempts to address this policy concern but at this point it is unknown what that policy will take. The subject parcel is a 5.82 tract surrounded by two large acreage tracts consisting of woodlands an~d~the~ParkerlF~arm'The farm is primarily used as pasture land for grazing horses and cattle. Land to~he east~and~northeast across the road is occupied by an abandoned outdoor shooting range and Lucia Poirit~, a 561ot performance residential development. Currently, the nearest non- resident al use~is the Cerebral Palsy Center, located a little over 1400 feet to the north. That use ~~ ~~~~'~ 6 vii 34 ~ . ~d~ ~y ~~ ~.~ ~: was established by special use permit in November 1990. A revision to the permit to allow for expansion of that facility was granted in January 1997. The large O-I District to the southeast was established in August 1998 and remains undeveloped at the current time. However, site planning is under way and indications are that several office buildings will be built there in the near future. The subject property is located in the City of Wilmington, Phase I Annexation. A recent ruling by the State Supreme Court after several years of litigation in lower courts let the City's annexation plan stand. Bamng a re-hearing by the high court, the effective date of annexation will be sometime in December 1998 or January 1999. It is interesting to note that while the zoning pattern along this stretch of Military Cut-off has changed dramatically in the last three years, nearly all of the changes have been limited to the east side of the highway. However, this is likely to change because the owner of the Parker Farm and associated tracts recently expressed some interest in developing their property, which includes plans for non-residential uses. A definitive proposal has not been submitted, but if those large acreage tracts are rezoned for commercial, office or related uses, the stage would be set to complete the pattern ofnon-residential land uses now emerging for the remaining undeveloped areas fronting Military Cut-off. Also, a conditional use permit for an office complex was recently granted for a small tract north of the Seaspray development. Based strictly on Land Use Plan policies, the applicant's request has little merit. But based on the current rezoning trends and the widening of Military Cut-off beginning in 2001 it is easy to see why the applicant is making the request. Eventually, non-residential development is likely to engulf and surround the tract, making it much less desirable under the current zoning classification. Ordinarily, Staff would be opposed to this sort of petition. However,. the inertia set in place by previous approvals for non-residential development along the road has made that position less defensible: Staff has favored conditional use zoning as an alternative. Nonetheless, the O-I Zoning as proposed presents a far better alternative for zoning than open-ended commercial uses should the Board be inclined to rezone the property. Also, the rezoning of the land across the street to O-I raises issues of fairness and equity if similar consideration isn't. extended to this property and similarly situated properties. NOTE: Staff has received two letters from adjacent property owners supporting the applicant's petition. 35 PETITION SUMMARY SHEET •Z-643 Petition Number: Owner: Al 1 Pn ~, nPhra Cobb Representative: -Same Request: P~-~~ ~e ~ Taa ID Number:, 5100 Acreage: g ~ Location• - 700 Military Cutoff ' LAND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES Land Classification: Resource Protection Existing Land. Use: ~ ~ sidential Zoning History: ~' AYPa originally zonedJ~Cr 1 ~7n _ O-T across _ street established October 198. Water Type: c'errLm„ni y Sewer 7iype' C'~unty Fire District: ~~den Recreation: Ogden Park Road Access: Mil•itary Cutoff Volume: 25, 466 ADT 1997 School District: r`nl 1 arm. Park MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Watershed andVYater Quality Classification• Howe Creek SA (ORw) Aquifer Recharge Area: Pr; many Conservation Resources: None Historic Landmarks and Archeologicsil Sites: None Soi] Type(s) and Ciass: Primarily Seaaa Septic Tank Suitability: cra"ma 1 i mi t~ - Prime Agricµlturstl Soils: None Building Suitability: _ Few limits - " 36 WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE OF ZONING OF PROPERTY Your intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in .accordance with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should a]so be based on a Land Use Plan, you must explain in the space below how your request satisfies each of the following requirements. ® How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Devel- opment? A} P~es~,.-~-~ i~- P~ob~.bl(~' \,~:ll k„~ 6-e CJ,-.s ts-I-~.--f'. ~-}a~,,,eNe, / ~1 ~ ~ ~1^- ~ se ~ ~ l ; c . e s S k55 e s-Y` 1-_fi't-~" ~-e ,..e3,~\.v~c ~ c. i. vt...~, s 1\,0 ,_ l d. ~-e i +~ ~h fl~vec. hearev \..•~e..So~ ~'J/FS~ s~-~ 1~2 r2Ca~7~ r $4VVOV,..-cl:.n~ A'/2h~ 'T Wo~.~~ ~ gpOVOpvic..~ f}~l- -~L:S T~ '1'~¢~ ~Sf 'i'4 ~: ~ ` •'Y 'T ~--t \' a~\..°-a'K-d. G ~.M-~(~ W O k ~ C G V`E O..'1'C VT r -~ V\ O Q ~.,w lok, 5~ ~..~w~F\..;.. . © How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land. Classification Map? ~'1„{ p/o P„~ ,5 c~/JC.~.~' cla5s~-~~c~-- rs ~ro~-o~~ ,,,~1,:~ n,l,laws '~,r, Co,..~ da-...s,'1-•1 ~~olo~/v+..~....~'-, T4 ck.vva...-F- 1_\q',..Z . V.SC P~a~,-,.y~ cl. e.s v..ak p vo~\;10:-}-' Y1~M-U~S~ ~'c~X. lt,~j o•~ 'I't^f propar-~\, ProV~ dr.~ '{'l.~.J~- ~ l-2. ~~'~ pobe.el\ ~.cSR- w•-~` ~w-~- \'~-c~ JevSe~ 1 s,.~ o -}'I,4,1y~ Q p I ~w~~~'t V'GSok.vLojj 1~J\~ X901 /9pJia,~ 5'~ Ar((op,gr~nc.~'t~. /jwa. G I[.I~._.,l.w~-t(C ~/yA~..~.a~ \,.,.1'Ie~+.R..~t-~.-4z.J,~, , i ~VV W.1ll >o.e rt '.~-llc.. `1-C 4S~ '~a5~. 'tom pJ O •te-L~ 1 `^~ © What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is the ]and involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning? Coss i ds..4 ~(.Q rezo y.. •.~ G.a.s o c c wr•r2 ~ /10 ~. ~ o -~- ~'l~.e 1-`•4\..d ~ l l `~ ~~~ i n Ca.,,~-¢.~ . Wit- .t,1 ~ I' 1 f / ( (~ ( 1~ ~ 1 - SO ¢ G ~ F ~ WiR. P e/ vw . {- \~ h'S ~ Y ~ f" 1 `-C L/~ .1-~ c' Cie ~6 b ~ '1' a.l$ b~¢nl2Q4r~ N-°~~- C e,,.-~ . M ers} ~e cowl-C.,~ re a o,•. ; ~ ~`J ~ vt'SI ~l-z,.~c~ ~ l r.~~ ~4-0 ~ g~~ c v e 1~ ; ~„ d Tvwc~Ic~~'~. '{-'\'a~{' W~\.d~` iS d`re~-~-G/o55 ~/o~G /~:5 bk.t, Gc,~/Pro po..~./{~,~,-,1} ~a tv{.,~ ~hvolve~ ~5 l0~-4.~~ Oh q. mycJuv~ ~owrOu.~.h-Ca.~t' 1'~'1.1\~~ 1C~~. I~T Qoc..~.. l~~s 11roc~~ ;s i\..a1.,..d.~.~ W,~\;1-~•_"'K-2. NG'booT s T(`r p r.~..~/~ is ( I SG 1`~ ~ \~ ~ '~l~ Kk- ~ I M~~ h rTC r \ h '~ r-e..c..~ `C`^.'~-lti.~, - i7 t ` ~ 'Y ~}'~ Rbwt el.o w,~~- l°~.--~ ~L_ ~9.-eta.. ca+. 1...4:~ ~ Si.~Cle ~~+.\.....:1.y_ r'CS; 1.~.`._a. wi W~H.I-I;-: Q If. cl.v : v2~.J [~-.1 G ~t..'l S v V In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that I have the burden of proving wliy a change is in the public interest. I further understand that the singling out of one parcel of land for special zoning treatment unrelated to County policies and the surrounding neighborhood would probably be illegal. I certify that all the information presented in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. ~ 3~ Signature of Pe ' gone and/or Owner [This page intentionally left blank) 38 • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 5.2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Contact: Pete Avery Presenter: Dexter Hayes SUBJECT: Rezoning, appealed case (Z-644, 12/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Esther Yopp to rezone 39.39 acres at 8605 Market Street to B-2 Business from R-15 Residential RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends denial. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 5 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • COUNTY COMMISSIONERS F~ .:.~"~~D ^ F~ ~~'~~~\ED~_C - DATE ~-S"_ .~ yr_ ITEM 5.2 CASE: ~-644, 12/98; Applicant: Esther Yopp REQUEST: R-15 to B-2 ACREAGE: 39.39 LOCATION: 8605 Market Street LAND CLASS: Rural- Provides for low density residential development not to exceed 2.5 units per acre where urban services cannot be economically provided. Industry, agriculture, forestry and mineral extraction are suitable for isolated rural locations. Planning Board Summary The Boazd~voted unanimously to recommend denial of the applicant's request. The Boazd agreed with Staff's position that rezoning the site would be premature in light of NCDOT's negotiations to buy the property for road construction in conjunction with the Wilmington By-pass. The Board also agreed with Staff that the property was located too far from the more established commercial node already in place at Porters Neck Road to the south. There was no opposition. Planning Staff Summary Despite the presence of commercial zoning across the street, the expansion of commercial and non- residential uses in this area of the, County is hazd to justify with respect to current Policies for Growth and Development. Those policies say in part that commercial uses should be clustered in nodes azound the intersections of major roads by restricting the linear progression along road fronts in hopes of limiting the negative impacts commonly associated with that sort of land use pattern--traffic congestion, uncontrolled curb cuts, visual blight and related impacts. While the policies do not specify the size of the nodes, expansion more than one-half mile from the existing node at Porters Neck Road is not warranted. The existing B-1 District across the street was established in July 1971 when the original zoning was adopted for this area of the County in recognition of two existing rural country stores. The adjacent B- 2District was established three years later in August 1974 so the owners of a small auto repair shop could sell trucks. More recently in June of this yeaz, an attempt to further expand this commercial azea was denied by the County. In that case, the County determined expansion would be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan and that other development options under the existing zoning were feasible and practical due the tract's size. Regardless of the property's current or future zoning designation, the single greatest.event affecting this property will be the construction of the Wilmington By-pass. As now planned, an interchange is slated to built over much of the applicant's property, resulting in all likelihood in a substantial loss of the entire tract to road construction. Staff has reservations for rezoning land simply to increase land value where it is known the land will be purchased for a public purpose. Right-of--way acquisitions aze ;~aleady~unde~~ayY~~An~future expansions, of these azeas should await the completion of the proposed interchange. -~ Staff recommends denial. ~..___ __ ... sloe PETITION SUMMARY SHEET n Petition Number: ~-644 Owner: - F~+-hPr v~~,~ Requ est:_~ ~~_~a Taz ID Number: X900 Representative: - A 1 ; cP 'Hardee Acreage:-~ q_3 ~ Location: 8605 Market ' LAND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES • Land Classification: - R„ra i Existing Land Use: vacant Zoning-History: -' Area or; g; nal ~ y. zoned ,-r„_~ ~~ i ~ ~ i R-~ a ross street approved August 1974. Water Type: wP i i Fire District: Ogden Sewer Types' ~~„nt-y (x; rkland project Recreation: Ogden Road Access: u . s : 17 Yolume: 17 400 ADT (' 97 count) SChOOI D15trICt: Rl a i r MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Watershed andWater Quality Classification• Island Creek C (spa) Aquifer Recharge Area: Primary Conservation Re3ources: None Historic Landmarks and Archeological Sites: None Soil Type(s) and Class: Primarily Leon ~ Mur~ri-1 ~ P Septic Tank Suitability: ~;,,,; +-~ ,~„A +-„ ~~~ ~,,~e~- tale Prime Agric4ltural Soils: None Building SuitAbility: r ; m; t~ d ~P to wPt„P~ ~ - . ~ ~ ~ 41 WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE ZONING OF PROPERTY Your intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be mac accordance with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based onto./ Land Use Plan, .you must explain in the space below how your request satisfies each of the following requirements: 1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development? ~~~ s~:t~ is ~i/ /~e~so/vah,~ PRa,r~i~,ty ~o ~xJ Gx~Stit~~ Ca~jin~ieci.4G Nude u-E ~RTe.2.'S /ll~c_E. ~oa~/. ~cl'l%~ .:~e~. tai cr. ~zNe2 i~l/y i~ ba ~l/9ble. SrR6rcT"cc~F ~P,o~QeRr~,. y ~;'fh em~~~,.,~~ ZaNii/~ ~~~~~/'/(/v~,•~h ls/V'y~ Slur/-1~/~ ~P ~GSid~ivTi~Lc>/~dz/o~~„ea/i iNS~~<< G/c~sz~~ ~,euXii~t,ry Tv /~ 71?.t7~aR, JJi'y/1tvi41t- C~~~~ eXt~sl`i~1/~ Co/~7/j1ERGi,4I i(/o~jC 2. How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classification Map? Al7'hau~h ~1,~ s~{-~ i~ cl~ssi-~;~~1 RaRAL 7h2r,C~n~d cl,~ss;-~,~~~~ ' ~~~V 'f c~iSCacc~2i49e C.:rii» )97U2C.rr~L Q%!,1/ . /1io71 _ ~cS,clL~~7i.9L lc 5c~~ alS~ Ct/~ho~t~I, c_/;~s5; ~,'C~~ ~u;e~L . ~}lT~'N . ~e ,~~Nd eve l~~ P T~k~~v sh~l~~ tl~e,e~ ,s 7~~or?e ~/2/~nr ~y Ul ~r~ ~=l~~tz,~ . 3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning? 42~= /~ - T~~ 5i7'~ rs eni Thz -~ ~ ~n~/e/ 5ho~~~N~ car.~~~~.~ . B- ~T is C~.f ~~rz /iNf~K's~ctien/ lt1 i /A9 i iG'c~ fait/ ~~ ~~ 55 . or ~ A Ne ~~ - ~.ca~ %`e~~ L o~' +~', ~ ~/ANNPc~ In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that I have the burden of proving why,a change is in the public interest. I further understand the singling out of one parcel of land for special zoning treatment unrelated to County policies and the surrounding neighborhood would probably be illegal., I certify that all information presented in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, informatiori, and belief. ~ Signature of Petitioner and/or Owner NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 5.3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Rezoning (Z-645, 12/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Neil Blake to rezone 1.07 acres at 1901 Castle Hayne Road to O-I Office and Institution from R-15 Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends modification. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 5 S ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COMMISSIOfVERS APPr C\~ED REJ~~TEU ^ RF=t~~OVED p POSTPONED HEARD/- ~ _~i"~ ~J DATE ~.._~..~,.~.~~ ITEM 5.3 CASE: REQUEST: ACREAGE: LOCATION: X645, 12/98; Applicant: Neil Blake R-15 to O-I 1.09 1901 Castle Hayne Road LAND CLASS-Limited Transition: Identifies areas where increased development is likely to occur. Residential density should not exceed 2.5 units per acre. The use of Planned Developments and clustering is encouraged. Planning-Board Summary The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning with the modification that the O-I District line not extend westward beyond the eastern lot line of Parcel I as shown on the attached location map. The Board agreed with Staff that the site's previous residential appeal had been lost as a result of commercial encroachment and the rapid growth of traffic along Castle Hayne Road. They also agreed that the O-I District would promote a better land use transition between the commercialization now evident along Castle Hayne Road and residential interests to the west. No one spoke in opposition. Staff Summary The site is located on the east side of Castle Hayne Road just south of the intersection with Twenty-third Street. Much of the land around this intersection is zoned for and developed with business uses. Cape Fear Shopping Center is the primary commercial use in this commercial node, although in recent years the center has been upstaged by other commercial uses nearby, particularly the Food Lion Center to the north at North Kerr Avenue. Other uses in the area include: a carpet shop, a window treatment center, a convenience food store, auto repair, a laundromat and a small trucking company. This commercial area is adjacent to industrially zoned lands that front along Blue Clay Road. Those properties are intensely developed with a wide array of industrial uses, commercial services and related activities. The B-1 District north of the property is under-utilized and remains primarily residential in character. The general growth in the County over the years has transformed similarly situated properties from their traditional residential usage to commercial and related activities. Their proximity to heavily traveled thoroughfares and encroaching commercial uses combine to diminish their appeal for residential activity. Since 1983, traffic along on this road near the intersection has increased ~y~l~i ghrtly~,o~~e~r~2~0%~+0 17,000+ vehicles per day. Although the exact number is not known, many of jthe~veh~cles~usmg the road are heavy trucks seeking access to the North Carolina State Port, UPS' 17~south and US 421 North. Significant.traffic increases are expected, at least in the short toed m, because t6he next leg of the soon to be opened Smith Creek Parkway terminates at +Jil~S3 9 :'~~ 23rd Street. This means a number of vehicles will be routed not only onto local streets with destinations in the City, but also to the north along 23rd Street with destinations to northern parts of the County. The result is that traffic volumes aren't likely to decrease. The applicant is requesting O-I Office and Institution. Under current Policies for Growth and Development, this land use is deemed appropriate when it provides a transition in land use between open-ended commercial areas and established residential areas. In addition to providing more suitable land uses adjacent and between heavy commercial activities and established residential uses, the setbacks and buffer standards are practically equivalent to the standards for other retail type uses, providing very adequate visual protection to affected residential areas. The subject property is at the entrance of Forest Lane, a private road that provides access to a small enclave of residential structures and a small horse stable owned by the applicant. Because the road is a dead end, there is little chance that properties to the west would be afforded access for future development. Although a house is currently on the property, its proximity to Castle Hayne Road and nearby commercial uses has made its continued use for a home less appealing. That situation is not likely to change in the near future, especially with anticipated traffic increases along the highway and the clear entrenchment of commercial activities nearby. Controlling the spread of this commercial node is critical because it could easily spill over into residential areas west of Castle Hayne Road. To eliminate those impacts, the placement of O-I Districts could permit sorely needed transitional land uses that are deemed generally more compatible with residential uses. While O-I zoning would probably provide a good transition along the immediate road frontage, there is no real need to extend the district westward along the rear of lots E, F and I. That strip of land is narrow, making development almost impossible. Staff recommends approval with the exception of the narrow extension to the west. • 45 PETITION SUMMARY SHEET Petition Number: ~-645 Owner: - NP; ~ B~ akP Representative: same Request: ~-l~ ~~n`.I Acreage: ~ ~~ Taz lD Number:, 4100: I:ocation: 1901 Castle Hayne Rd. LAND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES ' Land Classification:. T,i mi tP~3 TranSi t-i nn Existing Land User ~ Residential Zoning $istory: -' Area- orictinally zoned July 1972. Several rezoninc[s to commercial a roved for nearby properties since 1986. 'Water Type: Well Sewer "Xype' Septic Fire District: Wrir}htsh~r~ Recreation: - T.~iT-,~',~ht-chnrc~ Road Access: ~ U . S : 117 'Volume: 14 855 -ADT ' 9 7 School District: -T~hn~on~ ~ -- MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Watershed andWater Quality Classification• ~ ith Creek C (Sw) Aquifer Recharge Area: ondary RecharcrP Area Conservation Resources.: ~,T~o - Historic Landmarks and Archeological Site: None Soil Type(s) and Class: Developed Septic Tank Suitability: T~PVPI ~ P(~ Primc Agric~lturxl Soils: Developed Building Suitability: _ Developed - 46 WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE ZONING CF PROPERTY Your intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on a Land Use Plan, you must explain in the space below how your request satisfies each of the following requirements: I. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development? v ~~iGE 5 1 NST/TUT/on~/~7G..- (~Er/c Lo~mc'n.l~ i Shia c. c. ,L3 G- c o.~s~.~ Eizc ~ /~,ca0o%o ~R //-I TE L /~n.l~ US.gG'E !~ D~/4GE'~/T' ~"D IQES / d E~itlTi.g L ~ ~^tlFL.o~MC//T, ~~Tv/-tom[.. Ri:sov2G~s . 2. How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classification Map? TN G~t~AScI~ ~CC/~GV~Mc/JT /S E~C~t~T~d 3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning? ?~-C Ar_~.q /-~/gs ,Z3ECorn ~ ~ o ~z ~ .8 vsy ~ C oN ~ `7`~i~ /~Z o ~~ ~/~ ov?-.sa~ ~-- _. 7n-C ~ S/ O~ iiv i oi..< T/S~/S / ~S l7NSV / T~9~° ~~ s '~l ~}~J~~2011s /~0 2 2~ -S /j~E^J T. (J ~E". /J / REGTC c~/ /~L2USS ?/~~: /~/G~fGlJi~y /4 ~/`~~~ ~001~ C k~/~ ~r~-s 3E~,u T/~E~-E s./v~~ ~ 98v. ~GL T~~ L /4it! ~ D /2 E-G 7`L Y /? G 2055 T//E /,//~" h/w/~ f/ /S US c ~j Fo/2 ~"NSTirvTLon/AL ~~2 COrrL m E2 L~R L tlS Es'. In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that I have the burden of proving why a change is in the public interest. I further understand the singling out of one parcel of land for special zoning treatment unrelated to County policies and the surrounding neighborhood would probably be illegal. I certify that all information presented in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. ,.~~- .~ . t47 s,~~. Signature of Petitioner and/or Owner [This page intentionally left blank) 48 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 5.4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Special Use Permit, continued item BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Gearon Communications to construct a 160 foot communications tower on the east side of .Interstate 40/North College Road about 900 feet south of Gordon Road. (S-435, 10/98) RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 13 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: CoUrJn COMMISSIONERS APFf;Jtlt=D R~fa`~iEt7 ^ Rw ~ ~~'~'i_D o PCB tr-~NED a HEARD CJ DATES-~ ~~ ~ 49 3 ~'~ ITEM 5.4 Special Use Permit- Request by Gearon Communications to Erect a 160 Foot Communications Tower (lattice design) on the East Side of North College Road Southeast of the Intersection of I-40 and Gordon Road. (5-435, 10/98) NOTE: This item appeared on the Commissioners' November 9, 1998 agenda. The .matter was tabled until the December 7th meeting due to concerns raised by an adjoining property owners concerning a pending contract to sell their property that might be jeopardized if a tower was. constructed next door. This matter was .again tabled and rescheduled for Janaury 4, 1999. Planning Board Summary The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval' of the petition as revised. The original petition called for the placement of the tower in the southwest corner of the tract, but due to wetland issues it had to be moved the southeast corner. of the property: In support of their position, the Board noted that the petition complied with local zoning requirements for towers. They also determined it was generally consistent with the Land Use Plan and would be compatible with land use in the area. There was no opposition. Preliminary Staff Findings 1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. The site requires no water and sewer service. B. The tower is located a considerable distance from the~nearest residential structure and is far enough from I-40 that if it fell over from the base it would not fall into the highway. C. The site will be accessed by a private easement connected to Gordon Road, a state maintained highway. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications, of the Zoning Ordinance. A. Communication towers are permitted by special use permit in the R-15 Residential District. The site is zone R-15. B. A site plan and supporting data have been submitted as required by the zoning ordinance. C. The tower meets all setback and buffer requirements, including the Special Highway Overlay District standards. 3: The Board~must~fnd that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or ~~~ ~~, abutting~.p operty or'that the use is a public necessity.., A. The nearest residential structure is over 900 feet away. It is located on the same tract and o ned`by the person who will be leasing the land to Gearon for the tower. ~:~ .. ,~ 50 , . ~.. . .. .. f __ .. e ..F .,. ~ . B. Property to the immediate west is part of the right-of--way for. Land to the south is undeveloped and zoned B-2 Highway Business. 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 plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The tract where the tower will be located has been previously used for agriculture. Land to the south is vacant, but eligible for commercial uses. B. The use will be visible at a major entrance into the City. C. Design .concerns of the structures-- lattice tower versus monopole. • • 51 GEARON COMMUNICATIONS A DIVISION OF AMERICAN TOWER SY TEM L P Wirele Network Development " 3016 HILLSBOROUGH STREET, SUITE 201, RALEIGH, NC 27607 OFFICE: 919-833-2301 FAX: 919-833-2302 STATEMENT OF INTENT Gearon Communications, adivision of American Tower Systems, L.P. hereby requests approval if its Special Use Permit application to construct, maintain, and manage a multiple user wireless communication facility at the property owned by Charles R. Clay known as Tax Map #3149-23- 61360000 on Gordon Road, Wilmington, NC. Introduction Gearon Communications and American Tower Systems have merged to become the nation's premier, fully integrated tower development company. They combine the ownership and/or management of more than 1800 towers in 38 states with the ability to provide build-to-suit networks, professional services, and facility management services. Over the past six years, American Tower Systems and Gearon Communications have acquired, for carriers, more than 8,045 sites in 48 states. This includes sites for virtually every wireless provider in the country. ro o al Gearon Communications' facility will be comprised of a 153.63' x 85' x 74.12' x 115.28' lease area containing a 160' self-support lattice structure enclosed within a fenced equipment compound area. The facility will be fenced and locked, accessed by a driveway easement from Gordon Road. The facility.will be unmanned (visited on an average of once per month for routine maintenance purposes), will not be lit (except as required by FAA regulations); nor emit noise or glare. A picture of a typical lattice structure is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and a standard maintenance plan is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Gearon Communications will lease antenna space on the structure to wireless providers, as well as the necessary ground space area to accommodate their respective necessary equipment. Site Selection/DesiQT~- This particular site was acquired in response to a request by BellSouth DCS. BellSouth DCS operates a Personal Communications Service ("PCS") system, providing the latest in wireless communication throughout the Southeast. The proposed site is critical for complete coverage of I- 40 and the area surrounding Gordon Road. 52 The process of developing a PCS system is similar to cellular development in that the Basic Trading Area ("BTA") regions are subdivided into small geographic sections or "cells". Each cell site holds the equipment that provides the air interface to the subscriber units and must be precisely located relative to other "cells" creating a communication grid system. This grid system must reflect the topography and traffic (user population and building density) of the "cells" as well as the radius of the respective antenna's reliable transmission area. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 are propagation maps prepared by a BellSouth RF engineer, reflecting the projected coverage of the proposed facility and the surrounding sites. As clearly shown, a serious gap in service would be created without the development of the subject facility. Gearon Communications carefully selected and designed the proposed facility to provide a structure that will provide the necessary coverage for. BellSouth, is feasible and desirable for collocation, and meet the goals of the community. A free standing lattice structure will be utilized to provide the necessary height and encumber a minimal amount of property. In addition, lattice structures give Gearon Communications flexibility (for strengthening sections, antenna configuration, cable placement, etc.) when trying to accommodate additional antennas, thus reducing the likelihood of a carrier needing to build additional structures. The proposed structure and equipment compound is capable of accommodating at least five (5) carriers. The proposed facility will cause minimal visual impact to neighboring properties. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 are views of the area as photographed from the subject site. Relatives of the property owner occupy the residential dwellings located on the subject "parent parcel" and they are not opposed to the proposed facility. In addition, these properties are located at a distance of over1000' from the facility; significantly reducing any visual impact. The parcel is abutted by I-40 on the West, vacant properly zoned B-2 on the South (the closest adjoining property to the subject facility), Vacant property zoned B-2 on the West, property improved with a Church to the Northwest (abutting O&I), and vacant parcels adjoining I-40 to the North. The current development trend in the immediate area is commercial. The lattice structure will be lit only as required by the FAA. If required, lights will be white strobe during the day and red blinking at night. Gearon Communications utilizes Flash Technology lighting systems with advanced technology and optics that utilize a narrow beam spread. The majority of light output is focused just above the horizontal, where it is crucial for pilot visibility and safety. However, at 10 degrees below the horizontal, the light intensity drops off to only 1 percent of the required output, resulting in a light that is no more obtrusive from the ground than a 40 watt patio light bulb left on at night. • 53 Co-location ATS/Gearon's business is to obtain tenants to co-locate on its structures. We are very confident that this will be an ideal location for other interested wireless providers to locate their antennas. As outlined above, ATS/Gearon has a relationship with virtually every major wireless provider in the Country. Every site is aggressively marketed to.service a wide range of wireless technologies including PCS (GSM, CDMA, TDMA), Cellular, Paging, ESMR/SMR, 38ghz/Wireless Fiber, 2 Way.Paging, etc. Notification was, sent to wireless providers in the area (sample letter and mailing list attached as Exhibit 5). Communities must develop the necessary communication infrastructure as they do with sewers, roads, and other public utilities., .Poorly designed or insufficient communication infrastructure will result in communities not being able to provide adequate education, information, and safety services. A direct result and obvious be~iefit of Gearon Communications' proposal is the alleviation of the proliferation of unnecessary multiple towers within a community. Merits/Zoning Compliance The subject property is zoned R-15. The proposed facility is a use permitted after approval by the Board of Adjustment of a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article 6 -Section 69.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, New Hanover County, North Carolina, Adopted October 1969 ("Ordinance"): The proposed facility meets the standards set forth in the Ordinance. The following "General Requirements" were submitted in accordance with the application fora Special Use Permit.. . 54 ~, .~ General Reduirements I. The Use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed accordi-:g to t1:e pla-: as submitted and approved. Gearon Communications is very sensitive to the concerns of the community and has taken steps'to ensure that the facility will not endanger the public health or safety: a. The structure shall be setback from the closest adjacent property line by a distance of at least 120'. b. Facility will not interfere with normal radio and television reception in the vicinity. Commercial messages shall not be displayed. c. The structure will not be lit except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If required, dual lighting (white during the day, red at night) will be utilized. ~' d. The facility will meet or exceed federally approved power density levels 2. Tl:e proposed -cse meets all required conditions and specifications a. N/A the facility is located in a residential district. b. The tower, antennae, and all other related structures are set back from residential dwellings a distance greater than the height of the tower. The closest residential dwelling is over 1000' from the facility. The lattice structure is located a distance of approximately 1000' from the North, 75' from the South property line, 75' from the closest East property line, and 125' from the West property line (exceeding the required 50 feet). c. A landscape buffer is required by the Ordinance on the northern fenceline due to the residential dwellings. A letter from the property owner is submitted herewith in support of a waiver from this requirement. The dwellings are located at a distance of over 1000' from the proposed facility and between the two uses is an existing cemetery surrounded by trees. Both of these conditions serve to significantly obstruct and reduce the view of the structure base. d. Collocation -Submitted herewith is statement by Kenneth Carter that the closest structure feasible for collocation is located a distance of approximately 1.7 miles from the necessary search area: This structure is located in the Dutch Square Industrial Park. BellSouth DCS provides coverage to the Dutch Square Industrial Park utilizing the existing site at 6819 Gordon Rd. (at Gordon Road and Market Street). The. propagation maps submitted herewith clearly indicate that the proposed location is critical to maximize coverage between the existing site on Gordon Road and an existing BellSouth site located at 2525 Castle Hayne Road. The small "hole" in coverage is due to the FAA restrictions around the New Hanover International Airport. Moving this site east would significantly increase the size of this "hole" and complete coverage would be virtually impossible due to the FAA restrictions. e. The facility will be constructed to accommodate at least five (5) users with substantially the same equipment requirements of the primary.tenant. The facility will be aggressively marketed to additional users, thus reducing the likelihood of additional new structures in the community. 55 £ Attached hereto is a written affidavit by Richard Beesley, Project Manager, that the construction or placement of such structures meets the provisions of the Telecommunications-Act of 1996, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FCC Rules Sections 1.1311, 1.1312, 1.1307 and all other applicable federal, state and local laws. g. The proposed lattice structure will only be enlarged or relocated if such enlargement or relocation eliminates the need for an additional tower, provides, additional antenna space on the tower; and is in conformance with all-relevant regulations and design • limitations as may reasonably be required. 3. The Use will izot substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the Use is a public necessity. The proposed use will have no diminutive effect on surrounding property values. The proposed facility will ensure that the permitted use developments outlined. in the Ordinance will have adequate-access to necessary communication services. Wireless servicesare expanding and are used in virtually every -.aspect of the traditional land line phones. Mobile communication-has evolved from being a convenient luxury to a necessary tool for business and private -use. In fact, the services provided by potential users will enhance the general welfare and are a public necessity. For example, (a) over 50,000 "911" calls. are made from wireless phones every day, (b) new mobile data terminals give police officers instant access to information needed for critical decisions, and (c). wireless phones are vital during times of emergency when traditional land line phones are not available or in cases of power failure 4. The location- and character of the use if developed according to the plaiz as submitted and approved will be in' harmony with •tlze area in which it is •to be located atzd in gez:eral conformity with the comprehensive plan. As stated above, the proposed facility will ensure that the permitted use developments outlined in the Ordinance for this area will "~~~"' • have adequate access to necessary communication services. The subject "parent parcel" is abutted by'I-40 on the West, vacant property zoned B-2 on the South (the closest adjoining property to the subject facility), Vacant property zoned B-2 on the West, property improved.with a Church to the Northwest (abutting O&I), and vacant parcels adjoining I- 40 to the North. The current development trend in the immediate area is commercial. 0 56 ~ AMERICAN TOWER C O R P O R A T 1 O N 3016 HI1L560ROUGH STREET, SUITE 201, RALEIGH, NC 27607 OFFICE: 919-833-2301 Fax: 919-833-2302 August 31, 1998 Mr. Walter "Pete" Avery New Hanover County Planning Department 414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Re: Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facility Gordon Road & I-40 Dear Mr. Avery: I hereby certify that the construction or placement of the proposed facility meets the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FCC Rules Sections 1.1311, 1.1312, 1.1307 and all other applicable federal, state and local laws. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me with any questions at (919) 833-2301. Sincerely,~fJ ~~~--~ Project M Beesley STATE OF I~TORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF (,UQ,K~ I, JQf~,ael~~a P•'l.(Jea~f~e~Lct/ , a Notary Public for~ai~ County and State, do hereby certify that R icl'lArr~ C • ~ test personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument. WIT\TESS my hand and official seal the ?J~ day of (~~ ; 199~i. ~~ Notary Public My Commission Expires: ~~ 'IlI ~ ~ 07 "D (NOTARY SEAL) 57 AM E RI C AN ~~ T O W E R C O R P O R A T I O N 3016'HILLSSOROUGH STREET, SUITE 201, RALEIGH, NC 27607 ' OFFICE: 919-833-2301 FAX:, 919-833-2302 September 1, 1998 Mr. Walter "Pete" Avery New Hanover County Planning Department 414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Re: Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facility Gordon Road & I-40 Dear Pete: This letter is written in support of the Application for a Special Use Permit submitted herewith, specifically concerning the requirement for written evidence to demonstrate that collocation on an existing structure is not reasonable or possible.. Please refer to the attached propagation maps. The proposed location is designed to provide coverage between an existing BellSouth DCS site located at 6819 Gordon Road (at Gordon Road and Market Street) and an existing BellSouth DCS site located at Castle Hayne Road. As the propagation maps indicate, placement of this site is critical -even as proposed,, a small "hole" in coverage may exist due to the FAA restrictions near the New Hanover International Airport. The closest structure to the proposed site that is feasible for collocation is located approximately 1.7 miles East from the proposed site. This structure is located in the Dutch Square Industrial Park. BellSouth DCS currently. provides coverage to the Dutch Square Industrial Park utilizing the existing site at 6819, Gordon Road. Substituting the proposed location with a site at Dutch Square Industrial Park is not feasible because the coverage would significant overlap with existing coverage (causing transmission/receiving confusion between the, two "handoff 'sites), and a the "hole" near the Airport would increase to an extremely unacceptable size. This "hole" would be virtually impossible to "fill" due to the FAA restrictions. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me with any questions at (9.19) 833-2301. Sincerely, a Kenneth Carter Site Acquisition Manager ~~ • • • ~- - ~ y L .~.`.+..YS ~V I ~t yr ~ .' ;:~ -`~- ~~ J ,~°. _ ~ ~~'k *' r .,mow ~~ ~~• i w ~~~ry W ~ !3 ~~ar ~ , _ S < ,~ ~ ~ _ 4~ ~ I.~. ~ ,. . ~ ti 4. _ r k "y t - r ~ ~` - f r~ w Y ~ -3:~-~.~e.~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~~`~.sc~-`'~ `~ ,~`~ ~ a~ ~/ f T'om' ~~'" ,; ~ . r ; t,- ,R .,?rlrY'''~y~ r`,:R S' ~ 'r,;•~M~~~O ~ ~~~ ~s-d~s 1 ~ _ L; <'` y~y~,,..,,~'~"~ ~'~'z~r+~r'~~, b _ `• f -•.~~•a'_ 'A5' a.~~~ ~r~ • ~ 1=.,~~cc`i a. SL r'I^'r~c L,¢ .4 ,~T~.,L. _ 'r ~ :.+o• • P~ Y.. ~ q "L~~ r . i { ryc NSF ;'~' .~. idn .~'> ~ns',.~ i ~ ~. iii ?ate .~"/ ~~ t -T~.~`r ~.a ~..y~r'" ,~ra.EW °&. •s!~^~~.~+.> y - nr ~ ..f ~ ,r} ~~: ~`' [ /y.-n ~~ Lr ~•t.~~~~~0~+~..o-T+~~l~~r, ~~'~k'a.~~ ~rr3 -.'4y~-. ~l~ ,~~ `" t t `^ } ~„ ` +- a t,~`'1y"' "'t fY ~~7 dr`~j~t? ~c~' ~ 1., '~..~~,3' .i !• it~' ~ e 1 r `~y. ~ X t r ~y~~L+ati3i}~~"~it~'~ rJ~ ~ ! A ~ `~ . ~~x r z~ ~n .-+r ~ " : L'x' y' _ ~ J/ a r ` ~-, x d~~ ~ .~~, ~r ~. r s , :v' f 1 , sL {f `~ fir- e 1 5A'~ :. ~-y L y t ~ v 1_li ~~ -Yf?, r.1S'~ t \~:.: ,.+Jr 3r >i`r "~_. f°~ -~? ~ :, f _n , + c t ~ .. fa L } 's- ~ s i ~ r 3 i ~ ~ u t h,rr " -ti : ?. • t ~` f.y~ ~ "f t { 2 l d '~rl .,k+,,,. c +J4iir S..` { ~ 1 4 tY { r ".'. y r rf"C > ~ ~" i s '~. ~ u Y ~' T~ J~ ~. ti ~~~~ ~'~ :f7 `r{ t".n'~r i',y ~ ~ a~ ` ,~. ~ ~ to \~_/?33 c l:t~{r r1-rk ravnr.2,~ 7~t ~ S~Ky,yc,' r:~,}. -- `' fit' ~ f' ` ~:.~ - -, '" \ ~ ~ \ r .. ~ f ~ r ~:~ ' ~ _ , j g~ ~; \\ \~~ ~ t ~ ,~yt}tr t2• t r v ~ S:' t~ t"rt~~._ ~ s . tZti t` .~ {~.t@si t -t 3 .. sl Sl ka: .., t s ~ C T, 7~+': .'~, e ,,,.. \ ~t ee, 3 ~ l ~- L xe ~ xt t ~1`s` v3 t r•;. .+_-IC L~~_.4 I t ~ ,t .cliff l t ~ -s t ~ ~~ tl\. ~=~~1 s a r t ,J six t < s v\-t; T ~, 1 n , ~ a t ~-s x t: ? t ~ "~ N• a ~~ wi. i~i• by ~rl :l< st rta ..'1 ~J. lr~a~y~: r~ . to t ,t, a t -a 1 tt tY,~ r "1, t l t r \ ~ ~ t ~ e,~~,%tyt 'r~ y.~ f x. r ~ 3t1 .Y,:vt s !- L.~ ens+i~ - k • ( ~ ~~ ~~ : > ~f ! "' •In y '~ ~ - ~ ~ f s ~3 , .. ;~. ~ t - y x " ~ ~ >tl~ttw ! y s r1~ s 6F`~~ f 5 ~` . `, ~s.~~ t ~-t?:•~.~.7i~tr y~~s S n.`F s ~t x t ..titan ~ ~~~1'F~ei~.V° '`tt •tiG~sly,~~~.t(~ *~~,.w v ~-{ t.l r }~, T~'f-i .n .?~~ ~ti. t ~t~ ,.S 1 .. 5 ` ' _.x t }':~~ t t ~;a.~Stij~,~l~:1~'~?:~f.1~:~T z~+;~~~' . t": ~ f• t il, t.• ~i •y. t x -., t, r t t !ytis3.~'tl ~r~ ~,, ..a ~ ~ b 1 ~:<' ° J ~ t ~ r 7 ~~'~., rA ~ z , :s t . , } ,: , 'rk~ 1 ~ ~•..a• t= ij` a'-~ti .* _ ~ ~. r~ .. ;`-c~i~}~'i~f7'- l~jV ~'`!-., sr .s : t Y ry C+?: ~ttN `,, L Cdr s-~'~~1:. y`~.. t 1 t~tt~\" r~~ -~- 5.F r S r r vt-. fit} 5 ~ r.t ,y;'y. .tom`-t?..~1~'i ~b- `~..' i'tr`h,• . i ~. ':; -,~ w r'rt ;1 .~. "r. k 'r 1". - ` s t". L,r rit-:~.:4.','%:r.::.y ~..-+ ai'~ Yi., ~-='~~ ~ . .>. :7.r .l.;.S,as'~~..~1.~c~F~i'S•,t.....i..til il. ••4..e..._..._l..t s. ..... .... .....4:..-t1...~. .V:...U..~.~..~... .. ~.7....,a .c ... ..._:~.u~._. u.c.l... PETITLON SUMMARY SHEET S-435. 10/9.8 . Petition Number: ' Charles Clay Gearon Communicat Owner: Representative: Request: Communications Tower Acreage: N/A Taa ID Number 4300 Location• I-40 acid Gordon' Rd. LAND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES Land Classification: Urban Transition Ezisting Land Use: Vacant Zoning History: Area originally .zoned July 7, 1972. B-2 area to the south established Feb ~19f3H water Type: N/A Sewer Type• N/A /'_ Fire District: wrightsboro _ Recresition: r,anP~-TnaGk Road Access: Gordon Rd. Volume: 19.8 2 8 ADT (' 9 7 coun School District: Blount, MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ' Smith. Creek C(Sw) ~ Watershed andwater Quality Classification• ~ Aquifer Recharge Area• ~ Transition between Primary f, ~arnnr~arv arcs Conservation Resources: None Historic Landmarks and Archeological Sites: None Soil T e s and Class: Yp O Baymeade (Be) Septic Tank. Suitability: N/A No sewer re uired '~ 60 Prime AgricU~ltura] Soils.: N/A - f ~ .. ~ - j Building Suitability: _ Few limits C~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 5.5 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Conditional Use District, site plan revision (Z-559, 1/96; revised 12/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Randall Bray to revise the approved site plan for the Wilmington Shipyard, Point Harbor Marina Village by eliminating 41 residential units, creation of additional open space, eliminating 22 boat slips, providing 15 floating home structures and creating a marine activity center. The site is zoned CD(B-2) and CD(R-15). .RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 13 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTI( Cf)MMI~Si APl~aov~D o REJEGTEt3 REMQVfD t~. P4STPON~D HEARD DATE r ~~:~ ~ ~ 61 __ ..._ ITEM 5.5 n ' i n- Re uest b Randall Bra to revise the a roved site Conditional Use Site Pla Revis o q y y PP plan for The lE3arbor Village at the old Wilmington Shipyard. -The property is zoned Conditional Use Business and Conditional Use Residential. (Z-559, 1/96; Revised 12/98) Planning Board Summary The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the revisions as submitted and to include the conditions of the original conditional use district order. In support of their decision, the Board noted the planned changes would be more compatible with the site's proximity to the river and nearby industrial uses. They also were pleased that theiareas to be set aside for conservation would be increased. No one spoke in opposition; at the meeting, although a letter from Almont Shipping was presented that stated the company continues to oppose the rezoning. They noted,. however, that if the .plan as revised is approved, then the County should require a covenant that discloses.to resid`ential~ buyers in the project that they are located in an industrial area. (This was made a part of the original conditional use order and retained by the Planning Board in its latest recommendation.) Other potential users of the facility distributed letters of support. Planning Staff Summary The original conditional use- district was approved by the County in January 1996. A six month extension for the plan was granted in February 1998. Since the extension was granted, the owners have obtained a building permit for limited construction on the property, effectively validating the site plan. The original site plan included the following elements: (Site Plan Attached) - 27 single family lots with tennis facilities - 115 slip commerciaUcommunity marina with clubhouse facility . - 12 townhomes adjacent to the marina - 50,000 square feet of retail and office space - a 75 room courtyard hotel - preservation of substantial natural areas The revised site plan includes the following elements: (Site Plan Attached) - Reduction in number of boat slips to 91 from 115. The total area devoted to the boat slips remains unchanged. - Proposes to locate 15 floating structures (aka floating homes) within the marina area - Eliminates 39 land-based housing units--27 single family units and 12 townhomes -`:` ~'.~ :;Est"abl~ishinent of a marine resource center for use by area rowing clubs, County Museum, ~~~~ iJN;CW.;~~and the North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher - ~~g Refent~i'on of the existing commercial and office area - • '!~-J Expans"iori+of open space,•~ Under current ordinance standards, the proposed land uses identified in the revised plan are permitted. Except for the marina and floating structures, no special standards apply. The location of floating structures in conjunction with a commercial marina has to meet the following requirements 1. The location of the structures do no not impair water quality, primary nursery areas, shellfish grounds and conservation areas. 2. Floating structures cannot be located within 15 feet of the waterward extension of all property lines. 3. Only one dwelling unit per floating structure is allowed. 4. The structure must be located adjacent to a pier, dock or walkway-with adequate lighting. 5. Each structure must be provided with permanent water and sewer systems. No overboard discharges are permitted. 6. Provision of a system for the removal and disposal of solid waste. 7. ~~ Provision of 2,000 square feet of gross land area per floating structure shall be provided on-shore. S. Two off-street parking areas per floating structure are required. • • 63 COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ORDrJR GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERNIIT (" IN :~-CONDITIONAL USE ZONING DISTRICT \ Residential, Commercial, Office, Marina The Board of Board of County Commissioners for New Hanover County having held a public hearing on February 5, 1996 to consider application number Z-559, submitted by Randall Bray for TKL, Inc., a request for a special use permit in a Conditional Use Zoning District to use the property located on U.S. 421 (Old Wilmington Shipyard) and having heard all the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT and draw the .following CONCLUSIONS: 1. -The Board of Board of County Commissioners FIND AS A FACT that all of the specific requirements set forth in Section 71-1(3) and 72 of the County Zoning Ordinance WILL be. satisfied if the property is developed,in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board of County Commissioners. 2: It is the Board of County Commissioners' CONCLUSION that the ,proposed use DOES satisfy the first general requirement listed in the Ordinance; namely that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. In support of this conclusion, the Commissioners make the following FIlIDINGS OF FACT: A. The site has access to existing public streets ([JS 421 and Point Harbor Road) B. The site is located in the old North Wilmington Fire Department District. Service is provided by contractual arrangement with Wrightsboro VFD. C. The exact source for water and sewer service is not known.' 3. It is the Board of County Commissioners' CONCLUSION that the proposed use DOES satisfy the second general requirement listed in the Ordinance; namely that the use meets all required conditions and specifications. In support of this conclusion, the Commissioners make the following FINDINGS OF FACT: A. A site plan pursuant to the Ordinance has been submitted. B. The plan identifies all planned land uses. C. The plan identifies the perimeter boundary and adjoining land uses. D. No data are provided concerning traffic counts or traffic impacts. E. No data are provided concerning existing trees. 4. It is the Board of County Commissioners' CONCLUSION that the proposed use DOES satisfy the third general requirement listed in the Ordinance; namely that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity. In support of this conclusion, the Commissioners make the following FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Many of the properties nearby are vacant. B. Redevelopment of this-site as planned would be a significant change to the quality of 64 land uses in the area.. 5. It is the Board ofBoard of County Commissioners' CONCLUSION that the proposed use DOES satisfy the fourth general requirement listed in the Ordinance; namely 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. In support of this conclusion, the Board of Commissioners makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: A. The property to the south is a marine salvage yard. Land to the northwest is a truck stop and restaurant. Land across the river is developed with industrial uses, including a speciality lumber company and a shipping company. 6. Therefore, because the Board of County Commissioners conclude that all of the general and specific conditions precedent to the issuance of a SPECIAL USE PERMIT HAVE been satisfied, IT IS ORDERED that the application for the issuance of a SPECIAL USE PERMIT BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: A. That the applicant shall fully comply with all of the specific requirements stated in the Ordinance for the proposed use, as well as any additional conditions hereinafter stated. B. If any of the conditions imposed by this special use permit' shall beheld invalid beyond the authority of this Board of Commissioners by a court of competent jurisdiction, then this permit shall become void and of no effect. C. Other: 1) All other applicable federal, state and local laws 2) That the plan comply with applicable landscaping and tree requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3) A covenant be established which discloses to future buyers,. particularly residential interests, that the site is in close proximity to existing andlor potential industrial uses and activities. Ordered this 5th day of February, 1996. Attest: Clerk to the Board Robert G. Greer, Chairman ~. Airmation this ~- ~ 2 3 - 1996. ~~ --1 • I 1 Applicant 65 ~~~; ~?~ ~~ , BRAY ARCHITECTURE ,PLANNING AND.INTERIORS Randall Bray, AIA, NCARB 520 South Second Street Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 Telephone:910-762-0710 Facsimile: 910-762-0659 E-Mai]: bray@mail.wilmington.net ~ . November 2, 1998 Mr. Walter Avery, Planner NEW HANOVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 414 Chestnut Street, Room 1304 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Telephone: (910)341-7165 RE: Proposed Center for Environmental Historical and Marine Activity at the proposed Point Harbor Marina Village and the existing Old Wilmington Shipyard, New Hanover-County. Revision to the existing New Hanover County Conditional Use Permit which is currently executed and construction underway.. Dear Mr. Avery: Thank you for your continuing assistance on the proposed revision to the above Conditional Use Permit. Please accept the enclosed submission as our next step in the approval process to formally. submit our concept and revision on November 2, 1998 to the NHCo. Planning Commission. Enclosed you will find a copy of the formal request for the change of use for the property currently in use as The Wilmington Shipvard. This approach to the final use of the waterfront land was reached after much discussion with the investors and other interested groups. We understand that submission for Monday November 2, 1998 will be heard by the NHCo. Planning Commission on Thursday December 3, 1998. If the NHCo. Planning Commission approves, the proposed changes adding "increased green concept with Marine Center", then the NHCo. Commissioners will be asked for their approval on Monday January 4, 1999., 66 BRAY ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING AND INTERIORS Randall Bray, AIA, NCARB November 2,.1998 Page 2 of 3 As of this date, we have been unable to achieve the City's commitment on our NHCo. approved sewer. At the present time, our site has City water and a septic system sufficient for seventy-five (7~ to one hundred and twenty (120) units, but this system is not sufficient for the total proposed project. Therefore, this revised plan has added the request to build an on=site water treatment recirculating sand filter system which has zero off-site discharge. This system would, of course be an approved and engineered system as now used throughout the country. The revised plan increases the original green nature area of seven (7) acres by over ten and a half (10.~ additional acres to a new green area total of seventeen and a half (17.5) acres, a green area increase of one hundred and fifty percent (150%). The plan also includes fifteen (15) floating house units. in existing approved Marina slips which would cover approximately eight and one half percent (8.5%) of the Marina water area. The County Planning Department, County Zoning and Building Code at this time have provisions for this type of floating structure. These. units, along with the tax benefits derived from placing land into a wetland conservatory will generate the profit necessary to complete the revised plan as now proposed. The revised land use plan will accomplish the following: 1. Holds the Marina portion to the same size as the existing conditional use permit and reduces the boat. slips from 113 to 91. 2. Eliminates 41 land based residential units. 3. The owners will donate approximately 17.5 acres to the Wetland Conservatory. 4. The owners will donate approximately 2.25 acres of land plus water access as needed for use by the following: a. Cape Fear, UNC-Wand Cape Fear Academy Rowing Clubs b. New Hanover County Cape Fear Museum c. University of North Carolina at Wilmington d. North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher 67 BRAY ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING AND INTERIORS _ Randall Bray, AIA, NCARB November 2, 1998 Page 3 of 3 I would greatly appreciate it if you would review the enclosed submission. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional .information regarding the enclosed "Green Concept with Marine Activity. Center." • Respectfully submitted, .~-, . t~ W. Randa 1 Bray, AIA, NCAA American Institute of Architects National Council of Architectural Review Board cc: Cape Fear Rowing Club, etc. New Hanover County Cape Fear Museum University of North Carolina at Wilmington North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher W. M: Kaylor, Point Harbor Marina Village, LLC 68 ALMONT SHIPPING TERMINALS • OJ~~eRMi ~~. ~ ~ O EST. I t 1870 ~ 1 1/ / December 3, 1998 • Pete Avery New Hanover County Planning Department 414 Chestnut Street, Room. 304 Wilmington, NC 28401-4027 Subject: Public Hearing: December 3, 1998 Conditional Use Site Plan Revision "The Harbor Village at the Old Wilmington Shipyard" Dear Mr. Avery, Thank you for the notice of public hearing concerning the Conditional Use Site Plan Revision for "The Harbor Village at the Old Wilmington Shipyard". Please add these comments to the official record for the public comments. I have enclosed copies for the members of the Planning Board. Almont Shipping Terminals' site plan remains unchanged from the original rezoning request. It is critical that any site plan continue to include a covenant in the deed .that would be binding upon all future owners, stating that the purchaser acknowledged they were moving into an industrial area, and most likely the industries in the area will continue to exist and. operate. Although this covenant has been included, Almont must remain opposed to the rezoning because of the drastic nature of the change in zoning. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Please call if there are any questions about this letter. Sincere, Sidne;~ H. Camden Vice President and General Manager • One Hanover Street P.O. Box 1726 Wilmington, NC 28402-1726 Phone: 910-341-5700 Fax: 910-763-~,~ David R.W. Butts Cape Fear River Rowing Club PO Box 330 ~ J Wilmington, NC 28402 November 23, 1998 Randall Bray Bray Architecture, Planning and Interiors 520 S. 2nd St Wilmington, NC 28402 Dear Randall, The Cape Fear River Rowing Club is very interested in the proposed Center for Marine Activity. Your offer to provide a floating dock and facilities for boat storage, classroom space, showers, and toilets is very generous and indicative of a high degree of concern for low-impact marine activities on the Cape Fear River. We would like to pursue these preliminary discussions in more detail with you. This offer could not have come at a more opportune time since it appears that the Rowing Club will be forced~to move from our present locationdue to the sale ofthe.property. As you know, we have also outgrown our present single-bay boathouse and were actively investigating. new locations where we could build adouble-bay boathouse. This growth has occurred not only from our own membership increases, but also from the growth of the two other rowing clubs that share our facilities: the UNCW Rowing Club, and the Cape Fear Academy Rowing Club. Both of these affiliated clubs are growing rapidly, especially Cape Fear Academy. We hope that Cape Fear Academy's fledgling-efforts will generate interest among some of the local High Schools as well. A Youth Rowing Program is something we would like to see on the river. A larger boathouse would also allow us to provide storage for kayakers and canners as well: Our hope is that several types of unpowered boating activities can come together in this one facility, thereby reaching a critical mass that will allow us to expand finances, membership and community support. Your proposed Center for Environmental, Historical and Marine Activity will also be beneficial, we believe, in generating the synergy between organizations with like interests. This development is entirely in keeping with the best uses of the river from a wide range of differing viewpoints. This sort of offer from a commercial entity is very rare, representing an outstanding gesture of goodwill to the community. Once again, let me say that the Cape Fear River Rowing Club is very appreciative and looking forward to working out the details of this offer with you. Yours truly, David R.W. Butts President 70 /~~` i ~~ NORTH•CAROLINA AQUARIUMS • NORTH CAROLINA AQUARIUM AT FORT FISHER 2201 Fort Rsher Blvd., S., Box 1, Kure Beach, NC 28449 • (910) 458-8257 • FAX: (910) 458-6812 November 23, 1998 Mr. Dexter Hayes New Hanover County Planning Department 414 Chestnut Street Wilmington, NC 28401 Dear Dexter: Mr. Randall Bray has asked that I inform you of the continuing interest the N.C. Aquarium staff has in using the facility he is proposing as a part of Point Harbor Marina Village, the Center for Environmental, Historical and Marine Activity. We would very much hope to use this as both an educational and collecting base on the river; and a presence closer to Wilmington, particularly to the inrier city. As part of our expansion, we anticipate increasing our staff and programs. The proposed Center would be an excellent base for a continuing presence in Wilmington, and a wonderful place for a small public aquarium display. We look forward to hearing more about this project in the future, and hope we can be a part of it. Sincerely, ~. Lanier r Y.,...~.. R. White Mr. R. Bray r~ ?ARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES JAMES B. HUNT, JR., GOVERNOR JONATHAN B. HOWES,~Cf~TARY ~~~~ ACCREDITED Rl 111E AMERICA\ ZOO A.~'D AQVARIVM ASSOCIATIO\ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 5.6 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment, continued item (A-292, 10/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Jim Bonner for Mercer Marine Sales and Service to revise the Special Highway Overlay District to specify that boat sales and automobile sales be exempt from the enclosed facility limitation to permit outside displays in the front yard. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends alternative language for approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 5 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • ~~ ~~ COUNTY COMMISSIONEIi~ AFPT .... _~ R" ..J O F ~~ p F JIVED f~, C3 ., Dti ~ E _ S~r~w,+~, 73 ITEM 5.6 Zoning Tegt Amendment, Continued Item- Request by Jim Bonner to revise the Special Highway Overlay District by Permitting in the Front Yard the Display of Boats. (A-292, 10/98) This item was tabled at the Commissioners December meeting and rescheduled for January 4, 1999. NOTE: This amendment has been filed by Attorney Jim Bonner on behalf of Mercer Marine Sales and Service located on Market Street in hopes of rectifying his client's zoning problems relative to the storage of boats in the front yard in the Special Highway Overlay .District. Under current Special Highway Overlay District requirements, this type of storage and/or display is prohibited unless located to the rear of the principal structure and complying with other design standards, particularly screening and buffering. Applicants Proposed Revision for Section 59.6-3 (2) and (3): Revise as follows: (2) Enclosed Facilities -All manufacturing, storage, offices, wholesaling, retail sales, or similar uses shall be conducted within an enclosed building, except that this prohibition shall not apply to automobile sales and/or boat sales. Business conducting business falling within this exception shall comply fvith existing landscaping requirement as set forth in the preceding paragraph. (3) Outside Storage -Outside storage can be permitted if it is located directly to the rear of the principal building and is not visible-from the designated highway. "Outside storage", as it is used in this provision and context shall be deemed to not apply to that exception allowing automobile and boat sales which appears in paragraph (2) above relating to "Enclosed Facilities': -The outside storage area shall not occupy an area wider than the principal building or larger than one-half ('/2) the area of the principal building. A three (3) row screen shall be provided in accordance with the Landscape standards of Section 67. No storage shall be permitted above the height of the screen. Junk yards and scrap processors shall not be permitted. Planning Board Summary The Board considered this item at its October meeting, but voted to continue the matter to its November meeting to give Staff time to provide additional alternatives. The Board's primary concern was making sure that revisions provided adequate opportunities for commerce along the designated highways without undermining the purpose and intent of preserving the highways' aesthetic qualities. In the end, the Board settled on Option 2, which is outlined in the attachment That option limits outside storage in the front yard of the SHOD to car/truck sales and boat sales pro~v~ded~a`dditi'orialfsetback and landscaping requirements are met. The Board felt these limitations would be adequate for those types of businesses which have the greatest need for outside display of products. The applicant simply told 'the Board that without the revisions his client might be forced to 74 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -~ =~ C ~i6Oa~sri "' d ~ ~ `6roi .. relocate. He also noted that because auto sales lots were already exempted in the SHOD, it would only be fair to include boat sales, especially with that type of operation's heavy dependence on outside display of products. Staff Summary The Special Highway Overlay District was established in 1986 for the purpose of controlling the visual integrity of specially designated highways that serve as major gateways to the community. A primary thrust was to address the potential proliferation of outdoor advertising signs. The SHOD currently applies to I-40, a short segment of River Road, Market Street north of Bayshore Estates, Smith Creek Parkway and Eastwood Road from Market Street to Plaza East,' River Road south of the City limits to Snow's Cut, and Military Cut-off north of Eastwood Road to just south of Market Street. The width of the district is 500 feet from each side of the right-of--way, except for I-40 where it is 1000 feet on each side. In additio~i to the stringent regulation of principal use signs and the elimination of traditional forms of ofl=premise outdoor advertising, the SHOD provides additional setbacks for buildings and parking lots, landscaping above and beyond ordinary standards, limits on site coverage by structures, limits on outside storage and other features that seek to undergird the roadway's existing scenic qualities. Another key feature, and the subject of this text amendment, is the requirement that all retail, manufacturing, offices and similar uses be conducted within an enclosed building. The impetus for that restriction was to further reduce the visual impacts created by land uses that require large areas of outside display of products. This limitation meant larger areas of front yard vegetation could be saved, which meant the road frontage remained more scenic than it would have if all the vegetation had been cleared to accommodate outside display of products and off-street parking. Though this design tool has worked fairly well over the years, the sale of new and use automobiles and trucks are exempted in part. In the initial stages of implementing the new regulations, a ruling was made by the Inspections Department (copy of memo attached) that concluded the display of autos in association with an auto dealership was a permitted activity in the SHOD provided the display area complied with the parking lot setback standards of the overlay district. This in essence meant the display of the autos constituted a function of off-street parking and therefore would be allowed. This decision was derived after an inquiry for a planned auto park south of the I-40/Holly Shelter Road interchange. That park was never built, in fact one of those parcels is now occupied by a software company, which satisfies all of the SHOD requirements. Also allowed in the SHOD are retail and wholesale nurseries where the product display is limited to plants, shrubs and trees. The issue before the Board is not the propriety of that ruling, but whether other uses that traditionally have large outside display areas should be permitted as the petitioner suggests, under limited circumstances. Those circumstances would involve complying with additional landscape plantings. No mention is made of what other requirements might be applied. While the petitioner seeks to limit the exceptions to boat and auto sales, the range of other uses with dependence on outside product display is fairly large. They include building supply facilities, brick and block sales, lumber sales, RV and camper sales, portable building manufacturers, outdoor recreation equipment, mobile home sales, hardware stores, equipment rental and related 75 uses, as well as many others. . With so many other possible uses with impacts not much different than the. uses suggested for exemption, legitimate questions of equity and fairness will likely be'raised if the County singles out uses to the detriment of others. There are several options. The more prudent option would be leave things as they are, requiring compliance for current violations and complicity for future uses. Another option would be to adopt the revisions as suggested.. This would continue to recognize the, allowance for auto sales and eliminate the applicant's troubles with the Zoning Ordinance. This option seems the least palatable because it simply makes it easier for other uses to receive similar consideration. Still another option would be to modify the text to permit the exemptions suggested by the applicant, but to include additional design standards that ensure the road's visual. integrity is preserved. These could include special landscaping, complying with established setbacks and possibly setting limits on the amount or percentage of display allowed, especially in the front yard. This option would require greater~adminstrative review, adding additional- work and time to the permitting process. Staff recommends no changes.. ATTACHMENT FOR ITEM 2 A-292, lU/98: Special Highway Overlay District Amendments NOTE: This issue was discussed by the Planning Board at its October 1, 1998 meeting. Instead of dismissing the issue or imply acting on the information presented, the Board ~.J directed Staff to study the matter, and suggest other ways the ordinance could be amended that would protect the integrity of the. overlay district while salvaging businesses that are or might be struggling to comply with the regulations. As you recall, the initia'l~petition was filed by Mercer Marine seeking relief from ,the SHOD's prohibition of storing boats in the front yard. In the beginning, the marine service began by providing maintenance and repair only. However, the addition of two. boat franchises for retail sales resulted in a significant expansion and the display of boats. at their operation along Market Street. Under. current zoning rules, this storage does not comply with zoning requirements. To accommodate the zoning problems-encountered by the owner of Mercer Marine, the applicant suggested amending the ordinance to permit the display of boats provided additional landscaping was provided.' The original staff summary, which includes the applicant's specific proposal is attached. He noted the display of boats as well as automobiles and trucks would be exempt from.the limitations placed on outside storage. Previously, only auto sales lots enjoyed that exemption because they were treated as parking lots. In keeping with. the spirit of the Board's directive, the following provides other options for addressing the issues raised by the applicant's text amendment. None of them recommend the language suggested by the applicant. _ . (' 76 • Option 1: Amend the text to permit a general relaxation of Section 59.6-3 (2), . Enclosed Facilities, but adding a requirement that certain performance standards be met if activities other than parking and loading occur outside of an enclosed building. • PRO: Recognizes the need of a wide range of business uses to take advantage of the marketing access by the motoring public. It also would allow the owner to make more practical use of his property, instead of building a larger more . expensive building to simply handle storage or displays that might be more suitable outside anyway. ~• CON: Makes eligible the storage and display of products that might have limited " aesthetic .appeal along a scenic highway--mobile home sales lots, brick yards, building materials, farm equipment to name a few. Suggested language: (2) Enclosed Facilities- All manufacturing, offices, wholesaling, retail sales or similar uses and related"storage shall be conducted within an enclosed building, except that the "display of products for retail or wholesale establishments maybe permitted in the front yard if it . meets the additional setback requirements for parking lots and additional landscaping along the street frontage. (3) Outside. Storage- Other general storage maybe permitted in the side or rear yard provided it is set back no less 25 feet from the side or rear property line and that buffering and. screening be installed pursuant to Section 67 of this Ordinance. • Option 2: Amend the text similar to the language as suggested, but with the provision that additional setbacks and landscaping be provided. • PRO: Provides relief to the applicant's situation and recognizes earlier" interpretation by the Inspections Director concerning automobile sales lots. • CON: Singles out uses to the detriment ofothers--raises equity issues. Suggested language: (2) Enclosed Facilities- All manufacturing, offices, wholesaling, retail sales, and related storage shall be conducted within an enclosed building, except that the display of :automobiles and/or boats in the front, side or rear yard areas may be permitted provided . the minimum setback applicable to parking lots is met and all other side and rear setbacks are met. If the storage and/or display of boats and autos is adjacent to residentially zoned property occupied by a residential use or a platted residential lot, then the storage or display shall be screened from view. (3) Outside Storage- Other general storage maybe permitted in the side or rear yard provided it is setback no less than 25 from the side or rear property line and that buffering 77 and screening be installed pursuant to Section 67 of this Ordinance. Option 2A: Similar to~option 2; except that the display would be limited to a single automobile or boat on no more than two display pads. Presents similar problems noted for option 2 and may not go far enough'to meet the storage and display needs of these kinds of retail uses. Suggested Language . (2) Enclosed Facilities- All manufacturing, offices, wholesaling, retail sales and related storage shall be conducted within an enclosed building, except the display of a single automobile or boat on no more than two display pads shall be permitted in the front yard., Such display pads shall not exceed more than 10% of the. front yard area. All other storage of vehicles and boats shall be to the rear of the front yard setback. • Option 3: Do nothing and have the applicant's. client seek complicity with the current regulations. • PRO: Eliminates a zoning violation imthe County and avoids asingle-purpose zoning text change that would have county-wide implications. • CON: Could create problem for current owner, possibly forcing him out of sales business--currently the assertion of the applicant's attorney. 78 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 5.7 Estimated Time: Page Number. Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Sam Burgess SUBJECT: Subdivision Appeal (SA-15, 12/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Attorney David Barefoot for Buyers, Brokers & Consultants to appeal decision by Planning staff to deny approval of a .minor lot division located off Gardner Drive near Wilmington International ,Airport... RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: .FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 5 . .ITEM DDES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY CO~~l11~ISSIONERS` ~f.,~ APN, ~': ~ _J O RE;';;~'J~+D4 'ii/ 'Pe~STPONED ^ HEAR Q ~ ~J ~ATEIS~`~-~ _~~ -. ,. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Request for Board Action on January 4, 1999 ITEM 5.7 Subject: Minor Subdivision Appeal (SA-15,12/98) Contact: Dexter Hayes or Sam Burgess Brief Summary: Request by Attorney David Barefoot for Buyers, Brokers & Consultants to appeal a decision by the County planning staff to deny approval of a minor lot division located off Gardner Drive near the Wilmington International Airport (see attached map). Attorney Barefoot maintains that the proposed division of property is exempt from the requirements of Section 65 of the County Zoning Regulations by reason of prescriptive easement. The prescriptive easement is approximately 221 feet in length and approximately 21 feet in width. The Planning staff maintains that any proposed division of land that.requires access via easement and does not have an access of record must create a 30 foot access easement in accordance with Section 65 of the Zoning Ordinance. Recommendation: The Planning staff maintains that any proposed minor division of land must meet-the access requirements in accordance with Section 65 of the County Zoning Ordinance. d..+ X117 p ~: J l ?~ ~ ~ j~ C- ~,,~,~ fs • DEXTER L. HAYE$ .Planning Director NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 414 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 304 WII.MINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401=4027 TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165 FAX (910) 772-7868 June 19, 1998 Mr. David Barefoot, Atty. Elks Temple Building .255 North Front St. Wilmington, NC 28402 RE: Buyers, Brokers ...(Minor Subdivision Request) Dear Mr. Barefoot: We have received your letter dated June 11 relating to the above-referenced subdivision proposal. While we realize that you claim a prescriptive easement to the property has existed for many years, this easement does not appear to be an access easement of record. Until recorded documentation is provided or a 30 foot access easement is created to the proposed lots, the County cannot approve the subdivision of property in accordance with Section 65 of the Zoning Ordinance.. If the above access options are not available to your client, you may want to appeal this decision to the Board. of Commissioners. There are no deadlines for appeal. If you choose to appeal, please notify Mrs. Lucie Harrell, Clerk to the Board, in writing Contact me if additional questions arise. My phone number is 341-716. Sinc rely, ~f Dexter Hayes cc: Kemp Burpeau; Asst. Co. Atty. Dave Weaver, Asst. Co. Mgr. .J 81 [This page intentionally left blank) ,') 82 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 5.8 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Sam Burgess SUBJECT: Subdivision Appeal, withdrawn item (SA-14, 11/98) , BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by SANCO of Wilmington Service Corporation to appeal the decision by the Planning Board's Technical Review Committee (TRC) to deny approval of Grand Bay @ Beau Rivage for 78 units. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: FUNDING SOURCE: • • ATTACHMENTS: 5 -.. ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: cau~vn coMM~s~i APi'R`~V€o cs R~'.'~..'~~~ FG~.~~ ZED CJ 1-Lr1ic9J ~` DA~I` _~~83 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Request for Board Action on January 4,1999 - ITEM 5.8 Subject: Grand Bay Development Appeal (withdrawn item) - SA-14, 11/98 Contact: Dexter Hayes or Sam Burgess Brief Summary: Request by SANCO of Wilmington Service Corp. To appeal decision by the Planning Board's Technical Review Committee (TRC) denying approval of Grand Bay @ Beau Rivage for 78 units. Grand Bay is located on the west side of River Road, south of Sanders Road across from Beau Rivage. The TRC's decision to deny the project was based on site alteration~of the natural topography (100 year flood line) in order to achieve a greater cluster density of 2.5 units per acre. This alteration of the site for the purpose of increasing density is inconsistent with the County's adopted 1993 Land Use Plan (see attached letter and other support material). Recommendation: Planning Staff concurs with the TRC decision to deny Grand Bay. d W.~iry 1 }},, ~q ~ 1 ~. y~' +~+ai ~~.t' 1~!'a!' i f V~~r .. : ~. ~~ k 84 ~ .~, ~ ~....rf~ !1 °1 SA-14;11/98 CRONOLOGICAL HISTORY: GRAND BAY @ BEAU RIVAGE -May 22,1986: Beau Rivage Plantation Performance Residential site plan preliminarily approved by the County for 1,153 lots/units. The zoning district is R-15. Net buildable acreage of 461 acres includes Tracts 2, 3 & 4 on the. west side of River Road. To date, approximately 287 final lots have been approved in Beau Rivage by the County. - Nov. 12, 1997: Turtle Cay @ Beau Rivage approved by the Planning, Board's Technical Review Committee (TRC) for 72 units. Turtle Cay is located on the west side of River Road on a portion of Tract 3. Concern vas expressed by the TRC and CAMA relating to adopted Land Use Policy inconsistencies. - Jan. 14,1998: South Amsbury @ Beau Rivage approved by the Planning Board's Technical Review Committee (TRC) for 57 units. South Amsbury is located on the west side of River Road on a portion of Tract 3 and Elliott's Place development. Concern again was expressed by the TRC over Land Use Policy W , inconsistencies, specifically, the modification of the natural 100 year flood line @ in order to obtain a cluster density greater than 2.5 units per acre. -Apr. 22, 1998.: Grand Bay @ Beau Rivage is reviewed and "tabled" by TRC based on Land Use Plan inconsistencies. Proposed project is located on the west side of River Road across from Cathay Road and encompasses Tract 2. -May 13,1998: The Planning Board's Technical Review Committee denys approval of Grand Bay @ Beau Rivage for 78 units. Denial of the project by the TRC was based on the modification of the sites' natural topography and the 100 year flood line displayed as Conservation in the County's Land Use Plan in order to obtain a cluster density greater than 2.5 units per acre. Based on the County's adopted 1993 Land Use Plan; areas designated as Conservation .generally include all marshes and adjacent lands within the 100 year floodplain. The intent of the Conservation designation for property such as this is to provide for long term management and protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural resources: Exceptional developments preserving natural features are permitted; however, the residential density should never exceed 2.5 units per acre. Alternatives were suggested by the TRC. One suggestion. was to modify Grand Bay to reflect a total number of 50 units (2.5 units x 20 buildable acres on site). The redesign to 50 units would more accurately reflect other marsh or waterfront development in the County in accordance with @ current Land Use Policy. . , 85 C;ARY K. SHiPMAN' CARL W. THURMAN III C. WES HODGES, II JENNIFER M. JERNIGAN 'Boar Ceztil'ied Civil Trial Specialist National Board o~ Trial Advocary Kemp P. Burpeau Deputy County Attorney New Hanover County Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 VIA HAND DELIVERY E•Mail; rhipman~a_+sociata(7a ltinet.com November 16, 1998 Re: Grand Bay Subdivision Deaz Kemp: Telephone 910.762.1990 Facsimile 910.762.6752 ~ ~ ..,~ t~ \~2~o~e ~~e`l ~; .,-, Go .U c - ~, \e.V~+ _ As you are .aware, the appeal by Sanco of Wilmington of the denial of the plan i~or the Grand Bay subdivision was scheduled for hearing before the County Commissioners last week, but was continued. In preparation for 'the hearing before the County Commissioners, I need to have clarification from you regarding the definition of the term "conservation", and the criterion under which certain property maybe developed, notwithstanding aclassification of "conservation." I have. reviewed a document provided to us by the Courity, entitled "Summary of the Wilmington-New Hanover County Land Use Plan." That document, in a section entitled ".Land Classes", contains the following language. ~~ "6. CONSERVATION provides for effective long .term management of significant, linuted or irreplaceable azeas. Generally, all marshes and adjacent lands ~. within the 100-year floodplain have-been classified as "Conservation." Exceptions 'i, to the,100 year floodglain criterion.are limited to water dependent uses (i.e. uses ''~ that cannot function elsewhere), shared industrial access corridors and exceptionally designed development proposals. on relatively high ground where adverse impacts to the• estuarine system can be shown to be .negligible if an.y. Residential density cannot exceed 2.5 units/acre.. 86 For purposes of defusing a "Conservation" area, does the County define that as all property located within the 100 year floodplain? If so, does the County concede that there exists an exception in the County Land Use' Plan, to the,100 year flood plain criterion, for "exceptionally designed development proposals on relatively high ground where.adverse impacts to the estuarine system can be shown to be negligible, if any." Finally, does the County concede that the Grand Bay subdivision is such an "exceptionally designed development proposal on relatively high ground where adverse impacts to the estuarine system can be shown to be negligible, if any." If not, what does the County SHIPriAN ~ ASSOCIATES; L.L.P. Attorneys at Law 11 S. Filth Avenue CUilmington, North Carolina 28441 ,~ Kemp P. Burpeau November 16, 1998 Page Two contend to the evidence that this project is not located in relatively high ground, or poses adverse impacts to the estuarine system. Your assistance iri providing answers to these questions will be of great assistance to us, and hopefully, will insure that we can focus at the hearing before the County Commissioners on the issues which are contested, versus those about which there is no dispute. . Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanking you in advance for your continued assistance and cooperation, I remain GKS/gks c.c.: Nathan Sanders • SHIPDiAN ~ ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. I1 S. F:ft6 A,...,... _ U/:I_.._,.r.... N...~6 Gaol:,,. 28s1)I 87 ate' k ; 9 ~2 ~pyj,„f A0~ ~~FNOIi7N LP WANDA M. COPLEY Co~mry Attornry KEi« P. BURPEAU Deputy Couary AtGOmey ANDREW w. oLSErv Assistant Co~mry Aaorncy l~ ~ vv ~.1~ v v ~n ~. V U 1V ~1 ~ Y OFFICE OF THE COTJNTY ATTORNEY 320 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 309 WII.MINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4095 TELEPHONE (9I0) 341-7153 FAX (910) 341-4170 ~~ November 23, 1998 Mr. Gary K. Shipman Shipman & Associates, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law 11 South Fifth Avenue Wilmington; NC 28401 RE: .Grand .Bay Subdivision Dear Gary: Thank you for your letter of November 16, 1998 and the opportunity to respond to issues you have presented. J The subject parcel was designated "conservation class" by the 1993 Wilmington-New Hanover County Land Use Plan, being in the 100 year flood plain. The parcel will remain conservation until such time as the classification might be altered by land.use plan amendment or update. Changes in typography do not automatically change the Land Use Plan designation, .but rather are only a possible basis for requesting such a modification. Generally conservation areas must be .preserved in their natural state. An exception permitting building is the "exceptional development preserving natural features." However, in no case, even with the above exception, shall residential density in the conservation class be permitted to exceed 2.5 units per area. (See Wilmington-New Hanover County Land Use Plan Update, pages 57 and 58 and Section 51.5- 2(11)(c) of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance). We appreciate your inquiry and welcome any other questions or comments you might have. Sincerely, ~' ~~ Kemp P. Burpeau Deputy County Attorney KPB/kc cc: Dexter Hayes, Planning Director 88 ~ • DEXTER L. HAYES Planning Duector May 15, 1998 Mr. Nathan Sanders SANCO of Wilmington P.O. Box 3167 Wilmington, NC 28406 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANN][NG DEPARTMENT 414 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 304 WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027 TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165 FAX (910) 772-7868 Re: Grand Bay @ Beau Rivage (Performance Site Plan) • L Dear Mr. Sanders: - In regular session on May 13, 1998, the Planning Board's Technical Review Committee (TRC) voted 3-2 to deny the above referenced site plan for 78 units. This decision by the TRC is in accordance with section 32-3 (b) of the County's Subdivision Regulations. Grand Bay is part- ofBeau Rivage, a performance residential development approved by the County in May, 1986 for 1,15 units. The Grand Bay section was considered as a revision to the Beau Rivage project. Density transfers within the Beau Rivage site is permissible through design approval by the TRC. This property is located on the west side of River Road across from Cathay Road near the Monterey.Heights development. In rendering their decision, there vas a great deal of discussion relating to the modification of the sites natural topography and the 100 year flood line (displayed as `'conservation" in the County's Land Use Plan) in order to obtain a cluster density level greater . than 2.5 units per acre. According to the County's 1993 Land Use Plan, areas designated as "conservation" generally include all marshes and adjacent lands within the 100 year floodplain. The intent of the "conservation" designation for property such as this is to provide for long term management and protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural resources. Exceptional .developments preserving natural features are permitted; however, the residential density should never exceed 2.5 units per acre. Altering an area designated as "conservation" by adjusting the natural topography for the purposes of increasing density is .inconsistent with the County's adopted Land Use Policies. 89 Grand Bay Lttr. (Cont'd) 2 As an alternative, the TRC Chairman suggested that Grand Bay be redesigned to reflect a total number of units of 50 (2.5 units x 20 acres on site). If redesigned to 50 units, the project would more accurately reflect other marsh or waterfront development in the County in accordance with Land Use Policy and hopefully reduce the amount of impen~ious surfaces. If redesign is not a choice, the decision by the TRC may be appealed to the Board of County Commisioners at which time they may affirm, modify, supplement, or remand the proposed plan back to the TRC. If appealed, a letter requesting such must be mailed to Lucie Harrell, Clerk- to the Board, 320 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, NC 28401. Attending the meeting were: James Wolfe, TRC Chairman; Joyce Fernando, Rodney Harris, Kirk Davy and Bob Murph~•, TRC members; Adam Rahhal, County Engineer; Kemp Burpeau, Assistant Count}~ Attorne}~; William Grathwol, developer; Greg Wayne and7ohn Jernigan, Hanover Design; Gar}~ Shipman, Attorney; members of the Planning staff and you. ('' Contact me if you have questions relating to the Grand Bay site plan ai Beau Rivage. Our ~-./ phone number is 341-7165. cc: Dave Weaver, Assistant County Manager Sincerely, Kemp $urpeau, Assistant Count}' Attorney Lucie Harrell, Clerk to Board S. c. • 6 ~.ya~~ Gary Shipman, Attorney S.A. •Burgess Planning Board members Staff Planner Adam Rahhal, County Engineer Zoe' Bruner, CAMA - Mike Taylor, Corps Engineers Ann Hines, Zoning Enforcement Greg Wayne,, Hanover Design 90 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Dater 01/04/99 Regular Item #: 5.9 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Special Use Permit (S-437, 12/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by BG Partnership to construct a 26 slip community boating facility in conjunction with a planned 26 lot single-family subdivision. The site is located in the northeast corner of Mason Landing Road and Middle Sound Loop Road. It is zoned R-20S. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning board recommends approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: • 7 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • couNn coMMlsslolv~s APPROVED [I~ REJECTED O ~ REMOVED O 9 " POSTPONED-Cl' ~J 1 _. __ MEARD Q ~, ITEM 5.9 `; Special Use Permit- Request by BG Partnership to Construct a 26 slip Community Boating Facility in Conjunction with a 26 Lot Single Family Development. The site is located east of Mason Landing Road and north of Middle Sound Loop Road. (5-437, 12/98) NOTE: The proposed boating facility will be linked to a planned subdivision on adjacent high ground. The preliminary plan for that development was approved by the Technical Review Committee on December 9, 1998. Planning Board Summary Despite fairly intense opposition, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the petition as submitted. In support of that decision, the Board noted that the boating facility met~all the technical requirements of the Ordinance, that it would be compatible with the general area and that the Land Use Plan encouraged access to public trust waters provided environmental impacts were minimized. Those speaking in opposition felt the facility was incompatible with the area, noting there was not one single similar facility between Wrightsville Beach and Middle Sound. They also said that existing commercial marinas in the area could easily accommodate new boating needs. Some felt the facility would spoil their view of the waterway while others questioned the impacts on the environment and the encroachment of a private boating facility into and over public trust waters. Preliminary Staff Findings 1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. The facility will be connected to a planned subdivision on adjacent high ground. B. Access to the boating facility will be through the adjacent subdivision. C. The site is located in the Ogden VFD District. D. Except for water service, no other public type services are planned to serve the facility. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. Community boating facilities are permitted by special use permit in the R-20S District. The site is zoned R-20S B. The number of slips (26) can not exceed the number of lots (26) in the subdivision that is planned for the adjacent high ground. C. In lieu of providing a separate off-street parking area for the facility, the parking will be provided at each individual lot within the subdivision. 'Diia2~i~~A,maj~o~r~1C~~ A permit will not be issued if it determined that substantial negative impacts will occur to the marsh and estuarine waters. E. ~No commercial activities are permitted and none are proposed. 92 ~ ~_::~ G°~^o~:~ ~~~~~ . ~i A iy ~ ~L~ /~~ 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of a . adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. Typically, the provision of private community boating facilities enhance the value of waterfront properties. B. There are similar facilities located in the general area and three commercial marinas are located to the north.,. 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 plan of development for New Hanover County. . A. Private community boating facilities are commonplace along the estuarine and riverine waterfronts of the county. B. The Land Use Plan encourages access to public trust waters • ~ 93 Vt~hat You Must establish For A Special -Use Permit Authority to grant a Special Use Permit is contained in the Zoning Ordinance; pursuant to section 7 I. The Zoning Ordinance imposes the following General Requirements on the use requested by the applicant. Ur~ each requirement, the applicant should explain, wiiti reference to attached plans, where applicable, ho+v tltc proposed use satisfies these requirements: (Attach"additionalpages ifnecessary) General Requirement kI The Board must find "that ttte use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where pro- posed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved." Statement by App(icnnt: Permits from both the Corps of Engineers and Coastal Area Management will be required. The plan incorporates an 80' setback from the edge of the Intra-Coastal 'Waterway for the separation of boat traffic acid for safe navigation. Gencr•al Requirement #2 The Board nnrst find "that the use meets all required conditions and specifications" of the Zoning Ordinance." Statement icy Applicant: Development of a "Community Boating Facility" is allowed with a Special Use Permit in the R-20S Zoning District. This site is zoned R-20S. The facility will be linked to the proposed residential development. No commercial activities would be permitted. General I2equircment #3 The Board must find "that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property orthat the use is a public necessity." Statcrncrrf by fl/rplicruu: Community boating facilities usually enhance the value of adjoining properties. / Adjacent lands to this tract are also residential and could have individual or similarly developed boating facilities if desired. General Requirement #d The Board must find "that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted :trid approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the pla of development for New Hanover County." Strrtenren! by Applicnrrt: Similar facilities are located along the waterway and are common in waterfront communities. The environmental impacts are minimal. The area surrounding the project is neither classified as primary nor secondary nursery area in accordance with the Marine Fisheries agency. The water quality classification relates to usage for recreation. The Zoning Ordinance in some instances, also imposes additional specific requiremems on the use requcsu:d by the applicant. The applicant should be prepared to demonstrate that the proposed use will. comply with each specific reouirement (Quad in section 72 , (as applicable?. He/She should alse dema:at:a:e that :hc Ian:.' ~~•ill be used in a manner consistent with the plans and policies o(New Hanover County. The Board of Commis• sioncrs may impose additional conditions and restrictions that they deem appropriate prior to tltc issuing of tt~c Sp::cial Use Permit. I ccnify that all of the information presented in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledoc, inform tiun, and belief. 94 Signature of Applicant and/or O~ ncr PETITION SUMMARY SHEET C, Petition Number: 5-43`7 Owner: - F • Recrister Request: Community Boating Taz ID Number: 4500 Representative; BG Partnershi N/A Acreage: Location: Middle Sound L~4ND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES Land Classification: con~Prva ; on Existing Land Use: ~ V~g~nt Zoning$istory: ~' Area originally zoned Mav 1970 • Water Types: Community Fire District:.-clan VFn Road Access: Mason Landing Sewer 7~'ype' Sebtic R~reation: - ~n~An YoIume: Unknown School District: oaden MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Watershed andWater Quality. Classification• Middle Sound SA (ORw) Aquifer Recharge Area:. N/A - Conservation Rcsource3: .Marsh Historic Landmarks and Archeologicsil Sites: None Soil Type(s) and Class: Mars • Septic Tank Suitability: [[n~ui t-ahl P Prime Agric~lturn] Soils: None Building Sui#xbility: _ Water dependent usPS ox,ly W ~ Q 0 (~ C w -~- ° ATLANTIC /NTRAC~ASTAL bVA TERWA Y ---~- ; a a. FLOW ~ F ~ ~ EBB aoi ~ rn J ~ ~ O ~ ` ~ GO N Qom, ,~ °° N ~~ ' WATERWAY SETBACK r ~-- ~ ~ ~. o - ~ .-. o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL. Z ~ -- z ac C Z ~, ~ t > s ~ ~- ~ ~, -~ z ~ Q ~ ~ z ~ J J (r LLl d.. ~ ~:J Q N N ~ ~ J Q T ) ~ ~ (~ ~ 4~ a. d s ~ ~ 'J ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a -~ ~ X96 ~ Q ~ ~ ~: O .~ i,,, z ~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ Q J _ ~ ... .r I MEETING OF THE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ASSEMBLY ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301 JANUARY 4,1999 6:30 P.M. ITEMS OF BUSINESS 1. Non=Agenda Items (limit three minutes) 2. Approval of Minutes PAGE NO. 97 99 3. Approval of Request for District Participation in Construction of 101 Sewer Line North College Road Adjourn • • 97 [This page intentionally left blank) 98 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Water & Sewer Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Presenter: Lucie F. Harrell Contact: Lucie F. Harrell c~ iR iGrT. Approval of Water and Sewer Minutes BRIEF SUMMARY: Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting, December 21, 1998 RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve minutes. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED G REJ~CTCD O RE~;G`J~D o g g POS i FDNED 0. HEARD 'DATE ~ rs-9q _ .. ~, [This page intentionally left blank) ~~~~ 100 ~ ,.~., .... j ~ ~s~ Yfr ~~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Water & Sewer Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Water & Sewer District Presenter: Wyatt E. Blanchard . Contact: Wyatt E. Blanchard SUBJECT: Request for District Participation in Construction of Sewer Line North College Road BRIEF SUMMARY: Staff has received a request from Prime Realty to extend a gravity sewer line to a vacant tract of land in King's Grant just off North College Road. Prime Realty wants to extend the sewer line from the Ogden Interceptor along College Road to the property noted on the attached map as alternate 1. This line would benefit very few citizens as proposed. The estimated cost for this alternate is $201,000.. Considering that the proposed sewer line is 3300 feet long and will serve very few customers, County Engineering. staff asked the developer's engineer to consider constructing a line through Kings Grant in a location which will serve approximately fifty (50) customers along the length of the line (alternate 2). This line would be a total of 4500 feet in length. The estimated cost of this line would be $317,200 or $116,200 greater than alternate number one. There are three issues involved. 1. Should the sewer line extension into the Kings Grant area be approved? 2. If so, should the sewer line.be constructed along a route which will benefit very few or should it be constructed along a route which will benefit numerous people? 3. If alternate 2 is approved, does the District wish to participate in the additional length in the amount of $116,200. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend the Commissioners discuss the merits of items 2 and 3..Staff has concern about taking on additional projects of this magnitude. FUNDING SOURCE: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AP r:~~1ED ^ ATTACHMENTS: R~;~;~Vt=D E^ REVIEWED BY: POSTPONED L~ LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: NIA HUMAN RESOURCES: N/AHEARD (] ~ ..DATE /--=g ~_ COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Discuss as recommended by County Engineer. Numerous projects are currently underway and the staff stretched by them. There are merits to constructing the sewer lines through Kings Grant and altern er . and 3 have the most merit from the perspective of customer service and service to the ' ' ens. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: .v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ `~~``~\ ` ~ ~ EXISTING `' SEWER. -- OUTFACE ~~ ~' ~ - '' - 1, i r i ~ _ ~ 1 ~1 q1 I __' e'; ~ ~ - - - _ j W'' ~ ~ 1 €;' 1 $ _ t - -_-~- ROUTE ~ _ - - - ~ ' ~~.. .. - _ ~~- _ -f e ~- -( - - _ tLgD ~~ - - _- _ _ .~_ , ~ M ~ - - _ _ _, w _ 11.x,' MroDEESEX RD - J 1 ~I _.7 -~ -- - W _ ~ W 1. -. ~ r.- ~_O-pO ~ ^r,~ - 1 r. mf a _ - - - - _' _ - '' _. _ _ __-~ 111 _ _ - .--fe ~ =a_ ~ - _~ _~~- gym.-- ~~= ."J ".' `' - _ - .:. - = " ~- "~ °' -' 1 "° ~ I - - III - _ ,. .~~.- I _ - - _ I -- ~... ~~)d Aywr - - - .. :t.. x'ND~s Dq - - I i - I ~. ~ .. __ - o ~ \ ~~ _ ~ c , 8 - ., ~~~. _ ~ - , .: -. ~~ -~ .ROUTE ~ - _ _ t t _ ,~,I' _ _ _ , ,, 1 ~ _ , - - 1 - '~'!r -1 ~ ~ -III ~ .°~ .s_ 'j'tC ~~ - - - y ~--~---_ KINGS GR ° ~ ~ ANT _ = ~ - - SUBDIVISION V '~ Q~"f~~i 1 r,,.~ ~y ~~ ~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY ~~ ~~b, PROPOSED ROUTES 1 AND 2 SEWER EXTENSION 102 HWY 132 MARNOT-TO~CALE DECEMBER 18.1998 CONSENT AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JANUARY 4,1999 ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE NO. ' 1. -Approval of Minutes 1 OS 2. Approval of authorization to apply for Section 531.1 Funding for 107 Transportation 3. Time Warner Cable Order for an Annual Increase and Report by 109 Action Audits, the County's Cable Consultant 4. Approval of Budget Amendments: 4.1 #99-0074 Health Department for Children's Outreach Department 119 4.2 #99-0075 Aid to Public Library Fund 123 • 5. Ratification of appointment of Theresa Clontz as an extra territorial 125 member of the Kure Beach Planning and Zoning Commission 6. Adoption of Resolution: Request to add roads in Gorman Plantation to 127 the State Highway System ~ 103 l! [This page intentionally left blank) 104 ~ r NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Consent Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Presenter: Lucie F. Harrell Contact: Lucie F. Harrell SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes BRIEF SUMMARY: Approval of the following sets of minutes: Retreat, November 21, 1998 ~~ Regular Meeting, December 21, 1998 RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve minutes. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • `COUNTY COMMISSI4~~FtS' APPROVED ~REJECTEfa REMOVED O ~ O POSTPONE® ~ HEARD ,n DATE. s ~,~ .-.-~_~. [This page intentionally left blank) s:~, i~~ul~~~y~wt r' R ; r v, ~Y~ t y .s ~~~~ 'f~'~~'~'~aJ ~~ ~~.~'J ~°3i `~~ J 106 ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~r~~'r .~"~'r • • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Consent Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: .Department: Transportation Presenter: Patricia A. Melvin Contact: Patricia A. Melvin SUBJECT: Authorization to Apply for Section 5311 Funding for Transportation BRIEF SUMMARY: The New Hanover Transportation Services Program obtains Section 5311funds from NCDOT to assist with administration and capital acquisition (vans). Funding in the amount of $212,410 is requested for FY 1999-2000 -- $186,206 in Federal/State funds and $26,204 in local matching funds. $109,650 will be used to purchase 3 new lift-equipped vans; $99,260 administration assistance; and $3,500 for employee development. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Authorize submission of application for funding for FY 1999-2000, execution of appropriate documentation by the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, and acceptance of funds, if approved by NCDOT. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: NIA FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: COUNTY MANAGER'S CO MENTS AND REC011 Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: HUMAN RESOURCES: NIA COUNTY CO(dl(VIIS~I4NERS . APIa>aovr~D ~/ REJECTED D REMOVED' l3 POSTPONED C1 HEARD .5 ~ . Ca.1 O ~. DATE ~ --=~.-..~ [This page intentionally left blank) t e~Y.ir§~Y '~r~+-~A't ~.T ~M`N ~rv l,w Jy ~} L`.r w !+.~,'3 +(4 k,e Ems' 1 ~ :~ 10 _ ~:- ~ ~ ~~r, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Consent Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Legal Presenter: Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney Contact: Becky Howell, Cable Administrator SUBJECT: Time Warner Cable -Order for an Annual Increase and Report Filed by Action Audits, the County's Cable Consultant. BRIEF SUMMARY: Time Warner Cable has submitted an FCC 1240 Form updating an annual increase. After reviewing the submittal the County's cable consultant has prepared a report which outlines the details of this rate change. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve Action Audits report pertaining to Time Warner's annual rate change and recommend the execution of the Order Approving Maximum Permitted Rate of $5.52 on Basic Service Tier. This conforms to FCC guidelines. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: Yes .REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve. FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S CO NTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Recommend approval. C • cou~vrr co~n~slolv~s APPR©UED REJECTED' REMOVED: ~ ~ 1 O ~J POS7'PQNED C]' ~. HEARS 0~ 1-3-~~ ~4ction ~4udits TIlY~ V~A~RNER CABLE NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC-0140 FCC 1240 REV.[EW December ZZ, 1998 REPORT TO: Becky Howell, Cable Acl.,,;nictrarnr, New Hanover.County FROM: Robcrt Scpcy Action audits RE: Review of.Time Warner Cable's 1240 Annual Updating Maximum Permitted Rates • filing for 1998 - The consultants reviewed the FCC 1240 filing and supporting documentation submitted by Time - Wamcr Cable (T'WC). The valucs stated in the filing are the responsibility of the TWC's management The FCC 1240 was reviewed to determine whether TWC calculated its "updated" rates in a manner that is consistent with the procedures prescn~bed by the FCC, the 13th Order on Rcconsidcration, the Timc Wamcr Social Contract, and the Tclccommunications Act of 1996. Original computations were performed by the consultants and compared with information provided by TWC. The consultants bclicve that the data submitted by TWC is free of matcrial nv~sstatcmeuts, grid the accompanying report provides a reasonable basis for the mcommendations. ' Franchise Fee U-Tax Audi 'no & Telecoaununication Administration ' ~ ~14~w pp.~, y,,,~/l O1~Pgocono~Lane, Cary, North C~rolma 27513-5316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 ~~~~~ ~;~ 110, - -~ ~~~~_.~ _ 1. Executive S~munaiy . a. Time Warner Cable.seeks to decrease its Maximum Pamittcd Rate (MPR) for the Basic Service Tier by $.13; frncn $5.68 to $5.55. However, the consultants recalculated TWC's FCC 1240 and arrived at an MPR of $5.52. The difference can be attributed to TWC using the inflation factor of 1.14% as opposed to the FCC factor of .82%. A recalculation by the consultants using the .82% factor decreases the MPR by $.16. b. Regardless, TWC's selected BST rate, the one that will be printed in subscribers' bills, will decrease by ~$.33, from $5.16 to $5.49 a month; according to TWC. TWC may charge a rate lower than the MPR, but it may not charge more. c. The decrease in the BST rate is attnbutable to a change in service, which equates to lower programming costs. TWC has moved E! and Video Magazine from the BST, and replaced them with the Cape Fear Learning Channel and PAXNET. d TWC did not provide the County with rate information for the Cable Programming Services -- Tier (CPST). Regulation by the FCC ofthis tier. expires in 1999. e. It is recommended that the County approve the lower MPR of $5.52 for the BST for 1999 using the quarterly inflation factor of.82%. f. This will impose a minimal burden on TWC, not~quiring it to adjust its selected rate, or mail out new rate notices to subscribers. This will rearuire TWC to amend its 1998-99 FCC 1240 by factoring in the .82% quarterly inflation factor as published by the FCC for the last nine months of the 1998 True-up Period. The result will be an MPR that is $.03 lower than originally calculated by TWC. This MPR will cant' forward to the 1999-2000 FCC 1240 calculations. 2. TWC 1240 Rate Calculations a Overview i. On October 5, 1998, TWC submitted to the County an FCC 1240 filing, which contains financial data supporting a rate change to take effect oa January 1, 1999. The filing consists of two nsajor components: True-up Period and Projected Period data. The True- up Period extends from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998. The Projected Period extends from January 1, 1999, flu-ough December 31, 1999. b. Inflation Overview i. Using the FCC 1240, cable operators may adjust the non-external cost portion of their rates for inflation based on quarterly figures released by the FCC. These figures are usually published by the FCC three to four months a$er the closing of the quarter. The inflation figures are used to calculate the average inflation factor for the True-up Period, __ Franchise Fee U Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Adminigt[ation 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27513-5316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 • 111 2 which is the 12-moth period of 1998 in TWC's FCC 1240. TWC's Projected Period is the 12-month period of 1999. ii The second~uarter of 1998 ended on June 30, 1998. The FCC published three mo~rths on September 30, 1998; its second-quarter inflation factor of.82%. The FCC's inflation figures arcbascd on changes in the Gross National Product Price Index (GNP-PI) as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the United States DepartYnent of Conunerce. c. FCC 1240 Inflaiton Calculations i. TWC seeks to decrease its MPR for the BST by S.13, from 55.68 to 55.55. The consultants recalculated TWC's FCC 1240, and derived an MPR of 55.52, 5.16 below the MPR calculated by TWC. The MPR is important because it sets the rate ceiling and cac7ics forward into subsequent raft filing calculations. ii. After reviewing TWC's supporting documentation, and speaking with a TWC rcprescntativc, flit consultants dctercnincd that TWC used an inflation factor of 1.14°.6 when calculating Line C3 (Inflation Factor For True-up Period 1), and Lane CS (Current FCC Inflation Figure). The consultants contend that TWC should have used the inflation factor of .82% in calculating Lines C3 and C5. iii Lme C3 -Inflation Factor For Trae-up Period 1 (1) This calculation requires TWC to calculate the average inflation factor for the 1998 True-up Period by using quarterly inflation figures published by fhe FCC.1 When completing the FCC 1240, cable operators must use the most recent inflation factor released by the FCC. On September 30, 1998, the day TWC:completed its FCC 1240, the FCC published the second-quarter inflation figure for 1998, which was .82%, not 1.14%. (2) TWC assigned the 1.14% to each month ofthe 1998 True-up Period to produce an average inflation factor of 1.14%. The consultarrts assert that TWC should amend this calculation and use the 1.14% for only the fast three months of 1998, and use .82% for the remaining nine months. This latter calculation results in an average inflation factor for 1998 of 1.009%, not 1.0114% as used by TWC. See Table A, below. iv. Lme CS - Ctirrent FCC Inflation Factor (1) This line requires TWC to insert the most recently released FCC quarterly inflation factor. TWC's FCC 1240 is dated September 30, 1998, the same date the FCC 1This calculation is designed to correct any over or under estimates the operator was required to make in its Projected Period Inflation on its prior FCC 1240 filing. Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Teleconununication Administration .101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North CC~rrolicra 27513-5316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 '~J 112 3 published the inflation factor of .82%. Prior to that date, the only available quarterly inflation factor for 1998 was 1.14% from the first. quarter. Because TWC used the inflation factor of 1.14% in its calculations for Lines C3 and C5, an N1PR $.03 highcr than that calculated by the consultants resulted See Table A, below. Table A Average Inflation Factors for 1998 True-up Period • Month TWC Calculation Consultant's Calculation FCC Published Quarterly Inflation Factors 1/98 1'.14% 1.14% 1.14% 2/98 1.14% 1.14% 1.14% 3/98 1.14% .1.14% .1.14% 4198 1.14% 0.82% 0.82% 5198 1.14% 0.82% 0.82% 6/98' 1.14% 0.82% 0.82% 7/98 1.14% 0.82% not released 8198 1.14% 0.82% not released 9198 1.14% 0.82% not relcascd 10/98 1.14% 0.82% not released 11/98 1.14% 0.82% not released 12/98 1.14% 0.82% not released Average Inflation Factor for !998 True-up Period 1.0114 1.0090 v. Though only $.03 is at issue, and TWC's selected BST rate {$5.49) is below the MPR ($5.52) calculated by the consultants, TWC should use the MPR of $5.52 instead of the $5.55 because the operator had the ability to incorporate the second-quarter inflation factor (.82%) into its FCC 1240 filing: the FCC inflation factor of .82% was published the same day TWC completed its form. vi. If the FCC 1240 is not amended to incorporate the correct FCC sccond-quarter inflation factor, the higher MPR ($5.55) used by TWC will be carried forward irrto subsequent rate oaloulations. No future oomeotion of this inflation factor will be possible. Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Teleoanmunication Adnvnistration 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27513-5316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 • 113 4 d. Prograinining Costs i. TWC moved E! and Vidco Magazinc from the BST in 1998, and rcplaccd th~ with the Cape Fear Learning Channel and PAXNET. Before the move, pn~ costs for the \ /// BST consisted of $.2093 per subscriber, per moirth, or $58,815 annually. After the move, programming costs arc prof cctcd to be $.1284 pcr, subscriber, pa month. That rcprescnts $37, 485 to be paid by 24,337 subscribers annually for programming on the BST. e. Franchise Related Costs i. TWC is not passing through to subscribers franchise related costs in its FCC 1240. f. Subsciriber Connt and Growth i. TWC reports that it had an average subsoribership of 23,413 for 1998, and projects an average of 24,337 for 1999. This represents a subscriber growth rate of 3.8°/a 3. Rate Regulation Background a. Cable operators must file the FCC 1240 with the local franchising authority (LFA) at least 90 days before they plan to implement a change in BST rates, ifthe LFA is certified to regulate BST rafts. Cablc operators must notify the LFA of the annual :filing daft prior to filing thc FCC 1240. b. InSeptember 1995, the FCC adopted the 13th Report and Order, which, among other things, allowed cable operators to adjust their rates on an annual basis using the FCC 1240, tal"_ng into- consideration past and anticipated future external costs. a In November 1995, the FCC adopted the Time Warner Social Contract, which resolved Hundreds of cable complaints. against Time Warner. Provisions ofthe Social Contract permit Time Warner to aggrcgatc its lcased subscriber cquipmcnt costs on a regional basis (using regional FCC 1205 filings) and assess uniform rates based on these data ALso, Time Warner was allowed to include in its annual rate filing (FCC 1240) past and anticipated costs, along with future costs attributable to cable system upgrades. But these upgrade costs were to be assessed to upper cable tier subscribers, not those on the BST. d. The 13th Order and the Social Contract great LFAs (New Hanover Courrty) 90 days in which to review the cable operator's FCC 1240 filing - ifthe LFA has tolled the initia130-day time period in which to review the filing. After 90 days; the LFA retains refund authority if it responds within 15 days to any inquiries from the cable operator regarding the LFA's FCC 1240 review. e. On April 9, 1996, the FCC released interim rules for the implementation of the Telccommunications Act of 1996. The Order and Noticc of Proposcd Rulemaku~g, FCC 96- 154, addresses many items, among them, rate complaint procedures to be followed by LFAs. Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing & Telecommunication Administration 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27513-5316 Voice # 919:467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 _, 114 However, regulationby the FCC ofthe upper cable tiers will cease in 1999. LFAs will no longer be permitted to file FCC 329 complaints with the FCC regarding rates or services on these cable tiers. But regulation ofthe BST' byLFAs will continue. 4. Recommendation a_ It is recommended that the County Commissioners direct TWC to amend "Worksheet 1 - True-up Period Inflation," in its 1998-1999 FCC 1240, inserting the FCC's 1998 second- quarter inflation factor of .82% in Lanes 104 through 112, insulting in an average inflation factor for the True-up Period of 1.0090. This figure is then carved over in Line C3, of Part I, Module C. b. It is recommended that the Commissioners direct TWC to amend Line CS, Module C: Inflation Information, by inserting .82% for the "Current FCC Inflation Factor." c. It is recommended that the Commissioners approve the Maximum Permitted Rate of S5.52 for the Basic Service Tier for 1999. 5. Proceeding a. The Couirty must approve or deny the operator's FCC 1240 rate request, based upon a finding of fact. The County should adopt the consultant's report as its own and allow the public an opportunity to comment on the matter. Public comment should be heard at the same meeting in which the Commissioners deliberate upon this matter. A special session is not required. It is suggested that the Commissioners' rate request deliberations and public comment period occur during a regularly scheduled public meeting. b. The comment period maybe publicized by issuing a press release to the print and electronic media, or announced through other appropriate means. c. A rate, order, conveying approval ofthe BST rate is attached. To be valid, the order must be executed following the conclusion of i. a public meeting where the Cominissioncts give interested parties an opportunity to . comment on the mattes ; and, ii, .adoption by the Commissioners ofthis report as its own (required by FCC rules). Franchise Fee U-Tax Auditing c~ Telecommunication Adrni[llshation 101 Pocono Lane, Cary, North Carolina 27513-5316 Voice # 919.467.5392 Fax # 919.460.6868 • 115 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA New Hanover County, NC-0140 BEFORE THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER IN THE MATTER OF: Review of Basic Service Tier Cable-Rate contained within FCC 1240 Updating Maximum Permitted Rates filed by Time Warner Cable, Wilmington Division, for New Hanover County, NC-0140 BY THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER: . ORDER APPROVING 1VIAXIlVIUM PER.MTTTED RATE OF $5.52 ON BASIC SERVICE 'T'IER WHEREAS, on October 5, 1998, Time Warner Cable, Wilmington Division, submitted an FCC 1240 Updaxing Annual Maximum permitted Rates form for Regulated Cable Services with New Hanover County, NC-0140. Time Warner's filing covers progamrning, external costs -and- inflation for the.True-up Period, January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998; and anticipated costs for the Projected period, Jaauary 1, 1999,.through December 31, 1999; WHEREAS, Time Warner Cable is permitted, pursuant to FCC rules, to adjust its non-extemal costs portion of its basic service tier rates for inflation based on quarterly figures released bythe FCC during January`1, 1998, through December 31, 1998; WHEREAS, the FCC's inflation factor of .82% for the second-quarter of 1998 was published on September 30, 1998, the same day Time Warner dated its FCC 1240 filing, VVNRRF.A S, Z'~ Warner Cable used the inflation fador of 1.14% for the last nine months of 1998 in Worksheet 1 calculations, instead of the .82% as published by the FCC; «+ S, Time Warner Cable used the inflation fador of 1.14% in Line CS, Curreert FCC Inflation Factor, WHEREAS, on December 22, 1998, the County Commissioners received a report indicating that Time Warner Cable's September 30, 1998, FCC 1240 did not incorporate the FCC's second-quarter inflation factor of .82% in its Worksheet 1, True-up Period Inflation calculations, nor did it use 1.14% in Line C5, Current FCC Inflation Factor, WHEREAS, FCC rules grant local franchise authorities a 90-day review period, as measured from the date of receipt of said filing by the local franchise authority (LFA), with which to review the cable operator's FCC 1240 filing. If the 90-day review period expires, the Courrty retains refund authority past the initia190-day review period so long as all inquiries from the cable operator regarding said review arc responded to in writing within 15 days of said inquiry; ~~ 116 • - This the ATTEST: seal • WIiEREA.S, Time Warner Cable's FCC 1240 filing also includes oost estimates for the calendar year of 1999,. and these estimates may require adjustment in the oable operator's subsequent FCC 1240 filing for .2000; and, WIiEREAS, New Hanover County has authority to regulate basio seivioe tier rates assessed by Time Warner Cable, Wilmington Division, serving franchisc NC-0140, New Hanover County; IT IS A FINDING: THAT Time Warner Cable did not use the most recently released FCC Quarterly Inflation Factor of .82% at the time it filed its FCC 1240 with the County, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: THAT the maximum permitted basic service tier rate for Time Warner Subscn~bets in New Hanover County, NC-0140, for the calendar year of 1999, shall be $5.52, subject to subsequent findings by the County to the contrary, and, THAT ~e County retains its authority to issue refunds or rate rollbacks after the initia190~iay review period with respect to the restructured rate set out in the FCC 1240 filing. ISSUED BY ORDER OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER day of CHAIlZMAN: Deliver via Certif ed U.S. Mail to: Extra copy to: Time Warner Cable Action Audits 117 ~, [This page intentionally left blank) ') 118 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RE-QUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Budget Amendment .Consent Item #: 4.1 Estimated Time: Page Number DEPARTMENT: Health/Child Health BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 99-0074 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT Child Health (NC Health Choice Outreach Grant) $3,145 Contracted Services $1,000 Printing $1,345 Depar=tmental Supplies $800 EXPLANATION: To budget additional State revenue from NC Health Choice f Children Outreach Program. --- --- - - - -- = APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • COl1NTY COMM_~ISSIONERS APF^CV~.D Y RE.` :"' ~ CD RE~..~.'e`CD Q } POS ~ t-ONED l7 aAr~°~-~-a~ X119 ` NEW HANOVER COUNTY INTER-OFFICE -MEMO 11 /6/98 ~~~ ~ f ~ NEW HAhOI~ER CO. BLOCr+ ~,.i~i. To: Lynda Smite ` •--- - ( ~~y `~' `"` / From: Janet McCumbee~ ~~u.~S Subj: Health Choice Outreach Allocation ~~ Please process a budget amendment for our Health Choice Outreach money. I understand from the attached memo that this money is to be used to support the outreach efforts of our local coalition. I would like the money allocated to my Child Health budget as follows: Budget 110-510-5167 Objects: 3700 $1000 4100 $1345 4210 -$800 Total: $3145 Also, is there a form for "Scope of Services"? If so, please let me know where to get one. The money will be used to print flyers about Health Choice, purchase supplies for the coalition to use, and possibly for temporary clerical assistance. If you need more detail, let me know. I assume this needs to go before the County Commissioners. How about Board of Health? a~i ." ~"'' `~"r1 ~~;:~ "~ y a I~.1 1.2.0 J ~-~~~ r; ,. cur • ~ ~' ~ s ~ ~f t '~ , • ~,,. / North Carolina Degartmeat of Health and Human Serficrs Division of Women's and Children i Health 1330 St. Mary's Start • Posz Office Box 29597 • Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0597 • Courier 56-20-I I )amts B. Hunt Jr:, Go.~crnor • H. David Bruton, M.D., Sccreury • Mn F. Wolfe, M.D., M.P.H., Director q~t~ ~~nCaS:~~~ September 91998 `•• ~~~ >~y?- To: Local Health Directors Local Social Services Directors From: Tom Vitaglione "~p~r~ Re: Outreach Allocations .~~~~,~ ~~~ , A ~ W~. ~- ~~. As noted earlier, 5200,000 has been idcnti5ed to support in part the efforts of your local Outreach Coalitions to identify children for enrollment in both Health Check and NC~ Health Choice. The allocation formula distributes SS0,000 to each county on an equal basis (S500 per . ~ county), and the remaining S 150,000 based on the county's percentage of the 71,342 children estimated to be eligible for NC Health Choice. For administrative efficiency, funds'will be made available through tht "child health" tom ~ nent of health department contracts with the men's hildren's Health. This will ow immediate expenditures, even before contract bu get rev~s~ons are processed. ~~ ~_ Please note that health department budget revisions and a "Scone of Services" indicating ~Art~~ ~" ~ how these funds will be used for outreach ses should be sent to Carol Tant to our ~,~ nditures sho d be 'ointl lanncd b our Outreach Coalition. ~,~ D~vis~on. Exile ~ y p y Y ~ ~ , .y~ ~~w Expenditures can be made for virtually anything that enhances outreach efforts.' ~ 3~" " •~ We know that your outreach efforts will go far beyond chest small allocations. Nevertheless, wr hope these funds will be helpful as we seek to enhance access to health insurance for our children. `~la~ TV/nl ~~s ~~ ~`~~~ ~ Chit ~~~ VJ {r ~t • c: DWCH -Division Management Team and NC Health Choice Staff DMA NC Health Choice Management Team DSS -Kevin Fitzgerald and John Tanner Healthy Start Foundation -Health Check/NC Health Choice Campaign Office North Carolina Family Health Resource Line Regional DWCH Social Work and Child Health Nurse Consultants Medicaid Program Representatives Dennis Harrington, Chief of Local Health Services N.,:b GroGAa: Horn ejtbr l999 SpsdalOlrrrpia WosJl S+rm,ner G~nh . + ~ie~.~.71 " ' , I Children El{gible Percent Eli~ibb County for Health Chok• for Health Choke Funding Hoke 413 0.6% S 1,368 Hyde ~ 69 0.1 % S 645 Iredell 971 1.4% S 2,542 ~ 368 0.5% S 1,274 Johnston 1047 1.4% S 2,617 Jones 162 O.Z% S 841 Lee 606 0.8% S 1,774 Lenoir 764 1.1 % S 2,106 Lincoln 434 ~ 0.8% S 1,413 Macon 365 0.5% ~ S 1,267 M~~ 1 gg 0.3% S 918 Martin 320 0.4% S 1,173 McDowell 440 0.8% S 1,425 Mecklenburg 3981 5.8% S 8,870 Mitchell 142 ~ 0.2% S 799 -- " Montgomery 346 0,5% S. 1,227 ' Moore 663. 0.9% S 1,894 Nash 863 12% S 2,314 New Hanover - 1258 -_ 1.8% -- i ~fi45 ' Northampton .384 0.5% S 1,307 Onslow 1308 1.8% S 3,250 Orange 474 0.7% S 1,497 Pamlico 141 ~ - . 0.2% S 796 Pasquot~nk 464 0.7% S 1,476 Pender ~ 467 0:7°~6 S 1,482 . Perquimans 155 0.2% S 826 Person 323 0.5% S 1,179 pill 1164 1.6% S 2,947 `Polk 137 0.2% S 788 'Randolph 1181. 1.7% S 2,983 Richmond 708 1.096 S 1,989 Robe~n 2123 3.096 S 4.984 Rockingham 764 1.1% S 2,106 Rowan 1182. 1.7% S 2,985 . Rutherford 568 0.8% . S 1,694 . Sampson 783 1.1% S 2,146 Scotland 622 0.9% S 1,808 Stang 666 0.996 S 1,900 Stokes 369 0.5% S 1,276 " Sully 653 0.9% S 1,873 Swain 166 0.2% S 849 Transylvania. 302. - 0.4% ' S 1,135 Tyrrell 63 1 % 0. S -632 Union 942. 1.3% S 2;481 Vanca 703 1.0% S - 1,978 Wake 3079 4.3% S ~ 6,974 ~ ~. • • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Budget Amendment ' Consent Item #: 4.2 Estimated Time: Page Number: DEPARTMENT: Library BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 99-0075 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT Contributions $9,708 Aid to Public Library Fund $29,215 Temporary Salaries $5,000 Departmental Supplies $4,500 Capital Outlay -Equipment $19,715 Books and Periodicals $9,708 EXPLANATION: To budget proceeds from Friends of the Library book sale and donations and State aid to public libraries. APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COMMIS/SIGNERS APPR®VED. [V REJ~:CTED RENit3VCD ~. POSTPONED D, =HEARD p DATE ..~~~ ~ 12 3 f~ [This page intentionally left blank) ,, ~:~ ~~.~~~~~ Y ~yr~~i 'F.VJ M~~~ .i ~~IfM...,, .. ta;, ~ ~V r~ 1DY ~' ~ ~.~' L.IJY.y 1 d~~i ~y._., c. ~~~ 124-==~y ~ ~~, ~ ~~~~ l., -, • C7 • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Consent Item #: 5 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Presenter: Lucie Harrell Contact: Lucie Harrell . SUBJECT: Ratification of appointment of Theresa Clontz as an extra-territorial-member of the Kure Beach Planning and Zoning Commission. BRIEF SUMMARY: The Kure Beach Town Council is recommending the appointment of Theresa Clontz, a resident of Wilmington Beach, to fill the vacancy on the Kure Beach Planning and Zoning Commission. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Ratify appointment FUNDING SOURCE: _ATTACHMENTS:-_ -.. _.. _ -- -. -. __ .-- -- _-_ _-~-_ Letter from Town of Kure Beach ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW Make appointme OMMENDATIONS: COUNTY Ct?MMISSIONERS AppP'PRCV{^ED R~:~.~ wv%~ a P~STPaNE(J O' HEA'Rp ,_ s-gg . ~ 1.25 DA~~ O~ KUR~r ~~ ~ ~~ o 20 ~ `~~ 9ry C ARp~ ~OWI~j OF KLIRE BEACH 117 N, 6lh AVENUE • POST OFFICE BOX 3 • KUFiE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA 28449 TELEPHONE (910) 458218 • FAX (91d) 458-7421 December 17, 1998 New ~Tamover County Board of Commigsione~s 24 North Third Street, Room 301 VVr~naixigtou, NC 28401. Genltlemen: At the I~ecexn6er 15th Kure aeach Town Council Meeting, Council approved recommending Teresa Clontz, resident of W~wtgton Beach, Kure Beach's extraxemtorial jurisdiction, to fill the vacancy on the Cure Beach Plantung & Zaning Commission. In accordance _with the General Statutes, we are requestizag that you appoint Theresa Clontz as a member of the Kure Beach Planning &, Zoning Commission. Thank you For your courtesy axtd cooperation. Sincerely, ~raztces S. tones Town Clerk YY ~~ !~ ' ~•~ R~r!Y i~'t . ''~:~...u .. ~. F.r~'~ 2u R ~ pf /~ ) ~ i.`! i~a ~n Y ~ • Y 1 `` ~~~Y •U~ ~ ~~*~ ti . 126 e ; .~, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD. ACTION Meeting Date: 01/04/99 Consent Item #: ~n Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Presenter: Lucie Harrell Contact: Lucie Harrell SUBJECT: Resolution: Request to add roads in Gorman Plantation to the State Highway System BRIEF SUMMARY: The Landmark Organization has petitioned the N.C.D.O.T. to add roads in Gorman Plantation to the State. .Highway system. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt resolution FUNDING SOURCE: • a ATTACHMENTS: SR-1 Petition ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MA Adopt resoluti ENTS A COUNTY COMMI~SIONER$' APPR©VEI3 L REJECTED D' REM©llED D' POSTPONED HEARD -S-q® PATE .~~.~.~.. ;. 12/21/98 NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PETITION NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER PETITION REQUEST FOR (CHECK ONE): ADDITION TO STATE SYSTEM (X ) PAVING ( ) MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT ( ) We the undersigned, being property owners on LYONIA COURT (Describe or give local name or Secondary Road Number) in NEW HANOVER county do hereby request the Division of Highways of the Department of Transportation to ADD the above described road. We further advise that the road requested to ADD is .04 miles in length and at the present time there are 5 occupied homes located on the road and having entrances into the load. ' Finally, we agree to dedicate to the division ofHighways aright-of--way of the necessary width to construct the road to the minimum construction. standards required by the Division of Highways: This right-of--way will extend the entire length of the road that is requested to be improved and will include the necessary areas outside the right-of--way for cut and fill slopes and drainage. Also, we agree to dedicate additional right-of--way in the public road intersections for sight distance and design purposed and to execute said right-of--way agreement forms that will be submitted to us by representatives of the Division of Highways. REMARKS Four copies of recorded subdivision plat enclosed if applicable. GORMAN PLANTATION SECTION 1 - ' PROPERTY OWNERS NAME MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE The Division of Highways should contact the first petitioner listed below: JAMEY WOOTEN LANDMARK ORGANIZATION, INC. P.O. BOX 4127 WILMINGTON, NC 28406 (910) 392-7201 ~~~~ Revised Form SR=1 (5-83) All previous forms obsolete. ~~© ~` ~ ~ - ? 2 1 1498 128. ~~..~t~Ya~~~~~ ~~n..~ ~M~SICN~~