1976-09-20 RM Exhibits~,
e...., ~ !'.~ ~
.r..'rq~, +i~~ MIWr r~' .mk^~i1..~~Qj ~~ `~f»;ASeyli'~Fprnwll".J' "fiN"i"~P Fw,ti4"'~S ~t i"~~ .. v~'Y 'Gyy ~~. ^.~~" +~~'S T7T,+~,g~ ~~~
{y '~~T
;1,.
d
R,
~(,,!}
~~~~--~-- ~~-^'!~.3 _--A-~~G!L?~l'~__.!+~...~7.d~,.P'4~~ ---~'"~~._~-Cy'~.-_!C+~'~.ifr'! a 3.~~t!~.('~
J~l j ~ ,~+ . R ._ ._. __._. .._
11 •-~ L/6 ~" ~-,~_._,.!~ . -y'"` ~ ~ ~ ~' ~rrC~4~rsi!.~ ~"..9~."~4'"~ __-G-- ~ 8]u-~"' Q-'P ~'~
(1
tL +
(.A ? ~ ~ ~ ~
J...___.r.~- ~ ~R.d.~+ ~~11.__.__' ~..., _:~'R~.~#I; i '~ ,;~,:_._..- ~!..~.,..~r~ t~~„i,.9r~._...~_~ ~Q~~~~uL~,....;...,_.
~..
~~
l
1
.._ r• z
~. ~,
' ~:}..,
i
.rid--.-- ~t...--:.a~~--~~s3~c.~i# ~;.~.n_~.~~.,~-.-g~~'"
.. ~ ~~ ~ ~.
~II _
., ~l
. ` _
~~
t °° ~p ~ (~
~.
.~' ~___ A
,, w
_ ~ - ----
;,
.~
. . ~... ~.. _,., ~. ,.._ ~~w~.w
~~-
~~ ~,~,.
'.'- t--~---~.:----- ~ -~ .~ ~ - .
~' ,~ ,
kP _ a
J
..., ~,C ",~.,,...s..~Q....
a ~ ~
~ j,,, y
1{~
~~ .. {yM1i.w~.i..~~ -~_~-.lk '~^~ ~._. ._R*"!~~'~^",Ia +_'Y~_._._ ~~-lirar-"=14__...-._baPwiF-.l.~s~-~
ii1 *~*
it ~-' L~~: ~" ~"`~" ~- ~~*_~~e_____.:'~_ ~._~~ - _ _...
E
R
--- ----- .~.______w
}l ` - - ~ -
~ ~M ~~ ~ ~ ~ . T- ,_ ~ r... ~._.... _....__ ._....... __
ns-aao
....... ~..~_____... ~ y~ s ~_ ~ _ ~_ , ---
if
~I '~~' ~r.f.Ldd~//yy ~~-...'~jd~r.~.~~^'~' .____ ~+"RY ~YI ~1 b~ ~~yy ~ p~~ y ~ ~r.w
` .'~ _. ~ - ~~ _.~Sr56_J~s.+~m~'~~ Y3._l~r~.-,,.--_YO.a~S~r~' 'i H ~' ~i7k+~ -
~ D~~ ~,.,
! ~~> i ~.'~-,~...._-- ~~~ -.. ~ ~F~____~..2~~~+~.. ~ Ali •'~ "A4/~
„ ~ -s
... - .~4~^ ..- ,, ... ,.. _:, tee.-... m+~=_ ~: ~.wm, ..,~y,
_~ ~~ ~ _w__._~._____________._._.._.______ .~_
1~ ~ _ ________....
~I
.,,
__ ~ _ _ ~~ .. _ _ - e _ F
-~
~. ~,
} . -.-~......a..,,.-
` ,M
a:
r ~~~
I
I
~~
y,,
~~
~.,~.
_. ~.
w
__. _ _._._.~~ _.._....,...r._ __ __ _.
.~ ,,
f. -~. ----- -----
1 ~ ' ,,
Ballard, McKim and Sawyer • Hartman-Cox • Associated Architects
RECAP OF BIDS ON REPAIRS TO WILMINGTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
If the cost of the work exceeds the Estimated Bid price, the lowest
bid would be based on the lowest Upset Prlce Bid, which is Reagan
MILLER REAGAN ROGERS
Estimated Cost 82,000 85,877 70,000
fee 10,000 9,000 8,500
upset price 110,000 89,000* 98,000
If the cost of the work does not exceed the Estimated Bid of either
contractor, the lowest bld would be the contractor who's unit costs
would be the lowest In this case it would be Reagan
MILLER
REAGAN
ROGERS
Earth excavation - hand 7 50 2 00 6 00 5 00 4 00 1 50
machine 5 00 1 00 ~3 00 2 00* 3 00 1 00
removal of concrete foot 2 1.5 80 *1 00 1 00* * 1 00 20
removal of concrete slabs 1 15 30 1 00 1 00* * 40 15
removal of masonry walls 2 50 75 *1 50 1 00* 3 00 50
removal of Con sidewalks 85 20 60 50~ * 50 20
removal of Asp pavement 2 00 75 *1 60 1 50* *3 00 1 00
placing of concrete footing 75 00 30 00 75 00 65 00* *60 00 30 00
placing of floor slabs fin 15 00 7 00 10 00 8 00* *8 00 4 00
laying brick 523 00 300 00* *135 00 100 00 labor300 00 150 00
only
plaster *20 00 10 00 25 00 20 00* 40 00 15 00
painting * 42 15 1 35 1 00* 3 00 1 00
labor for moving books 8 25 3 00~ * 4 00 3 00* * 4 00 2 00
o for work comp ~, pay tax 150 * 120 120
small tool rental 300 X150 300
change in work fee 20o Oo * 8o* 60* 15% 5
o for OH ~ Profit 100 * 50 100
time to complete the work ---
200
*150
It is therefore our recommendations that Reagan Construction Company
be awarded the contract
Reply to
^ 612 South 17th Street, Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 91.9 762 2621
^ 1071 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007 202 333 6446
O
O
M
ct3
n
r--1
N
N
N
a--~
~+
N
H
a
0
U
OO
H
~~T~
F-t.
0
w
0
H
O O o
O O o
O lf1 O
N
lD dA O CO 00 i
~ ~ ~ ~
of
o'
O
O
M
o
o
o ii
N
dP o`P aM ~.
~[1 Lfl O -}-
0
0
0
0
'-i
O
M
l11
01 O O O O
M O O ~ O
Q1 M O Ol \ ~
~ . O
M oW l0 Ql Ol ifl o~ o~ do -f-
Cl L(1 ~ CO r-1 00 lfl lfl ~'
O
N
M
tf1
oW
tf1
o\o
O O O O
O O O ~
O O O \
O
00 O lD O
l~ r-I Ol M
O O O
O O O O
t11 O O ~
(~ Ql O Ill
Ol N l~
ri N
O O 'i
O O
O O
M O If)
dl dP N N
~i' tC) r-~
~ o
l0 O
V' M
Ol N ~
l~ dP M N
~ ~n ,~
vl
z
~-;
J
O
U
Q
o
s
O
O
O
lC1
M
H
O
O
~`
M
w
U
a~~,
H
w
~+
O
O
O
r--I
O
\
o
.-7
g
a
E~
V J
-}-
O
O O
O O
O
M ~--~
dA o~ oW .-.
O O O -}- +
N ~ v ~ v
O O
O O '
tf') O~
~ ~ '
o~ o\o
O O ~- + !,
f-1 r--I O i `-'
O
O
O Q ~
H
r-1 GQ
aAo o~ o~
t.C) l.Cl 111 -{- O
r--1 r-I `-' 2i
dP
l!1
cn
Cw_7
O
w
w
w
w
~~
l(1
n
u
Cwt
O
w
Iw
w
u..
o~O I
LIl
O ~
z~
O W
wWW
C.7 w
W ,T.
c ~
O
~n
N
r--I
~ ~
~ Q.,
H ~
i rJ
i
i A
H
W
Q
I z
N
~ ~~
w O
~~
c-~ 'i
J
CI]
U ~
N ~
H ~"
x ~•,,.
U
2 ~ _i..
O
H
E-+ ~
a ~ w
~ H
H W C]
Ca 3
H ~
~ ~
w
H FC,
W
H
Ri ,H
w x
U ~
C!1
H
cn a
H_ a
~-+ C:W ~
RESOLUTION OF GOVERNING BODY OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY
V~'hereas, the North Carolina Clean Water Bond Act of 1971 has authorized the
making of grants to aid eligible units of government in financing the cost of
construction of wastewater treatment works, wastewater collection systems, and
water supply systems, and
Whereas, Resolution 74-31 of the North Carolina Board of Water and Air
Resources established a policy for approving State grants from the Pollution
Control Account of the Clean Water Fund for Step grants for wastewater treatment
works projects, and
Whereas, Title II of the Federal {Dater Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (P L 92-500 U S C 1251 et seg) authorized the award of step Federal
Construction Grants for waste treatment works, and
Whereas, New Hanover County intends to request State and Federal giant assis-
tance to aid in the design and construction of a regional wastewater treatment
system as set forth in the Greater Wilmington Area 201 Facilities Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF CONIIdISSIONERS OF NEW HANOVER
COUNTY
That New Hanover County will arrange financing for all remaining costs of
the project if approved for State and Federal grant awards
That New Hanover County will adopt and place into effect on or before
completion of the project a schedule of fees and charges which will pro-
vide adequate funds for proper operation, maintenance and administration
of the system
That New Hanover County will provide for efficient operation and mainten-
ance of the project on completion of construction thereof
That New Hanovex County will enact and enforce a sewer use ordinance in
each jurisdiction of the project
That Peter R Davis, Chairman, New Hanover County Commissioners and
successors so titled, is hereby authorized to execute and file Step
II and III applications on behalf of New Hanover County with the
Environmental Protection Agency and the State of North Carolina for grants
to aid in the construction of the project described above
That Peter R Davis, Chairman, New Hanover County Commissioners and
successors so titled, is hereby authorized and directed to furnish such
information as the appropriate Federal or State agencies may request in
connection with such applications or the project, to make the assurances
as contained above, and to execute such other documents as may be required
in connection with the applications
That New Hanover County has substantially complied or will substantially
comply with all Federal, State and local laws, rules, regulations, and
ordinances applicable to the project and to Federal and State grants and
loans pertaining thereto, and hereby authorized the above designated rep-
resentative to execute an affidavit so stating
Adopted this thea2a~day of ~ 1976, at Wilmington, North
Carolina
Peter R Davis, Chairman
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING OFFICER
The undersigned duly qualified and acting as Clerk to the Board of County Commis-
sioners of New Hanover County does hereby certify That the above attached resolu-
tion is a true and correct copy of the resolution authorizing the filing of Step II
and Step III applications with the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of
North Carolina, as regularly adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Board of
County Co issioners, New Hanover County, North Carolina duly held on the ~o ~'
day of 1976, and further, that such resolution has been
fully recof~ded in the journal of proceedings a~ records i my office IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this, 7~.~ day of ~~~ , 1976
Alyce $ Brown
Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
New Hanover County
(SEAL)
r
SAp-temhPr 17, 7..97h
Roa.rd of rmm~-i.ssi_oners~ pTew Hanover County
T~irG. Flr:i ~ ht and f}entl~Yn~n of the Poard:
tiVP~ the i,ndPrs_igned mPml,er. s n.f i,he .So?zihaa,stPrn Chanter of the rlori-h
ra.rr,l_;na SnniFi~y of ~,~rveyors~ Tn''*~ a.11. 'heir; i.n the Privat.P r,r;~c*,tirr?
of land survey~.nn~ ar,r,Par i,aforP yo,z toda~~ v~~th a very serious problem.
m}1e State of TTcrth Carolina. has ~ln effPr't recta s.n laws that rP~~,l_~atF t},~,
ProfPSGions o f I~1nd S»rv~~r'.ng a.nd ~;ngi.nnc;rir~. Chapter ~~-; of the renr~ral
Sta±„~tr~s of plo~th rarn7.ina, clef i nr, the pranti r•e of T,arJd Sttrveyi n; and
1ngi_nePr; nn. Fn_l~s of T/`rofPSS; c,nal_ rondt~rt a,rP also Prom1J7.`atPrl ~ n
a.C~Ord.aJ?r`P Pn-th ~ * S w ~9..I' a•rid arm i~l.nri;_n~ ,]pop nvnry PFr~r,n holda_ns;
?~egistrati on as ?. ProfPSS ona1. Land Su~rvPyor or ~;ngineer.
The PTi_]_mi n~t,on - TTe,rr Tlanover planning Corrn?~i ss-i on ;_s ~hargPd with thr,
rFrnnnGibili.ty of making plans for the development of pTPw Ha.ne~*er
oovnty. Su??di_vi s; on rPg,~lati on:; have been Pnarted to assist the Pla.nni J7(*
Cemmi.,,:~i_~n anti the dr~vel~,pPrsrP~,la.te the orrlPrly arowt.h of the ~%rn,rty.
T~Tr. P~~il Foster? a member of the ti'Ti.1m; n •ton - pTew Iia-nover P7_~nn i nn
romm~-^si.on, who rnns; dPr~ himsPl f a land n].~nn i nrr ronG,Jli-ant, has madn
r;tatemPntG vahi.ch are a par. t of tha rProrci. (Fnn~ nS~,rF T} that a.ra
dr`rn~*a,t,~~rv~ i.na.ee»rate~ defamat:nry~ non ~rofeGSi.onall_v ovr~r1_v
on; n; r,natPd.~ and ~r,r!mletr'ly uncalled for, He has p~tblicl_y staters at
rernnt meetinrys of the Pla.nni.ng Commi.ssi.on I-,ha.t a h~ahl.yresnr~r•t,ncT
local rngi.neerin7 tu~.d T.~nd Survey~.rJg fixm is not c{ualified to nla.n a
subdivision anti that they do not have anyone competent on th~i_r ~i;:,ff
to Plan a. s~Jbclivi Gi-on. Tt ~ a obv_i ous that P+;r. Foster does not fee]_
that a d,J1y registered land surveyor a.nd evil enn~; peer havF thn
cl,aa~;.ficati_ons to n1.an a s1,~livisi.~n of 1v~ri~ and thaF in h; r op~ n~ on
this v~~.rk sho„ld he d~,nF only by land. Pla.nnPrG,, mhn State of p~Tnt•th
(;a.rnl ; na ma.Tces no nrovi.si nns for d~f ~ n-i.ns* the rrar•i; i ne of I~a.ncl Pl_ann~i rv~
or for the RPt*i.strat.i.on of ~tProfeGS:i.nna.1 pla.nn~rs~-. Tt i-G a1.^c, r,T~~i.n„G
i,hat T'.r. Foster has nnd~lly i_J~flnnncPd r,thPr meml~err of the rommi.ssi on
v~i.th hi_s oni_nior~ated verl~~rc~.
tiYe reel. that hi ., presence on. the Corrunissi_on is a sFrious conflict of
ini-,erFSt; his apparent ignorance of the law is inexc~JSahlP, anti hit
commPnt,^ ennnFrn7.ng subdivision planning anti approval very daman~ nn.
S ~ nce i t is apparent that Land Surveyors anti Fnn-i.nPers wi,l]. not r. Pr`~~-i ve
d,J-r? consideration on su?~mitted p7.~ns~ vr~ thFrefnrF res~r,et:ivFly rr~qur~:~t
that TTr. Fo^tr.rt G a.nnnintmr,nt tc, i;hP (',r,mn,i.sSi-on Y,e iJnTnr,di.at,ely tcrm;.n~tt;eci.
L^^ ~ n ~Z~Cd.+Pa---+d.
" Join !fie Benson
~ ~~~
/ Tohi~i.e C. Garrison
~o~>r. t H. Goslee
~/~
_~
~--! ., ~. ,max! ~~--~_._..~
Gebr~e Losalc
~nvard T,[. Lough]_in
r-- ~ / ~~.,~ r
/,~ Jack G. Stocks
r
~....! ~'
Tfi.lton F. Underwood
~~r~~sTrxE t
Tn the meetiru; of the Planning Board on j~de~.nesc~ay~ SPntemlxr 1, 1976,
r7r. Foster ma.dE the followi_n~ statements concerning the matter of Great
Oaks S~.zbdivisi.on;
~~Very poor plans very poorly dPSi~ned p1:~.n...~~
nT thi_nlc he (Bradshaw) ounht to hire h~snsc_l_f a food land
plannPr...o
Bradshativ stated they ha.d personnel on their staff rapahle of
pla,nn_ n~ land.
Fosters s answer "Ohs nn ,yo~t dins t~~
Su.i~d~.viGi~n Revievr committee T,tecti_na At~rttst 23, 1976
Detail~:d siirrnary of. c~i.scussion attach~d.y
CEP Pa~'P 9
SFe Pa.{~p 13
DE'TAII,ED SL'AiTi<~RY OF DISCI ~SION OF
GREAT OAK ES'T~iTES, SECTION 1 - PRELiM1NARY PLAN
DISCUSSED AT AUGUST 23, 1976 SUBDIVISION REVIEW CO>`Tr1ITTEE MEETING
SRC Members Present
T•ir I .john Tinga, Chm
Air Paul Foster
~1`ir Hamilton Hicks, Jr
Mr J D Orrell
Ptr Al Sharp
Others Present
Mr Everett Hale, Developer
Mr John Benson, RLS
P1r Hoyt Bradshaw, RLS
(Henry von Oesen & Assoc )
Mr Larry Goff, SCS
Mr Jabe Hardee, Realtor
Mr Jack Stocks, RLS
Planning Staff Present
Mr Harry E Oakes, Staff Planner
Mrs Julie Weiss, Secretary
The sketch master plan and the preliminary plan of Great Oaks l~~tates, Section 1
was presented by Mr Oakes Mr Oakes stated that Great Oakes Fstat~s is located in
Harnett Township, east of U S Hwy 17 approximately 1,900 feet nortl of the intersection
of U S Hwy 17 and S R 1345 (Alexander Road) The master plan was presented to the
Subdivision Review Committee at the meeting on September 24, 1973, acid was granted a
sketch plan approval The master plan consisted of 508 lots, 15,000 square feet plus
in size and located in an R-15 zone The proposed lots were to be served by a centralized
water system and individual sewage disposal systems Section 1 consists of 52 lots,
19,000 square feet plus in size
Mr Oakes pointed out that as of this date no comments have been received from the
County Health Department or the Department of Transportation on this plan
Mr Larry Goff, Soil Technician, Lower Cape Fear Soil & Water Conservation
District (S.C S ), discussed the soils report on this Subdivision He pointed out
that soils in this tract were rated as very severe, 812 and 94, severe, 582, 891 and
836, slight, 724 and 79 Mr Goff recommended that the 812 soil, which has a very
severe rating, not be developed, but left in i.ts natural condition The 94 soil,
also having a very severe rating (deep muck soil to approximately 75") has the following
problems high water table, high shrinkage, and would require mucking out and back
Detailed Summary
SRC Minutes - August 23, 1976
Page 2
filling with suitable fill material prior to development He recommended professional
engineers certify foundations and developments on this site Soils rated 582 and 891
have a severe rating for residential development utilizing septic tanks due to un-
seasonable high water table and varying hard-pan layers He said they do not generally
recommend septic tank use on these soils due to these problems Even with an adequate
surface and subsurface drainage system, there is a probability of failure of septic
tanks on these sites due to the varying hard-pan layers Mr Goff reported that
836 soil responds well to artificial drainage and should be adequate once a complete
surface and subsurface drainage system is installed Soils 724 and 79 should be
adequate for development utilizing septic tanks The main problem associated with these
soils is deep sand ridges with poor filtering capacity, possible contamination of
ground watt:r and also problems in establishing and maintaining vegetation Mr Goff
stated tha this plat at the present time does not contain adequate planned subsurface
drainage o the severe rated soils He said the need to grade and shape each lot for
adequate surface water removal still exists
Mr Bradshaw stated that the area mentioned as 94 soils, as stated on the plans,
would be cleared and mucked and used as a disposal area for surplus excavation As
shown on the profile sheets, they feel the road grading and proposed drainage will
take care of the drainage situation for these areas called severe Mr Bradshaw said
they were aware that the burden was on the developer to make the lots usable to meet
the requirements of the percolation tests and the Health Department As each area is
developed, when a lot does not pass the requirements, the developer will have to
improve or abandon such lots
Mr Sharp Why does this large a subdivision plan not utilize a central sewage system?
Mr Bradshaw A central sewage system is being considered in a Countywide sewage plan
But for a developer, on an individual basis, it is not practical For a development this
size, it would cost approximately 1/2 million dollars for such a plant
Detailed Summary
SRC rlinutes - August 23, 1976
Page 3
Mr Foster I see a vast amount of land with numerous types of soil conditions in an
area where development pattern is very loose and very low density It would seem to
be logical, from a land planning point of view, instead of making a rather tight street
pattern and regular lots, to design street patterns and lots to avoid the weak soil
areas
Pir Bradshaw Due to the limited amount of land left to develop, we have to go in and
improve land and bring it up to a usable point as we go
Mr Foster Every square foot of New Hanover County should not be developed
Mr Bradshaw No, of course not
Mr Foster That's what I'm saying People of New Hanover County have stated they
want to preserve the rural charm of portions of New Hanover County Let's don't make
it all a bunch of subdivisions like in New Jersey and Richmond At a public mu tang,
one gentleman said he has more money in his pocket, but his ditch stinks and hr would
rather have less money in his pocket and have a clean ditch Why not develop the
areas where the better soils are located on this site and let the rest remain i.n its
natural state I think I can prove you can make more money leaving natural areas for
better environment rather than developing tacky lots and houses
Mr Tinga Ultimately, where will the water be drained to?
Mr Foster To Pages Creek
Mr Bradshaw explained the location of three different drainage areas (Middle Branch &
Pages Creek)
Mr Tinga That was one of my questions - is there enough fall in the street swans
to handle water flow easily
Mr Sharp Is there only one access to Hwy 17 which will ultimately accommodate
all lots?
Mr Bradshaw One is proposed now and there will be another access provided south of
the one shown at a later date as development proceeds
Det~i] d Summary
`'KC ii i ites - August 23, 1976
Pi;e ~+
Mr Foster The areas designated as commercial have not been zoned for shopping?
rir Bradshaw No
Mr Tinga Is that a double street entering the Subdivision from Hwy 17?
Mr Bradshaw Yes, as you can see it on the site plan
Tir Orrell Mr Goff said that under the surface some 75" down is muck
Pir Goff Down to depths of 75"
Mr Orrell Can you get sufficient fall to provide good drainage to these soils for
foundations?
Mr Bradshaw I'es
Mr Tinga One thing we ought to remember, in contrast to Crestwood Subdivision just
reviewed, these lots are 15,000 square feet as opposed to 10,000 square foot lots
Mr Hardee No, 19,000 square foot lots for Section 1
Mr Oakes The master plan delineated 1 ~s of 15,000 square feet, however, Section 1
lots are 19,000 square feet
Mr Tinga What are the recommendations of the Staff?
Mr Oakes Grant conditional preliminary approval for Section 1 with the conditions
being to obtain approval from the Department of Transportation, County Health Department,
the County Engineer for soil erosion and sedimentation control, and working with the
Soil Conservation Service in preparing a drainage plan and obtaining approval from them
Mr Tinga We should also stipulate that muck soils - it has been agreed to remove
and replace these soils
Mr Tinga asked for a motion to approve as stated by the Staff
Mr Orrell Does Mr Bradshaw have anything he wishes to comment on? Does he have
objections to these conditions?
Mr Bradshaw No We realize the problems are there and the burden is on the developer
to bring up to standards to accommodate septic tanks
Mr Hicks What is the time table for development?
Detailed Summary
SRC Minutes - August 23, 1976
Page 5
Mr Bradshaw As soon as possible We would like to start grading and. street clearing
~La~-e~~
and tweet construction We don`t know what will happen until we get our ditches and
grading and drainage improved
Mr Oakes Is there any way to revise the preliminary master plan and submit it?
Pir Bradshaw The overall plan?
Mr Oakes Fight
Mr Foster Hss this every been approved by us?
Mr Oakes It was a sketch plan only at one time, but it was never given preliminary
Mr Bradshaw It was presented in the past as a sketch plan with soils and DOT review
Mr Oakes [Je have to consider that DOT standards have changed and there was no valid
preliminary approval at the time so it would be subject to present standards
Mr Bradshaw Section 1 should meet the existing DOT's standards
Mr Oakes I would think so, except possibly for sight distances
Mr Foster Do you propose to completely bulldoze the property?
Mr Bradshaw No Only when and where needed
Mr Tinga (Stated to Mr Oakes) Are you requesting a preliminary approval of this
master plan?
Mr Oakes No We are recommending that an updated master plan reflecting the intent
of the developer be submitted Since this was submitted in 1973, the master plan may
require revision
Mr Bradshaw The master plan is still generally our concept for overall development
As we come in with a section at a time, we are refining each section to meet the
conditions of the sketch type approval that we had originally We may find that as we
continue to develop that streets, etc may have to be moved
Mr Oakes Will your streets tie into existing streets in Bayshore Estates?
Mr Hardee Yes, they will
Mr Hicks Do you intend to raze the land?
Detailed Summary
SRC Minutes - /~„~iist 23, 1.976
Page 6
Mr Bradshaw No Just clear and muck out 94 soil type areas Road ditches as
required by DOT will be 22 inches below the centerline and will handle surface as well
as subsurface water Drainage cut for roadway is going to greatly improve the water
and drainage situation
Mr Foster jti'hy are the roads so straight? t,Thy not curved to slow traffic?
Mr Oakes The road design standards of DOT almost forces the developer to design
roads on a grid or block pattern
Mr Foster We should do something about the design requirements of DOT
Mr Oakes Various people have tried The S R C has asked for variances on various
subdivisions and have received approval from DOT on about a 50 50 basis
Mr Hicks Are the design requirements based on the premise that an individual is
going to deed the roads to the State?
Mr Oakes Yes For public roads and also for private road- since our Ordinances
allow private roads if constructed to DOT's standards
Mr Hicks Do private roads need DOT approval?
Mr Oakes Yes To insure that they have been constructed to DOT's standards
Mr Sharp Why, in a development of this size, is there no open space? All we have
is blanket roads and lots
Mr Hardee We have open space (Pointed out area )
Mr Sharp How do you get to it? (Enclosed with lots )
Mr Hardee Will be a street at a later date
Mr Sharp Where?
Mr Hardee We will leave an area to get in there As shown on the sketch plan there
is none When we get to that point, we will leave access
Mr Bradshaw These areas you leave as open land are good until you try to find out
who will maintain them The County and the State do not want them
Mr Oakes As stated in the Subdivision Ordinance, it is recommended that public areas
Detailed Summary
SRC Minutes - August 23, 1976
Page 7
be reserved for parks, recreational areas, schools, fire stations and provide the
County an opportunity to buy this land at a fair market value for a period of six
months from the date of submission of preliminary plan
Mr Sharp As I understand, the preliminary plan has not been submitted
Mr Oakes That is correct On the dedication of park or recreational areas, we
are initiating a case to go before the County Commissioners to see if they will
accept public land for parks, etc and maintain said lands This will be a test case
The policy has been not to accept land becuase of no money or Department to maintain
the public lands
Mr Hicks Leaving open wooded area left natural is advantageous to the development
Mr Tinga The point is, from the developer's point of view, say the developer owns
a 100 acre tract with 20 acre4 of flood plain that he cannot develop He can't get
rid of it unless he draws his ~ildividual property lines to include the area
Pir Foster Not a bad way of going it
Mr Tinga Still, the buyer does not necessarily want that "waste land " If he buys
it, it is his and he must maintain it What's happening is the developer is stuck
with it if he can't dispose of it in some way and he has to pay taxes on it He sells
lots out in bits and pieces and has an area remaining which is useless to him and he
has to pay taxes on it
Mr Foster One member of the ~P.C owned marsh land and gave it to the State and wrote
it off as a tax write-off
Mr Bradshaw The County does not even want a drainage right-of-way They want an
easement instead
Mr Oakes That's so each individual property owner is responsible for the maintenance
instead of the County
Mr Foster The County is going to have to face up to it and develop a County-wide
drainage plan
Detailed Summary
SKC Minutes - August 23, 1976
Page 8
Mr Bradshaw With lots this size, it's not like your rural houses or redevelopment
area with 6,000 - 7,000 square foot lots, or l0,JU0 sq ft lots These lots will
generally be 20,000 square feet The first section has lots 19,000 square feet in
size These are good size open lots not like those downtown where you have to .,o to
the next block for recreational areas
T1r Sharp Are these lots of sufficient size for a ball park or other type of activities?
Mr Bradshaw No Not for a ball park
Pir Sharp Or a place to bicycle or walk without restrictions?
Mr Tinga The only area shown is the area noted as commercial and motel
Mr Hardee Bayshore is proposing a recreational area with tennis courts and different
facilities which does not join up with the sketch plan you see before you
Mr Tinga Who will own it?
Mr Hardee We are trying to find out now who will maintain and own it The property
owners evidently don't what to It puts you in a position from a liability standpoint,
that if an accident occurs, you may have a suit against you If the property owners
had an association but we cannot get them to generate enough interest to do it We
told them we would give them 10 acres of land and $10,000 and still could not convince
them to do it What do you do?
Mr Tinga Participants in homeowners associations become owners of the property and
pay dues forever Of course this is a consideration the homeowner takes also Mr
Foster is in a homeowners association of Figure Eight Island which he feels is worth-
while A lot of people when they finish paying for their property, do not want
the continuous paying of dues because each one figures he is not getting his share
of the benefits
Mr Bradshaw I agree that the open areas and parks are ideal, but there are numerous
problems
Mr Sharp They are handled in other areas and can be managed when there is a desire
Detai7.ed Summary
SRC riinutes - Itugust 23, 1976
Page 9
to manage them
Mr Tinga True, but when a person goes out to develop an area that is a selling
point The property owner must decide before purchase
rir Tinga We were discussing the conditions of the approval The Staff recommends
conditional approval subject to the conditions as stated previously
Mr Orrell made a motion to grant conditional approval subject to the conditions as
previously stated by the Staff Mr Tinga seconded the motion
Vote Aye - Chairman Tinga and Mr Orrell
Noe - Mr Foster, Mr Hicks and Mr Sharp
Mr Foster I voted against it because it is poor~Iann g„~..
Mr Bradshaw Could I get some specific requests
Mr Sharp I would like to see the total plan approved rather than piecemealing it
Because once you have approved the area abutting the highway, then ti~u almost dictate
the rest of the development
Mr Hardee What if at a point of development someone wishes to purchase the remaining
undeveloped portion, do you wish for him to be tied down to our specific development?
Mr Oakes They would have to come back for preliminary approval
Mr Hicks I feel like we should be fair in relating to Mr Bradshaw our feelings on
this plan and reasons for denial I feel that a more solid overall conceptional total
plan should be prepared like some of the other developments we receive which have
preliminary master plan approval and then developed by sections As it stands, we
don't formally have that type plan
Mr Bradshaw The plan meets all the subdivision requirements now
Mr Foster The plan that Colonel Dennison did for Dr Dorman (Shinn Point Subdivision)
is a good sample of pulling everything together
Mr Hicks That was a fantastic display of real work I was impressed with it The
soil conditions, ditches, bad areas where he could and could not develop, etc were all
laid out
Detailed Summary
SRC Minutes - August 23, 1976
Page 10
Mr Foster There is no comparison in what he presented and what we have here He had
aerial photographs, etc
Mr Hicks He had a very marginal situation, but the way he presented it showed a lot
of thought and planning
rir Orrell An approval of the section does not hold you to approving additional
sections
Pir Sharp It begins to dictate
Pir Orrell It does not dictate anything It might to you, but not to me
Mr Sharp I'ou get a road constructed to a point, it dictates for a number of feet
from that point how the adjacent section will be constructed
P1r Foster This is a beautiful piece of land and I hate to see it subdivided in this
manner
Mr Bradshaw I would iCke to request the objections in writing so we can follow
your recommendations ~f you are turning down Section 1, I want to know in writing
what you require that goes beyond the subdivision requirements that we have been
trying to adhere to over the past years 4~e try to meet these requirements If we
have a new set of rules and requirements, I'd like to know what they are I stated
in my letter, I realize we have some problems from here on out with the topography
and soil conditions
Mr Tinga As I understand the Committee, those objecting would like to see a pre-
liminary plat approved before the specific final plats are presented Of course, I
understand this is the preliminary plat over here
Mr Bradshaw The Section 1 is a preliminary plat for 54 lots The sketch master
plan for 500 lots is a master plan to show what is planned for future development
Mr Tinga I must say that at this point I can't see why you would be required to
dedicate public land as recommended It's desirable, but I can appreciate your
difficulty not being able to ever rid yourself of it You have real difficulty in
Detailed Summary
SRC Minutes - August 23, 1976
Page 11
ever clearing yourself of this whole subdivision which you ultimately are going to
have to do I dont't say I approve the Ordinance as it is, but if the Ordinance is
going to require open land or recreation land, there must be the machinery in the
County to accept this, unless private arrangements can be made by deed restrictions
or homeowners associations which may or may not be desirable
Mr Sharp It's the nature of planning to look ahead and when you are dealing with
a potential 500 lots, I think it behoves you to look at the total plat, then work
with individual sections But Section 1 of what? How many sections?
Mr Bradshaw If the real estate market opens up, it might be Sections 1 and 2
Mr Sharp Would it not be great to have all the planning done when you are ready
for Section 2?
Mr Bradshaw We have the planning done and that's what our developer wants It
meets the subdivision requirements as they are now If we are to revise the overall
plan, we have to ask our owner into it to see if he agrees to dedicate open land
Mr Sharp Mr Tinga, isn't it procedure to have a preliminary master plan approved?
Mr Tinga Normally, but this developer does not wish to go this route, he wishes
to complete his work in sections
Mr Orrell Does the Ordinance require a preliminary master plan?
Mr Tinga A sketch plan One way is development of a certain level so styles of
development will not be mixed in this area, because if you begin with building 19,000
square foot lots, with presumably $50,000 homes on them, and you get into difficulties
and begin building with smaller lots, 10,000 square feet and put 1,000 square foot
houses on them, the people who bought the original lots would have their property devalued
by being located next to an inferior type subdivision That would be one advantage of
developing this whole thing so the surrounding developers and property buyers could
see the layout in its entirity and set up for a certain style of development Then
they presumably would be assured there wouldn't be any little 1,000 foot houses thrown
Detail ed Summary
SRC Minutes - August 23, 1976
Page 12
in their midst as some subdivisions have
Mr Bradshaw That's what we have on this master plan and have stated that lots
would be 15,000 square feet
Mr Tinga But you see that's not an official thing and that is one of the items rSr
Sharp has considered
Mr Hicks I don't doubt your intentions, but formally make that intention to us
and we will work with it
Mr Bradshaw We can see if the developer wants to tie himself down for that length
of time f.or that size lots But we have stated 15,000 square foot lots for preliminary
sketch approval
Mr Sharp Mr Oakes, can you define for the gentleman the difference between a sketch
plan approval and preliminary plan approval?
'ir Oakes Basically, a sketch plan is a tentative type plan which generally shows
the lot layout, drainage and the street patterns Mr Oakes then read from the
Subdivision Ordinance A sketch plan will be reviewed for the general compliance of the
requirements of the Ordinance The subdivider or his representative may discuss the
plans of the development of the proposed subdivision The Planning Department shall
advise the developer as to regulations pertaining to the proposed development and the
procedure the subdivider shall follow in preparing submitted subdivisions
Mr Tinga Then the sketch plan deal is an acquainting kind of deal between the
developer and/or his representative and the Staff of the Planning Department so they
can find any obvious errors in concept The next step would be the presentation of
the preliminary plan utilizing the advice of the Planning Staff
Mr Tinga The issue is that Mr Foster, Mr Hicks and Mr Sharp are of the opinion
that the preliminary plat approval should include the total tract and Mr Bradshaw's
opinion is that he needs a preliminary approval on only Section 1 (54 lots) which is
being presented tonight
Detailed Summary
SRC Minutes - August 23, 1976
Page 13
Mr Foster You have 500 lots and you will be generating about 2,000 persons along
that one entry road You should really have a soil sedimentation/erosion plan for
the entire tract
Mr Bradshaw If we had a place for another access we would be glad to do it [de do
have access proposed at another location although it's not our property We propose
another access road to the south of the one shown on Section 1 I can't find any other
way to bring another road out to Hwy 17 I feel we have met the requirements by
submitting this plan as a sketch plan and this as a preliminary plat of the first
section If there is anything in the sketch plan that does not meet the requirements
other than you want a park or some open land, we would like to know what it is
Mr Foster The quality of your planning work is just not that good compared to
what Paul Dennison gave us on Shinn Point
Mr Bradshaw With the configuration and topography as it is, I know of no other way
to develop it except for this collector thoroughfare through the development with the
residential feeder roads coming into it
Mr Hicks I think our message is that we are not comfortable with this plan
Mr Bradshaw You don't like my layout?
~~ Mr Foster Yea we ust think it',$ ~~.,,l.c~u~~t 1ay~a.u.t....
Mr Bradshaw I'm sorry, we can't all be experts
Mr Foster You've got planners, and I saw the presentation Col Dennison made It
was masterful
Mr Bradshaw There is really no comparison as to the land
Pir Foster Yes, it is beautiful land
Discussion on soils of total tract by Mr Goff on request of Mr Orrell
Mr Foster Why don't you develop just the sand ridges (good soils) and forget about
the rest of the place
P r zi led Summary
~~'C '•:inutes - August 23, 1976
?' „e 14
rir Bradshaw That's basically what we have done
Pir Foster You`ve proposed development in the muck, the marsh and everything
You've got lots in some of the worst soils on the site
Mr Bradshaw discussed the proposed drainage of the various soils
Mr Oakes What is the intention of the lake area once it's drained? Will it become
a recreational area or will it be consumed into the individual properties?
Mr Bradshaw No We left that as a lake area and will possibly have to run lots
into the center of it
Discussion followed on how the lake was created
r1r Tinga Mr Bradshaw, the only comfort, if any, is that we will forward you a copy
of these minutes so you may have the ~mments these gentlemen made Hopefully, you
and your principal may come to some conclusion as to what you wish to do
Mr Hicks I think this site has a potential of being a real fine development, good
lot size, etc I don't want you to overlook something If we have served the purpose
of having you relook at it and say maybe we can improve here or do this or we have
given consideration to this, but we can't do it for this reason, etc then I feel we
have served our purpose and the land is developed and sold and probably match with the
quality of the land
Mr Foster I see no reason why you could not have a mixture of $50,000 homes,
$30,000 homes and even mobile homes
Mr Hardee Nooo - not mobile homes
Mr Foster You could make a planned development that could be handled very gracefully
Mr Orrell That could be, but if the developer cut out the lots you were talking
about, then the price would have to increase on the remaining lots You could price
a lot of people out of buying in this subdivision
r
A w ~
Detailed Summary
SRC Minutes - August 23, 1976
Page 15
rir Foster No, not by not developing the marginal lots
Mr Hardee You have to pass them by with the asphalt on the roads and when ~ ~~
develop a piece you'll find out what it costs to put a street in and you can believe
that in the ultimate end, the consumer will pay That`s why we are trying to put
this development in in a manner where we can hold the lot costs down to where a
consumer can buy j,Then you spend $15,000 to $20,000 on getting layouts and have to
come back with new revised plans and spend another $6,000 laying it out, the consumer
will ultimately pay
Mr Tinga Mr Bradshaw, if you are interested, we will have a meeting of the
Planning Commission on Wednesday week and if you would like to present this to the
w}iole Planning Commission, it is your privilege to do this
Mi Bradshaw I will have to speak to the developer and see what he wishes to do
/jw
. ~
CITIZEN PETITION
To Meznc~ers of the New iianover County Commission
P~lambcrs of the Planning Comtaission
~~'e .~nderst:and that you will be asked to approve a
clevelopznez~t called Great Oak Estates to consist o
residential lots, a shopping center, a motel., and
riulti-fa,nily housing The proposed development i$
Highway 17 north of Wilmington and, roughly, lies
Creek
t•'e have studied the plans of the
and soil conditions in the area
to '.~e completely unacceptable
,.
massive
f 500+
an area for
.located along J S
along Pages
proposed development, elevations,
We find the proposed development
1 `1'he proposed plan depends an individual septic tanks Mucl:
of the land c~~ncerned is low we can anticipate at least ?_,500
p~of~le on thu ~(7U+ lots, in the motel, and in multi-family
dw~.llin,s The outcome is obvious - vastli. increased poll~.ztion
in the form of increased coliform bacteria and ~creasec? BOi~~
Tn a word, very severe deterioration of .pater duality will un-
questionably occur in Pages Creek, both north and south xn tte
Intracoastal Waterway, in connecting channels, and rn tt:e salt.
water marshes Areas not now Polluted will bc, rareas now. some-
what polluted will become very znucli worse We confidently pre-
dict polluted shellfish, marshes, and recreational waters at the
minimum
2 Irz north~:rn New Flanover County east of U S 17 , drxnklny
water is drawn from the Castle i~7yne aquif:.r Salt water in-
trusion into our water. supply has been predicted in a report Y,y
henry Van Oesen S Associates, Consulting Engineers and Planners
Our water supply has proven adequate for a very low Density
population The demand of an additional 500+ homes, a motel, ,~
sf~~opping center, and multi-family dwellings will rapidly haste
salt water intrusion
3 Beyond rea unable doubt, construction of the proposed
dr~velopmezt will rapidly and greatly increase soil erosion and
fres:~ water runoff from the development site This will m~.an
sedizno ;x.ation of i~~zyes Creek and the Intracoastal Waterway with.
resulting ne~yative effec_t.s ~~n fi.sti/shellfi }i breeding habitats
_znd oz7 navigation 'I"-:e salt water- grasses and marshes will un--
questionabl..x be damat;~~~d arac-1 pons Uly d~atroyeci
4 highway 17 nort}r of Ogucz is even now a very dangerous
road. Numerous severe <~ccidents, ynjuries, and even death have
recently occurred there With 500+ homes, not l-o mention a motel,
a shopping center, and multi-family swellings, there will be
thousands more cars each day trying to turn off and on U S 17
Iricreas~~c? numbers of accidents are a certainty under such
conditions
5 Who will pay for the incres:sed cost of sc~l.~ol.s, 1_ir~. -3 3s
police protection, and ot-.r~~.r services occt~sionec? .:,_;' such a ;~u~~~;,
high density development? ~;:i_thcr increased t: ,h~:~~ for aai c.oi:crltti
residents or a deterioration and d.rl.utiori of sarvyces fc~z all
residents will follow upon suc~i a develc~r~rner.c
6 '.there is no need for such a develal~ment Mar; horlc~s ~r~c..
lots are now offered far sale in Phew fianover c r unty as ;r; i;
spection of the MLS book shows There are already sev~~x:,a~
thousand residentially zoned vacant lots In the count;r Anl
there is hardly a population boom :ir. Prospect
The propa:~ed develops ent is a land speculatic n ~r;icrac w i ~ ~ ~
result in irrevocable er,viranmental daa~.:~ge Zt i.s ~r•necessa
anc: undesirable in all respects
We urge you to reject the plans and to disallc.~w tY~e ~_r;~.:s e
development
raAr~t~
ADDRESS
{ ~~ ~ y~
L s ,~ . ~.h..r~~--~ ~ ; l ~,~ R J '. 1~-- ~ ~~~.3Z.ti~..rr.S.idr.`.~._.1'~~~~- ..._.
~--
J
~ ~. ..
~~
,, ~
~ ,_ .
f ~
/' . ~~ .t ~
.-~ ~~
~ ~-
~. ~" ~ -~~t.~,._...---
~(
Q
~~.. ~
I
~~~
LARRY J POWELL
Tax Administrator
RAYMONDE BLAKE,JR
Appraisal Supervisor
119 NORTH FIFTH STREET
~aAri~ber
kI
\~I4
~O~
fi~
~timtngtott, ~ ~C 28401
NEW HANOVER COUNTY TAX COLLECTIONS
Collections Thru August 31~~~976
762-0391
1976 1975
Charged Per Scroll $9,887,734 29 -~
Collections to Date - 144,260 48 $ 41,480 29
Outstanding Balance $9,743,473 81
Percentage Collected 1 46%
Back Taxes
Real Estate $ 466,470 92 $ 332,356 19
Less Abatements - 850 88 - 91 12
Collections to Date - 40,925 47 - 22,826 44
Outstanding Balance $ 424,694 57 $ 309,438 63
Percentage Collected 8 8% 6 9%
Back Taxes
Personal Property $ 328,845 80 $ 343,874 95
Less Abatements - 218 72 - 93 96
Collections to Date - 9,631 33 - 6,767 46
Outstanding Balance $ 318,995 75 $ 337,013 53
Percentage Collected 2 9% 2 0%
Total money processed through collection office for New Hanover
County, City of Wilmington, Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and Wrightsville
Beach to date, $408,210 83
This report >_s for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1976 There is
no comparative figure of percentage collected on current taxes as the
1975 charges were not turned over to collections until the first of
September, .1975
Respectfully submitted,
J~nie B. Straughn
Collector of Revenue
MAE B. STUART
Listing Supervisor
JANIE B STRAUGHN
Collector of Revenue
JBS/pbc
i
MEMORANDUM
September 1.5, 1976
To Mr Dan Eller, County Manager
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
From Larry J Powell, Tax Administrato~'~~~f/~
Subject Abatements and Refunds
The following taxpayers request they be allowed the Senior
Citizen's Exemp-tlon Each individual qual.lfles for the exempts_on,
however, they failed to file for the release in January
1 Robert F Lewis
2 M Page Taylor
3 Garfield Clemmons
4 Nellie G Covil
5 Welbon Cox
6 Bertha Daughtry
7 Ralph Dry
8 Lucille Garrison
9 T E Goff
l0 Edna Gore
11 Hrs John B Griffith
12 James Hanchey
13 R Harlee Kzrkum
14 Estella C Marshburn
15 W L McCorsley
16 Ida Mitchell
17 McKinley Moore
18 Eddie Nelson
19 Emma Newkirk
20 Lucinda Parker
21. Rosa Pearsall
2?_ James Prince
23 D G Raines
24 Hrs B Sldbury
25 ~7 M Slaughter
26 J D Snow
27 Alex B Stanland
28 W A Taylor Est
29 Carrie M Taylor
30 Mary Warren
31 Bennie Watts
32 Sara Worley
$ 121 71 (Also clerical error)
47 34 (Also penalty)
34 50
84 00
84 00
84 00
84 00
92 40 (Also penalty)
101 27 (Also penalty)
84 00
84 00
34 50
34 50
57 46
147 86 (Also clerical error)
84 00
84 00
92 40 (Also penalty)
84 00
67 88
34 50
34 50
84 00
34 50
84 00
84 00
34 5 0
49 82 (Also penalty)
50 40 (Also penalty)
84 00
84 00
84 00
Request the following taxes be abated as this is exempt property
1 Seagate Comm Cem $ 33 48 (1975 & 1.976)
2_ Mount Ho]_1y Baptist Cf:urch 173 27 (1975 f~ 1976)
3 City of Wilmington 65 97 (1975 5 1976)
LI First Baptist Church 61 99
h ~ 2
5 Trinity Methodist Church $ 227 97
6 N H County 8 City of Wilmington 204 13
7 Fourth Street Church of God 761 56
8 Red Comm (Eva D'Lugin) 8 91
9 Cape Fear Mem Hosp 10,486 76
10 Love Chapel Church of God 548 48
The following taxpayers request the listing penalty be released
as they certify they placed the listing in the ma~_1 during January,
received the listing sheet late, or listed other property which they
felt covered all tracts
1 William Allen $ 66 47
2 Armstrong Dev , Inc 5 64
3 Bank of N C, N A 2 2 4 3
4 Robert C Batson 9 79
5 Clyde Bordeaux 27 07
6 Robert Bowden 14 36
7 Alice Bulluck 32 19
8 Lois Burkheimer 52 82
9 George Duer 32 57
10 W11_liam Carter 27 47
11 John Cheshire 145 81
12 Sterling Collins 13 00
13 Francis Fallon 2.1 56
14 Hrs Wm A French 34 60
15 John D James 32 03
16 Frank Johnston 59 65
17 John Judge 11 55
18 Hazel Matthews 35 00
19 James McIntyre 61 84
20 Roger L McNew 15 81
21 Ervin Myers 25 40
22 Ruby Myles 13 68
23 Dwight Philips 15 02
24 Phillip King 53 31
25 Thurman Sallade 33 02
26 Shannon Realty Co 61 23
27 Mollie Shepherd 57 02
28 George Sholar 34 11
29 William Smaltz 120 78
30 Gerald Smith 57 45
31 John Taylor 3 59
32 John Turner 19 92
33 Roger Van De Berg 27 04
Request the following taxes be released as they are double charged
1 Joseph Williams $ 44 72
2 Monahon Tobias 21 84
3 Teresa Powell 42 00
4 Woodrow Noble 26 05
5 Kut "N" Kurl Beauty Salon 17 11
6 Robert Joe 9 66
7 Harry Green 23 11
8 Margaret Finley 10 67
3
9 Thomas Debeck $ 4 95
10 Marvin Brown 11 39
11 Guy Benton 9 00
12 Edward Ward 504 17
13 Merriwell Vineyard 83 34
14 Thomas Tuc]<er 141 2 2
15 G W Trask, Jr 125 79
16 Robert Grady 13 80
17 Smith Creek De.v Co 61 18
18 Charles Tilghman 46 38
19 Franklin Taylor 249 97
20 John Peterson 250 35
21 Wm Smith 98 33
22 John Ormond 657 71
23 Cont~.nental Const Co 159 77
24 Manly Carr 2.7 60
25 A Joyner Levels 576 93
26 Pine Valley Water Co 685 2.5
(1975)
(1975 refund $231 59)
Request the following taxes be released as taxpayers reported
incorrect information
1 Gladys Rldaught $ 5 89
2 Harry Parham 55 20
3 R H Mercer 82 80
4 Isaac Lasar 47 04
5 Rose Hudson 35 50
6 Barbara Evers 15 57
7 James Clifton 17 94
8 Larry Bowden 24 37
9 Luetta Booe 32 16
10 Charles Allo 10 70
11 Mar0orle pnoff 19 52 (1975 refund)
12 W Earl Beale 4 35 (1975 refund)
13 Alex Milllcan 10 47(1974 & 1975 refund)
Request the .following taxes be released as these are clerical errors
in addition, pricing motor vehicles, pricing appraisal cards, etc
1 Carl Yarborough $ 50 40
2 Timm Woodling 109 79
3 Gwendolyn West 15 63
4 Carl Watkins 31 86
5 Horace M Waters 19 32
6 Billy Watkins 46 58
7 John Ward 152 54
8 Henry Ward 4 21
9 W W Sullivan 7 81
10 Simmon Suggs 15 66
11 Wm Spencer 27 60
12 Southern Water Cond Co 8,376 48
13 Jeff Small 96 78
14 Edward Sloan 2 07
15 Clarence Skipper 9 08
16 Ruby Sakes 30 58
17 Ramesh Shah 2 11.
4
18 Robert Schmidt $ 17 92
19 Elwood Rivenbark 3 39
20 D S Reynolds 24 84
21 Howard Quinn 139 15
22 James Pierce 8 40
23 Ada Pierce 69 31
24 Howard Pepper 56 35
25 Linda Panfili 16 47
26 J Fred Murray 68 18
27 Joseph Morrison 19 63
28 Walter Moore 817 60
29 Tony MLlls 207 00
30 Liston Merritt 9 60
31 Richard Lundy 31. 23
32 Robert Little 1,344 00
33 Rex Little 205 61
34 Frank LeRay 205 27
35 Robert Kldd 9 14
36 J E Kelly 14 38
37 John Jones 67 12
38 David Johnson 117 19
39 Stephen Holland 10 70
40 Nora Hobbs 8 40
41 Robert Hill 7 22
42 Donald Harrlss 5 89
43 R Joseph Graham 5 72
44 Sandy Gilchrist 117 06
45 Georgia Ambulance & Hearse Servlce133 15
46 John C Gasklll 5 47
47 Roy Gantt 18 45
48 Ruth Donnelly 15 07
49 George Cooper 2 10
50 Claude Cooper 33 93
51 Dorothy Colby 11 95
52 Harold Christian 10 08
53 Wm Burrell 23 84
54 James Brown 2 55
55 W H Breazealle 193 87
56 Henry Benton 9 47
57 Robert Bell 58 O1
58 Robert Batson 52 93
59 Pauline Barlett 77 57
60 John Babb 56 71
61 American I.~ease Plan Inc 155 82
62 Christopher Williams 5 18
63 Alex M Trask 578 29
64 Albert Swann 1 66
65 Jerry Rivenbark 23 81
66 Edward Raglns 8 57
67 Mary Gage 62 77
68 Albert Brown 6 57
69 Armstrong Dev Inc 31 92
70 Felix Harris 97 10 (1975 refund $48 08)
71 0 E Lewis 46 62 (1975 & 1976 refund)
72 Harold Cleeve 28 81 (1975 refund $13 35)
73 Gwendolyn Jamison 13 48 (1975 refund)
.. .
5
Request the following taxes be released as these individuals
do not reside w~thln the city or town limits, or the personal property
is located w~.thin the county
1 Rieman Fletcher $ 110 36 (1974 6 1975 refund $81 02)
2 Woodrow Bond 34 40
3 Jean Blalock 29 80
4 W E Bost 74 31
5 Henry Brown 111 92
6 Douglas Byrd 1.6 49
7 Eva Carter 12 62
8 Lawrence Clemmer 64 70
9 John Close 35 52
10 Craft American Hardward, Inc 324 12
11 William Davis 26 71
12 Gilbert Evans 36 58
13 Hanover Heights Superette 27 42
14 Catherine Hester 26 24
15 Kim Hester 10 26
16 Wade Hines 3 36
17 J A Horton 149 14
18 Bruce Kermon 27 17
19 Richard Koontz 45 54
20 Peter Kosky g gp
21 A Joyner Lewis 2 70
22 Robert Marlowe 202 35
23 Lynnis Matthews 30 70
24 Carrie Orrell 75 11
25 Virginia Orrell 6 68
26 Wm Plckler 19 80
27 Dennis Pope 22 77
28 Donnie Prevatte 34 16
29 Emerson Pridgen 11 44
30 Benny Prince 60 64
31 V G Proetsch 70 79
32 Hannah Shepard 26 98
33 David Thomas 74 03
34 Charles Thompson 68 81
35 Robert Toole 33 60
36 Louis Vinson 59 16
37 Johnnie Watson 22. 28
38 Thomas Williams 26 63
Request the .1975 and 1976 taxes charged to Seaboard Railroad
for property in Spofford be released as this is a part of Seaboard
Systems Property and is included in the State Appraisal of the Company
($101 26)
Request these items be placed on the agenda for the County
Commissioners' meeting of September 20, 1976
Copy Mrs Alyce Brown
Mr Jim Fox