The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 1998 12-07• AGENDA ~~'NOVER Ca G ?~" A yr< t ;+ ~'r- ~~FNORTH~'~ December 7,1998 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Assembly Room, Netiv Hanover County Courthouse 24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC WILLIAM A. CASTER CHAIRMAN ROBERT G. GREERVKE-CHAIRMAN BUZZ BIRZENIEKS, COMMISSIONER TED DAVIS, JR., COMMISSIONER CHARLES R. HOWELL, COMMISSIONER ALLEN O'NEAL, COUNTY MANAGER WANDA M. COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY • LUCIE F. HARRELL. CLERK TO THE BOARD MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman William A. Caster) INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ESTIMATED ~ ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE TIMES NO. • 6:35 p.m. 1. Administration of Oaths of Office The Honorable Allen J. Cobb, Superior Court Judge 6:40 p.m. 2. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney Presiding 6:50 p.m. 3. Meeting of Water and Sewer District 6:55 p.m. 4. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman Water and Sewer District, Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney Presiding 7:00 p.m. BREAK Non Agenda Items 7:15 p.m. 5. Approval of Consent Agenda 7:20 p.m. 6. Public Hearing -Purchase of 138 North Fourth Street Property 1 '7:25 p.m: 7. ~ Public Hearing -Financing for Purchase of Airlie Gardens 5 7:45 p.m. 8. Airlie Gardens Capital Project Ordinance and Installment Financing 7 for Acquisition of Airlie Gardens '" 7:50 .m. 9. Le ion Stadium Discussion 1 S p g • ESTIMATED TIMES Public Hearings: ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE NO. 8:15 p.m. 10.1 Special Use Permit, Continued Item -Recommendation 17 by Planning Board to deny request by Kathleen Eagle to add 16 boat slips to the existing community boating facility serving Inlet Point Harbor Subdivision (5-430, 6/98) 8:35 p.m. 10.2 Rezoning, Continued Item, Plan revised -Request by 31 William Alexander to rezone 3.15 acres at the southwest corner to Alexander Road and U.S. Highway 17 south of Brickstone Estates to Conditional Use Office and Institution from R-15 Residential (Z-635, 9/98) 8:50 p.m. 10.3 Special use permit, continued item, plan revised -Request 37 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 (5-435, 10/98) 9:10 p.m. 10.4 Special Use Permit -Request by Mason and Associates to 49 construct at 45 unit elderly housing project and personal care facility at 6612 Gordon Road. The site is zoned R-15 Residential (5-436, 11/98) 9:25 p.m. 10.5 Rezoning -Request by E.W. Merritt, Jr. to rezone 15 acres 55 along SR 1300 (International Paper Company Road) and south of U.S.S. NC Battleship Road to B-2 Business from I-2 Heavy Industrial (5-436, 11/98) 9:30 p.m. 10.6 Rezoning -Plan Expiration -Request by new Hanover County 61 to rezone 2.2 acres at Mendenhall Drive and US Highway 17 to R-15 Residential from Conditional Use B-2 Business, Retail Nursery (Z-639, 11/98) 9:35 p.m. 10.7 Rezoning -Request by trustees of CFCC to rezone 142.5 acres 65 on the south side of Sidbury Road and east of Pumpkin Creek Estates to O-I Office and Institution from R-15 Residential, I-1 Industrial, B-1 Business and Conditional Use I-1 Industrial (Z-640, 11/98) j ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE TIMES NO. 9:55 p.m. 10.8 Rezoning Request by Arcelia Wicker for R. Britt to rezone .62 71 acres at 324 Greenville Avenue just southeast of Wrightsville Avenue to B-1 Business from R-15 Residential ' 10:10 p.m. 109 Rezoning -Request by David Sneeden to rezone 1.03 acres at 77 6770 Gordon Road to B-2 Business from R-15 Residential ' - (Z-642,11/98) 10:15 p.m. 10.10 Zonin~Text Amendment. Continued Item Request by Jim 83 . 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 (A-292, 10/98) . 10:45 p.m. 10.11 Road Closing -Request by Tom and Jan Broadfoot to close a 91 segment of Buena Vista Circle (private) located at the eastern end - of Mason Landing Road, Middle Sound Community (SC-74, 10/98). ADDITIONAL ITEMS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ` COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY MANAGER 11:00 p.m. _ Adjourn I- i I ' i i~ I r; J l NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ASSEMBLY ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301 DECEMBER 7, 6:30 P. M. ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE NO. 1. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman Water and Sewer District 93 Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney Presiding 2. Non Agenda Items (limit three minutes) Adjourn C~ CONSENT AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 7, 1998 ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE NO. 1. Approval of Minutes g~ 2. Approval of Request for $3,500 for National Coalition Building 99 Institute Workshop during Human Relations Month 3. Approval of Resolutions: Request to add roads to the NC Highway 103 System Glazier Road Roads in The Commons Subdivision Roads in Georgetowne Subdivision 4. Approval of Budget Amendment #99-18 109 5. Consideration of Judicial Building Capital Project Ordinance and 111 approval of associated Budget Amendment #99-20 6. Annual Review and Approval of Public Official Bonds for 115 - Finance Director - Sheriff - Register of Deeds - ABC Board Member 7. Status Report of Year 2000 Software Problem Resolution 121 8. Authorization to apply for 1998-99 Work First Transitional/ 129 Employment Transportation Assistance Funds '~• • • • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 6 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Finance Presenter: Bruce Shell Contact: Bruce Shell SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING -Purchase of 138 North Fourth Street BRIEF SUMMARY: Presently the building is financed through a City COPS issue; when the City's equity reaches 110% of the remaining principal balance, the City can convey the property to the County without encumbrance. The County will lease the building with an option to buy with the principal portions of payments made by County to be credited to the purchase price of $1,100,000. Financing will be through the City at 5.12%. Approval of item by LGC is scheduled for January 5, 1999 and closing date is scheduled for February 1, 1999. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Hold public hearing, adopt attached resolution and budget amendment #99-0060. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 138rs.wpd BA#-99-0060.w REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Hold public hearing, adopt attached resolution and budget amendment #99-0060. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONSICOMMENTS: -fit, COll1TY CO~.~"~41',SIONE A??e-,JW~ti CV F~S,=CTC~J 17 ! F~;t~Ql~ti*D ~, 'F~~Tr•~~IED ;O' ~?r„;~ 1 ,paTE . ~.~.~1 . 1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY WHEREAS, New Hanover County previously approved the purchase of 138 North Fourth Street from the City of Wilmington at the November 9, 1998 Board of Commissioners meeting; AND WHEREAS, staff is requesting approval of Contract # 99-0178, a lease purchase agreement with the City of Wilmington for the financing of the 138 North Fourth Street property acquisition as authorized by North Carolina General Statue 160A-20; AND WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 160A-20 requires New Hanover County to hold a public hearing prior to the approval of a financing agreement for real property; AND WHEREAS, budget amendment # 99-0060 has been prepared and is submitted for approval as part of this request to~reflect financing of acquisition; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County that budget amendment # 99-0060 is approved; and Contract # 99-0178 with the City of Wilmington for financing of 138 North Fourth Street is approved; and the Finance Officer and County Manager of New Hanover County are hereby authorized and directed to act on behalf of the County of New Hanover in regard to Contract # 99-0178 and other actions not inconsistent , / with this resolution. This 7th day of December, 1998. (SEAL) Chairman, Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: Clerk to the Board ~.rY.i Mai Y}*r~ n~i ~ ~:I i l Y~ ci/~, ~i ~L~' r t ~ 'Q ~ ` ` at((, ~t~. ;y~S~ dw, - n~ = ucy jjjnr.~~~ ,~q. ~ ~ S ( \ 1V ~,f~~~1Cf.~w~.~}!, Y ~.~~~YwY 9iK9 \%W ~n a+.a ~ l! \»s~~ _.. .. y......., NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Budget Amendment DEPARTMENT: Judicial Building Expansion Capital Project/Commissioners' Office -Appropriated Fund Balance/Non-Departmental -Installment Payments BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 99-0060 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT Judicial Building Expansion Capital Project: Installment Loan Proceeds $1,250,000 Buildings $1,100,000 Other Improvements $150,000 Commissioners' Office: Appropriated Fund Balance $36,000 Non-Departmental/ Installment Payments: Installments Payments $36,000 EXPLANATION: To budget proceeds from installment loan with City of Wilmington in financing the building located at 138 N. Fourth Street. APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COUNT`S `~OMSJII%SIO~ERS A4'f?i~d'JLD C/ ~. ~tE.1~vTC~ ~' ~LM,~U~o_ ~ ~ 3 ,F'pSTPt?NEq Q ~~ _ '>HEAR{~ty This page intentionally left blank ~.,..~„ `v '~v ~ ~~.~ , ~ '.~~ 4 F . ,~ r .,~ ~`„,./ u,~~ ~ ~.~ ! ~ ~;~~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD Of COMMISSIONERS . REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 7 Estimated Time: Page Number. Department: Finance Presenter: Bruce Shell. Contact: Bruce Shell SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING -Installment financing for acquisition of Airlie Gardens. BRIEF SUMMARY: Conduct public hearing to consider approval of the proposed financing contract # 99-0177. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Hold public hearing. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: • LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: NIA COUNTY MANAGER'S C ENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Hold public hearing. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY CC^1I~b11SSI0~lEF2S` tAFr~c 4l/EQ 'RLJ~C~~D, C.J= RENirJ\/CD 0 i!POS s E^JNED 'Q ~HEF,Rr? ':D: (1~ DATE _._r..~~1~~"`t 5 ~1 This page intentionally left blank ?M ~i:ir:i V td': a "C ~ NYy ~ti.c~<-aq wt ~ ~ { ..:.4 i:~.~a111 ~.~ . . . ~M NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 8 Estimated Time: Department: Cooperative Extension Service Presenter: Bruce Shell/Bruce Williams Contact: Bruce Williams SUBJECT: Airlie Gardens Capital Project Ordinance and Installment Financing for acquisition of Airlie Gardens .BRIEF SUMMARY: The Commissioners are requested to adopt the Project Ordinance to establish the Airlie Gardens Capital project and consider approval of the proposed financing contract, Contract #99-0177. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend adoption of Capital Project Ordinance. Recommend adoption of attached resolution: 1. Approving contract #99-0177 with First Union National Bank for the financing of the Airlie Gardens acquisition. 2. Authorizing the County Manager and Finance Officer to act on behalf of the County in regard to Contract #99-0177 and other actions not inconsistent with this resolution. 3. Approval of budget amendments #99-19, #99-0055, and #99-0056 (approval of positions with - exact titles will be presented for Commissioners review and approval 12/21/98) FUNDING SOURCE: Installment Financing $10,561,200 Clean Water Management Trust Fund $ 2,000,000 ATTACHMENTS: Airliers.wp Ordinanc.wp 99-19ba.wp BA#99-0055.w 99-56ba.wp REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: Approved HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUN't1( COMMI~SIt}NERS APPROVED RCJ~CTED ID R~hJ40VED L P05TPONED p HOARD ~~~ DATE 1~ _ 1w „ _ _ ... ~` +tl ~~~ rt `~U ~y~.~k?X/ ` ~ya \ My y~q~ `~ ~~~"~I \~ • • • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 8 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Cooperative Extension Service Presenter: Bruce Shell/Bruce Williams Contact: Bruce Williams SUBJECT: Airlie Gardens Capital Project Ordinance and Installment Financing for acquisition of Airlie Gardens BRIEF SUMMARY: The Commissioners are requested to adopt the Project Ordinance to establish the Airlie Gardens Capital project and consider approval of the proposed financing contract, Contract #99-0177. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend adoption of Capital Project Ordinance. Recommend adoption of attached resolution: 1. Approving contract #99-0777 with First Union National Bank for the financing of the Airlie Gardens acquisition. 2. Authorizing the County Manager and Finance Officer to act on behalf of the County in regard to Contract #99-0177 and other actions not inconsistent with this resolution. 3. Approval of budget amendments #99-19, #99-0055, and #99-005 (approval positions with exact titles will be presented for Commissioners review and approval 12/21/98) FUNDING SOURCE: Installment Financing $12,561,200 ATTACHMENTS: Airliers.wp Ba99-19.wp Cpordair.wp BA#99-0055.w BA#99-0056.w REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: GOU+117Y COP~MISSIONERS Alr?r O~JED U. P4.wCTED p, F~~;.,OV~D ;D f*/::TPONED p; t-IEA+4D p~ DATE ~' ',~ ~~ 7 PROJECT ORDINANCE AIRLIE GARDENS BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County: 1. New Hanover County(County) is engaged in the Acquisition and Construction of the Airlie Gardens property Project, which capital project involves the construction and/or acquisition of capital assets. 2. County desires to authorize and budget for said project in a project ordinance adopted pursuant to North Carolina General Statute $159-13.2, such ordinance to authorize all appropriations necessary for the completion of said project. NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH THAT: 1. This project ordinance is adopted pursuant to North Carolina General Statute $159-13.2. 2. The project undertaken pursuant to this ordinance is the Acquisition and Construction of the Airlie Gardens Proprty Capital Project, which project is herewith authorized. 3. The revenue that will finance said project is: Installment Financing $12,561,200 Total 512,561,200 4. The following appropriations necessary for the project are herewith made from the revenue listed above: Capital Project Expense 512,561,200 '" ~ ~~~~' ""~;~; °~,'~~~~~ To t a 1 $12 , 5 61, 2 0 0 c,x .;e s..,~p~ ~~~~ ~y ~•-~~4~ ^*1 J Lti 8 p~v *cQwn. ,. p.1,{rj,~~.,R . `.. ~? i~,.,rf', '""J,AA~.'"M..,~ *p "~ ~ (r. _ ........__.. ~~,~111 5. This project ordinance shall be entered in the minutes of the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County. Within five days hereof, copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the finance and budget offices in New Hanover County, and with the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County. Adopted this day of 1998. Clerk to the Board William A. Caster, Chairman Board of County Commissioners ~ 9 ................................. r .°..!! °.. !. Airliers.wpa ....................... RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMI~~SSIONERS OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY WI~REAS, New Hanover County previously approved the purchase of Airlie Gardens at the November 19, 1998 Board of Commissioners meeting; AND WHEREAS, staff is requesting approval of Contract # 99-0177, an installment contract with First Union National Bank for the financing of the Airlie Gardens land acquisition as authorized by North Carolina General Statue 160A-20; AND WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 160A-20 requires New Hanover County to hold a public hearing prior to the approval of a financing agreement for real property; AND WHEREAS, budget amendment # 99-19 has been prepared and is submitted for approval as part of this request to~reflect financing of acquisition; AND WHEREAS, budget amendment # 99-0055 has been prepared to reflect the financing for the start-up equipment (financing for equipment to be handled at a later date) and is submitted for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County that budget amendment # 99-19 and budget amendment # 99-0055 are approved; and Contract # 99-0177 with-First Union National Bank for financing of Airlie Gardens is approved; and the Finance Officer and County Manager of New Hanover County are hereby authorized and directed to act on behalf of the. County of New Hanover in regard to Contract # 99-0177 and other actions not inconsistent with this resolution. This 7th day of December, 1998. (SEAL) Chairman, Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: Clerk to the Board ^, C) 10 ~ . ~ REVISED NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 . Budget Amendment DEPARTMENT: Cooperative Extension BUDGET AMENDMENT ~: 99-19 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT Airlie Gardens Capital Project Installment Financing 510,561,200 Clean Water Management Trust, Fund 5 2,000,000 Capital Project Expense CREDIT 512,561,200 -• EXPLANATION: To establish budget for Airlie Gardens Capital Project according to Capital. Project Ordinance. APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED (;~ ~ ~ REJECTED ^ REMOVED ^ POSTPONED ^ HEARD DATE 2 _._ y yr t 4 Cl~~~y f~ ..1. "f ~i~~ ~ _ .Y`9fTaY. MT~!.1si~JRf+•l ~C - rl.:' .w.~ .,,~.,~. .V._ :. ~ _ .., .. ;... -.., _ . , ,.. ,....,._ _ ,C _ r, rfrss..^ww..4+.+.-.ice: aa+,r!i~+'^:~~a,-c~~^'!~_.!YM~...........< __ ~ ...,~_.. J NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Budget Amendment DEPARTMENT: Cooperative Extension Service/Airlie Gardens BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 99-0055 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT Installment Proceeds $250,000 Capital Outlay • CREDIT $250,000 EXPLANATION: To reflect proceeds from financing for startup costs for Airlie Gardens (for accounting purposes only). APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners ~: ~ _ _ L/ REVISED .~ ~ NEW~HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ' ` Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Budget Amendment - DEPARTMENT:. Non-DepartmentaWarious ;Cooperative Extension Service/Airlie Gardens BUDGET. AMENDMENT #: 99-0056 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDlT Non-Departmentat/Transfer to_ ~ ~ _ - Other Funds..:. _ . " ~' Transfer to Capital Project (Airlie) $343,387 N_ on-DepartmentaUlnstallment " Payments:. ~ - Installment Payments ~ $28,000 - ,~~- Interest onBonded Debt $350,000 .- - Cooperative Extension Service/ . Airlie Gardens: f Appropriated Fund Balance $500,000 " w. Salaries and Wages ~ ~ - - $144,400 . . FICA f $11,047 - - Retirement $7,148 Medical Insurance ~ $19,260 Limited Disability Insurance 5332 ~ Utilities - ' $15,000 ,. • ~ - Equipment Rent ~ - $64,000 . Advertising Cost ~ ~ $35,000 Contracted.:Services - ~ $29,700 _ ~ Telephone`..:, ~ _.. - $4,000. r~ ;..~ c 1 ~ . .. -- - Cellular Expense Postage M & R Buildings & Grounds M ~ R Equipment Printing Departmental Supplies Initial Supplies Fuel ~ Supplies Uniforms Safety Shoes Miscellaneous Training 8~ Travel Insurance 8 bonds Signage EXPLANATION: To budget project costs and operating budget for Airlie. Gardens APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners 51,000 55,825 537,000 55,000 510,000 55,000 520,000 S3,700 52,800' 5425 515,000 52,250 S2,500 525,000 COUNTY COMMQISS NERS APPROVED ~" REJECTED O REMOVED O 14 POSTPONED O HEARD ~ DATE ~' . • ~. ,R,. •--~-"-~'Y~..tilq;9~,a::• _ _ :. ..;..~ e....•--~.,.._ ~.~--'l"-3`5.w'.- tJ-~J-~._s. , r .,_.e,C.: r+ .. -~. a .`""„»' --..--I•-+_...---1=.~r .r- a-.' _:~' '._ _ n t-e::w. 4L+~ _ .,mss. 't",.~ +?,~ _ r - - ,.. ' .'~ e. _ _ _ __ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 9 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Parks Presenter: Contact: Dave WeaveNNeal Lewis SUBJECT: Legion Stadium BRIEF SUMMARY: The Legion Stadium Commission (LSC) is charged with the task of making recommendations to the County and the City regarding permanent ownership of the property. On November 4, 1998, the LSC adopted a motion to ask the County Commissioners and the Wilmington City Council to consider the transfer of ownership of Legion Stadium from the City to the County. The motion did not include the four key points as listed below, but were a part of the discussion. 1) The City requests an 'Equity Payment" equal to their Capital Expenditures for the complex. From 1988-1997, that figure was $961,903. 2) The City would require a commitment from the County to adopt and implement the Capital .Improvements program prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates. The cost of that plan is estimated to be $6.445 Million. Some of this work has been completed. Some of this work is underway at the present time. The balance of the work is estimated to cost approximately $4 Million. 3) The City recommends the continuation of the LSC as the policy-making body for the purpose of governing the scheduling and maintenance of the complex. 4) The City would continue to maintain the property under a Contract with the County. The City and the Legion Stadium Commission have adopted policies which have long-range implications regarding use of the property. Three examples of these are: 1) The New Hanover County school system, in particular New Hanover County High School, has been given top priority in scheduling of the facility; 2) there is an arrangement with the American Legion to give them 'first right of refusal' for concession operations at the stadium; and, 3) the Wilmington Sharks college summer league baseball team has .signed a Contract with the City for use of Hardee Fieid for 1999. The operations and maintenance costs of the Legion Stadium complex are estimated to be $100,000 annually. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Board of County Commissioners consider the proposal to accept ownership of Legion Stadium. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: • 'COUNTY COMI~I~Sl41VERS AP~r~iC11,r~0 r. Fi~.I~s:T~~ O P -i.:ti ;r~~ 0 15 F'~w~`~'CNED t-i:.~'.; ; J ~~~ ~ . ~. 1v:~1 ..~.. REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: NIA FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: NIA COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board of Commissioners should consider the pt•oposal to accept ownership of Legion Stadium. There are a number of items the Board should consider when evaluating the "four key points": (1) "Equity Payment" The $961,903 "equity-payment" may be appropriate in order to move along transfer of ownership from the City to the County. However, outright conveyance of the facility from the City to the County for a nominal fee is more desirable and would allow the County to encumber less money on a purchase and more on capital improvements. (2) The County may not wish to "commit" entirely to the Kimley-Horn & Associates Capital Improvements Program. The Kimley-Horn plan was prepared with little or no County input and MAY NOT best suit the long term needs of the school system or the County: In any event, the plan should be re-evaluated before an approval to commit to the plan is adopted: (3) If the County is to own the facility for the greater good, use and enjoyment of all citizens then perhaps the Legion Stadium Commission should only be advisory or have a limited term of existence for the purpose of transitioning #rom City ownership to County ownership= (4) A short term transitionab contract with the City to maintain the property .is reasonable. The more appropriate long term arrangement is #or the County to use its own crews and. staff'for operation and maintenance. . . COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: ... 16 ~aL^;...~ ~.. k NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 10.1 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: D. Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Item 1: Special Use Permit, continued Item (S-430, 6/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: , Recommendation by the Planning Board to deny a request by Kathleen Eagle to add 16 boat slips to the existing community boating facility serving Inlet Point Harbor Subdivision. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 14 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: ~COUNN COMMtaS APPROVED ~ REJECTEp ,D REMOVE[? Q ~,pSTp(}NEt3 EARO' 1.1 H 'Y ~ ~ ,. pA"tE ~^ «.~ ~ i 17 ITEM 1 16 Boat Sli s to Special Use Permit, Continued Item- Request by Kathleen Bufflcm To Add p the Existing Community Boating Facility Serving Inlet Point Harbor. (5-430, 6/98) NOTE: The initial phases of Inlet Point Harbor I and II were approved for 431ots on May 22, 1989. The final section, Phase III, was approved for 19 lots on June 11, 1997, bringing the total number of approved lots to 62 or three less than the maximum of 65 that would be permitted under R-15 zoning. The existing boating facility, consisting. of 31 slips, was constructed prior to the current special use permit requirement imposed for similar facilities. Planning Board Summary The Board voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial of the petition as submitted.. They noted that expansion of the existing facility could negatively impact the property values of lots on both side of the channel near the expansion area and could potentially impede riparian access for at least two Lots in the development. Several people spoke in opposition They told the Board that ._ expansion of the marina would have detrimental impacts on water quality and would further erode the finfish and shellfish population in the vicinity. They also were concerned with noise, lighting, and additional boat traffic. An attorney representing one of the property owners claimed that the facility would impede the riparian rights of his client. The a licant told the Board that the boating facility had been planned since the overall project PP was conceived and no one owning property in the project should be surprised about his plans to expand the existing facility. The applicant's attorney told the Board that the application met the four required findings and therefore the permit should be approved. He also felt that the Board could not decide the riparian access question. 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 proposed facility does not require water and sewer services. B. The site is located in the Federal Point VFD District. C. Access to site is available via private roads connecting to Carolina Beach Road. D. A CAMA permit app~ication has been filed. 2. The Board must f nd that the u`s'e'meets ail required conditions and specifications of the ~ V~iP Zoning Ordinance. ~' ~~~7 ~~;:~ A. Community boating facilities are'permitted by special use permit in the R-15 Residential District. Th ~~property i zoPned~R 1~5, n` B. With the addition the total number~of slips does not exceed the number of residential lots to be served. p~~~°~~ ~--'~`t~` (`°~ Off-street parking will be provided at individual residences. (NOTE: The County ~_!/ ~•~ ordinarily requires a separate off-street parking lot, but has routinely approved permits to allow parking to be provided at individual lots to reduce environmental impacts, specifically the impacts from storm water run-off. D. All lots have access to the facility over existing private streets. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. In general, these facilities compliment property values. B. Similar facilities are located on nearby tracts. 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 proposed slips would be an expansion of an existing facility containing dock space for boats. B. New Hanover County land policies encourage access to public waters. ~ 19 ~_Y` ~ 4uh~' =°`"`'~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT June 22, 1998 -~,~ ~: -, _ :w k~.>-'Cwt: .~... _ '.i.~"Y~j~w ~~ 1 +~~ s+ ;\._'. :.'cam i '-h~~? -r.~ a ' ~ ~~,~ ~ ~~>: =.'t w:' . -~ ., ~' :~ Pete Avery New Hanover County Planning 414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304, . Wilmington, NC 28405 Pete, Attached please find the relevant comments received to date on the Inlet Point.Subdivision (Buffkin/Greer) CAMA permit application that we discussed during our June 19, 1998 telephone conversation. Please let me know if I may provide any additional assistance, or answer any further questions in this matter. Thanks for all your help. Sincerely, Doug Huggett Assistant Major Permits Coordinator C:~BACKUPSWVERY.LTR n P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1 -7687 / 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604 PHONE 919-733-2293 FAX 919-733-1495 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 509'o RECYCLED/1096 POST-CONSUMER PAPER _ _ ~'y+ ..J .. .rort~c~ , N _: ,fir;, JAMES B. HUNTJR. ,r.~-, _ .GOVERNOR ,~~-?Ji .~ ~~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: March 9, 1998 MAJOR MOD. OF PERMIT #122-77 Ms. Linda Sewall, Director Division of Environmental Health John Parker, Jr. Major Permits Processing Coordinator p C~~~Od~ t ;E;~ I ; 1998 'A' SHELLFISH SANITATION CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review Inlet Point Harbor--Kathleen Bufflun & David Greer PROJECT LOCATION: At Inlet Point S/D, in Myrtle Grove Sound, New Hanover Co. PROPOSED PROJECT: To develop Phase III of the Inlet Point S/D, etc Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by March 30, 1998. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact John Parker at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data are requested. REPLY This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project, only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. Signed Date ~ ~~ 21 P.O. BOX 27687 RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 /2728 CAPITAL BLVD.. RALEIGH, NC 27604 - PHONE 919-733-2293 FAX 919-733-1495 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 509'o RECYCLED/1 O% POST-CONSUMER PAPER State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Wayne McDevitt, Secretary Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director `~• N•JFTY. CAgGUhA D~,eRTMEN"i' OF ErlvcKala-.~r~t r.rcu N.~t:FAI. R~5Cil1HC~ 20 March 1998 ~, MEMORANDUM T0: John Parker, Jr. Major Permits Processing Coordinator FROM: P.A. Wojciechowski~~~ - SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT KATHLEEN BUFFKIN & DAVID GREERINLET POINT PHASE III Major Modification to permit #122-77 f r the above referenced roject. If you have any questions, Attached is the Division's reply o p please don't hesitate to contact me. PAW/bc permits\ad min\jp eo ver.ltr ~~~~,~ ~® • MAR 2 3 1998 COAST-MANAGEMENT 22 -'~,._.J ,, P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone 919-726-7021 FAX 919-726-0254 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper. State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Wilmington Regional Office Division of Coastal Management • James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Wayne McDevitt, Secretary Roger N. Schecter, Director MF;lY ORAIVD[7M: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Applicant: Project Location: February 27, 1998 Mr. Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director Division of Marine Fisheries John R. Parker Major Permits Processing Coordinator 1•• ~~~~~ -ODE ~ R NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NdfLIRAL RESOURCES CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review Kathleen Buffkin & David Greer/Inlet Point Phase III Major Modification to permit #122-77 Inlet Point S/D, east side of Carolina Beach Rd., Myrtle Grove Sound, adj to the AIWW, New Hanover County, Wilmington Proposed Project: The applicants propose to develop Phase III of the Inlet Point Subdivision, consisting of 19 single-family lots, with street and utility construction. An additional 16 boat slips are proposed within the existing common dock easement of the existing marina basin, to provide water access for the Phase III property owners. Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by March 20, 1948. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact E. F. Brooks at extension 247. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. Thjs agency has no comment on the proposed project. r This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project .for reasons described in the attached comments. SIGNED~~ ~~-~ DATE. 3 ' ~~~ r REC ON biAR 2 0 1998 . by D,~E-F{~11~AT State of North. Carolina Department of~ Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality James. B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Wayne McDevitt, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director (~ ~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES April 17, 1998 DWQ Project ~ 980196 New Hanover County CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECIIPT REQUESTED tilvls-"~. at eeii iiffldn's.:. ~"3-953 Radyor oa ~` Wilmington NC 28409 Dear Mr. Buffkin: • The Division of Water Quality has reviewed yourplans for the discharge of fill material into streams and/or wetlands located at Inlet Point Subdivision - Phase III in New Hanover County for residential and marina development. Based on this review, we have identified significant uses, which would be removed or degraded by this project. These uses are shcllfishin; uses in the open SA waters as well as water storage and wildlife habitat in the wetlands. Furthermore, insufficient evidence is present in oiir files to conclude that your project must be built as planned in waters and/or wetlands in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .006. Therefore, unless modifications of the proposal arc made as described below, we w111 have to move toward denial of your 401 Certification as required by 15A NCAC ?H .0~07(e) and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information. Until we receive additional information, w•e are requestin; (by copy of this letter) that the N.C. Division of Coastal Management place your project on administrative hold. ' In addition, some of the site's wetlands were found to be impacted during our staff s site visit on March 18, 1998. Please provide us with information supporting your position that states your project must be constructed as planned and that you have no practicable alternative to placing fill in chest waters .and/or wetlands. Specifically can you construct your residential development on lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 without additional wetland fill? Any documentation such as maps and narrative that you can supply to address alternative designs for your project may be "helpful in our review of your 401 Certification. ~ ' Please respond within two weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of this information tome and one copy to Joanne Steenhuis Wil,nington Regional Office. at 127 Cardinal Extension NC 2840-3845. If vie do not hear from you in two weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as withdrawn. I can be reached at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions. crel •, Jo R. Dorsey W ter Quality Certification ogram cc: Wilmington DWQ Rc;ional Office Wilmington Office Corps of Engineers Central Files John Dorney Wilmington Field Office Corps of Engineers John Parker; DCM 980196.nty 24 Division of Water Quality •Non-Discharge Branch 4401. Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 • Telephone 919-733-1786 • FAX 919-733-9959 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper To: John Dorney Environmental Sciences Branch DI~'ISI01\' OF ~'~'ATER QLJALI'TI' CA>\?A i\'IATOR PER~ITT APPLICATION REV ~ ~'V REGi01'AL OFFICE STAFF REPORT AI\'D RECOA'D~ ~ 1\'DATIONS RE~'IE~'~~R: STEENHUIS_~ 3l ~Y~7 ~3 d~/E®, RECE ACTII~'G v~'Q SUPERVISOR: SHIVER ~ }.~_ MAR 2 6 1998 DATE: 117arch 19, 1998 ~~TTLAi\TD Il\TFORA7ATION FOR CENTRAL OFFICE TRACKING COASTAL MANAGEMENT FERA~IIT YR: 98 PERI\ZIT NO.: 980196 COUNTI': New Hanover FRO.TECT I\TAI\~: Inlet~E DtiPhase III/.>Katliteen.Buffkin ~&'Da~~id Greer PROJECT TYPE%'Siibdivsioh AZar~na Expansion '~ E~~IT TI'PE: CAAZA COE #f: NIA DOT~I: N/A RCD FROT'I CPA: DCi\7 DATE FR01\Z CDA: AZarch 2, 1998 REG OFFICE: ~i'iR0 RIVER AND SUB BASII~'~: 030624 *STREAM OR ADJACENT WATER BODY: AIW\'J/ Canal for Marina CLASS: SA STREAr1 Il~'DEX #/: 15-87-(30. WOPEN OR CLOSED: Open (AIWW) Closed (marina) ~~'L I1~TPACT: Yes (0.23 ac) • ~'t'L TYFE: 1\T/A «'L REQUESTED: I~'one «'I., ACR EST: No Z'4'L SCORE: N/A >\7ITIGATION: i\'/A 117ITIGATION TI'PE: N/A AIITIGATIO\' SIZE: N/A RATII~'G SHEET ATTACHED?: NIA RECOA'Il~'IENDATION: ISSUE CONDITIONAL ON S/D AND DENT' 11'IAIZII~TA EXPANSION STORMWATER PLAN REQ'D: Yes IF YES, DATE APPROVED: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants propose to develop Phase III of the Inlet point S/D, consisting of ]9 single family lots, with street utility construction. An additional 16 boat slips are proposed within the existing common dock easement of the existi.ag marina basin, to provide water access for the Phase III property owners. 'C'ATER QUALITY CERT. (4011 CERT. REQ'D: Yes IF YES, TYPE: General Certification ~ 3112 for CAMA Permits SE~'C'AGE DISPOSAL TYPE OF DISPOSAL PROPOSED: N/A TO BE PERNfITTED BY: N/A IF B1' DWQ, IS SITE A\'AILABLE AND PERI\~IT ISSUANCE PROBABLE: N/A ~`'A TER /«'ETLA?~'D -FILL AREA OF FILL - WATER: N/A WETLAND: 0.23 ac ]S FILL ELI1\~INATING A SIGNIFICANT USE? No DREDGII~'G IS DREDGING ACTIVITY EXPECTED TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS . OF RESOURCE? N/A IS SPOIL DISPOSAL ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? N/A 2c 9S0196.mar Pale Two \f Ri ' ARE THE FOLLOWING ADEQUATELY. ADDRESSED? SEWAGE DISPOSAL: N/A 1`~ARLNA SERVICES:, N/A OXYGEN IN BASIN: N/A CLOSURE OF SHELLFISHING WATERS: N/A (ATTACH A MARINA USE ATTAINABILITY EVAL.) ItEC01\'II~~IEl\'nEI) CONnITIONS OR PERZ\7IT RESTRICTTOI\'S• This office would like to have the applicant apply for all the wetland fill necessary for this project up front. The on-site visit conducted on 3/18/98 showed that all the small «~etlands on the project have already been mucked and or filled for a total of 0.23 ac. Lot # 14 will need additional fill in order for it to be buildable. The office,would like for the applicant to.request the additional amount necessary for Lot #14 aid then place the remaining wetlands on Lots # 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 & 19 in a deed notification/conservation easement. Tlus office has consulted with the Office of'Shellfish Sanitation and has been informed that with the amount of additional boat slips applied for will cause additional closing of SA waters. This office proposes to deny this portion of the permit, unless some reasonable solution is found to prevent any additional clost-ra of SA «-aters. That the project be done in such a manner so as to not cause turbidity outside the immediate constn-ction area to exceed 25 NTU. cc: Central Files -,John Dorney Wilmington Regional Office Files DCI`'I-Ed Brooks 26 GENERAL COMMENTS Pfoject:c ~ ~ ~~~'~~~ fie applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C 0.0300 et. seq.). For informafion, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)733- 2460. fits project will be classified as anon-community public water supply and must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more informafion, the applicant should contact the Public Water upply Section, (919)_ 733-2321. t_ If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish.. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section, (919)726-6827. Cumulative impacts from this type of project could cause deterioration in water quality. The proposed project would increase impervious surfaces and alter natura! drainage patterns. fiere would be a loss of natural vegetation causing an increase in stormwater runoff which could jeopardize the open status of adjacent waters. For more information, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (919)726-6827: fie subject project is located in an area open to shellfish harvesting. fie 10-slip dock, as proposed, would not cause closure in accordance with 15A NCAC 18A MARINAS: DOCKING FACILITIES: OTHER MOORING AREAS; however, dockage at the facility could exceed 10 boats. If this was to occur, closure would be recommended in accordance with DEH rules. For information .regarding shellfish sanitation, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (919)726-6827. . Proliferation of these type facilities could cause deterioration in water qualify and consequently additional closures of shellfishing waters. For more information, the applicant should contact the Shellfish 'Sanitation Section at (919)726-6827. The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem. For informatidn concerning appropriate mosquito breeding measure, the applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919)726-8970. fie applicant should also contact with Mosquito Control in County at This is a mosquito breeding area. Construction plans and operations should include awareness of this: fie applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management at (919)726-8970 for a site visit or information tc.'he!p revent the creafion of more mosquito habitat. _ ('/ ~~~ ) , fie applicant should contact cJ `~~~~1/ with Mosquito Control in .JG~c County at The applicant should be advised that this area is a mosquito infested habitat. Mosquito control will be a problem. The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Manaaement Section, (919)733-6407. The applicant should be advised to contact the .local health department regarding their requirements for sepr~c tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et.seq.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at (919)733-2895. The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the sanitary facilities required for this .project. ~ ~ . The applicant should work with the local health department to assure that plans for the food servi ablishment are ap ro ed prior to c nstruction. ~~ Reviewer: Date: ~j2 7 I g ` Q~-0~ State of Ivortn ~aro--na Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Wilmington Regional Office Division of Marine Fisheries James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Wayne McDevitt, Secretary Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director March 18, 19.98 ~r "; ~ /~ .,.-~.,- ~~ ~EHNF~ TO: John Parker FROM: Fritz Rohde SUBJECT: Inlet Point The Division of Marine~Fisheries approves of this project as long as there is no additional closure of shellfish waters outside the basin in Myrtle Grove Sound. 28 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone 910.-395-3900 • Fax 910-350-2004 - An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer PETITION SUMMARY SHEET .Petition Number: s~430 _ Owner: Kathleen Buffkin Representative;- same C'~mmi,ni t Rc~ati n N/A Request: ~ q Acreage: Tax TD Number: 8500 Location: Inlet Point harbor ' L.A,ND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES Land Classification: Conservation Existing Land Use: ~ Boat Channel Zoning $istory: ~' Area originally zoned 4,/i ~,/~a Water Type• Private community Sewer Type' p,-; ~~a+P rnmmnr~ i +,, Snows Cut Dark Fire District: RP~Pra i Pni nt RccreAtion: Road Access: Private 'Volume: ~-SILL- _ School District: N/A BoatincLFac-i 7 Lt=z _ MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ~'Yatershed andWater Quality Classification: Adjacent to '~Ivrtle Grove Sound (SA) Aquifer Recharge Area: N/A None Conservation Resources: $istoric Landmarks and Archeological Sites: None N/A: _~Ian-made canal Soil Type{s) and Class: Septic Tank SuitAbility: N/A: Community sewer ' Prime AgricµlturAl Soils: N/A Building SuitAbility: _ 6~Tater dependent ~GP - - - This page intentionally left blank 30 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 10.2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: D. Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Item 2: Rezoning, continued item, plan revised (Z-635, 9/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by William Alexander to rezone 3.15 acres at the southwest corner fo Alexander Road and US. Hwy 17 south of Brickstone Estates to Conditional Use Office and Institution from R-15 Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends Conditional Use Office and Institution and Conditional Use B-2 Business. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 7 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AF~~C~~l~i~ '1`/,~c E~L.t~G t ~D~ Rfw` ~'!ED ~` Futi~,-~n~~o © ~ 31 F~ch~l; .o N I?~TC~1'~,..~~`_~....tl. ITEM 2 REZONING CASE: Z-635, 9/98; Applicant: William Alexander REQUEST: R-15 to B-2: Initial Request; Modified to CD(O-I) ACREAGE: 3.15 LOCATION: Northwest corner of US 17 and Alexander Road, south of Brickstone Estates LAND CLASS: RURAL- Encourages low density residential development not to exceed 2.5 units per acre where urban services cannot be economically provided. Commercial uses are not specifically addressed. Industry, agriculture, forestry and mineral extraction are suitable for isolated rural locations. NOTE: This item appeared on the Planning Board's September 3, .1998 agenda but was tabled for 30 days to give the petitioner time to submit a revised application under conditional use guidelines. Subsequent to that directive the application was revised to Conditional Use B-2 Business. The site plan included 3 one-story buildings totaling 22,250 square feet. Specific uses were not listed. In November the Board of County Commissioners voted to table a decision on the proposal until its December meeting. In the interim, the applicant was instructed to revise the site plan. A revised site plan has been prepared. Instead of the CD(B-2) and CD(O-I) recommended by the Planning Board, the revised plan calls for rezoning the site to Conditional Use Office and Institution and to permit all uses now permitted in the O-I District. No changes are proposed concerning the number, square feet and orientation of buildings. Planning Board Summary The Board voted unanimously to approve the revised application with the following modifications: -The site be rezoned Conditional Use B-2 and Conditional Use 0-I. The CD(B-2) area was confined to the northeast corner of the tract measuring 240 feet in depth and 140 feet of frontage along Market Street. Land use was in the CD(B-2) area restricted to a "sit-down" style of restaurant. Fast food and drive-thnus were prohibited. The balance of the tract was rezoned to CD(O-I) with a prohibition that no retail be allowed. -A planned entrance along Alexander was eliminated. -The proposed, buffer along the western perimeter was extended to include the area adjacent to the retention pond. It was also stipulated that the perimeter vegetation be retained in its natural state to enhance the required buffers. ar r- :;;n~ ;~::yi"5"4~ ,~-:~ t -~:, Several property `owners from nearbyGBnckstone Estates as well as others owning property in the area told the Board that open=ended~B4°2~zoning wouldn't be acceptable due to the range of incompatible uses the district permitted. ~TheySnoted~ concerns about property value decline, non-residential traffic on ~. ~~.,r....~,~ loll eets, the safety of children'in the~neighborhood, the loss of privacy and related issues as reasons fo 0 osng open-ended c©mmercial zoning. While they generally supported conditional use zoning, there was a consensus amorig them~"thaf`the site should be limited to general and professional offices and could raise issues of fairness and equity. The outlook for this road corridor appears bleak. The pattern already set in motion increases expectations for owners of similarly situated property to expect similar consideration. However, meeting those expectations while towing the line on the Land Use Plan will make compromise difficult. A new set of strategies is probably needed. The County has two basic options. One, it can rezone the property based on its proximity to similar zoning and its lost appeal for residential use and rely on existing standards to mitigate the impacts it will have on residential uses to the north in Brickstone Estates and other adjacent residential uses. A variation of that approach would be to consider a petition under conditional use zoning. This would give the County greater control over site development and would allow for mitigation of land use conflicts with established residential uses along the Alexander Road entrance. Still another variation would be to rezone- only the frontage of the tract B-2 and provide a lesser intense zoning classification, like O-I along the rear of the tract. The other primary and wise option would to deny the request because it simply fails to meet Land Use Plan objectives. Concerns to be addressed in the conditional use site design include: -the necessity for an access to Alexander Road. -limitations on the type of B-2 use -the 65 feet of frontage on Alexander Road that projects into the adjacent neighborhood and the amount of buffering along that portion of property. • ~ 33 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 mr° accordance with a~comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on~.. 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? The property is located in a developing commercial corridor serviced by required public services Section 3.3.1 Commercial Development Policies-New Hanover County Land Classification Map 1993 2. How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classification Map? The property is located approximately one-half of a mile from a Limited Transition Zone and approximately two miles from an Urban Transition Zone. While much of the land within the rural classification remains i n residential or rural uses, the majority of uses fronting on U.S. 17 in this commercial corridor a re now highway oriented bus inesses. `~~\JJ 3. ~'Vhat 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? This corridor, U.S. 17 from the Gordon Road intersection north to the Port Neck Road intersection, has changed from a rural-residential character to one that is now clearly highway oriented business and service. The original zoning was based on the rural-residential character of the area; however, the majority of land uses fronting on U. 17 in this area are now commercial. Recent developments include two major Shopping centers, Ogden Commons and Porters Neck, and numerous other free-standing commercia uses. Examples include Porter's Neck Professional Center, Sophia West Florist, Azalea Coast Family Practice, New Hanover Medical Group, Pond View office condominiums, Davis Chiropractic, Wilco gas station, Market Street Center, a mini-warehouse, Marsh Oaks subdivision, Country Haven subdivision, and a proposed new Perkins Restaurant. The high traffic flow due to this development and the widening of U.S. 17 has resulted in significant environmental effects (noise, fumes, and unappealing views) that make the property unsuitable for uses within theR- In signing this petition, I understand that the extsting zontng 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 i accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. ~~ 3.4 ~L~N Signature of Petitioner and/or Owner other uses permitted by the O-I District. Staff Summary Over the years, this once predominantly residential stretch of Market Street has been replaced by a disjointed hodgepodge of commercial development and other non-residential uses. The waning interest in developing the remaining residential parcels along the road is most likely linked to the impacts of being in such close proximity to a major highway. Formerly a two lane facility with an intermittent passing lane, the highway has been transformed into a five lane urban thoroughfare with over 25,000 vehicles per day. Apparently, exposure to road noise and pollution from auto emissions have sharply diminished the appeal for dwellings along the road. Another factor contributing to the decline in appeal for the remaining residential frontage has been the encroachment of commercial uses in the area. Approximately 18 separate properties in the general area have been rezoned for commercial and office uses since 1984. This doesn't include existing commercial districts established when the original zoning for the area was adopted. These rezonings and subsequent development, though highly discouraged by the Land Use Plan, has given this land use pattern a firm presence in the area. Trends indicate similar changes are on the horizon, further eroding the county's efforts to curtail this highly undesirable development pattern. In nearly all similar requests, Staff has steadfastly opposed the rezonings for two primary reasons. One, the Land Use Plan specifically sets out guidelines for locating commercial uses by encouraging them. in areas along major roads at or near intersections with other major roads. The linear spread of commercial uses creates a land development pattern that is visually disruptive and impedes the efficient flow of traffic, something the adjoining highway was initially designed to provide. Factor in marginal design controls and the end product is strip commercial development at its worst. Another concern has • been the trying to limit similar expansions from encroaching into established residential areas. In some cases rezoning can create land use conflicts that are not easily mitigated. Changes in setback and buffer requirements have helped soften the blow, but they have not eliminated the on-going conflicts that are common when residential and commercial districts adjoin one another. Also, the adoption of Special Highway Overlay District zoning provided additional site controls, but those were aimed more at the visual integrity of the highway, not adjacent residential uses or traffic control. The inertia of strip commercial development throughout the County has severely weakened current policies aimed at controlling this land use pattern. The current land use plan update addresses that problem to some degree, but at this point it is not clearly known what direction that will take. Alternative development schemes are available as reflected in the subdivision design of the neighborhood on the north side of Alexander Road. Nearly all commercial requests along these roads usually involve smaller parcels that, due to their size, make the placement of one or only a few residential structures undesirable. Larger tracts of land are the exception, because they have adequate size and depth to address the negative impacts inherent along the road. Unfortunately for the County, most of the undeveloped parcels in these situations are relatively small, thus rezoning them has often been the approach used to permit their development. The more that get rezoned, the more difficult it is to reject similar requests. The easiest thing to do would be to deny the request because it fails to meet Land Use Plan policies for that type of land use. However, that approach doesn't take into account the realities of the existing and emerging land use pattern around the site. The property directly across the street is now zone Business and numerous B-2 and O-I Districts are located nearby. Ignoring those for the sake o icy PETITION SUMMARY SHEET Petition Number: Z-635 - Owner William Alexander ` Request: R-15 to B-2 Taa ID .Number: ~ ~ n n Blair LAND USE, Z4NIN.G, UTILITIES and SERVICES Rural Land Classification: - Ezisting Land Use: vacant _ Zoning History' ~' Area originally zoned Jul v 6 , l A 71 _ SPVAra l a eas nearby rezoned O-I, B-2 .and CD (B-2) in the last few years Water Typz: Community Fire District: oaden Road Acccss• US 17 (Market St. ) SCh001 District: Representative: John. Hooten Acreage: ~ 1 ~ Location: Market St . & Alexander Szwer Type' SPnt; ~- RccreAtion: _- ed.~e~ P~~-)~ Volume: MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL. CHARACTERISTICS Watershed andWater Quality Classification' Paaes Creek (SA .Primary Aquifer Recharge Area: Conservation Resource3: None Historic Landmarks and Archeological Sites: N~nP Soil Type(s) and Class.: Septic Tank.Suitability: Prime Agric4lturnl Solis: Kureb (Kr); Class I Few limits None uilding-Suitability: _ Few limits ~ ~ - 3~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 10.3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: D. Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Item 3: Special Use Permit, Continued Item, plan revised (S-435, 10198) 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. 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: COi?NTY COMMISStQf~E~S' _.__ APPROVED. D ~REJECTE~ ©; ~REMOVEQ [] POSTPONEa [fii`G` '; 37 HEARD /-7 ~ ~ 'DATE ~xf-(~ (~ --. ITEM 3 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. (S-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. 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 specia] 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 inust~find ~tha~t the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or €~~~ .~, ~r:.,~. n,a, abutting property or'that`th~e use is a public necessity. A. The nearest resi.dential,~structure is over 900 feet away. It is located on the same tract and r 38 owned by'the;`person who will be leasing the land to Gearon for the tower. ~~ ~,l t,bi ~ kCi.t"1 ~~ ~;~~;~~. ~+r; ~ 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. • ~ 39 GEARON COMMUNICATIONS ~ A DIVISION OF AMERICAN TOWER SYSTEMS.L.P. Wireless 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. Proposal 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/Design 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. 40 ~ 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 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. 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. 41 Co-location ATS/Gearon's busi~:ess 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 benefit of Gearon Communications' proposal is the alleviation of the proliferation of u~:necessary multiple towers within a con:munity. MeritslZoning Compliance The subject property s.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 for a Special Use Permit: 42 General Requirements 1. Tl:e Use will riot materially endanger tl:e public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan 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. The proposed use meets all required conditions and specifrcations 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 m 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. ~ 43 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 not 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 services are 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. Tl:e location and character. of tl:e use if developed accordir:g to tl:e plan gas submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general 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 L..,/ 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. 44 • AM E RI C AN T O W E R C O R P O R A T I O N 3016 HILLSBOROUGH STREET, SUITE 201, RALEIGH, NC 27607 OfEICE: 919-833-2301 fnx: 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, ~'~~ Richard C. Beesley Project Ma STATE OF I~TORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF (,~Q,,~~ I, J ' ,a~ll,~ P•'!.t)ea~le~l /c~, a Notary Public for~aia~ C-ounty and State, do hereby certify that i c1'1G~ Cl. • t3 test personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrumen . WITNESS my hand and official seal the ~ day of (~~'_ 199~i. Notary Public My Commission Expires: %~ '"I N ' a (St~D (NOTARY SEAL) 45 AMERICAN TOWER C O R P O R A T f O N 3016 f-fILLSBOR000H 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 (919) 833-2301. Sincerely, Kenneth Carter Site Acquisition Manager 46 1 J~ Ste'f . -t ~~ n~F~ T/ jt Ia :S~~b YTS- '.~ 1'7 1 _.. }~ r h~ jr ~y{~~1 ~F~"r ~~ yW~4 . ~•. j - _ u .%•.,, ~~. ~ '. q,,~'ai (rr~ / , 1~ R~ » ' i ~~ 4 - T '^"- r r, ~ x ~~ _ ~ .: it ~ ~~~~ ~ ( '~ ^ti ?t "t ~~~ ~ ~ \ ~' ~ ~:~ ?r ~ 4=~ ~~ J~:."~,1',i-'Srir~~~°',~+.~i'.c~-'a'L ~~TC,-~, D.C y1 ivd 'r i > ~ ~ y,-• - 1 ~~.i h,~ ry cry ~ ~. •., -,~ i /J ~~ 'y,F,~_Y} ~+rlY~~ ~ 13L~~'a> '~~ C ~7~ ~ a,I _ _ f~': 'Y[ '~ -+.~•aai~ ""~~~~--.rj S'~tL•~--r~"r '~-~~•rMi \\~i\fiy~/s(~i~ ~.~~f _ _ C Y ~ n ~ iv't -v,-~c'7 t-LS fit",/ `~f~r-.k~1=r~~~4•.. ~ a-'~~[,~ "' \~ ~C~ r~ ~ z- ~ .-fL. ,`r. I -~~c~~.+~-2' ~-f`a \~i, u•c,,.sf,~~„~jr;.i-s. ~_t +~~v+"' f' ~ di~ ~.~ L ~ *r~ ~ . ~: '"~- Y,. ~`~.>, X yi,• ;{f '~v~~rn0 ~~. ~ ~~~sr p~~F,~'.f ~~ '~- {i ~7-' •~I`^.~ ? .'t r•~ ~. - l ''2~ z>~r y fCy ~ pj o<..~ ~ - ~ '~ ~ r F ~ ~ .4 .'. r t r ,, ' M 5 ~ ~ 1 1. ~ ~ ~ t, !! ~} I 'fit ~r~'.~ ~~ -.~~flx c`r'X f i~TH~., ~`~7 • -y .. \ /_ -'.~ .3 ,;.Jr~Lz `-,,,_ .nti . t > 1 r-f•• +':'fN J.-~ .; ~` \, i ~ iI y h J Y' 7 1 s ` r 1. ~ ~. ~ ;t.~ ~ r J ~} ,~ t ~ r ~ l~ C i ^z.'• r \' ~> ~ i J % _ :~:: \ t 3 ~ 1 l / lv' - µ;Y~~ t t S :` t~rt~»;i .'~, e~~r~~ ~ ` i~ nA\' L ~ l l- l ~ ~ilt~~,~ )tv~it ` " c± aa~; r .~'t.i•.~~ 7 ~ ~t i .i1. ~ • 1 ;. .v ~ t; : ~~ t t `~~t~ t~ ::, r~ 'r.t S~ Z tl .'~. ~t t _r t`?i ~~ii 9F t~t ~ ~~ lZ~ ,..6 '~~ lV ,J,i •• ~ ~ ~•i y 1 11 ,r. i.; ~t~t t_~ y Mkt+~ 1 ..( ~ t ., \~!'1 ' •~,.r~a. `!~~f~.~y .` -; 1 ,S_ 1 t t ~L ~ ` _ 1 k t i ,'~ r ^ ^ -l. __ 1` gip: ,~ •,r ~ •~ _ ~~~~t•~ y ~.t1 1 S ;_i~`' r,~f(~ ~ ry ~` _ ti t ~ ~1\'r~.'i• `'f'• ~ r~~~_E'^nn,..i i ~ a ~~ it~ ~ i<i~'t .~t~y~ ~"~." ' '. ' :1, t \ ~~ t ~( e's~~+1 aria :~:16•: ' ~~'~~~;ti{f .~\ :i; ~ t { ~[ 1•: tf~ ~- C z ~ ~ { ` ) t ~~ ~'~ ~ 'AL`S L3'a 1~~ <•1'~{~i` • i. ~it~~.:~ ~~ t:IF~~ti~~7 t'f:?'S1i;=~ ~ ti ti t~' •` C`'.t;` il`I, 1~1^.. t., i ,.~' ~`--n~'\•:g7~'".•i'y ~ • '~ _ .' 'i, ~tr,w ~'°.~J$~ a~: .~ci:~~s:.~.~ •:~,- ~t - ~1`~.._ 1••r.,: •R•~tr• N ~~t~~ ~%.~,~7±i fy •:i ~~tt ,ma~y~ ~7! ~ v_~+c t~. -~~~ r1_ ~r.. ( L4.. •.1.;.. i..~-: L•y ~~... `•~~°`f-•. - ... :'L, '~ 'i.LiU!,~I.F`fl'.L~'. .a. •LU ... ~~..F .. _.'~ _.a !. ., ~ _~.f... ~'_:N.... `i'• `~/ ,x• ... .. .. PETITION SUMMARY SHEET 5-435. 10/98 Petition Number: ' Owner: Charles Clay Representative• Gearon Communicate Request• Communications Tower Taa ID Number: 4300 Acreage: N /A Location' I-40 and 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 19Rh -_-- Water Type: N/A Fire District: Wrightsboro Sewer Type' N/A (~ ~_J Recreation: T,ane~-Tna~k Gordon Rd. 19,828 ADT ('97 count Road Access: Volume: School District: Blount _ MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Watershed andWater Quality Classification• Smith Creek C (Sw) Aquifer Recharge Area• Transition between Primary ~, far-nn~a~~ arA~ Conservation Resources: None Historic Landmarks and Archeological Sites: None Soil Type(s) and Class: Baymeade (Be) 48 Septic Tank Suitability: N/A No sewer rec Prime Agricultural Soils: N/A - Building Suitability: _ Few limits ~ _ • • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 10.4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Contact: Pete Avery Presenter: D. Hayes SUBJECT: Item 4: Special Use Permit (S-436, 11/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Mason and Associates to construct a 45 unit elderly housing project and personal care facility at 6612 Gordon Road. The site is zoned R-15 Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends approval with conditions. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 8 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COMMIS .ONERS APPRO~I~D C REJ~C r i~D 0' Rc,t~,wcD ~ 49 PDST{'t3NED p' 1-iEARD( .DATE ..~:- ~ --~ ITEM 4 Special Use Permit -Request by Mason and Associates, L.L.C. to construct a personal care facility for the elderly consisting of 45 dwelling units. The site is located at 6612 Gordon Road. (5-436, 11/98) Note: The applicant proposes to construct nine (9) five (5) unit buildings designed to serve the elderly (age 55 and older) with incomes at 60% or less than the median county income. In addition to providing housing for this segment of the market, the applicant plans to provide health maintenance services, including personal care services on a periodic basis. The project includes the construction of a small building to house a resident manager and personal care headquarters. A parish nurse will be provided for counseling and other community health issues. Planning Board Summary The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application subject to the following conditions. The conditions were included in part to address concerns raised by property owners in Weatherwood and by the Planning Staff. - that personal care services provided on-site not be restricted to any one age group. - that the site identification be limited to a 12 square foot ground sign. - that night lighting be directional to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. - that a security fence be erected around the storm retention pond planned for the site. - that the natural vegetation along the site's perimeter adjacent to Weatherwood be left undisturbed and supplemented by additional plantings as needed. Also, fencing be incorporated into the buffer scheme to prevent pedestrian access to and from the Weatherwood Subdivision. - that an alternative project name be provided. - that turn lanes and related improvement be made pursuant to NCDOT approval. Public comment came entirely from property owners in Weatherwood. They noted that drainage in the area is relatively poor now and the additional impervious surfaces created by construction of the personal care facility would make matters worse. Concerns were also raised about children wandering onto the property and falling into the planned drainage pond or wandering out to heavily traveled Gordon Road. They also felt the facility would add to the traffic woes of Gordon Road. 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 is located in an area where public sewer and community water services are readily availatil'e~:~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ,~.,~ v...,.,~. ~ B. The site is lo~ca wed ~~n,.the O den VFD District. ~~yy g `t~! .. M l.~t~i C. The property had drect~a5 cess to Gordon Road. ~,ia L~1 ~. 'F 2.50The Board~mYust~-find~-that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the ~ ~~' Zoning Ordinance. A. Personal care facilities and similar facilities are permitted by special use permit in the R-15 Residential District. The property is zoned R-15. B. The minimum lot size for this type facility is 2.0 acres. The site contains 5.66 acres. C. The minimum required front, side and rear yards are met. D. Approximately 78 parking spaces are provided. The minimum requirement is one space per bed .and one for each employee on the greatest shift. The applicant plans 23 units with two bedrooms and 22 units with one bedroom. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. The property is currently being used as a mobile home park. (Big W) B. Property to the south includes Weatherwood, a performance residential development, and Dutch Square, an industrial park. Land to the north includes Famngton Farms Subdivision, a "you pick" strawberry farm, Eaton Elementary school and Cape Harbor Apartments. 4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The primary land development pattern is single family residential, but farming activities, (U-pic strawberries) educational uses, public recreation, high density residential and industrial uses are located in the area. Concerns and Comments 1. Perimeter vegetation along the south side of the tract adjacent to Weatherwood is thick and mature. This be left undisturbed(width to be determined). 2. Require turn lanes and deceleration lanes subject to NCDOT approval. 3. Limit on-site night lighting to directional styles and forms. 4. Limit site identification to a 12 square foot ground sign. 5. The project name is aduplication--there is Magnolia Plantation in the southern part of the County. ~ 51 Proiect Narrative MAGNQLIA. PLACE ;Magnolia Place will be a development designed to serve the elderly population (age 55 and older) in New Hanover County with incomes at 60% or less of the median county. income. This means that the current maximum housing expense would be $464 for aone-bedroom unit and $558 for atwo-bedroom, including utilities. Energy-efficient unit design with heat pumps will be an integral part of the development. O~vtler-provided tenant transportation will be provided on a regular basis to the nearby shoppinb and service areas. knowing that wellness and having affordable, decent and safe housing are essential to the quality of the lives of the elderly, the developers will be providing health maintenance services and exercise areas for their tenants who will li~~e in lorry-five (45) residences at Magnolia Place. On- site personal care services will be delivered on a periodic basis by experienced professionals. These personal care services will be available to independent elderly tenants through a "parish nurse" program. The `'parish nurse" will be a resource person who will function as a health educator, health care counselor, an organizer of health support groups and a liaison with hospital, community clinics and agencies. T}te forty-five (45) one and two-bedroom units will be equipped to serve the independent elderly with features such as: all space on one level, 3' wide interior doors and enabling'and stabilizing hardware where needed and very convenient off-street parking. Proposed Location: The site of the IIig W Mobile Home Park. 6612 Gordon Road, Wilmington Developers: Larry F. Dempsey, Jonathan 1.. Mason & William L. Wood (all are longtime residents and business owners in New l-lano~~er County) 52 PETITION SUMMARY SHEET • Petition Number: S-4 36 , 11/9 8 Qwner: Alice Wood Request' Personal Care Facility Taz 1!D Number: - 3153, 4360 Representative: Mason ~ Assoc. Acreage: 5.6 6 Location: 6112 Gordon Rd . L~4ND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES • Land Classification: Urban Transition Existing Land Use: ~ Mobile Home Park Zoning History: Ar a oricrina 1y ion ~ ,-r„i ~r ~ Q?~ Water Type: Fire District: Community Ogden Road Access: Gordon Rd . School District: Blair Sewer Type• County Recreation: Ogden Park Volume: ~ 6 .0 4 8 ADT ' 9 7 MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Smith Creek C (Sw) Watershed andWater Quality Classification' Aquifer Recharge Area: Primary Conservation Resources: None Historic Landmarks and Archeological Site: N~nP - Soi] Type(s) and Class: Primarily Leon (Le) : Class III Septic Tank Suitability: N/A County sewer Prime Agricµltursil Soils: None $uilding Suitability: _ Smo 1 i m, ~ c~nP trLwetr}c~ss ~~ 't~Vhat You Must Establish For A Special Use Permit Authority to grant a Special Use Permit is contained in the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to section 71. The Zoning Ordinance imposes the following General Requirements on the use requested by the applicant. Under each requirement, the applicant should explain, with reference to attached plans, whcrc applicable, how the i~roposed use satisfies these requirements: (Attach additional pages if necessary) General Requirement #1 The Board must find "that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located whcrc pro- posed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved." Statement by Applicant: The project is located off Gordon Road (S.R. 1337), a public right-of--way. Driveway access will be coordinated with the Dept. of Transportation. Adequate sight distancs will_be provided as required. Services by County sewer and community water systems are available. The property is located in the Ogden VFD district. General Requirement #2 The Board must find "that the. use meets all required conditions and specifications" of the Zoning,Ordinance." Statement by Applicant: The layout and esign of the project has been completed with reference to all of the conditions and specifications of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. Detailed plans must be reviewed and approved by all of the individual agencies prior to any construction. General Requirement#3 The Board must find "that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or th~!t the use is a public necessity." Statement by Applicant: The adjacent properties have residential uses. The one-story, one and two-bedroom units proposed in this project are also residential in nature and provide a relatively low impact use. The provisions of landscape screening, bufferyards and internal plantings assure minimal effect on adjacent properties and aesthetic quality of life for the residents. General Reyuirement #4 The Board must find "that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as suhmitted :lnd approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County." Statement by Applicant: The land use plan for this area defines it as "urban transition," with density dependent on public services. This project layout minimizes impervious surfaces, provides for on- site stormwater management and utilizes the existing site features as much as possible. The Zoning Ordinance in some instances, also imposes additional specific reyuirements nn the use requested by t}ic applicant.'I'he applicant should be prepared to demonstrate that the proposed use will comply with each specific requirement found in section 72 , (as applicable). He/She should also demonstrate that the land hill ~i? llsed In 1 tn:!n^... .. ....,.Ca .:I .. Y ..,.o a^.. ~... 7Ci::S Gf ;'~e + iiaiOVCi C.G iirii)'. t uc i~u:u'u Vf 1.U1;11nIS- sioncrs may impose additional conditions and resn~ictions that they deem appropriate prior to the issuing of the Special Use Permit. I certify that all of the information presented in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, informa- tion, and belief. 54 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 10.5 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Contact: Pete Avery Presenter: D. Hayes SUBJECT: Item 5: Rezoning (S-436, 11/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by E. W. Merritt, Jr. to rezone 15 acres along SR 1300 (International Paper Company Road) and south of U.S.S. N.C. Battleship Road to B-2 Business from I-2 Heavy Industrial. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends approval along with adjacent property. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: . 5 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: CpURTY C(J2JIIViIS~, NERS ~,,._,.,~-~ J ~~.:~ _ i cD O' • RE::°C~'ED FOS i PONED ~'' ~ 55 HEARD 2 ~ DATE :~ _ -~- -~ ITEM 5 REZONING CASE: REQUEST: ACREAGE: 15 LOCATION: X639, 11/98; Applicant: E.W. Merritt, Jr. I-2 to B-2 SR 1300, International Paper Company Road LAND CLASS: Conservation- Provides for effective long-term management of marsh lands and land within the 100 year floodplain. Exceptionally designed projects on relatively high ground, shared industrial access corridors and water dependent uses are preferred. Residential density should not exceed 2.5 units per acre. . Planning Board Summary The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the petition as submitted and to incorporate Staff's suggestion that Parcel B also be rezoned to B-2 to avoid isolating it from the primary I-2 Heavy Industrial District to the west. There was no public comment except that provided by the petitioner. Staff Summary The subject property is located along SR1300, International Paper Company Road just south of the USS Battleship North Carolina Memorial. The battleship memorial is zoned B-2 and is part of a larger B-2 District that was established in July 1972. The current zoning for the subject property was also established at the same time. While the.Land Use Plan encourages the placement of commercial districts along major highways at or near intersections with other major roads, the presence of B-2 zoning to the north for the . battleship property, the absence of residential concerns, and the widespread industrial zoning nearby indicate that the site is suitable for commercial zoning. One negative aspect of this change is the absence of urban services, particularly sewer. The provision of urban services would make development feasible, where now it will remain limited regardless of the zoning classification. Also, the application excludes the parcel in the southeast corner of SR 1300 and U.S.S. Battleship Road, essentially isolating it from other I-2 zoned property. Should the county rezone the property in this petition, it should also include the other parcel too. This would eliminate its isolation and make it more consistent with the zoning pattern for the area. Land to the south and west is located in neighboring Brunswick County. It is zoned HM Heavy Manufacturing, which permits a variety of industrial uses including fabrication and manufacturing, commer~~c3ial services, storage, repair and related uses. The subject property not discussed in detail in the Cape Fear River Corridor Plan. However, according to the~Wilmirtgtor~ Vision 2020: Downtown Plan, it should be developed in conjunction with improvemen~t+s any ' expa ions suggested for the park area surrounding the battleship. The tus is to encourage~,more~recreation opportunities. This plan also encourages maintenance of (~ , ` v`J extensive wetlands that are abundant in the general area. While the long term use of this property is envisioned to be recreation and open space linked to battleship park, the site is already zoned I-2. With that in mind, it probably doesn't whether the property is changed to business. The property could become a prime candidate for acquisition and/or conservation efforts. ~ 57 WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE ZONING OF PROPERTY Your intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on a Land Use Plan, you must explain in the space below 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 Develop!nent? The development would create negligible adverse impacts to the estaurine system. The development is in an area transitiioning to commercial uses. The area is practical for expanded commercial growth. The area is, effectively part of the downtown Wilmington Central Business District, a district which allows commercial uses. Rezoning to B-2 will make the zoning compatible with existing zoning on the western shore of the Cape Fear River, across from Wilmington's Central Business District. I-1 uses are no longer compatible in this area. 2. How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classification Map? . The land is zoned I-1 (Industrial District). The Land Classifica- tion map identifies the subject as Conservation". The land mass on the subject is high compared to other similar riverfront parcels. Development on this land would cause negligible adverse effects on the estaurine system. No buildings are proposed to be constructed within the AEC. The land was formerly a part of the City of Wilmington, originally designed as an urban location. Another significant tract of formerly I-1 zoned land on the west side of the river to the north, has been zoned B-2. 3. 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? Much of the land on the western shore of the Cape Fear River, between the two brid~'~, was originally planned for urban level development. When that d'd not occur, the land was used for industrial purposes. In h~e past 30 years, those industrial uses have ceased to exist, replaced by the development of the Battle- ship North Carolina Memorial and a new commercial marina, hotel, restaurant, and retail/residential complex. It is clear that commercial development is the appropriate approach to take on this land. In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be correct and that I have t]tie 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. 58 Signature of Petitioner and/or O~ _ PETITION SUMMARY SHEET • Petition Number: ~-6 39 , 11/9 8 Rick Wommack Representative: E. W. Merritt, Jr. Qwn er: Request' z-2 to B-2 Acreage: 15 Taz ID Number: ~~~o Location: ~R i ~~o L,4ND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES ' • Land Classification: Conservation Existing Land Use: ~ Vacant Zoning History: Area originally zoned July 1972 Water Type:. Community Fire District: North Wilmington Road Access: SR .1300 School District: Alderman Sewer. ~iype• Septic Riverwalk Recreation: Volume: Unknown MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS .Watershed. andWater Quality Classification' Cape Fear River C (Sw) Aquifer Recharge Area: Chiefly a discharge area Conservation Rcsource3: 100 year Flood P1 a i n Historic Landmarks and Archeological Sites: None -Soil Type(s) and Class: Not classified Septic Tank Suitstbility: unknown Prime Agricµlturn] Soils: Unknown . Building SuitAbitity: _ Unknown - ~1~_ This page intentionally left blank 60 _ ~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION .Meeting Date: 12/07/98. Regular Item #: 10.6 Estimated Time: Page Number: . . Department: Planning Presenter: D. Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Item 6: Rezoning (Z-639, 11/98) plan expiration BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by New Hanover County to rezone 2.2 acres at Mendenhall Drive and US Hwy 17 to R-15 Residential from Conditional Use B-2 Business, Retail Nursery. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends approval FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 4 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW _COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COP~NIIS. IOfVER$; . APPRCIVcD i ,RE.1t..GSCD O !~ ~ =R~~iOVED O .F0.5 i Ft7NED ^ ~ 61 _ HEARDl~ m. - `. DATE' .....~.~ _ ~ _e ° ~ _ ... ITEM 6 REZONING; Conditional Use Plan Expiration CASE: ~-569, 6/96; Applicant: New Hanover County REQUEST: CD(B-2), Retail Nursery to R-15 Residential ACREAGE: 2.2 LOCATION: Mendenhall Drive and US 17, southwest corner NOTE: Pursuant to section 59.7-6, Staff is required to initiate a petition to revoke a special use permit and to simultaneously. rezone a conditional use district back to its original classification if a building permit for the approved use(s) .has not,been obtained within 24 months of the date of approval. The rezoning for this property was approved on July 1, 1996 and a building permit for the approved uses was not obtained on or before July 1, 1998. Planning Board Summary ` The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend that the property be rezoned back to its original R-15 Residential classification. The Board noted that the lack of activity since the original approval and the fact the owner still didn't have definitive plans to develop the property was evidence enough the rezoning was appropriate. Some discussion ensued concerning granting a six month extension, but that was ruled out because the plan had already expired. In its concluding remarks, the Board said that future rezoning for this site should only be considered when the owner had firm development plans for the land. There was no public comment except that provided by the applicant. BACKGROUND The Planning Board voted 5 to 1 to recommend approval of the petition in 1996 sub}ect to the following conditions: - That the access to Mendenhall Drive be divided into a entrance and exit divided by a 6 foot fence high solid fence. - An additional 6 foot high solid fence be installed along the south side of Mendenhall Drive west of the entrance up to the western property line. - Provision of an entrance/exit sign at the driveway on Market Street. - That the parking area adjacent to Mendenhall Drive be relocated to south side of the planned office~buil~dAng. - Tliat~t Tafficrentering.fr~om the Market Street entrance be routed to the rear of the proposed i?` T • a raoea •-mow w office buil'ding~for~.exit~at Mendenhall Drive. - Provision~of low i~inp'act directional lighting. .... 62 ~ Complia ce wrth_ all other applicable zoning regulations. ,; ~ ~,~~ ~ ~ ,.o- ~, ~ ~ ~-l '~ :~ r~~ ;, ~:; r ~ .. - The New Hanover Board of County Commissioners approved the plan as modified July 1, 1996. Staff Comments The fact that no building permit was ever issued indicates that the rezoning approved in 1996 may have been premature. While there have been similar rezonings along this stretch of Market Street, which lead to development of those properties for non-residential purposes, that is not ample evidence that the subject parcel should retain anon-residential classification. In fact, interior portions along both side of the Mendenhall Drive entrance still have some potential for residential use, especially the rental market. Staff recommends the property be rezoned back to its original R-15 classification. c: ~ 63 This page intentionally left blank 64 L NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 10.7 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Contact:. Pete Avery Presenter: D. Hayes SUBJECT: Item 7: Rezoning (Z-640, 11/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by the trustees of Cape Fear Community College to rezone 142.5 acres on the south side of Sidbury Road and east of Pumpkin Creek Estates to O-I Office and Institution from R-15 Residential, I-1 Industrial, B-1 Business and conditional Use I-1 Industrial. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends approval. .FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 5 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: cou~vrr caU~~-s~rosvE~s. .~API=ROVED !RE!CCTED REhPOVCD •C{! PtlST~ONED 'p. 'HEARD Z {]~ L't'~ ITEM 7 REZONING CASE: REQUEST: ACREAGE: LOCATION: X640, 11/98; Applicant: Trustees of Cape Fear Community College R-15, CD(I-1), I-1 and B-1 to O-I 142.5 South side of Sidbury Road and east of Pumpkin Creek Estates LAND CLASS- Resource Protection: Encourages low density residential development not to exceed 2.5 units per acre. Non-residential development is= permitted provided important natural resources are not impacted. Planning Board Summary The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the petition as submitted. In reaching their decision, the Board noted the requested change promoted less intense land uses than what was permitted by right under the existing designations. They also noted the change would be consistent with the Land Use Plan and offered better protection to nearby residential uses. One citizen spoke in opposition. He told the Board that rezoning the site would jeopardize the preservation of extensive wetlands he claimed that existed on the site. The scope of those wetlands was refuted by the applicant. He stated a Corps of Engineers' survey indicated only a small area of wetlands was present, and not significant enough to interfere with future development of the tract. Staff Summary Recently these properties were purchased by Cape Fear Community College for the future construction of a satellite campus serving the northern part of the County as well as counties to the north. However, the current zoning classifications do not permit colleges and university facilities, resulting in CFCC to request rezoning the land to accommodate their planned uses. As noted above, the properties have multiple zoning classifications. These include: B-1 (established in 1982); R-15 (part of original zoning); I-1 (established in 1994) and, CD(I-1) for an industrial park (established in 1994). The conditional use industrial district is null and void because no building permit was issued during the initial 24 month validity period and no efforts were made by the owners to extend the approval period. The other parcels are mostly undeveloped, except a single residence, a small commercial services facility and a communications tower. Based on the-Cbunty~s previous willingness to rezone the subject properties for industrial and . cry ~o^ business purposes, it only~seems logical that a lesser intense non-residential classification, suc as O-I would be equally suitable=for the area. The 0-I District probably offers the best alternative {c~E t~-rnr~~., establishing aland„use'~transition in the area, especially adjacent to Pumpkin Creek ~,.~,..~ ~~,~ ~ .~,~ a ~. Wry subdivision. The existing conditional use industrial district adjacent to this subdivision provides some protection as a result of required buffer yards and setbacks, but probably to a lesser extent than O-I would the wider range of incompatible uses allowed in industrial districts. The greatest impact on existing and surrounding land uses will be the construction of the Wilmington By-pass and a major interchange at I-40. The by-pass and interchange borders the subject property to the south. That new road and the limited density permitted in the area serve to heighten the appeal to develop these properties for non-residential use. That lack of appeal is evident in the absence of requests over the years to develop housing there. Even the advent of sewer and water in neighboring Northchase wasn't enough to spur interest. Given the general reduction in potential development intensity, the fact the O-I District is more suited for meeting transitional land use needs and is more compatible with existing residential land uses, and the diminished appeal for residential development due to the impending By-pass, the rezoning is probably more appropriate for this land. Even though the application is not conditional use, the fact that CFCC bought the land (actually condemned some of it) indicates that a college related use will be made of the property. Staff recommends approval. • ~ 67 WHAT YOU MUST ESTABLISH TO GET A CHANGE ZONING OF PROPERTY Your intended use o.f 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: 1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development? The requested change is consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development in the following ways: First, Policy for Growth and Development ("PGD") 3.2(1) states that Office and Institutional development "shall be considered. appropriate land uses adjacent to residential development" - subject property is adjacent to residential. development; Cape Fear Community College provides demographically wide spread educational opportunities, consistent with PGD 3.9 (5); Cape Fear Community College provides technical education ,opportunities, consistent with PGD 3.4(11); Cape Fear Community College's faculty/students tend to arrive and depart during non-peak hours, consistent with PGD 3.2(2); in addition, Office and Institutional Zoning provides a nonindustrial buffer between nearby residential areas and the proposed I-40 bypass. 2. How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classification A~fap? The requested zone change is consistent with the properties classification on the Land Classification Map. The Resource Protection Land Classification "provides for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources. Residential density cannot exceed 2.5 units/acre." Office and Institutional zoning is a non-resource intensive land use, which provides for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources. In addition, the lack of residential use allows it to easily meet the density limit. 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? The proposed I-90 bypass bounds the subject property to the South and Southeast. The proposed zoning is more consistent with such close proximity to an interstate bypass than the current zoning. 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. Signature of Petitioner and/or Owner PETITION SUMMARY SHEET • .Petition Number: 2-640, 11/98 Owner: Cape Fear C. C. Representative: Same Request:- R-15. B-1 . I-1, cD (I-1) to Acreage: i 4~ _ 5 Taz ID Number: 2600 0-I Location: Sidbury & N. C. 132 LAND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES • Resource Protection Land Classification: Existing Land Use• ~ Mostly vacant; residential & commercial service Zoning $istory: ~' Area originally zoned June 1972. CD (I-1) & I-1 established Dec. 1994. B-1 established October _982. Water Typc: County Scwtr Tiyp~'- County Fire District: Castle Havne Recreation• Riverside & Trask Road Acccss: NC 13.2, Sidbury Rd. yolume• __Sidbury: 3100 ADT ' 97 NC 132: 9600 ADT School District: Johnson MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Watershed andWater Quality Classification• Prince George C (Sw) Aquifer Recharge Area: Transition between Primary ~. Sarnnr~ar~ Conservation Resources: May be some pocosins - not verified Historic Landmarks and Archeological Site: None Soil Type(s) and Class• Alurville (Mu) ; Torhunta (To) • Class III Septic Tank Suitability: Limits due to wPtnPSG Primc Agricµltura] Soils: None Building Suitability: _ Some limits due to w~ts~ess (;(~ _ This page intentionally left blank 70 • • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 10.8 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Contact: Pete Avery Presenter: D. Hayes SUBJECT: Item 8: Rezoning (Z-641, 11/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Arcelia Wicker for R. Britt to rezone .62 acres at 324 Greenville Avenue just southeast of Wrightsville Avenue to B-1 Business from R-15 Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The Planning Board recommends approval with modifications. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 6 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY COMMIS°~QNERS' AFrFOVED _. "FtEIEC i E~' iCl' ~R~~J'~G`JED aCl 'POSTFOIVED D! HEARD~1,l ~ ~ ~.~ ~. DATE..,..... » .~a~w ~ . 71 ITEM 8 REZONING CASE: REQUEST: ACREAGE: LOCATION: X641, 11/98; Applicant: Arcelia Wicker for R Britt R-15 to B-1 .62 324 Greenville Avenue. LAND CLASS: Urban Transition- Encourages more intense urban type development where public services are available. This includes higher density, commercial activities and related uses Planning Board Summary The Board voted to approve the petition with the added provision that the B-1 District line south of Greenville Avenue be realigned to follow property lines. In support of their decision, the Board noted that arranging the zoning boundary along property lines would, as Staff had noted, make it easier to administer land use regulations and tax valuations. They also. noted that the rezoning better defined the small neighborhood commercial node that has existed since the 1970's. There was no opposition. Staff Summary The existing B-1 District on the east side of Wrightsville Avenue was established on July 1, 1972, in part to accommodate some existing commercial uses that existed before zoning was adopted. The district was expanded to the northwest side of Wrightsville Avenue in 1975 to accommodate expansion plans for a nonconforming restaurant. An adjacent property owner to the east joined in the petition so the B-1 zone would comply with the two (2) acre minimum district requirement. Staff recommended denial in that case, noting the potential negative impacts on surrounding residential uses and the added traffic that would result from commercial activities. This area of the district is in the Phase I City of Wilmington annexation area. This side of the district was reduced in size in 1985 to accommodate the development of a residential lot in neighboring Surrey Downs Subdivision. The last expansion of the district occurred in 1977, this time extending the district along the southeast side of Wrightsville Avenue to eliminate a parcel from being split by a zoning district line. At the time, approximately 50 feet of the tract was zoned B-1 and the remainder of the parcel was zoned R-15. Presently, commercial uses located in the B-1 District include a small tavern, a convenience food store, a sc~,ub~~dive~shop,~a~d~an~~bandoned restaurant (formerly Bumto Bob's). The subject property; which is l'ocated'to~the east along Greenville Avenue and contiguous to the B-1 District is currently occupied by,~a ca6met shop. It is zoned R-15, except for the westernmost portion of the tract (40+/- foot stnp),.,~wllich is zoned B-1. ~' ~,~u~~v,~J .~ ~~~: As was the case in the 1977 rezoning, the owner is requesting the entire parcel be included in the B-1 District. It is not uncommon for parcels to be split by competing zoning districts. This is especially true for commercial districts where arbitrary lines are drawn at varying depths parallel to road right-of--ways. When this method is used, property lines are disregarded, leaving many properties split by zoning boundaries. If depths are adequate, development opportunities remain viable. However, problems are created. One major problem is split zones make it more difficult to administer land use and zoning regulations. Another problem is these situations make it harder to establish accurate values for tax purposes. In similar situations, Staff has recommended the zoning line be moved to eliminate the split. Another problem is the split may make it more difficult to develop a parcel. In some cases, it might prevent development all together. Because only a small portion of the subject property is now zoned B-l, it would be far easier to rezone the parcel to R-15. The existing cabinet shop would not be affected one way or the other because it would be nonconforming under B-1 or R-15 zoning. On the other hand, the cabinet shop presents challenges for retrofitting if developed under R-15 zoning because non-residential use options are limited. Also, the low residential density permitted in the area (2.5 units per acre) all but rules out conversion into apartments or some other form of rental housing. Rezoning the entire tract to B-1 would offer more development opportunities to the owner and of course would eliminate the split zoning boundary. However, it would be very difficult to gauge the consequences of that action because the petition is for general use B-1 and for now the planned use isn't known. Some of the uses commonly permitted in B-1 could be of great benefit . to the surrounding residential area by providing essential everyday services and eliminating long trips to other commercial areas in the county. An alternative might be to consider conditional use zoning. This would enable the County to better gauge impacts and to ensure the planned use is consistent with surrounding land uses. Not knowing what the planned use(s) will be and if they are compatible with the existing land use pattern is a concern. This approval might also lead to similar requests along Greenville Avenue. The Land Use Plan doesn't clearly define the size of commercial nodes, but it does make it clear that strip commercial development and encroachment into residential areas should be avoided. Greenville Avenue is a small collector road dominated by residential development and expansion of commercial zoning too far from the intersection could seriously erode the character of the area. The overall shape of the district is problematic too because it splits other parcels as well. The area fronting the southeast side of Wrightsville Avenue south of the intersection should be modified; for many of the reasons noted earlier, to ensure the boundary follows property lines. The problem with this, however, is that moving the lines could reduce the district size to below the minimum two (2) acre minimum. Amore comprehensive approach would result in a realignment of the district at the intersection with perhaps a reduction in the old restaurant boundary. The changes, however, will probably be contingent upon the City's annexation plans. • For the sake of preventing further deterioration of the predominantly residential character of this area, Staff recommends denial unless a better alignment of the district boundaries can be ~~ determined. Conditional use would be an alternative, provided the planned use was in harmony with the area and it could be demonstrated that the use would be of benefit to the neighborhood. (~ 74 ~ PETITION SUMMARY SHEET .Petition Number: z-641, 11/98 Qwner: R. Britt Representative: A. Wicker Request: R-15 to B-1 Acreage: • 6 2 Tax ID Number: 5619 Location: 324 Greenville Ave . LAND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES Land Classification: Urban Transition Existing Land Use: -= Cabinet Shop Zoning History: Area originally zoned 'July 1, 1972. B-1 area . Water Type: Community Sewer Typz• County Fire District: _ Winter Park/College Par3R~reation: - 4~riahtsville Beach . Road Access: Greenville Ave . ,Volume: Unknown School District: Bradley Creek MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Watershed andWater Quality Classification' Bradley Creek (Sc) Aquifer Recharge Area: Fringe of Prinary Area Conservation Re3ources: None Historic Landmarks and Archeological Sites: None Soil Type(s) and Class: N/A: Developed Septic Tank Suitability: Developed Prime Agricµlturnl Soils: T~PVP~ ~T Pd Building Suitability: _ Developed _ ~T_ ATTACHMENT-REZONING APPLICATION 1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development? The requested change is consistent with the Commercial Development Policies: 3.3 (2) "The redevelopment of existing commercial nodes shall be encouraged through the use of flexible development standards and evaluation. This shall be the preferred method of commercial expansion;" and 3.3 (3) uncontrolled strip commercial development shall be avoided." The expansion of the B-1 Business District zoning at this Commercial node will allow for the redevelopment and expansion of this neighborhood shopping center to accommodate the rapid residential growth in this area. Moreover, the additional. B-1 zoned land at this location will allow for the expansion of this commercial node and discourage strip commercial development along Wrightsville Avenue. 2. How would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classification Map? The property is shown on the land classification map as "Developed" which is consistent with the B-1 zoning. The purpose of the B-1 Business District Classification "shall be to provide convenient shopping facilities and primarily of necessity goods and personal services required to serve a neighborhood." 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? Over the last ten years significant residential growth has occurred within a half mile radius of the requested rezoning including such developments as Wrightsville Green, Surrey Downs, Shell Road Village, Forest Cove and scattered new single family homes along Wrightsville Avenue, (over 600 new dwelling units). The commercial node is ideally located at the intersection of Wrightsville and Greenville Avenues to serve the neighborhood shopping and service needs of these residents. • . ~~~~ - ~ . ~ _ 1s 1 76 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 10.9 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: D. Hayes Contact: Pete Avery SUBJECT: Item 9: Rezoning (Z-642, 11/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by David Sneeden to rezone 1.03 acres at 6770 Gordon Road to B-2 Business from R-15 Residential. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The planning board recommends approval. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 5 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY' COMMIS~IONER$` APPR©VED G~ RCJECTED 0 'REi~:4~h_D 0 POSTPONE[? C]! j ~~ HEARD pf DATE :~ ~ ..,_.,..._„ ITEM 9 REZONING CASE: REQUEST: ACREAGE: LOCATION: X642, 11/98; Applicant: David Sneeden for Batuyios and Skandalakis R-15 to B-2 1.03 6770 Gordon Road LAND CLASS- Urban Transition- Encourages more intense urban type development where general public services, such as water and sewer, can be economically provided. Planning Board Summary With little discussion, the Board unanimously recommended approval of the petition as submitted. In support of the position, the Board noted the change would be consistent with the existing zoning pattern as well as the emerging land use pattern. There was no opposition. Staff Summary In the last twelve years or so, the county has approved approximately nine rezonings in the general area, converting residential properties into a variety of commercial, office and industrial uses and opportunities. These changes and subsequent development of many of the parcels have essentially isolated the few remaining residential properties with frontage along this stretch of Gordon Road. As a result, the residential appeal they once enjoyed years ago has sharply waned. This sentiment is underscored by the existing commercial uses already in place and the potential to further intensify non-residential uses along the road. The most intense non-residential use nearby is the General Rental Tool company next door. It was recently expanded, sharply increasing the floor space of the principal building and establishing a large storage yard immediately adjacent to the subject property. Another factor contributing to the site's diminished appeal under current zoning is its proximity to Gordon Road. Once a sleepy rural route, it has become a major road, providing a primary link between I-40 and US 17. Traffic volumes continue to steadily increase, making the road one of the most congested in the County, especially at peak morning and afternoon periods of the day. These volumes will likely remain constant or increase due to the rapid development of residential projects to the west, the continued growth of Dutch Square Industrial Park, the completion of Ogden Park and the presence of Eaton Elementary School. The main commercial node for this area is centered around the intersection of US 17(Market ;~~.vs~rF,~~. p~ rv~` . t-~~i ray Street) andcGordon`.Roadalthoug i over the last 10 to 15 years the node has been extended north and south along Market Street*and~west along Gordon Road. Expansions of the commercial district along Gordon Road-had~?p viously been guided by a desire to limit extensions to the now abandoned Seaboard~Coastline Railroad (SCL) right-of--way. Except for a slight extension of the District on the north side of°Gordon Road just beyond that right-of-way and the addition of a -~ ~ l~~t small 0-I district to the west, the county has consistently upheld that policy. Based on the count 's desire to limit the westward ex ansion of the Market Street/Gordon Road Y P commercial node, previous decisions for similarity situated property along this stretch of Gordon Road, and the site's apparent diminished appeal for development under current zoning, Staff recommends approval. C ~ 79 PETITION SUMMARY SHEET Petition Number: Z~642 ~ J Owner: - Skandalakis & Batuyious Representative: D. Sneeden Request: R-15 to B- 2 Acreage: 1.0 3 Taz TD Number: 4300 Location: L~4ND USE, ZONING, UTILITIES and SERVICES ' Land Classification: Urban ~ ansition Existing Land Use: ~ Residential Zoning History• Area originally zoned Aug . 19 71. B-2 in area expand in 1986, 1987, 1991, 1994 & 1995. ~O-I to west established Dec. 1994. Water Typt: community Fire District: Road Access: Ogden VFD Gordon Rd. Sewer Tiyp~' County Recreation: 6770 Gordon Rd. Odgen Park Volume: 16-, 048 ADT ' 97 (~ School District: Blair MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Watershed andWater Quality Classification• Smith Creek C (Sw) Primary Aquifer Recharge Area: Conservation Resources: None Historic Landmarks and Archeological Sites: None Soil Type(s) and Class: Developed Septic Tank Suitability: Developed PQQri~~me Agricµlturs~l Soils: Developed ~.t~Wing Suitability: _ Developed - NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING Z ~~ y Z APPLICATION FORM -~ r ~ PLEASE READ THOROUGHLY BEFORE COMPLETING Type or Print Only Please '~~ ~ STAfF USE ONLY Name of Petitioner Application No.;;=r; ~ :::;;. -~: ~, ~-;:;;:;~:-,?~.~: _ ;Zoning Area,;,: • •~ _- - David G. Sneeden -'' ,-~` - - - _ - _ Petitioner's Phone No. Date Address of Petitione r Zip Code (910) 251-9922 10/8/98 519 Market St., Wilmington, NC 28401 ame of Property Owner (if dillerent than Petitioner) Address of Property Owner Kay Skandalakis and Robert Batuyios 6865 Market Street, Wilmington, NC 2 Location of Property Tax Map Btock Parcel - 6770 Gordon Road, Wilmington, NC R04300 004 015-000 2840 014-000 Area of Property X ~ XX Exis ting Zoning Land Classification 1.03 Acres R-15 Transition Existing Use of Property Proposed Zoning Unimproved and vacant residential B-2 PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION Petitions must be reviewed by the Planning Department for completeness prior to acceptance. For Petitions involving five (5) acres or less a fee of $100.00 will be charged; for those of more than five (~) acres a fee of 5200.00 will be charged. This fee, payable to New Hanover County, A1UST accompany this petition. The following supplemental information is required: 1. Copy of the New Hanover County Tax Map which delineates the property requested for rezon- ing. 2. Lega] description (by meets and bounds) of property requested for rezoning; or a, 3. Copy of the subdivision plat which delineates the property requested for rezoning (if applicable). Petitions for change of zoning are first referred to the New Hanover County Planning Board and then acted upon by the Ncw }Ianover Board of Counh~ Commissioners. Petitions and supplementary information must be reviewed in the office of the Plannin~~ Department hventy (20) working days before the Planning Board meeting to allow adequate time for processing and advertisement as required by the North Carolina General Statutes. Planning Board meetings are held at 7:00 P.M. in the Assembly Room of the County Administra- tion Building, at Fourth and Chestnut Streets, Wilmington, North Carolina, on the first Thursday of each month. 405 If the Planning Board approves your petition, the request will automatically be referred to the Board County Comtnissioners. If your petition is denied, you may appeal to the Board of Comtnissioners. The Planning Department can advise you regarding appeal procedures. This page intentionally left blank • • • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 10.10 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Contact: Pete Avery Presenter: D. Hayes SUBJECT: Item 10: 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: 6 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: '£OUNTY COMMiaSt APPROVED 'REJECTED; 'D` '.REh^OVED~ C1' POSTPONE© Cl' !HEARD 'tg ~DAT~ .::~: ~ ... • ITEM 10 Zoning Tegt Amendment- 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) 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 with 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 ('/z) 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 provided additional setback 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 applicariim'p'_ly~tol',d~~t~h~e B~oa~dhat without the revisions his client might be forced to relocate. He also noted~that be~c, au se~auto sales lots were already exempted in the SHOD, it would only be fair to includ_e~boat~sales, especially with that type of operation's heavy dependence on outside display of products', ~ r 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 addition to the stringent regulation of principal use signs and the elimination of traditional forms ofoff-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 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 sin~~ 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. 86 ATTACHMENT FOR ITEM 10 • A-292, 10/98: 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 simply acting on the information presented, the Board 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 initial 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. • 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 may be permitted in the front yard if i meets the additional setback requirements for parking lots and additional landscapin~7 along the street frontage. (3) Outside Storage- Other general storage may be 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 maybe 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 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 riot 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 in the 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. • ~ 89 This page intentionally left blank .~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION • ~ Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Regular Item #: 10.11 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning Presenter: D. Hayes Contact: Sam Burgess SUBJECT: Item 11: Road Closing (SC-74, 10/98) BRIEF SUMMARY: Request by Tome and Jan Broadfoot to close a segment of Buena Vista Circle (private) located at the eastern end of Mason Landing Road, Middle Sound Community. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: 2 ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY 'COMMfSSION~RSi~ ~APPe~OVED a `REJECTED '^ 'REMGI~I=D ~~' !PO~TFCNED H E~;F~ D DATE -,_- -. ~ 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Request For Board Action ~ /~ Item #-~3' Number Pages: 2 Subject: Private Road Closing (Segment of Buena Vista Circle) Contact: Sam Burgess Brief Summary: Request by Tom & Jan Broadfoot to close the southeastern segment of Buena Vista Circle located in the Middle Sound Community. (see attached map). An examination of the area indicates that Buena Vista Circle has an unimproved 30 foot private right-of--way width approximately 450 feet in length. Anticipating the closure of this segment of Buena Vista, the applicants have have submitted and received preliminary road right-of--way dedication approval by the Planning Board's Technical Review Committee (TRC) for a new segment of road to prevent landlocking of adjoining properties. As noted on the attached map, the Broadfoot family owns property displayed as "E,F,G,I & J." A review of the petition by County Engineering staff indicates that a utility easement will be needed at both ends of the road to be closed. The creation of these easements will facilitate the installation of County sewer in the near future and that the new road be continued in accordance with County standards. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the segment of Buena Vista Circle be closed providing that utility easements be incorporated at each end of the road as recommended by County Engineering staff. ~~ ~~'~~ tti<vCf t. -__. _., w .,..._ .. [`~' Yid. 92 _ ~ .~ .~.. _ __ ~ -. i NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ASSEMBLY ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301 DECEMBER 7, 6:30 P. M. ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE NO. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman Water and Sewer District 93 Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney Presiding 2. Non Agenda Items (limit three minutes) Adjourn • 93 This page intentionally left blank 94 • CONSENT AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 7, 1998 ITEMS OF BUSINESS PAGE NO. 1. Approval of Minutes 97 2. Approval of Request for $3,500 for National Coalition Building 99 Institute Workshop during Human Relations Month . 3. Approval of Resolutions: Request to add roads to the NC Highway 103 System Glazier Road Roads in The Commons Subdivision Roads in Georgetowne Subdivision 4. Approval of Budget Amendment #99-18 109 • 5. Consideration of Judicial Building Capital Project Ordinance and 111 approval of associated Budget Amendment #99-20 6. Annual Review and Approval of Public Official Bonds for 115 - Finance Director - Sheriff - Register of Deeds - ABC Board Member 7. Status Report of Year 2000 Software Problem Resolution 121 8. Authorization to apply for 1998-99 Work First Transitional/ 129 Employment Transportation Assistance Funds ~ 95 This page intentionally left blank 96 ~' NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 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: Regular Meeting, November 9, 1998 Regular Meeting, November 23, 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: ~~~~y~ ~ 97 This page intentionally left blank .• ,~ r NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Consent Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Human Relations Presenter: Anthony W. Wade, Director Contact: Anthony W. Wade, Director SUBJECT: Request for $3,500 for National Coalition Building Institute Workshop during Human Relations Month. BRIEF SUMMARY: Purpose of facilitating trust building and greater human relations among Community Groups. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve BA#99-0057 transferring funds from contingency for forum. FUNDING SOURCE: General Fund Contingency ATTACHMENTS: r BA#99-0057.w REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: NIA FINANCE: Approve COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS Recommend approval of BA #99-0057 ' ACTION • BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A MMENDATIONS: ~011NiY COMMt~.~~a ARPROVED G REJECTED 0 .RE_ M4VED' B` ~~ `F?OSTPONF,a C3' ~~ •M1=ARD'~ ~ ~ . NEW HANOVER COUNTY A~THO\l' ~~'. ~L'ADE Director November 24, 1998 To: Allen O'Neal HU1v1AN RELATIONS COMIvIISSION 402 CHESTNUT STREET ~~'ILMII~TGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 2S401-4027 TELEPHO;'~~E (910) 3,~1-71 ~ 1 F,~.1"(910) 81.i-3.187 From: Anthony W. Wad Re: Proposed National Coalition Building Institute Workshop The Public Forum Subcommittee of the Human Relations Commission met on November 23, 1998, to discuss ways of facilitating better dialogue among citizens and community groups. The group concluded that a good way of facilitating trust-building and coalition development might be through a National Coalition Building Institute Workshop similar to the one held in February 1998, during Human Relations Month. In reflecting upon the success of that workshop and the enthusiasm of the participants following the workshop, it was proposed that a similar workshop be held during Human Relations Month 1999. In the previous workshop, the group was made up of elected officials, executives from the public/private sector, and citizens. This time the invitational list would primarily focus upon representatives from various community organizations/groups ranging from Leadership Wilmington to the NAACP. It was felt that if relationships could be built between organizations, this might pay the way for better cooperation regarding community human relations issues in the future. It was also felt that if the County took the lead on this via the Human Relations Commission, this would set the right example for other groups in the Community. ~1 1 ~~ ~~.~~ ~f :. ~~~A NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Budget Amendment. DEPARTMENT: Non-Departmental/Human Relations BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 99-0057 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT Non-Departmental: Contingencies $3,500 Human Relations: CREDIT Contracted Services $3,500 . EXPLANATION: To transfer funds from Contingencies for a community based forum designed to improve relations among community groups. APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COUI~4TY C4"r~i~°~4~''1Q'~ERS ;pPP~G~ `~ ~' R~1C~Tt~ ~ R[P~r;0~1 E~ :p l P9SSpe"E'° ° 11 01 HE,p,R©; ~, pAj~ ,. _ . This page intentionally left blank ~n s~~f ~ ~¢ ~ ~• _ '^W.f ~p ~~V~•Y ~~ ~~ ~~~ 102~~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~~>~ __~ ~~~ r .~~ ~.. q 3~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Consent Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Governing Body Presenter: Lucie Harrell Contact: Lucie Harrell SUBJECT: Resolutions: Request to add roads to the NC Highway System BRIEF SUMMARY: Petitioners have requested the state to add the following roads to the system: Glazier Road Roads in The Commons Subdivision Roads in Georgetowne Subdivision RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt resolutions FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: SR-1 Petitions ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW Recommend app R'S NS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: CQ(i~`~ GO'~,A~I~;SIONERS RCJEC T %l7 p R<~CVED p' >~ POSTPONED 'Q HEARD p 103 DATE ~~ _._ NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION _;,.,` DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PETITION ~-~-~ Li S~'. North Carolina - _ 3 19y~ County of New Hanover N~~ Petition request for (check one): Addition to State System (rJr ; :~ •.~ • ~~ ~: Paving O t-'~ ~- - Maintenance Improvement We the undersigned, being property owners on ~~~~ .li" (' ~°~C~'(C~I (Describe or give local name or Secondary oad Number) in New Hanover County do hereby request the Division of Highways of tR2 Department of Transportation to Q(((~ ~D ~r~_ tom' o_ the above-described road. O~C~ ~ We further advise that the road re nested to - m is_ ~ l~ miles in length and at the present time there are ~ occupied homes ocated on the road and having entrances into the road. Finally, we agree to dedicate to the Division of Highways 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 purposes 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. PROPERTY OWNERS NAME MAILING ADDRESS The Division of Highways should contact the first petitioner listed below: a~ ~l a~~~ .~ .;,~ }~~~;~,., ,. r< ~ " slur ~~~~ ~ ,; _ c. ~,~.,.,rs~~r~~' Revised F,~orrntiwSR 1~°(5=8'3)~'~~I'previous forms obsolete. '~ TELEPHONE q~u c.s~15 -o l~--l ~ ~~t1 Fr~~.- q ~ 3-~ 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 Paving ( ) Maintenance Improvement ( ) We the undersigned, being all=of -the property owners on ~PC-hCX1 .~- 71~.Q ('[~-,mm~ (Describe or give local name or Secondary Road Number) in New Hanover County do hereby request the Division of Highways of the Department ~f Transportation to ~~(_, the above described raed .S U ~C/ V ~ ~ - U-t ~,tbo{i Vi S-U1 We further advise that the mead requested to GtOID~~ is -'~ 0.. mi and at the present time there are O .occupied homes located on the road and having entrances into the road. Finally, we agree ~to dedicate to the Division of Highways a right-of-way sixty (60) feet in width extending the entire length of the road that is requested to be improved along with the necessary areas 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 purposes and to execute said right-of-way agreement forms that-will be submitted to us by • representatives of the Division of Highwavs in order that the Division of Highways fulfill the requirements of Chapter 1244, 1959 Session of the General Assembly of North Carolina. REMARKS Two copies of recorded subdivision plat enclosed if applicable. Gi ac p PROPERTY OWNERS NAME AnnRESS The Division of Highways should contact the first petitioner listed below: See cc~- ~ ~D~~ Revised Form SR-1 (6-78) 105 THE COMMONS -SECTION 1 LOT OWNER ADDRESS 1 Marie Hinnant 508 Middleborou h Drive g 2 Juhu & Nicole Lehtinen 512 CommonsWay 3 Robert & Carmelin Powell 704 Benchmark Court 4 Michael & Cazol Guarino 708 Benchmark Court 5 Kim & Mariah Williamson 712 Benchmark Court 6 Kenneth & Celeste Maus 714 " 7 Gregory & Mary Ellen Hanson 716 " 8 Stephan Smith .718 " 9 Thomas & Kathleen 720 " 10 James & Theresa McCullough 719 " 11 Thomas Keziah 717 " 12 Michael & Cazol Durako 715 Benchmark Court 13 Thomas & V ictoria Greene 713 " 14 Gary & Kimberly Pope 709 Benchmazk Court 15 Daniel & Sazalyn Kennedy 705 " 16 Joseph & Mary Labazera 516 Commons Way 17 Nationsbank 520 CommonsWay 18 Wallace & Barbara Trouson 524 Commons Way 19 Francis Koonce 702 William & Mary Place 20 Ronald Wester 704 William & Mary Place ' 21 Anita Rochelle 706 " 22 Kenneth & Mary Ann Bumbridge 710 " 23 William & Barbara Baker 714 " 24 Norwood & Joyce Dennis 716 William & Mary Place 25 Raymond & Josephine Carey 500 Richmond Circle 26 Cyrus & Renae Donaldson 502 Richmond Circle 27 Mark & Gigi Azzarelli 504 " 28 Michael & Vicki Tutteron 508 " 29 Warren Hardison 509 " 30 Michael & Kathlee Bamnger 507 " 31 Joel & Penny Smith 505 Richmond Circle 32 Christopher & Kerry Penland 711 Will::.: °:. Mary Place 33 Maurice Maisonville 707 William & Mary Place 34 Craig & Valorie Chasteen 530 Commons Way 35 George & Carmela Jones 534 Commons Way 36 Robert & Polly Decker 538 Commons Way 37 Robert Solomon 542 Commons Way 38 James & Lisa Sahlie 600 Commons Way 39 Ray & Mazgazet Patterson 507 Commons Way 40 Constance Middlebrook 511 " 41 Michael & Kare Casteen 515 " 42 Robert Mistrough 519 " 106 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 GATEFIELD DRIVE LAWTHER COURT AND TOLLINGTON DRIVE (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 .63 miles in length and at the present time there are 40 occupied homes located on the road and having entrances into the road. 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. nlso, we agree to dedicate additional right-of--way in tt~e 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. GEORGETOWNE SECTIONS I & 2 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. 107 This page intentionally left blank O8 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12!07/98 Budget Amendment Consent Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number: DEPARTMENT: Sheriffs Department BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 99-18 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT Controlled Substance Tax Capital Proj. Controlled Substance Tax $2,604 Capital Project Expense $2,604 EXPLANATION: To increase budget for additional revenue received 11-17-98. Controlled Substance Tax revenues are budgeted as received and must be used for law enforcement activities as the Sheriff deems necessary. APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: `~ CQl~"!T'( COMMIS~,_ HERS AFP^UVE17 • REJECTED 'Q: REh~~VE©o '~ 109 PGSTPONEQ 0 Fi EARlT . - DWTE ~ 1 This page intentionally left blank v'~.~: a' 110'°~ ~~- t ~~~-.. ~~k NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Consent Item #: 5 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Finance Presenter: Contact: Bruce Shell SUBJECT: Judicial Building Capital Project Ordinance BRIEF SUMMARY: The Commissioners are requested to adopt the Project Ordinance to establish the Judicial Building Expansion Capital project. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend adoption of capital project ordinance; request approval of associated budget amendment #99-20. - FUNDING SOURCE: Installment Financing (COPS)- $7,254,375 • ATTACHMENTS:- Cpjudbld.wp Ba99-20.wp REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: NIA COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend adoption of capital project ordinance and approval of associated budget amendment #99-20. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • :CO!}hTY ~(J^J'iMIS~ ONERS gPFRGVIvD ~REJECl'E5 REMOVED- Cl 'FOSTP©N~I) .O. 111 HEARD ~,L SATE _ ._ PROJECT ORDINANCE JUDICIAL BUILDING EXPANSION BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County: 1. New Hanover County(County) is engaged in the Construction of the Judicial Building Expansion, which capital project involves the construction and/or acquisition of capital assets. 2. County desires to authorize and budget for said project in a project ordinance adopted pursuant to North Carolina General Statute $159-13.2, such ordinance to .authorize all appropriations necessary for the completion of said project. NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH THAT: 1. This project ordinance is adopted pursuant to North Carolina General Statute $159-13.2. 2. The project undertaken pursuant to this ordinance is the Construction of the Judicial Building Expansion Capital Project, which project is herewith authorized. 3. The revenue that will finance said project is: Installment Financing $7,254,375 Total $7,254,375 4. The following appropriations necessary for the project are herewith made from the revenue listed above: Capital Project Expense $7,254,375 Total $7,254,375 tt~ ~r4 ~: ~~~~ ~~~ 112 .~_-~r ~~~, ~ , ~~f~Wr~1" ;5~;,This„~,p~r..o3~ec,~t~ ordinance shall be entered in the minutes of the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County. Within five days hereof, copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the finance and budget offices in New Hanover County, and with the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County. Adopted this Clerk to the Board • day of 1998. William A. Caster, Chairman Board of County Commissioners 113 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Budget Amendment DEPARTMENT: Finance BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 99-20 ADJUSTMENT DEBIT Judicial Building Expansion Cap. Proj. Installment Financing (COPS) $7,254,375 Capital Project Expense EXPLANATION: To establish budget according to Project Ordinance APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners CREDIT $7,254,375 ~~ 114 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Consent Item #: 6 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Legal Presenter: Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney Contact: Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney SUBJECT: Annual Review and Approval of Public Official Bonds BRIEF SUMMARY: The Board is required to routinely review public official bonds each December. The attached resolutions would approve existing bonding of the Finance Officer, Sheriff, Register of Deeds, and ABC Board members handling funds, and set the amount of the Sheriffs bond. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Enact Resolutions. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: Abcbond.wp PublicOfficialResolution Publicofficalbond. Sheriffbond.wp REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: NIA HUMAN RESOURCES: NIA COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOM ATIONS: Enact resolutions for public official bonds. p COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: .C011NTY CO^;~MIS~~ONERS~ AQr OV~D RE.IECTED p; • REMOVED p POSTPONED 'p 1 1 5 H_ EARD~ p - pA7F:Iy RESOLUTION OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Section 18B-700 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County, at its regular meeting on December 7, 1998, does hereby exempt from the bond requirement of said Section 186-700 any member of the New Hanover County ABC Board who does not handle Board funds, including but not limited to the Chairman of the New Hanover County ABC Board. ADOPTED this the 7`h day of December, 1998. NEW HANOVER COUNTY (SEAL) William A. Caster, Chairman Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: Clerk to the Board ~ar~s+a ~`\V ~' .,„ ~c G>~ 4 ~y,~'~y? ~d a ~fch~.;,[C~ (R~ ~s"~{ 116 ~~~~' ~~ ~~~ ~~ RESOLUTION OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLVED, that pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 109 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County, at its regular meeting on December 7, 1998, approved the bonds of the Clerk of Superior Court of New. Hanover County, New Hanover County Finance Officer, New Hanover County Sheriff, Register of Deeds of New Hanover County, and New .Hanover County Tax Collector and FURTHER RESOLVED, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to certify said approval of such Bonds, with the exception of the Bond of the Clerk of Superior Court, which is not physically present in New Hanover County. • ADOPTED this the 7th day of December, 1998. (SEAL) ATTEST: NEW HANOVER COUNTY William A. Caster, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Clerk to the Board 117 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOND APPROVAL WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 109 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners conducts an annual review of public official bonds; WHEREAS, said bonds have been reviewed by the County Attorney and found to be in full force and to be in proper format. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners does hereby approve the Surety Bond for the Finance Officer, Sheriff, Register of Deeds, and Tax Collector. This designation of approval is hereby incorporated within the respective bond to which it is attached, as if set out in its entirety on the face thereof. This the 7'h day of December, 1998. NEW HANOVER COUNTY (SEAL) William A. Caster, Chairman Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: Clerk to the Board 118 ~' RESOLUTION OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Section -162-8 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County, at its regular meeting on December 7, 1998, determined that the required Sheriff s Bond shall be in the total amount of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars. ADOPTED this the 7'h day of December, 1998. (SEAL) • ATTEST: NEW HANOVER COUNTY William A. Caster, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Clerk to the Board • 119 This page intentionally left blank 120 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Consent Item #: 7 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: IT Presenter: Bill Clontz Contact: Bill Clontz SUBJECT: Status Report of Year-2000 Software Problem Resolution BRIEF SUMMARY: In response to your request for acounty-wide report on the status of the Year-2000 project, the Information Technology Department prepared YYear-2000 project status questionnaire and forwarded it to all county agencies. Their responses have been summarized in the attached document for your review. A target date for the completion of this project is September 1999. With few exceptions, the agencies indicate that they expect no difficulty in meeting their target date. Some of the agencies are relying on outside factors for the completion of their project. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Move that the report be received by the board. FUNDING SOURCE: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Memo to Commissioners with attachments REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: NIA FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Receive report as presented. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/ OMMENTS: COUNTY COMMIS}IONEF2S. A~;-;:~vl:~ c R~.i=~iED O ~ i;~;v;o~r:E~ ~ 121 'P-?ST~~~NED ,~' HEARD Y DATE _~ -: NEW HANOVER COUNTY INTER-OFFICE vMEMO ~ To: Board of Commissioners From: Bill Clontz Subject: Status of Year-2000 Project in County Agencies Date: November 17, 1998 Beginning in the 60's and continuing into the 90's, many software designers defined the date as a 2digits number in their programs. This meant, for example, that the-year 1972 was defined as 72 with the century assumed to be 19. This convention will work well until the end of the millennium. At that time, the year 2000 will be represented by the digits 00. When calculations are performed on that number, the software will continue to assume the century to be 19 with the result that the year 2000 will become 1900. This causes a substantial error in calculations and produces unwanted results. To overcome this problem, each program in the software inventory must be examined and corrected so that the century assumption of 19 is eliminated. That is the essence of the Y2K problem. The County Administration has been actively engaged in correcting our program inventory since 1997. From time to time, I have reported to you our progress on this very important project. Recently; you requested that a wider inquiry be made to all county agencies concerning their plans to eliminate the Year-2000 (Y2K) software problem from their inventory. A short survey was prepared and forwarded to all the county agencies. The attached chart is their response to that survey. In reviewing the responses, it is clear that all agencies are at work on the project. There are, however, a few areas of uncertainty indicated in the responses. ^ The schools speaks of dealing with Phase I of the Critical System. It would be reasonable to ask how many Phases there are in their plan and what the plans are for those phases. ^ The community college indicates a possible shortage of resources to complete key parts of their plans. ~~z.~ ^ ~Compliancewith the~'time-line at the airport is dependent on their acquisition of a new compute~'r'system that will allow the retirement of many non-compliant ~:~:. programs. ~zn~, ;,,~ "~'-~' ~ - Aside from these comments, it seems that the agencies are moving toward a resolution of this problem by September 1999. This appears to be an adequate margin of safety if their plan calls for working on the most critical systems first. Some comments that were included in the survey response are listed below for your information: From the airport.... "The airport is currently soliciting vendors for a total Airport Management System. This system would replace some of our older software making us immediately compliant. Elevators in the terminal have been determined to be Y2K compliant. Other components are currently being inventoried." From the schools.... "The New Hanover County School System is working toward compliancy for all critical. operations of the schools. Beginning in November of 1997, Administrative and Instructional systems have been reviewed and identified for compliancy." From the hospital.... "Our original target completion date was December 31, 1998 but delays by software vendors in delivering Y2K versions of their/our code has delayed NHRMC's project." From the community college.... "Given the turnover of our equipment, a lot of our Year 2000 plans are dependent upon attrition. Older equipment, mainly PC workstations, are being replaced with those which are Year 2000 compliant. A survey of our Network Equipment, 0/S's and Servers has already been done. The bulk of this equipment is either not affected by Year 2000, readily patched or upgraded." If you desire a more detailed investigation of the status of this project across the county, there are consulting firms available to do that work. I would estimate the cost of a project survey to be $15,000 to $20,000. Please let me know if you wish to take this project to that level of investigation. Attch • 1. Survey Response Matrix 2. NHC Administration Y2K Data Base 123 1 0 U Y N ~" r~ C~ r`~"~ V 1 • ~--~ U ~O a O O O N c~ N C d 0 U e 0 w d a 8 0 U I 'O d .. a! w W E a, L 7 a 0 U U CE C w H a w 0 e 0 .~ w w w ~ ~ H x ~ ~f ,_ °' ~ .~ z z a 0 n a o ~ 0 3 = °' ~' ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ z ~ ~ z d ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a :a ~ W w x y c ~ 3 Q a U d ~ a O ~ E. z U `~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ •5 .~ 3 x ~ x F x ~ ~ ca v ~ x ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ . °~ ~ ~ . °~ o ~ 3 ~ ~ x > ~ a m' °' d a N a d a V c ~ ~ ~ • Q, • Q, • Q, • ~ ~, ~, ~, ~ >, T T T T T ~ ~ E Y . C Y Y VJ C VJ C y C h C ~ C h C ~ C h C d ~ d ~ d ~ m ~ ~ O v ~ O v ~ O v ~ `~2 ~ `~ ~ ~7 `~ ~ ed `~ ~ 3 z ~ 3 z 3 z 3 z `° g ~ g `° ~' `~° ~ `~° ~ :°. ~' n ~' ~ ~ ~o a O `D a ~i ~ `~ ~ `~ ~ `~ ~ `~ ~ . S O U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U ~ £ ~ ~ ~ VJ .'~ U] U w 0 d m a a z T 1 2~ m C Y F ' '~ '~ '~ ~ ~'' E E £ $ ~ ~ .o ~ :: A ~ Q u _ c d ~ a d _ s x . ~ € ~ ~ ~ z z a a a W W ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ a ~ F E-' x z ~ ~ ~.°. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ g o p ~ ° [W ~' yN 0 U Q U ~i N Cr ~ Q'i O 1•" u ~, ~ RI s lC s og Ip s t0 s ~ s lC s A s eC :s d i° u = ~j `~ C ~ [-' 3 O - N o .a ~ 8 V ! ~ ~ r~ as F ~ F ~ ~ F ~ ~ a a ~ a > > a n n E - Q F z 3 i ~ c z C7 °O o. 00 o. °` °` 0o rn a a a rn o. a o, o. °` o0 a ~ ~O ~ ~ b O N N O~ O~ .~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ u ~ i-. :~ T ~ ~ e` 0 ~ ~ etl u` OD C O / d ~ u ~ L ~ O J ~ ~ u ~ V ~ A N ~ C' ~ C v ~ L - ,,,{/ ~~nn T f 1 .pa V u .. p ~ r V. ~ 3 a o: E~ A ~ o '~ ~ ° ~ U ~ °° - ` - C7 u >+ ~ 30 = a c ° ~ ~ ~ U ~- a u ~' ~ U A ~y ~ = 3 ~' v~ r. ' u rx F. ,fl y ~ , _ _ ~ ~_ ~ o ~ O ~ o ~ ~ w ~ a .. y ~ ~ ~ ~ -te d x s ~ a F= x ~ ti a U w > ~ w ~ ri g Q ~ w U w ~ x ~', O w Q O x w U `~ °~~' ~~' E E 8 E c E 8 E ~ H E 8 8 E E 0. 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ T :: „u, u ~ yN u T u ~ u ~ d N u L C/TJ O O [n f/1 Cq V] T y i, V] V] 5i h h fn ~ °~ s ~ . (/~ °~ m ~ fn u h m h d h d °~ °~ 00 (, (~ u C u G ai G d G v C u C u G d C u C m C ~ ~ u C ~ ~ y C C ° C O C ° . S ~ iE p n O ~ O c O c O G O 7 O O ° CO OG [Oi ~y ~ ` ~ s O v O 7 ~c ~C ~ s d s C . s ~ c . C H ~ ~ ~~ . . °~ . u . a~ ,' ~ $i' ' a Oi' di' Ei' .~ ~ es~~ ~ -d' v ~ v ~ ~ ~ i ~ 6' d d' . of ~tl VV 3 i a a. » ~n f= E= F [= F F F= H E= F ~ ~ O v~ E^ ¢ ¢ ~ ~ ~ E~ E~ E= [= ~ ~ C ~ C ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ` is io is ie i0 is is ie U 'U U U ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ £ ~ ~ z z Z z ~ U` U U` U U U U U` U` U` ~ ~ C V O U c 0 E 0 U ~~ V ~.+ RS i.1 h W i V 3 O U v ee w o A N ~/\J OuD a a r 0 ~, z u C yy~~ T Vi . . ~ ~.~e.~ ~-^'- ` ~ N n o ~ ( \ , . ,, I\ J O ~ ` F • L ~J € ~ ~ 7 •~ W ~ g `° ~ e ~ ~i ~ ~o ~ DC , a g 3 ~ x ~ ~ va ~ ., s5 ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ .5 ~' ~ ~ ~ o u ~D ~ ~ ' ~ ~ o ~ `n ra ffi ~ 5b ~ ~ a su ~ a c. n ~ n . '` ~ `~ d ~ ~ ` s u ~' ~ a ir `~ u ° Y a ~ '~ c c ~ c T 3 ~ u o O ~ ~ ~i ~ a i ~ .~ 3 0, m ~i a .~ o ~~ !+ T ~ f rY. ~ ~ O •~ •o W A S "~ " •~a E •~a E . ~ o ~' .~ c ~ o ~ ~ 3 a o L 22 ~ ~ ~ r ~ s N d b' _' ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ c C1 ~ u u ~ ~ ~ ~ o x o ~ a a ~ a ~ 3 a ~ 3 3 ~ ~ q. ¢ o ~- F W E- a a ~ a a a a a ~ a a a a a a ''' a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ n ~ N _ h ~ ~ y N ~ m d ~ ~ 3 = _ ~ ~ a o] ~ T a o d u T ~ a o U Z` c• o `~ u > d > c v~ ~ c `~ 5 0 ? ~ v~ N ~ m U ~ . ~ W ~ ~ ~ ' ~ V Ti. G ~ ~ ~ ~ •y ¢ ~ d ~ ~ ~ .~.. ~ U ~ ~ ~ C C N ~ y p, ~ ai '~ w ~ ... g' 7 ~ ~ ~ ... tE x 3 ~ C7 > t0 v a~ d ~--. F:. ~ ~ 3 V] x CO w ~ 3 L 0 C •w' . . ~ pp ¢ pp ¢ 7 ~ 0 v V '~ w y ~ d w ~ a n. a s c. c a xu„ ~ ~ °' a ~ O U O U O U O U O U O U O U Cn "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ Q ~ Q ~ A T d T y ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U N `2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~+ a `~ •• ... d • d • d . d . u ~ ~ O O O .+ .+ o c ? •~~ rs~~~ •r~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i a~ a i ~ ~c ~ ~-- ss ~ •r~ ~ ss ~ •r~ ~ a°'. a a a a cu, a in ~ F ~ O O b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~ F- F= H ~~ O ~ b ~~ O ~ d cu. t ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ C ~ t ~ ~ ~ C ~ V •C U 'C U 'C V 'C U '~ 8. a o. 8 g a s 8 $ 8 °a :°'' := 8 8 S 8 8 n a $ a $ $ S 8 U U U U v E E 8 8 . E £ 8 . E 8 . E E j ` . E E £ E . E . E E , 8 £ E E E . E ° ° ° ° ° ~ U z z z z z e 0 U e 0 ~. as E 0 U ,~I a~ :+:. q W V L V G O U v ee C. r-i h rd~ v.~+ O v Q' ~_ 0 z a w 0 m a rn a c~ 0 z T 127 .\ 5, ~ ~, ~ c x F c 8 ° .; ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ f7 ! N o 'y € 'O ~ ~i ~ 'w ~, V Lt] L £ O ~ (` H ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ >, . 23 ~ S. ~ ~ Z o ~ ~ 0 ~f 0 0 ~i 0 ~f o a 3i ~ a3 ~ ' g ~ a ~ > o d ~ a ' ° ~ ~ ~ ' z 3i ~ c c, o ^~ 0 0 z z z z a z i i a ~ ~ z ~ S i ~ a z e , ~ ~ z 00 a 00 a 00 a a 0. a o. a ~ o0 o. ~ N H N ~ O O ~ N ~ n o tZ E ~ E; ° 2 ~ 2 ~ ~ ~. ~; ' 8 ~. o F - .` o ~ U on c `~ m A 3$ i7 z ~ ~ ~ ~" a ,y CQ C v h ~ is u -~' n v V = t C _ i° ~ ~ C O O q ~ r j Z N u ~ U ~ f ~ Z ' ~ c i ~ C :' ~ ~ q s ° U F ° °' - 33 ~ Z' zz o `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ a d a ~ ~ ~ c~ a ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `° z z ~ z z ~ G '~ _ ~ h ~ _ ~ _ ~ n1 V r V q V c ~ ~ ~ L c ~ ~ g '~ :~ ~ n ~ g g c ~ c ~ n V V V $ a E E c . E . E . E U ~j E E . c .E E 8 z° z° z . c 8 c U e 0 :. v a 8 0 U '~ 0! w G{t w H W ?, L W a 0 V U .~. ~. w ° m a o: ~_ d U O a z U ~y O H ~ a ~~ U • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12/07/98 Consent Item #: 8 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Transportation Presenter: Patricia A. Melvin Contact: Patricia A. Melvin SUBJECT:. Authorization to apply for 1998-99 Work First Transitional/Employment Transportation Assistance Funds BRIEF SUMMARY: New Hanover County is eligible for an allocation of $11,839 from N.C. Department of Transportation for FY 1998-99. In addition New Hanover County may request funds to continue its employment transportation demonstration project. FY 1997-98 funding for this project totaled some $50,000. Five area employers are participating in this project, including New Hanover Regional Medical Center, Bedford Fair Industries, Britthaven Nursing Homes and Holiday Inn Express. Our request for FY 1998-99 funding will be the same as 1997-98. All funds must be used to carry out innovative steps to meet transportation needs of transitional Work First participants and general public employment transportation services. No matching funds are required for assistance. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Authorization to submit a request for funding to N.C. Department of Transportation, and accept funds if request is approved. FUNDING SOURCE: N.C. Department of Transportation ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATI Authorize application for funding and accept funds if approved. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: COUNTY CO~:~IiVIIS ~ 10(VERS' =APr~Ot{ED f I~E4~11oVED o 129 POSTr'ONED p :HEARD Z IDATE ~ _ FY 1998-99 Work First TransitionallEmployment Transportation Assistance $1 Million Formula Allocation $100,000 $450,000 $450,000 Tota11M County Base Population Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation based on WF Cases Alamance $1,000 $10,433 $5,024 516,456 Alexander $1,000 $2,729 $1,079 54,808 Alleghany $1,000 $837 $257 52,094 Anson $1,000 $2,107 $2,237 55,343 Ashe $1,000 $2,051 $757 53,809 Avery $1,000 $1,341 $364 52,706 Beaufort $1,000 $3,878 $4,187 59,066 Bertie $1,000 $1,831 $2,673 55,504 Bladen $1,000 $2,667 $3,123 56,789 Brunswick $1,000 $5,583 $2,994 S9,577 Buncombe $1,000 $7,244 $7,532 S15,775 Burke $1,000 $7,377 $2,966 511,343 Cabarrus $1,000 ,$10,069 $3,509 514,577 Caldwell $1,000 $6,617 $2,480 510,096 Camden $1,000 $560 $222 51,781 Carteret $1,000 $5,209 $1,744 57,953 Caswell $1,000 $1,886 $1,386 54,272 Catawba $1,000 .$5,161 $4,502. 510,663 Chatham 51,000 $3,884 $1,508 56,392 Cherokee $1,000 $1,969 $993 S3,962 Chowan $1,000 $1,246 $1,715 S3,961 Clay $1,000 $686 $207 S1,893 Cleveland $1,000 $8,019 $5,316 514,335 Columbus $1,000 54,584 $5,445 511,029 Craven $1,000 57,727 $5,567 514,294 Cumberland $1,000 $5,074 $23,981 530,055 Currituck $1,000 $1,435 $507 52,942 Dare $1,000 $2,350 5372 S3,722 Davidson $1,000 $12,341 $4,823 518,164 Davie $1,000 $2,679 $943 54,622 Duplin $1,000 $3,858 $2,765. 57,623 Dufiam $1,000 $4,342 $15,942 521,284 Edgecombe $1,000 $3,909 $8,539 513,449 Forsyth $1,000 $8,814 $19,680 S29,494 Franklin $1,000 53,786 $2,344 S7,129 Gaston $1,000 $5,817 $12,441 519,258 Gates $1,000 $862 $586 52,448 Graham $1,000 $659 $364 52,023 Granville $1,000 $3,689 $2,951 S7,640 Greene $1,000 $1,511 51,772 54,283 Guifford $1,000 56,664 $25,312 532,976 Halifax $1,000 55,132 $10,204 576,336 Harnett $1,000 $7,030 $6,017 514,046 Haywood $1,000 $4,485 $1,987 S7,471 Henderson $~1 X000 ~~,,$6,903 ~~~$3~,201 0~~u ~ ~ 511,104 Hertford 000 $1 ~-~-31',98 ~~$2;708 55,688 Hoke $1,000 $2,530°t~`~~$2,873 56,403 Hyde $1,000 $440x;, o""~' "`x$557 S1,998 Iredell $1,000 ~,~,,,''$3',523 r$9437 513,960 Jacksor~ 30;$1,000 , ~s2;5~9~6~~~~~~$1E,079 54,675 ~ ~~~~ $100,000 $450,000 $450,000 Tota11M County Base Population Allocation Allocati~ Allocation Allocation based on WF Families Johnston $1,000 $8,803 $4,595 514,398 Jones $1,000. $834 $429 52,263 Lee $1,000 $4,179 $2,823 58,001 Lenoir $1,000 $5,290 $7,389 513,679 Lincoln .$1,000 $5,050 $2,515 58,566 Macon $1,000 $2,372 $586 53,958 Madison $1,000 $1,592 $1,108 53,700 Martin $1,000 $2,295 $2,572 55,867 McDowell $1,000 $3,348 $1,408 55,755 Mecklenburg $1,000 $12,210 $41,596 554,806 Mitchell $1,000 $1,311 $250 52,561 Montgomery $1,000 $2,134 $1,258 54,391 Moore $1,000 $6,116 $3,151. 510,268 Nash $1,000 $5,908 $5,488 512,396 New Hanover • $1,000 ~ ~-• ~ 53,793° °°~ ~` $7,046- `-"" 511,839 Northampton $1,000 $1,833 $3,187 56,020 Onslow $1,000 $13,430 $5,181 519,611 Orange $1,000 $4,310 $2,322 57,632 Pamlico $1,000 $1,053 $865 52,917 Pasquotank $1,000 $2,933 $3,459 57,392 Pender $1,000 $3,176 $2,308 56,484 Perquimans $1,000 $941 $1,129 53,070 Person $1,000 $2,894 $1,465 2 55,35,° S19 Pitt $1,000 $5,640 $12,46 J Polk $1,000 $1,406 $464 52,87u Randolph $1,000 $10,459 $2,90.1 514,360 Richmond $1,000 $4,054 $5,445 510,500 Robeson $1,000 $9,967 $14,742 525,709 Rockingham $1,000 $7,955 $5,674 514,629 Rowan $1,000 $8,252 $6,781 516,033 Rutherford $1,000 $5,291 $4,030 510,321 Sampson $1,000 $4,550 $3,973 $9,523 Scotland $1,000 $3,100 $4,931 $9,030 Stanly $1,000 $4,829 $1,636 $7,465 Stokes $1,000 $3,745 $1,136 55,881 Surry $1,000 $5,883 $1,365 $8,247 Swain $1,000 $1,025 $908 52,933 Transylvania 51,000 $2,433 $786 54,219 Tyrrell $1,000 $319 $272 51,591 Union $1,000 $9,040 $3,723 513,763 Vance $1,000 $3,580 $5,631 510,211 Wake $1,000 $20,701 $21,702 543,402 Warren $1,000 $1,620 $2,344 54,964 Washington $1,000 $1,205 $1,958 54,163 Watauga $1,000 52,455 $557 54,012 Wayne 51,000 $10,006 $9,218 520,224 Wilkes 51,000 $5,555 $2,844 59,399 Wilson $1,000 $4,157 ' $6,481 511,638 Yadkin $1,000 $3,059 $693 54~ Yancey $1,000 $1,437 $414 52;. ~! Total $1,000,000 11 /9/98 • • Statement of Commitment for Formula Allocation The County Manager/Administrator, Community (county name) Transportation System Coordinator and County Department of Social Services (DSS) Director jointly addressed the Work First/employment transportation needs of the county on , 199_. All parties agree the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Division's Work First/Employment Transportation Operating Assistance funds should be utiliied in the county to meet Work First or employment transportation needs and be provided to either the county DSS and/or the community transportations stem (circlerndicate the appropriate designated entity(ies)). - Signed: Date: 199 County Manager/Administrator Date: 199 Community Transportation System Coordinator County DSS Director Date: , 199_ 131 APPLICANT SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPLY AND ACCEPT SFY1998-99 WORK FIRST TRANSITIONAUEMPLOYMENT TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUNDS A motion was made by Board of County Commission member and seconded by member following resolution, and upon being put to a vote was duly adopted. for the adoption of the WHEREAS, Article 26 of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation as the agency responsible for administering federal and state public transportation funds; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to support transitional transportation needs of Work First participants after eligibility for cash assistance has concluded and/or other employment transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the SFY1998-99 funds are available for eligible program costs for the period specified by the North Carolina Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the _ County Board of Commissioners has approved the local entiry(s) designated to receive the operating allocation for Work First and employment transportation; and WHEREAS, the County Board of Commissioners hereby assures and certifies that it will comply with state statutes, executive orders and all administrative requirements which relate to applications, made to and assistance received from the North Carolina Department of Transportation for the Work First Transitional/Employment Transportation Assistance program. Coun Board of NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the ~ Commissioners hereby submits an application for SFY1998-99 Work First Transitional/Employment Transportation Assistance funds for use by the designated local entity(s) and assures that it will provide to the North Carolina Department of Transportation information regarding the use of the funds at such time and in such manner as the Department may require. / I (Certifying Official's Name (Title) do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners duly held on the day of _ Signature of Certifying Official Subscribed and sworn to me on (date Notary Public County Board of 19 Address My commission expires (date) on 1 ~:2 J scallwklstreso.doc (11/98) Employment Transportatio~r Assistance, Page a S1 Million Allocation -Proposal for Service~~ Due: December 15, 1998 • Proposal information to include: 1) Complete a cover letter to explain and address the amount of the county allocation that is being requested. 2) Submit a proposal for service(s) narrative description* that addresses the following topics: a) Proposed service provider(s) -either the Community Transportation System and/or County Department of Social Services; b) Proposed transitional Work First and/or general public employment transportation service to be provided; c) Amount of funds requested up to the county allocation; d) Marketing/Advertising plan to educate potential program participants, if applicable; e) Proposed sub-county allocation(s) provided to the proposed service provider(s); f) Proposed county administrative contact name, telephone and fax numbers and a-mail address (where applicable). * NOTE: If the county currently has a proposal on file with the division, ONLY amendments to the existing proposals are necessary. If there are no amendments, please refer to as such in the cover letter. - 3) A signed Statement of Commitment (see attache. 4) A resolution from the county board of commissioners authorizing financial assistance from_ the NCDOT/PTD to ttie county for transitional Work First and general public employment transportation services (see attached)._ _ 11/12/98 - 9:33 AM 133 J Statement of Commitment for Formula Allocation The County Manager/Administrator, Community (counq~ name) Transportation System Coordinator and County Department of Social Services (DSS) Director jointly addressed the Work Firstlemployment transportation needs of the county on , 199_. All parties agree the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Division's Work First/Employment Transportation Operating Assistance funds should be utilized in the county to meet Work First or employment transportation needs and be provided to either the county DSS and/or the community transportation system (circle/indicate the appropriate designated entity(ies)). Signed: Date: , 199 County Manager/Administrator Date: 199_ \ / Community Transportation System Coordinator Date: County DSS Director 134 199_ APPLICANT SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPLY AND ACCEPT SFY1998-99 WORK FIRST TRANSITIONAUEMPLOYMENT TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUNDS A motion was made by Board of County Commission member and seconded by member for the adoption of the . following resolution, and upon being put to a vote was duly adopted. WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation as the agency responsible for administering federal and state public transportation funds; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to support transitional transportation needs of Work First participants after eligibility for cash assistance has concluded and/or other employment transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the SFY1998-99 funds are available for eligible program costs for the period specified by the North Carolina Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the _ County Board of Commissioners has approved the local entity(s) designated to receive the operating allocation for Work First and employment transportation; and WHEREAS, the County Board of Commissioners hereby assures and certifies that it will comply with state statutes, executive orders and all administrative requirements which relate to applications, made to and.assistance received from the North Carolina Department of Transportation for the Work First Transitional/Employment Transportation Assistance program. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the County Board of Commissioners hereby submits an application for SFY1998-99 Work First Transitional/Employment Transportation Assistance funds for use by the designated local entity(s) and assures that it will provide to the North Carolina Department of Transportation information regarding the use of the funds at such time and in such manner as the Department may require. I (Certifying Official's Name) (Title) do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the minutes of a meeting of the County Board of Commissioners duly held on the day of , 19 Signature of Certifying Official Subscribed and sworn to me on (date) Notary Public Address My commission expires (date) on U:fispUwklStreso.doc (11/98) This page intentionally left blank 136 C'