Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-08 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 255 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, July 8, 2002, at 5:30 P.M. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Chairman Ted Davis, Jr.; Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer; Commissioner Julia Boseman; Commissioner William A. Caster; Commissioner Nancy H. Pritchett; County Manager, Allen O’Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Chairman Davis called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone present. He requested persons with cell phones or pagers to cut off the equipment to prevent disruptions during presentations and deliberations by the Board of County Commissioners. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE County Manager Allen O’Neal gave the invocation. Commissioner Pritchett led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to discuss or remove an item from the Consent Agenda. He reported that the Clerk to the Board has removed approval of the minutes under Item 1 on the Consent Agenda. The minutes will be presented at the next meeting. Commissioner Caster requested removal of Consent Agenda Items 7 and 8 for discussion. Vice-Chairman Greer requested removal of Consent Agenda Item 9 for discussion. Chairman Davis called for a motion to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to remove Items 1, 7, 8, and 9 and approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Adoption of Resolution for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Non-County Agency Funding The Commissioners adopted a resolution authorizing and directing the County Manager to enter into the appropriate contracts with outside agencies for funding amounts approved in the FY 2002-2003 Budget. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 23.1. Reappointment of Robert C. Glasgow as Tax Administrator for a Term of Two Years Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 205-294, the Commissioners appointed Robert C. Glasgow as Tax Administrator/County Assessor for two years. Mr. Glasgow has met all qualification required for holding the position and has fulfilled the continued instruction required to maintain qualifications as defined by the State Statute for the position. Authorization for the Emergency Management Department to Apply for a State Grant to be Used for Continual Development of a Community Emergency Plan in the Event of a Terrorist Attack The Commissioners authorized the New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management to submit a grant application to the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management for additional funding to be used in planning and training for emergencies caused by a terrorist attack. The planning and training efforts are 100% funded by the State and no County funds are required. These funds will allow the existing contracted employee to continue to develop and refine community emergency plans. Acceptance of Grant Award to the Sheriff’s Department from the Governor’s Crime Commission and Approval of Associated Budget Amendment #03-0001 The Commissioners accepted a grant award from the Governor’s Crime Commission in the amount of $78,000 and approved the associated budget amendment for the purchase of 13 mobile data terminals for the Sheriff’s Department. The grant requires a 25% match of $26,000, which will be paid from the Sheriff’s Federal Forfeited Property account. The County Manager was authorized to sign the grant documents. Budget Amendment #03-0001 - Sheriff-Uniform Patrol Adjustment Debit Credit Governor’s Crime Commission Grant - Mobile Data Terminals $78,000 Transfer from Federal Forfeited Property$26,000 Computer Expense$104,000 Transfer to Sheriff-Uniform Patrol $ 26,000 Capital Project Expense$26,000 Explanation: To budget the grant award received by the Sheriff’s Department from the Governor’s Crime Commission for the purchase of 13 mobile data terminals and to transfer Federal Forfeited Property Funds to provide the 25% match of $26,000. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 256 Acceptance of Grant Award to the Sheriff’s Department from the U.S. Department of Justice and Approval of Associated Budget Amendment #03-0002 The Commissioners accepted a grant award from the U. S. Department of Justice in the amount of $1,898 and approved the associated budget amendment for the purchase of three (3) bulletproof vests for the Sheriff’s Department. The County Manager was authorized to sign the grant documents. Budget Amendment #03-0002 - Sheriff-Uniform Patrol AdjustmentDebitCredit U. S. Department of Justice Grant - Bulletproof Vest$1,898 Uniforms$1,898 Explanation: To budget a grant award received by the Sheriff’s Department from the U. S. Department of Justice for the purchase of three (3) bulletproof vests. Approval of Change Order for the Judicial Building Capital Project and Approval of Associated Budget Amendment #2003-01 The Commissioners approved a change order and the associated budget amendment to complete the following items in the Judicial Building Capital Project that were not in the original budget: (1) change the fire alarm system in the Judicial Building so it is compatible with the new system in the Judicial Annex at a cost of $162,780; (2) provide security enhancements to control access to various areas at a cost of approximately $61,300; (3) address mold and water infiltration issues estimated at $61,500; (4) expedite the move of the Clerk of Court offices at a cost of $6,450; and (5) revise the office space for the Register of Deeds at a cost of $28,500. A 5% contingency of $16,026 is also included to cover unforeseen expenses for the Judicial Building Annex. A copy of the change order is on file in the Engineering Department. Budget Amendment #2003-01 - Judicial Building Capital Project Adjustment Debit Credit Interest earnings $110,000 Extended Project Expense$110,000 Explanation: To increase the budget to cover security enhancements, upgrade the fire alarm system, address mold and water infiltration issues, move the Clerk of Court Offices, and revise the plan for the Register of Deeds space. DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 7, AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PORT CITY BUILDERS FOR DEMOLITION OF HOUSES AND REMOVAL OF DEBRIS AS A RESULT OF HURRICANE FLOYD In discussion of Consent Item 7 concerning the contract with Port City Builders for the demolition of houses damaged by Hurricane Floyd, Commissioner Caster asked who would own the property and who would be responsible for maintaining the site. County Manager O’Neal advised that when a house is demolished by Port City Builders, the County becomes the owner of the property and places restrictive covenants on the deed to prevent construction on the site. The property can be sold to adjacent landowners, but until it is sold, the County is responsible for maintaining the property via the Parks Department. The County is receiving $187,500 from FEMA to pay for removal of the houses. Chairman Davis called for a motion to approve Consent Agenda Item 8. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to adopt a resolution awarding Contract #02-0291 to Port City Builders, Inc. in the amount of $77,418 and approve the associated budget amendment to demolish houses and remove debris from properties damaged by Hurricane Fran. The County Manager was authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Budget Amendment #03-0005 - Hurricane Floyd AdjustmentDebitCredit FEMA Funds$187,500 Contracted Services$1,87,500 Explanation: To budget funds from FEMA for the demolition of 16 structures flooded or otherwise damaged by Hurricane Floyd. The County was previously awarded mitigation funds for the purchase of the structures and has almost completed the acquisition process. The next step will be the demolition process. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 23.2. DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 8 TO AWARD PREPOSITION C&D DEBRIS REMOVAL AND VEGETATIVE REMOVAL DISPOSAL CONTRACT #02-0396 TO D&J ENTERPRISES, INC. - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 257 In discussion of Consent Item 8 concerning the contract for debris removal, Commissioner Caster asked if prior dealings D&J Enterprises, Inc. were satisfactory and if the tipping fee was included in the contract price. Director of Environmental Management Ray Church responded that construction and demolition materials will be taken to the landfill in Sampson County. The contract includes collection and transportation but does not include a tipping fee for construction and demolition materials. The contract does include a tipping fee for disposal of vegetative debris. Director Church also noted that services provided by D&J, Inc. were good when removing debris after Hurricanes Bertha and Fran. Chairman Davis called for a motion to award the contract. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to adopt a resolution to award the preposition contract for removal of debris caused by a natural disaster to D&J Enterprises, Inc. and authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary contracts. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 23.3. DISCUSSION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 9, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE N. C. GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO HONOR FUNDING OBLIGATIONS TO FLOOD VICTIMS AS A RESULT OF HURRICANE FLOYD In discussion of Consent Item 9 concerning the County requesting the General Assembly to allow Hurricane Floyd relief money to remain in the budget to assist stricken counties, Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern about the Board being asked to support something that does not apply to New Hanover County without knowing the specific details. He stated if counties need financial assistance, they should apply to the State and the funding should be provided; however, if this relief money is not needed, the State can use these funds for other purposes during an extremely difficult budget year. Assistant County Manager Weaver explained that a meeting was called by the Council of Governments because of concern for counties with severe damage from Hurricane Floyd. The damage in some counties was $20 million compared to $1 million in New Hanover County. The reason for the request was to provide more time for these counties to comply with the application filing process for State assistance. Chairman Davis suggested helping fellow counties if they are in need because New Hanover County could be requesting assistance in the future. After hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis requested direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to adopt a resolution requesting the General Assembly to allow the Crisis Housing Assistance funding to remain in the budget to assist 616 victimized flood families to recover from Hurricane Floyd. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1. Vice-Chairman Greer voted in opposition. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 23.4. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR NCDOT TO NAME THE U.S. HIGHWAY 17 CONNECTOR FROM I-40 INTERCHANGE TO THE PENDER COUNTY LINE IN HONOR OF JOHN JAY BURNEY, JR. Chairman Davis announced that he had great personal pride in presenting a request to the Board in support of naming the U. S. Highway 17 Connector from the I-40 Interchange to the Pender County line in honor of John Jay Burney, Jr. He spoke of Mr. Burney’s many contributions to the United States, the State of North Carolina, and New Hanover County. He also recognized Lanny Wilson, the local representative on the N. C. Board of Transportation, and thanked him for his support of the proposed resolution. Motion: Chairman Davis read the resolution and MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to adopt the resolution requesting the N. C. Board of Transportation to name the U. S. Highway 17 Connector from the I-40 Interchange to the Pender County line in honor of John J. Burney, Jr. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Davis recognized members of the Burney family and asked Mr. John J. Burney, Jr. to step forward to receive the resolution. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Burney for his heroic contributions during World War II, his service as a Senator in the N. C. General Assembly, and for his many contributions to New Hanover County. Mr. Burney expressed appreciation to the Board and stated he was blessed to have lived a fruitful life and have a father who helped him to succeed. A round of applause was given to Mr. Burney. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 23.5. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE LEVY OF THE THIRD ONE-HALF CENT LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing and reported that the North Carolina Budget Act of 2002 increased the State sales tax by one-half cent to 4 ½ percent as part of the package to balance the budget. The new sales tax is NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 258 temporary and will sunset on June 30, 2003. The budget-balancing package also included a provision that will discontinue reimbursements for the intangibles tax and inventory tax to local governments in FY 2003-2004. New Hanover County receives approximately $4.5 million a year from these reimbursements. To replace this revenue, the State has authorized counties to enact an additional one-half cent local option sales tax to become effective July 1, 2003. The effect on the taxpayers will be neutral. In order for New Hanover County to implement the one-half cent local option sales tax effective July 1, 2003, a Public Hearing must be held and a resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and forwarded to the Secretary of Revenue by July 15, 2002. No decision has been made by the Commissioners on whether to allow voters to decide if the one-half cent local option sales tax should be implemented. In concluding his comments, Chairman Davis advised that since the State has not provided reimbursements to cities and counties as promised, the State is now considering allowing cities and counties the option to implement the one-half cent local option sales tax during the current fiscal year but no action has been taken by either body of the N. C. General Assembly. The resolution before the Board includes language to allow the County to implement the sales tax effective July 1, 2003, or sooner, if allowed by law. Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment. Commissioner Pritchett stressed the importance of the public understanding that the local option sales tax will be a continuation of the existing one-half cent sales tax implemented by the State of North Carolina that will sunset on June 30, 2003. County Manager O’Neal noted that the public should also understand that implementation of the one-half cent sales tax will not only bring additional revenue to New Hanover County, but to the municipalities. It is estimated that the County will receive $5, 800,000, Carolina Beach $137,000, Kure Beach $45,000, City of Wilmington $2,000,000, and Wrightsville Beach $107,500. He advised that funds received from the local option sales tax would be distributed based on 50% at the point of origin and 50% per capita. Chairman Davis asked if the resolution addressed whether the Board of County Commissioners would implement the one-half cent local option sales tax or be required to hold a referendum to allow the citizens to decide if the additional sales tax should be imposed. County Manager O’Neal responded that the proposed resolution allows the Board to implement the tax; however, the Board can decide to hold a referendum if so desired. Commissioner Caster advised that he thought the Board had already decided not to implement a one-half cent local option sales tax in the current fiscal year. He stated that he felt the General Assembly was discussing the possibility of allowing local governments to implement the additional sales tax in the current fiscal year to offset the revenue shortfall being experienced by local governments due to State reimbursements being withheld. This action will place the burden on the local taxpayers which is not fair because the State created the problem and should have to resolve the problem. Vice-Chairman Greer agreed with Commissioner Caster and recommended not adopting the proposed resolution because the State is experiencing a monumental budget shortfall and local funds have been taken away from counties. The legislators would prefer to allow local governments to raise taxes and placed this burden on the taxpayers. The County and four municipalities have all presented balanced budgets and are getting by without having to increase taxes this year. Budget Director Griffin explained that if the County wants to recoup all the revenue available from the one-half cent sales tax, the tax should implemented as soon as possible. Adoption of the resolution will allow the County to be eligible to implement the sales tax once the General Assembly enacts the legislation. A lengthy discussion followed on the purpose of the Public Hearing if a majority of the Board is opposed to implementing the additional one-half sales local option sales tax during the fiscal year. Chairman Davis explained that the purpose of the Public Hearing is to adopt a resolution to implement the additional sales tax effective July 1, 2003; however, the General Assembly may allow counties to implement the tax in the current fiscal year. If the Board is not interested in increasing the sales tax in the current fiscal year, the State will not have to be notified by July 15, 2002. He asked if the Board was prepared to move forward with the Public Hearing and make a decision on the resolution before the Board. Commissioner Caster noted that the City of Wilmington and beach municipalities have not contacted the Commissioners for support of increasing the sales tax; therefore, he would be reluctant to make a decision before receiving input from the municipalities and citizens. Vice-Chairman Greer advised that he was not in favor of implementing an additional half-cent sales tax. Commissioner Boseman spoke on this item being advertised as a Public Hearing and stated that she could not decide until input has been received from the public. Commissioner Pritchett stated that she would rather be safe and secure the option for New Hanover County to be eligible to implement the one-half cent local option sales tax effective July 1, 2003, if agreed upon by the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Davis opened the floor to receive comments from persons who signed up to speak. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 259 Mr. Jeff Kohl spoke in opposition to the one-half cent local option sales tax and he requested the Board to provide the leadership necessary to manage out-of-control spending before increasing the sales tax. He urged the Board to hold a voter referendum if a decision is made to implement the additional sales tax. Mr. Chris Bowles spoke in opposition to increasing the sales tax and referenced how President Reagan handled the poor economy by cutting spending and reducing taxes. He noted that New Hanover County has a $195 million budget and stated that it should not be difficult to cut $5 million in expenditures from a budget of this size. He also expressed concern for closing the Library on Friday, reducing the education reserve, and cutting County positions to replace the $5 million when over $2 million was spent in Airlie Gardens with only $25,000 collected in ticket sales and $9,000 from wedding ceremonies. This figure does not include the payment of an $85,000 annual salary to the Director of Airlie Gardens. New Hanover County is the fifth highest taxed county in the State, and North Carolina is one of the highest taxed states in the nation. He urged the Board to provide the leadership needed to cut the budget and not impose an additional sales tax on businesses and people living in New Hanover County. Mr. Neal Huggins spoke in opposition to implementing an additional sales tax and stated that New Hanover County cannot tax itself into prosperity. Many retired people moved to this area because of its natural beauty and low property taxes. If the trend of increasing taxes continues, people will be relocating to Brunswick County. He urged the Board to cut spending instead of increasing taxes. Ms. Jeanne Huggins expressed appreciation to the Board for holding the Public Hearing and stated as a self- employed person trying to establish a new business, an increase in the sales tax is not needed. The Commissioners should assume the responsibility of cutting spending to balance the budget without increasing taxes which takes money from the pockets of its citizens. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Davis requested a motion. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED to adopt the resolution as presented to allow the County to be eligible to impose the additional one-half cent local option sales tax. Commissioner Caster expressed concern for adopting the resolution until input has been received from the municipalities and the citizens. Commissioner Pritchett explained that the motion on the floor will allow New Hanover County to have the option of imposing the additional sales tax once information has been received from the four municipalities. County Manager O’Neal suggested revising the resolution under Section (1) to say that New Hanover County may impose and levy the additional sales tax within New Hanover County. A lengthy discussion was held on whether the Board should impose the additional sales tax or hold a referendum. Budget Director Griffin informed the Board that all counties who have adopted the resolution chose for the Commissioners to enact the tax instead holding a referendum. Amended Motion : After further discussion, Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Chairman Davis, to adopt a revised resolution to say that New Hanover County may impose and levy the one-half cent local option sales tax effective July 1, 2003, which may be imposed by the Board of County Commissioners or carried to the voters via a referendum. Vice-Chairman Greer noted that if the Board adopts the resolution, the County will be playing into the hands of the Governor and General Assembly by allowing local governments to impose the additional sales tax instead of the State. Commissioner Caster stated that he was not in favor of imposing an additional one-half cent local option sales tax because it is a regressive tax that places the burden on the citizens. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2. Vice-Chairman Greer and Commissioner Caster voted in opposition. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 23.6. RECOGNITION OF BOY SCOUT TROOPS On behalf of the Board, Chairman Davis welcomed Boy Scout Troop #220 from Wrightsboro and Boy Scout Troop #275 from St. Mathews Lutheran Church, and he requested them to stand and be recognized. SECOND READING OF THE SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE DATE CHANGE Chairman Davis explained that since the amendment to the Solid Waste Franchise Ordinance did not receive a unanimous vote on the first reading held June 17, 2002, a second reading is required. He also reported that the date in the ordinance should be changed from July 1, 2002 to July 8, 2002 so enforcement can begin on July 9, 2002. He called for a motion to adopt the amended ordinance. Motion: Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to adopt the amendment to the Solid Waste Franchise Ordinance changing the effective date from July 1, 2002 to July 8, 2002. Upon vote, the NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 260 MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2. Vice-Chairman Greer and Commissioner Caster voted in opposition. A copy of the amended ordinance is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 23.7. SECOND READING OF THE FRANCHISE APPLICATIONS FOR SOLID WASTE HAULERS WHO HAD NOT PRESENTED INFORMATION BY JUNE 3, 2002 Chairman Davis explained that two readings are necessary to grant franchises to solid waste haulers. This is the second reading of franchise applications from solid waste haulers who submitted their applications after the June 3, 2002 meeting. The following applications are being considered for the second reading, and signed agreements have been received from the following hauling companies: Disposal Express Sea Coast Disposal Total Maintenance Chairman Davis called for a motion to approve the franchise applications on the second reading. Motion: Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to approve the franchise applications. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2. Vice-Chairman Greer and Commissioner Caster voted in opposition. Copies of the franchise applications are on file in the Legal Department. Chairman Davis noted that small haulers, such as Murray Hauling and Cape Fear Hauling, did not submit applications within the deadlines, and he asked how the Board should deal with these companies. Assistant County Attorney Holt Moore advised that the issue would be addressed later in the meeting under another item on the agenda. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL TIP FEE FROM $48 PER TON TO $46 PER TON AND APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT #03-0011 Chairman Davis reported that the Board has discussed reducing the tipping fee from $48 per ton to $46 per ton which will require approval of a budget amendment to change the Budget Ordinance adopted on June 17, 2002. When holding the Public Hearing for the Budget, an elected official from the Town of Kure Beach suggested reducing the tip fee, particularly when the landfill cell closure will not be performed until some time in the future. After considering the request, it is important for the Board to honor this suggestion by lowering the tipping fee from $48 to $46 to show the municipalities that the Board is listening and addressing their concerns. The reduction of $1.60 will come from the post cell closure fund and $.40 from salaries and wages. Commissioner Pritchett stressed the importance of everyone understanding that the post cell closure fund must be established at some point. Chairman Davis agreed with Commissioner Pritchett and stated this issue will have to be addressed in the future. It is hoped that any negotiated interlocal agreements with the municipalities will be for the term of the debt. At the beginning of FY 2008-2009, the debt will be reduced from approximately $3,000,000 to $700,000. At this time, the cell post closure fee will be addressed. Vice-Chairman Greer advised that the budgeted projected expenditure of $13,681,728 for the Environmental Management Department is not covered with a $48 per ton tipping fee at the projected tonnage to be received; therefore, there is not sufficient funding for operation of the Environmental Department. To reduce the tipping fee by $2 per ton will only increase the deficit condition of the Environmental Management Department. He also expressed concern for the budget amendment not referring to the post closure fund and for the billing nightmare that will be created for the haulers since these companies bill in advance and bills have already been mailed to customers. He requested an explanation of the budget amendment since no reference was made to the post cell closure fund. County Manager O’Neal advised that the administrative reserve was shown on the budget amendment instead of the post cell closure fund. He offered to make a change if desired by the Board. Chairman Davis advised that information received from Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver indicated that tipping fees and electrical sales at the WASTEC Facility plus funds from the scrap tire grant, white goods grant, and recycling income at the Landfill would cover expenses if the tip fee is reduced. Finance Director Shell explained that reducing the tipping fee by $2 at an estimated 245,000 tons represents a revenue loss of $490,000. Approximately $393,800 was set aside in an administrative reserve to build toward a post cell closure fund. Using that $393,800, and taking the remaining $100,000 from a reduction in salaries and benefits will make up the $490,000 shortfall. Vice-Chairman Greer responded that with a $46 tipping fee, Staff is anticipating that electrical sales and other fees will generate $2,411,000. Finance Director Shell replied that he could not respond without the exact numbers, and offered to meet with Vice-Chairman Greer to explain the budgeted figures. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 261 Vice-Chairman Greer responded that reducing the tipping fee by $2 would be good for the municipalities, but in reality, the only way to save money for the taxpayers is to close the incinerator. Motion: Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to reduce the tip fee from $48 per ton to $46 per ton effective July 1, 2002 until June 30, 2003, and to approve the associated budget amendment. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2. Vice-Chairman Greer and Commissioner Caster voted in opposition. Budget Amendment #03-0011 - Environmental Management/Landfill/WASTEC Adjustment Debit Credit Landfill: Administrative Reserve$393,836 Administration/Salaries and Wages 25,000 Recycling/Salaries and Wages 15,000 Tipping Fees - Landfill$230,000 WASTEC: Salaries and Wages$ 56,164 Tipping Fees - Plant$260,000 Explanation: To reduce the budget because the tipping fee was reduced from $48 per ton to $46 per ton. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (LLEBG) FOR FY 2002-03 County Manager O’Neal reported on receipt of a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) in the amount of $111,022 for FY 2002-2003 and stated before the grant can be accepted, a Public Hearing. He advised that the Sheriff plans to use the grant funds to purchase guns and vehicles. Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment. Hearing no comments, Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak in favor of the County accepting the grant. Hearing no comments, Chairman Davis asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak in opposition to the County accepting the grant. Hearing no comments, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to accept the grant in the amount of $111,002 to be used to purchase guns and vehicles for the Sheriff’s Department, allocate the 10% match from Federal Forfeited Property funds as recommended by the Sheriff, and approve the following budget amendment. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Budget Amendment #03-0007 - Sheriff’s Department - Local Law Enforcement Block Grant \Federal Forfeited Property Adjustment Debit Credit Sheriff’s Department - LLEBG/Federal Forfeited Property: LLEBG Grant$111,022 Transfer in from Federal Forfeited Property$ 12,336 Supplies$25,000 Motor Vehicles$98,358 Federal Forfeited Property: Transfer to LLEBG Grant$12,336 Extended Project Expense$12,336 Explanation: To budget the LLEBG grant awarded to the Sheriff’s Department for FY 2002-2003 and set up a transfer from the Federal Forfeited Property grant to fund the required 10% match. POSTPONEMENT OF ITEM 7.7 - A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW SUBDIVISION APPEALS TO GO DIRECTLY TO SUPERIOR COURT (A-318, 06/02) Chairman Davis reported that discussion was held on this item at the Staff Meeting on Thursday. The Board decided to postpone this item until August 5, 2002, to allow sufficient time for the Planning Staff to provide more information about the various options to consider when deciding how appeals to decisions by the Technical Review Committee should be handled. BREAK Chairman Davis called a break from 7:10 P.M. until 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY NATHAN SANDERS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 15.28 ACRES OF PROPERTY BOUNDED BY THE TIDALHOLM VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, KIRKWOOD NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 262 AT ARRONDALE SUBDIVISION AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VETERANS PARK FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL TO R-10 RESIDENTIAL (Z-743, 06/02) Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing. Planning Director Dexter Hayes reported that the property is located at the northwest corner of Veterans Park and is bounded by Tidalholm Village Subdivision and the Kirkwood at Arrondale Subdivision that is currently under development. He presented a map and pictures of the site and surrounding properties showing access to Tidalholm Village and Lambs Bluff Subdivision from the River Road. He advised that stub streets are built and once the Kirkwood at Arrondale Subdivision is built, there will be another connector accessibility to the property at this location. The petitioner is requesting the Board to rezone 15.28 acres from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential. The land classification for the area is Limited Transition, and the purpose of the classification is to provide for development in areas that will have some services, but at lower densities than those associated with Urban Transition. Residential density should be no more than 2.5 units per acre with lower density being more desirable. The use of clustering and planned unit developments is encouraged. These areas were previously designated as transition and were intended to provide for more intensive future urban development; however, the provision of public services has been scaled back and less intensive urban development is planned. At the Planning Board meeting held on June 6, 2002, the petitioner’s representative presented the rezoning request to seek R-10 residential zoning for 15.28 acres of property to provide affordable single family homes in the area. Several people from adjacent subdivisions spoke in opposition because of additional density and the type of houses being proposed. Other persons expressed concern for possible devaluation of their homes. The Planning Board debated and ultimately voted 4-2 to recommend rezoning the eastern portion of the request by extending the adjacent R-10 District boundary directly south bisecting the petitioner’s property. This would provide a transition to the area without impacting existing homes. After commenting on rezoning the eastern portion R-10 Residential and allowing the western section of the property to remain R-15 Residential, Chairman Davis asked if rezoning the eastern portion would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. Planning Director Hayes responded that rezoning the eastern portion of the property would be consistent with the Land Use Plan since the property does have water and sewer services and it is consistent with the R-10 District already established to the north of the property. Chairman Davis informed the petitioner that 15 minutes would be allowed for a presentation and 15 minutes allowed for persons to speak in opposition to the request with a 5 minute cross examination/rebuttal period for the petitioner and for the opposition. Chairman Davis asked if the petitioner understands that if the Board decides to deny the request, there will be a 12-month waiting period before the plan can be resubmitted. Ms. Candice O. Alexander, representing the petitioner Nathan Sanders, stated that she and Mr. Sanders were aware of the waiting period. Ms. Alexander stated that Mr. Sanders has been a builder in the Wilmington area for 22 years and his company, Sanco Homes, had focused on constructing houses for first-time buyers at an affordable price. The original request was to rezone the entire 15.28 acre tract from R-15 to R-10; however, the recommendation of the Planning Board is to approve rezoning a portion of the tract. After review of the recommendation, Mr. Sanders feels this will be a better use of the land because there will no R-10 home sites adjacent to existing R-15 home sites, and the R-10 zoning will be adjacent to existing R-10 zoning. The recommendation is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and Mr. Sanders is requesting the Board to approve the recommendation of the Planning Board. Chairman Davis asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak in opposition. Ms. Patricia Seaman, a resident of 137 Colquitt Drive, presented the rezoning application submitted and signed by Mr. Nathan Sanders (marked as Exhibit I) and read his responses to the questions. She noted that many of his answers were not correct, and stated the map shows that his property is bordered by 77.5% residential zoning. Ms. Seaman also expressed concern for the number of homes that will be built by Mr. Sanders and presented a chart showing the schools in the area. She stated that if the rezoning is changed from R-15 to R-10, property values of adjacent homes will be devalued, schools will be overcrowded, and the use will be inconsistent with existing neighborhoods. The average value of existing homes in this area range from $170,000 to $240,000. The homes being built by the Mr. Sanders will range from $97,000 to $100,000. Currently there are 297 available homes in Wilmington with a price range of $90,000 to $125,000; therefore, it does not appear there is a shortage of affordable homes. In concluding the presentation, Ms. Seaman advised that when she and her husband chose to build in Lambs Bluff three years ago, this area was not overcrowded and their lot backed up to property owned by New Hanover County adjacent to Veterans Park labeled as passive recreation. Lots 2 to 5 were sold by the developer as premium lots at an additional charge ranging from $4,000 for lots 4 and 5 to $7,000 for lots 3 and 2. There were nine premium lots sold at a higher price because no development was supposed to occur behind the lots. Since there are no more available lots in Lambs Bluff, a developer now wants to place homes less than half the value of existing homes in their backyards. The residents were also told that River Breeze Drive would become a bike path to the Veterans Park Complex. The Planning Board is now suggesting that River Breeze Drive become one of the possible accesses to the subject property. If this road becomes an access road, it will be placed between the properties of 16 homes in Lambs Bluff and Tidalholm Village. This will certainly decrease the value of existing homes and create more traffic on River Road. It is believed NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 263 that a bike path to Veterans Parks will better serve the 200 plus children and their families that currently reside in Lambs Bluff and Tidalholm Village. She requested the Board to allow the subject property to remain R-15 Residential and allow River Breeze Drive to become a bike path. Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment. Vice-Chairman Greer asked Ms. Seamen if she understood that the section of the property close to Lambs Bluff would remain a residential district. Ms. Seaman responded that she was aware of this fact but stated that the residents are concerned about a transitional use in the future and feel that the land should remain R-15 Residential in order to protect existing residential communities. Ms. JoAnn Griffin, 129 Colquitt Drive, Lot 4 on the map, advised that the woods were in her backyard and stated at the Planning Board meeting, a decision was made to divide the acreage leaving half zoned R-15 Residential and half zoned R-10 Residential. As a relatively new property owner, she decided to build in New Hanover County instead of Brunswick County because she trusted the local government and Planning Board. She expressed concern for not understanding that if you purchase and build a house in a residential zone that a developer could appear before the Board two times in one year and change the zoning. She requested the Board to consider the existing neighborhoods and deny the R-10 rezoning. Vice-Chairman Greer explained that originally River Breeze Drive was to be the main entrance into the Veterans Park Complex; however, the location of the entrance was changed and placed at the south end of the property. The road is a dedicated easement and the Commissioners are trying to make a decision that will be best for the homeowners and developer. It is understandable why the property owners would be opposed to R-10 zoning next to existing residential development; however, the recommendation by the Planning Board will not allow R-10 zoning adjacent to existing residential development. It is difficult to understand why the neighbors as so concerned. Ms. Griffin responded that the houses will be smaller and more units will be placed on the R-10 property which will create more traffic on River Breeze Road and create more of a traffic hazard when visiting the County Park on River Road. She suggested closing the road. Ms. Seaman presented a map showing a road stub at Passage Gateway which could be used as an access to Lipscomb Drive onto River Road. River Breeze Road should be used for a bike path to access the Veterans Park Complex. If an access is needed, it should be through Tidalholm through Lipscomb Drive out to River Road. Chairman Davis requested Ms. Alexander to responded to the concerns raised by Ms. Seaman and Ms. Griffin. Ms. Alexander advised that the road connectivity was a major issue at the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting. The County entered into an agreement to hold the money to build River Breeze Drive when purchasing the property from Mr. Sanders. With the split zoning, there will be only seven (7) additional units which will not create a significant amount of additional traffic. With reference to responses to the questions on the application, the answers were filled out to the best of the company’s ability. The Board is being requested to approve the split zoning as recommended by the Planning Board which will be a good solution for all parties involved. Vice-Chairman Greer asked if River Breeze Road could be closed and access provided at other locations. Planning Director Hayes responded that River Breeze Drive could be closed and a better traffic circulation could be created by using the other access points. River Breeze Drive is open to River Road and provides access from Lipscomb Drive. Lambs Bluff does not have another access. Vice-Chairman Greer spoke on feeling that all parties involved would be better served by River Breeze Drive becoming a bike path. He suggested postponing this item until discussion can be held with Mr. Sanders about obtaining the easement. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Davis asked if the Board would like to continue the decision for 30 days during which time Mr. Sanders can determine if he would be interested in releasing the easement in return for the money being held by the County. Motion : Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to postpone the hearing until August 5, 2002, to allow time for County Staff to meet with Mr. Sanders to see if he would be interested in releasing the easement on River Breeze Road in return for the money held by the County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST BY CHERYL POWELL FOR MILDRED JOHNSON AND MARIAN COLLIER TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HORN ROAD AND CAROLINA BEACH ROAD FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL TO B-2 HIGHWAY BUSINESS (Z-744, 06/02) Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing. He announced that the Planning Staff would make a brief presentation followed by 15 minutes for the petitioner to make a presentation and 15 minutes for persons to speak in opposition to the request. There will be a 5 minute cross examination/rebuttal period for the petitioner and for the opposition. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 264 Planning Director Hayes reported that the petitioner presented the request at the Planning Board meeting held on June 6, 2002. No one spoke in support or in opposition to the request. The Planning Board first made a motion to deny the request, but after further discussion about other options for the property, voted 5 to 1 to recommend rezoning the property O&I Office and Institutional instead of B-2 Highway Business. A map was presented showing the location of the property and slides were shown on surrounding residential uses. Slides were presented showing a section north of Horne Road with existing residential homes and businesses located to the south of the property. The petitioner is requesting B-2 Highway Business zoning . The subject property is located on the corner of Horn Road and Carolina Beach Road and has approximately 185 feet of frontage on Carolina Beach Road. There is a commercial district south of the subject property on Horn Road, which is part of a larger commercial district that includes property across Carolina Beach Road. There are a variety of uses typical of strip commercial development within this large commercial district. With the exception of a couple of non-conforming uses, this side of Carolina Beach Road north of Horn Road has several single family homes and is zoned R-15 Residential up to the City Limits. Many of these properties also have considerable depth. Policies in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan discourage strip development along major corridors. Staff is concerned that expanding this commercial district north will establish a precedent for future commercial rezoning and will continue an undesirable pattern of strip development along this stretch of Carolina Beach Road. Staff recommends denial. Chairman Davis asked if the original request from R-15 Residential to B-2 Highway Business was consistent with the Land Use Plan. Planning Director Hayes responded that Staff felt that B-2 Highway Business would be continued strip commercial development on each side of Carolina Beach Road. Chairman Davis asked if the recommendation by the Planning Board to rezone the property from R-15 Residential to O&I Office and Institutional was consistent with the Land Use Plan. Planning Director Hayes responded that the Planning Staff feels Office and Institutional zoning will still be a continuation of strip zoning in the area because frequently O&I becomes a commercial use at a later date. At the present time, there is vacant office space in the area. Chairman Davis called on Ms. Cheryl Powell to make a presentation for the petitioners. Ms. Cheryl Powell, with Coldwell Banker Sea Coast Realty, advised that she was representing the petitioners, Ms. Mildred Johnson and Ms. Marian Collier. Chairman Davis asked Ms. Powell if the petitioners are aware that if the Board decides to deny the rezoning, the request cannot be resubmitted before 12 months. Ms. Cheryl Powell responded that the petitioners were aware of this fact and would like for the Board to hear the request. Ms. Powell referenced the property across the street that is zoned B-2 Business Highway and said the subject property is located on Highway 421. According to a 1999 traffic study conducted in this area, there were over 20,000 cars per day equating to 87 cars per hour. With the growth that has occurred since 1999 and the opening of a new Super Wal-Mart, the traffic has significantly increased. This is a natural site for commercial development, and it is not suitable for residential use. It only makes sense to establish a commercial use for the property. In closing, Ms. Powell stated that both petitioners are in nursing homes, and would like to sell the property for its highest value. The property is surrounded by commercial properties and the rezoning would not negatively impact adjacent properties. The petitioners requested B-2, but the O&I recommended by the Planning Board is satisfactory with them. Chairman Davis asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak in favor or in opposition to the rezoning request. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment. Hearing no comments, he requested direction from the Board. Motion : After commenting on O&I being a good transitional use, Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to approve rezoning the 1.5+ acres located at the northern corner of the intersection of Horn Road and Carolina Beach Road from R-15 Residential to O&I Office and Institutional as recommended by the Planning Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2. Chairman Davis and Commissioner Boseman voted in opposition. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA NO. 4 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED APRIL 7, 1971, is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 4, Page 62. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY MILDRED MCGEE FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME IN AN R-20 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 4064 PARMELE ROAD (S-484, 07/02) Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing and announced that the Planning Director will make a brief presentation followed by 15 minutes for the petitioner to make a presentation and 15 minutes for persons in opposition NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 265 to speak. A 5 minute cross examination/rebuttal period will be allowed for the petitioner and for the opposition. He announced that the special use process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any persons wishing to testify must step forward to be sworn in by the Clerk to the Board. The following persons were sworn in: Dexter Hayes Mildred McGee Planning Director Hayes presented a map of the property and slide of existing mobile homes off Parmele Road. He presented the following preliminary findings of the Planning Staff. 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 based upon the following findings: A.The subject property is located within the Castle Hayne Volunteer Fire Department. B.The site will be served by a private well and septic system. C.Access to the site is through an existing access easement. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance based upon the following findings: A.The site is located in an R-20 Residential Zoning District. Minimum setbacks for structures can be met. B.Part of the property is within the 100 year flood plain. C.The mobile home will be located on approximately 3.2 acres. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity based upon the following findings: A.Two adjacent lots to the south recently received approval for 2 mobile homes each. An existing mobile home park also exists to the south. B.No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting property values. 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 of New Hanover County based upon the following findings: A. The site is classified as Resource Protection by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The purpose of the Resource Protection class is to provide for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational sources. B. Much of the area is rural in character with other mobile homes nearby. Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment. Commissioner Caster requested an explanation of why Staff was concerned about the placement of two additional mobile homes on the property. Planning Director Hayes responded that Staff is concerned about the access easement already being utilized by more than six existing units and four additional units that were recently approved. Chairman Davis asked if the adjacent property owners were notified about the Public Hearing. Planning Director Hayes responded that the property owners were notified. Chairman Davis asked if the use was consistent with the Land Use Plan. Planning Director Hayes responded that use was in harmony with the surrounding land uses and was consistent with the Land Use Plan. Chairman Davis asked if the petitioner would like to speak. Ms. Mildred McGee, the owner of 3.2 acres on Parmele Drive, requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit in order for her to rent the property so she will have enough money to pay taxes on the property. Chairman Davis asked Ms. McGee if she agreed with the findings of fact presented by the Planning Director. Ms. McGee concurred with the findings as presented. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 266 After commenting on no one signing up to speak in opposition, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment. After hearing no comments, he requested a motion. Motion : Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to grant the Special Use Permit to Ms. Mildred McGee to locate a single wide mobile home at 4064 Parmele Road based upon the evidence and findings of fact concluding 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; the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance; the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity; and 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. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the Special Use Permit is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in SUP Book III, Page 16. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY BONEY ARCHITECTS FOR CORNELIA NIXON DAVIS HEALTH CARE CENTER TO REVISE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND A NURSING AND PERSONAL CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 1007 PORTERS NECK ROAD BY CONSTRUCTING A 68 BED ADDITION (S-428, 06/02) Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing and announced that the Planning Director will make a brief presentation followed by 15 minutes for the petitioner to make a presentation and 15 minutes for persons in opposition to speak. A 5 minute cross examination/rebuttal period will be allowed for the petitioner and for the opposition. He announced that the special use process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any persons wishing to testify must step forward to be sworn in by the Clerk to the Board. The following persons were sworn in: Dexter Hayes Charles Boney, Jr. Joe Soto Planning Director Hayes showed slides of the property and reported that a request has been made to expand the Cornelia Nixon Davis facility from 63 units to 131 units. The square footage of the existing building is 50,014 and the proposed expansion will be 44,000 square feet for a total of 94,014 square feet. At the Planning Board meeting held on June 6, 2002, Mr. Charles Boney, Jr. presented the revised site plan with the addition to the existing facility and additional parking. He noted that not all of the additional parking were necessary. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval and suggested for the petitioner to apply to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to seek a reduction in the number of parking spaces if sufficient parking is already available. Planning Director Hayes advised that the Commissioners should consider the following addendum to the Special Use Permit: •Parking is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed 20 space parking area needs to be setback at least 10 feet from the property line in accordance with Section 67-52(2)(A). •No additional signs are proposed. •The proposed addition meets the required setbacks. •The proposed addition was shown on the plan, but was not part of the previous Special Use Permit. Planning Director Hayes advised that the original Special Use Permit would have to be revised to expand the facility; therefore, no findings of fact are required. Chairman Davis asked if the petitioner would like to comment. Mr. Joe Soto, representing the Cornelia Nixon Davis Health Care Center Board of Directors, requested the Board to revise the Special Use Permit to expand the facility. He advised that the surrounding land is owned by the Champion McDowell Davis Foundation which is supportive of expanding the Champion living facility. He advised that Mr. Charles Boney, Jr. would present the plan. Mr. Boney, the architect for the project, presented the plan showing the existing Cornelia Nixon Davis Health Care Center with the existing Champion’s facility and lot. He stated that the expansion would be a mirror image of the existing facility. Chairman Davis advised that since no one signed up to speak in opposition to the expansion, he would closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 267 Commissioner Caster requested Mr. Boney to build the minimal number of parking spaces to preserve green space. Commissioner Pritchett noted that since most residents in assisted living facilities do not drive, it may be wise to establish some variables in parking requirements. Mr. Boney advised that every effort would be made to reduce the number of parking spaces. Hearing no further remarks, Chairman Davis called for a motion. Motion : Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to approve the addendum to Special Use Permit S-428 for Cornelia Nixon Davis Health Care Center, located at 1007 Porters Neck Road, to expand the existing Assisted Living Facility by 68 units. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the addendum to the Special Use Permit is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in SUP Book III, Page 16. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR RAY MCCLORY TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 2.0 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4524 CASTLE HAYNE ROAD FROM R-20 RESIDENTIAL TO CD (B-2) CONDITIONAL USE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (Z-745, 06/02) Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing and announced that the Planning Staff will make a brief presentation followed by 15 minutes for the petitioner to make a presentation and 15 minutes for persons in opposition to speak. A 5 minute cross examination/rebuttal period will be allowed for the petitioner and for the opposition. He announced that the conditional use process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any persons wishing to testify must step forward to be sworn in by the Clerk to the Board. The following persons were sworn in: Dexter Hayes Ray McClory Cindee Wolfe Planning Director Dexter Hayes presented a map and slides of the property, the site plan and surrounding area. He reported that the petitioner, Ray McClory of Design Solutions, is requesting a conditional use neighborhood business rezoning in order to move and expand an existing non-conforming business, known as Strick’s L.P. Gas. Although zoning in Castle Hayne was established in 1985, other property near the subject property has been the subject of several rezoning requests. In 1987 there was an I-1 light industrial rezoning request which included the subject parcel and extended south to Crowatan Road. In 1995, another rezoning request for the southern corner of Crowatan Road and Castle Hayne Road was denied. Ultimately in 1997, a combination of B-1 and O&I was established on the northern corner of Crowatan Road and Castle Hayne Road. With the exception of the nursing home to the north, which is zoned O&I, the dominant zoning between Crowatan Road and Parmele Road is a combination of R-20 residential and RA Rural Agriculture with small commercial districts at the intersections. The R-20 District is limited to1.9 units per acre and the RA District is limited to lots of 30,000 square feet in size without clustering. The Castle Hayne area is classified Resource Protection primarily to protect the Castle Hayne Aquifer. Although commercial uses are not prohibited within the Resource Protection Classification, low density residential use not exceeding 2.5 units per acre is preferred. Other policies within the Comprehensive Land Use Plan encourage locating commercial services where adequate public facilities are available and at intersections in close proximity to the markets being served. At the Planning Board meeting held on June 6, 2002, the applicant gave a brief history of Strick’s L.P. Gas, which has existed in this area since 1960. The petitioner stated that his request would allow him to move and expand his existing business. Ms. Cindee Wolf, a landscape architect, presented the site plan for the project. One person spoke in support of the request. No one spoke in opposition. The Planning Board asked several questions regarding non- conforming uses, and reviewed Staff’s concern about combining the access to eliminate one curb cut on Castle Hayne Road. Ultimately the Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval with the condition that the entrance to the project be combined with the existing access on the southern part of the property. Planning Director Hayes entered the following findings of fact into the record: 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 based upon the following findings: A.The subject property is located within the Castle Hayne Volunteer Fire Department. B.The site is served by a private well and septic system. C.The site has direct access to Castle Hayne Road. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance based upon the following findings: A.A site plan that meets the requirements of County Zoning Ordinance has been submitted. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 268 B.Adequate area exists on the parcel to accommodate storm water management if required. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity based upon the following findings: A.Buffering will be provided in accordance with the County Zoning Ordinance. B.No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting property values. 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 of New Hanover County based upon the following findings: A.The site is classified by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as Resource Protection and is outside the urban growth boundaries. The purpose of the Resource Protection class is to provide for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources. The Resource Protection class has been developed in recognition of the fact that New Hanover County, one of the most urbanized counties in the State, still contains numerous environmentally sensitive areas that merit protection from urban land uses. The request is for a one-story retail building that will be 4,000 square feet in size. The propane tank yard would be to the rear of the building, which will be a new use on the property since the site is vacant. In concluding the presentation, Planning Director Hayes advised that Staff’s primarily concerns are that the right-of-way should be dedicated and the access from the project should be from Strict’s Trading Post Road to provide inter-connectivity to the property. There is a 30-foot private access easement to the south. Chairman Davis asked if the rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Planning Director Hayes responded that the rezoning would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and could set a precedent for future rezonings along this stretch of Castle Hayne Road. For these reasons, Staff recommends denial. Should the request be approved, the right-of-way should be dedicated and access to the project should be from Strick’s Trading Post Road. Chairman Davis asked whether the non-conforming use would be continued if the rezoning is approved. Planning Director Hayes responded that if the request is approved, the use will become a conforming use; however, the pre-existing use will not be eliminated. Chairman Davis asked Ms. Cindee Wolf, the representative for the petitioner, to make a presentation. He asked if the petitioner understands that if the Board decides to deny the rezoning request, it will be 12 months before the petition can be resubmitted. Ms. Wolf responded that she and the petitioner were aware of this fact. She requested the Board to proceed with the hearing. Ms. Cindee Wolf, representing the petitioner Mr. Ray McClory, presented a map of surrounding existing land uses showing other non-conforming uses in this area along Castle Hayne Road. She advised that Strick’s L.P. Gas has been in existence since zoning was introduced in Castle Hayne and it was classified as a non-conforming use. The petitioner purchased the business and has leased the present site. In an effort to expand his business, Mr. McClory would like to move to 4524 Castle Hayne Road. Traffic along the busy corridor makes the property not desirable for residential development. The landscape requirements will set the tone to buffer existing residential properties. Designated rights- of-way have been included in the plan so when Castle Hayne Road is widened, the rights-of-way will be in place. A site plan was presented showing the landscaping and brick facade of the proposed L. P. Gas facility. The driveway has been combined into a single curb cut that will be approved by the NCDOT and will address the concern presented by the Planning Board. With reference to connecting to Strick’s Trading Post Road, this is currently a private road. Mr. McClory has access to his current facility to Strick’s Trading Post Road because he is leasing the property from the owners of the private right-of-way. When the property was purchased for the new building, an access to Strick’s Trading Post Road was not included in the sale agreement. In summary, Ms. Wolf stated that Mr. McClory was a small businessman desiring to improve his growing business by relocating the business from a leased facility to another site that is only 500 feet away. The move will not create any additional impacts to existing conditions, and the visual impact will be greatly improved with the proposed building and landscaping requirements. She requested the Board to approve the rezoning to improve this area of Castle Hayne Road. Mr. Ray McClory, the petitioner and a resident of 113 Yorkshire Lane, presented a brief history of Strick’s L. P. Gas and stated that the business has grown during the past year. The business serves numerous customers and the company is an asset to the community. The Planning Staff has recommended denial based upon a precedent being set to encourage strip zoning along this section of Castle Hayne Road. He noted that a precedent was set along this area of Castle Hayne Road when the non-conforming use was approved. He urged the Board to follow the recommendation of the Planning Board and approve the rezoning request. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 269 Chairman Davis asked Mr. McClory if he agreed with the findings of fact as presented by the Planning Director. Mr. McClory concurred with the findings of fact. Chairman Davis advised that no one signed up to speak in opposition and he closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment. Commissioner Caster referenced the plan presented and stated it will be a great improvement to the area. Chairman Davis advised that he was concerned that the rezoning would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis called for a motion. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to approve rezoning 2.0 acres of property located at 4524 Castle Hayne Road from R-20 Residential to CD(B-1) Conditional Use Neighborhood Business as recommended by the Planning Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 to 2. Chairman Davis and Commissioner Boseman voted in opposition. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CASTLE HAYNE ZONING AREA OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 1, 1985, is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section Castle Hayne, Page 23. Chairman Davis called for a motion to grant the Special Use Permit for the conditional use. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to grant a Special Use Permit to Mr. Ray McClory to relocate Strick’s L. P. Gas Company to expand an existing non-conforming business at 4524 Castle Hayne Road subject to the condition that the entrance to the project be combined with the existing access on the southern part of the property as recommended by the Planning Board based upon the evidence and findings of fact concluding 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; the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance; the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity; and 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. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 to 2. Chairman Davis and Commissioner Boseman voted in opposition. A copy of the Special Use Permit is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in SUP Book III, Page 16. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR ARCHIE MCGIRT TO EXTEND THE VALIDITY OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN AND A REQUEST TO AMEND A CD(B-2) CONDITIONAL USE HIGHWAY BUSINESS SITE PLAN LOCATED AT 5050 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD, WEST SIDE AND SOUTH OF SILVER LAKE ROAD (Z-696, 06/02) REMANDED BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD Chairman Davis reported that Design Solutions has requested a rezoning for Archie McGirt to extend the validity of an existing conditional use site plan and to amend a CD(B-2) conditional use highway business site plan located at 5050 Carolina Beach Road. He advised that Attorney Alton Y. Lennon, representing the petitioner, Mr. McGirt, has previously submitted a letter to the Board of County Commissioners requesting the Board to remand the amendment of the conditional use site plan back to the Planning Board. He also noted that Mr. McGirt presently has a conditional use site plan that will expire in two days; therefore, Attorney Lennon is requesting the Board to continue the conditional use site plan. Chairman Davis asked Attorney Lennon what period of time was being requested for the extension of the conditional use site plan. Attorney Lennon reported that he requested an extension of 90 days to provide enough time to appear before the Planning Board and come back to the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Davis requested Attorney Lennon to explain the reasons for requesting the Board to remand the amendment to the conditional use site plan back to the Planning Board. Attorney Lennon advised that he appeared before the Planning Board on June 6, 2002, with a proposal that was not complete because some of the exhibits were not carried to the meeting. At this meeting, some concerns were expressed by the Planning Board and Planning Staff about the plan. The petitioner decided to amend the plan to address these concerns, and discussion is still being held with the Planning Staff. Chairman Davisasked Planning Director Hayes if a Public Hearing was required to amend the conditional use site plan. Planning Director Hayes responded that a Public Hearing was required to amend the conditional use site plan. Chairman Davis noted that Attorney Lennon was requesting the Board of County Commissioners to extend NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 270 the Conditional Use District for 90 days and asked Planning Director Hayes if this action required a Public Hearing. Planning Director Hayes advised that the Board of County Commissioners can extend the conditional use site plan for 90 days without a Public Hearing. Attorney Lennon has already written the necessary letter for the Commissioners to take this action. The Board of County Commissioners can proceed with the hearing on the appeal of the site plan because this item has been duly advertised, or the Commissioners can remand the site plan back to the Planning Board. Chairman Davis asked Attorney Jeffrey P. Keeter, the attorney representing the opposition, if he was opposed to Attorney Lennon remanding the plan to the Planning Board. Attorney Keeter advised that he received a copy of the letter from Attorney Lennon and stated that he was not opposed to the plan being remanded to the Planning Board because it would allow another opportunity for the opposition to attend a hearing. He expressed concern for the second component of the letter which is to extend the deadline for the conditional use district by 90 days. According to requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance, an application for extension must be filed with the Planning Staff. Since this is the first time that an extension has been mentioned, due process would be better served by receiving public input on whether the extension should be granted. The Zoning Ordinance invites a Public Hearing to create a record for the appeal to be heard by a Superior Court Judge. The Zoning Ordinance also allows the Board of County Commissioners to extend a Special Use Permit beyond the two-year period; however, there is a distinct difference between a Special Use Permit and conditional use zones. In Section 59-7.6 of the Zoning Ordinance it reads as follows: If within 24 months from the date of approval of the Conditional Use District, no building permit has been issued for the subject tract, the Planning Department shall initiate an action to simultaneously revoke the Special Use Permit and rezone the Conditional Use District to its classification prior to approval. Attorney Keeter advised that the Conditional Use District ordinance does not contain a parallel provision that will allow for an extension of the two-year deadline. He reiterated that he did not have a problem with remanding the conditional use site plan to the Planning Board, but he was opposed to the extension of the Conditional Use District. Discussion followed on whether the Board of County Commissioners could remand the plan to the Planning Board and extend the time frame for the Conditional Use District by 90 days. County Attorney Copley responded that the Board does have authority to remand the plan to the Planning Board and extend the time frame by 90 days. Chairman Davis informed all parties involved that if the Board votes to remand the plan to the Planning Board and extends the deadline by 90 days, this means the petitioner must have the amended plan to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners before the extension expires. Attorney Lennon advised that Ms. Cindee Wolf did write a letter to the Planning Director on June 13, 2002, which described an administrative change to the site plan. He requested the Board to remand the site plan back to the Planning Board and extend the existing Conditional Use District by 90 days. Attorney Keeter advised that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow for an extension of the Conditional Use District. Planning Director Hayes stated that the Ordinance does require that the applicant make a request for an extension prior to the expiration date of the application. The applicant has made the request in a timely fashion. Motion : Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to remand the conditional use site plan to the Planning Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Caster asked Mr. Keeter if the letter submitted on June 13, 2002, would change his position on extending the Conditional Use District. Attorney Keeter responded that he did not see the letter; however, the Zoning Ordinance does not address the issue concerning the difference between a Special Use Permit and Conditional Use District. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for there to be an extension of the Conditional Use District. It might be wise for the Board of County Commissioners to consider amending this section of the ordinance to more clearly define this issue. Chairman Davis asked if the Zoning Ordinance specifically disallows an extension. Attorney Keeter responded that a directive is given to the Planning Staff to revoke the Conditional Use District at the end of two years. Planning Director Hayes explained that if the applicant asks for an extension before the expiration occurs, the Board of County Commissioners can extend the Conditional Use District. Attorney Lennon informed the Board that Mr. McGirt has already spent $175,000 to construct a large retention pond to accommodate the entire commercial site based upon the conditional use action taken by the Board two years ago. Chairman Davis requested direction from the Board. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to extend the Conditional Use NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 271 District for 90 days. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1. Commissioner Caster voted in opposition. POSTPONEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY THE PLANNING STAFF TO AMEND SECTION 32-3(2)(C) OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW SUBDIVISION APPEALS TO GO DIRECTLY TO SUPERIOR COURT (A-318, 06/02) Chairman Davis advised that this item has been postponed until August 19, 2002, to allow time for the Planning Staff to provide other options on the appeals from decisions made by the Technical Review Committee. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST BY PLANNING STAFF TO AMEND SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES CONCERNING REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION SPACE REQUIREMENTS (A-319, 06/02) Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing. Planning Director Dexter Hayes presented a chart showing the difference between performance residential development and conventional development and how the space can be used with a combination of large and small lots. This type of development is permitted by right and is used for large projects. Planning Director Hayes advised that the Planning Staff amended several sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances concerning the review and approval procedures for Performance Residential Development regarding open space and conservation space requirements. He presented the following information: Presently Performance Residential projects are approved in accordance with requirements of Section 51.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance including a site plan as outlined in Section 69.2 and the processing requirements of a major sub-division under the provision of the Subdivision Ordinance. Because of the uncertainty regarding the long-term marketability of certain housing types, the developer will often initiate many changes to an approved plan. The introduction of the General Development Plan approval would confer some vesting of the project while still allowing some changes to occur with subsequent preliminary plan approvals. This cannot happen with a sketch plan review. Information submitted along with the General Development Plan should adequately describe the project. Planning Staff Recommendation: Add to Section 51.5-2 8 of the Zoning Ordinance: A project proposing more than 150 dwelling units shall have the option of seeking preliminary approval in two phases: Phase I: The General Development Plan shall confer upon the applicant the following rights for a period of five years. The total number of dwelling units and the general type of development (single-family detached or attached, townhouses, apartment, patio homes, etc.). In reviewing the General Development Plan, the Planning Board shall indicate the following which shall not vest, but still be presumed to be valid at Phase II subject to engineering and environmental considerations: (1) the location of collector roads; and (2) the general location and density of the various types of dwellings. Phase II: Following approval of the General Development Plan, the applicant shall proceed with the Preliminary Plan Approval. Planning Board Recommendation: Approval of Section 51.55-2(8) with wording changes that will allow any Performance Residential project to have the option of submitting a General Development Plan regardless of the project size. Eliminate the 5-year vested limit, and amend Section 69.2, items 14-15 to read as follows: (14) The general location of all existing and proposed structures. (15) Total number of dwelling units to be constructed. In summary, the Planning Board recommends approval with wording changed to delete the number of units with no time limit. Period for Preliminary Plan Approvals Under the existing regulations, Preliminary Plans are valid for 24 months or an indefinite period as long as work progresses on the project as evidenced by recording portions of the Preliminary Plan within any 24-month period of time. Recently questions have arisen about the re-approvals of subdivisions that are no longer active or have lapsed longer than the 24-month time limit. Issues usually involve new development standards and whether older projects should comply with the most current standards for approval. Planning Staff Recommendation: Add to Section 33 Final Plat: The sub-divider shall submit a final plat for all or part of the approved preliminary plan within 24 months of the preliminary approval date. Planning Board Recommendation: No change in the existing ordinance, which allows for 2-year approvals with parts and pieces of a project being constructed to keep the use from expiring. Revisions for Performance Residential and High Density Projects: Recently several revisions to Performance Residential Projects have been submitted for approval by the Planning Board that have resulted in substantial changes to the originally approved plan. These changes have been contested by many of the residents because they modify the development plan and substantially change the project in which they initially purchased. These changes usually occur for larger projects that have been on-going for a number of years and have outlived the market strategy that existed at the time of original approval. Under the Performance Residential rules, remaining density can be recounted and allocated in other areas of the development, even if the property is no longer owned by the original developer. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 272 Planning Staff Recommendation: Amend Zoning Ordinance Section 102 - Application for Building Permit by adding the following language: 102-4: In addition to satisfying the foregoing requirements, applications for Performance Residential and High Density development shall include duplicate copies of a site plan meeting requirements of Section 69.2 of this Ordinance. The Chairperson of the Planning Board and any of its designated members shall meet with the Planning Director and Staff to review the plans as submitted. Upon review and consultation with the Planning Board members and staff, the Chairperson of the Planning Board shall either approve or deny the preliminary plan. Meetings shall be scheduled every two weeks as necessary. The disapproval letter shall specify the reasons for denial. Conditional approvals may not be granted. Disapproved plans shall be returned to the applicant. Approved plans shall be forwarded to the Building Inspector to be processed under the requirements of Section 102. Revision for Performance Residential and High Density Development shall be reviewed the same as an original submittal in accordance with the site plan requirements. Such revisions shall be limited to those areas still owned by the developer. Density calculations shall not include land area already platted and/or sold. Planning Board Recommendation: Approved Staff’s recommendation with deletion of the last two sentences pertaining to density calculations. Open Space and Conservation Space Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: Following the recent approval of the Veterans Park Performance Residential Project, the Board of County Commissioners asked Staff to more clearly define the Open Space and Conservation Space requirements that are used in determining overall density. Several questions were raised concerning the proximal relationship of the open space and whether any land located at some distance should qualify. The following amendments support the intent of Performance Residential Development by allowing the clustering of housing units if all equivalent amount of open space is set aside for the use and enjoyment of the residents. Planning Staff Recommendation: Section 69.1 - Open Space Regulations (2) Access to open space: All lots or units created within the development shall have direct access to all open space and recreational facilities, as provided by means of dedicated streets or walkways within the development or by the fact of physical contiguity to other public land or lands in common ownership of all residents. 51.5-2 Performance Residential 6. All undivided areas within the development (other than street rights-of-way, parking, and structures) shall be designated as open space. Such open space shall be offered to the public or encumbered for the perpetual benefit of the residents in accordance with the requirements of Section 69.1 of this Ordinance. 12. Any land designated as open space may be used in calculating the density for a proposed development subject to the provisions of Section 69.1. 59.4-4 General Performance Controls for Conservation Space (4) Method of Conservation Space Preservation 3. The owner of the parcel on record may retain sole ownership of the conservation space provided the conservation space has not been used in calculating residential density. The conservation space shall not be subdivided. 4. (b)All lots or units within the development shall have direct access to all conservation space as provided by means of dedicated streets or dedicated walkways within the development or by the fact of physical contiguity to other public land or lands in common ownership of all residents. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board did not agree on any specific wording changes except to keep the word “public” which was being deleted. The Planning Board’s wording would read: “public or dedicated streets”. The Planning Board wanted to ensure that density would not be calculated for land areas outside of the development. The Planning Board discussed the forthcoming open space requirements as recommended by the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Committee and the distinctions made between passive and active recreation uses. The Planning Board also felt that open or conservation space “immediately adjacent to a public right-of-way” could be counted. In discussing the ownership of open space, several members of the Planning Board felt that the words “and may be retained by the developer” should not be deleted from part 12. In concluding the presentation, Planning Director Hayes offer to answer questions. Chairman Davis advised that four individuals have signed up to speak and he called on Attorney Susan McDaniel. Attorney Susan McDaniel, speaking on behalf of the Beau Rivage Homeowners Associations, advised that she was in favor of recommendations made by the Planning Staff and stated she was not in favor of the recommendations made by the Planning Board. She advised that it was incumbent upon the Board of County Commissioners, Planning Staff, and Planning Board to enforce the Zoning Ordinance in effect and require all applicants to follow the requirements. She commented on the following sections of the proposals made by the Planning Staff. 1. Section 51.5-2(8): This change should not be approved because the wording is ambiguous and confusing. In reviewing the General Development Plan, it says : NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 273 The Planning Board shall indicate the following which shall not vest, but still be presumed to be valid at Phase II subject to engineering and environmental consideration: (1) location of collector roads; and (2) the general location and density of the various types of dwellings. There are two concerns: (1) The applicant, not the Planning Board should indicate whatever is being required; and (2) the term, shall not vest, but still be presumed to be valid, at Phase II, should be more clearly defined to avoid confusion in the future. The General Development Plan should have a set of criteria that can be minimal, such as how the boundary of the tract will look, the amount of open space, and type of dwellings. This section should be reworded to avoid leaving initial buyers with a large tract of land with no homeowners association, no open space, or declaration of covenants. 2. The Planning Staff proposal has a suggested 5-year period of rights that appears to conflict with a 4-year period (24 months plus the option of an additional 24 months) under Section 33 Final Plat. These figures should be consistent. 3. Section 33 - Final Plat: The Beau Rivage Homeowners Association, is in favor of the wording proposed by the Planning Staff. 4. Amendment to Section 102: The Beau Rivage Homeowners Association is in support of the wording proposed by the Planning Staff. 5. 69.1(2): Open Space Regulations: The wording is vague when referring to the phase, “within the development” which should be clarified to say within the entire general development plan, within the specific preliminary plan being submitted, within the original plan, or with annexations of additional land in the future. This issue needs to be clarified so the amount of open space can be set aside for the use and enjoyment of the residents. 6. 51.5-2(6): It reads that all undivided areas within the development (other than street rights-of-way, parking, and structures) shall be designated as open space. The words on the General Development Plan and the Preliminary Site Plan should be added to this sentence. 7. 51.5(12): The Beau Rivage Homeowners Association is in favor of this section as recommended by the Planning Staff. In concluding the presentation, Attorney McDaniel offered to answer questions. Commissioner Caster spoke on appreciating the comments by Attorney McDaniel but stated that it would be difficult to approve various changes that have not been made by the Planning Staff or Planning Board. Attorney McDaniel advised that she would be happy to provide the recommendations in writing if the Board tables this issue until another meeting. Ms. Jane Kopczynski, Chairperson of Concerned Citizens for Neighborhood Preservation (CCNP), advised that CCNP supports the recommendations presented by the Planning Staff regarding open space and conservation space. Approval of these recommendations will restore the original intent of the Performance Residential Development ordinance that was weakened a few years ago. To allow open space to be over 4,000 feet away from a project through another subdivision, marshland, and wetlands, does not provide usable access to residents of a subdivision project, nor does it fulfill the requirements for contiguity outlined in Section 69.1. She urged the Board to approve the recommendations presented by the Planning Staff. Mr. John Feeley, a resident of Vintage Club Circle, advised that he was in favor of all recommendations made by the Planning Staff. He reported that Performance Residential Development has been in New Hanover County since 1984 and no changes have been made to regulations governing this type of development. The recommendations by the Planning Staff are a major step forward and the Board is urged to approve these amendments. Ms. Sue Hayes, President of Cape Fear River Watch Board of Directors, spoke in favor of the recommendations of the Planning Staff. She urged the Board to approve the recommendations. Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment. Commissioner Pritchett referenced Section 51.5-2(6) and suggested adding the following language (typed in bold) to the first sentence: All undivided areas within the development (other than street rights-of-way, parking, and structures) shall be on all submitted plans designated as open space . Planning Director Hayes advised that this wording could be added to the section. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis requested direction from the Board. Motion : Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Chairman Davis, to amend the Performance Residential Subdivision Ordinance and New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Staff. Vice-Chairman Greer asked Planning Director Hayes if some of the rewording recommended by Attorney McDaniel should be incorporated into the document. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 274 Chairman Davis suggested adopting the recommendations by the Planning Staff and allowing the Staff to review the recommendations made by Attorney McDaniel and the additional language recommended by Commissioner Pritchett. A text amendment can be prepared to make the necessary changes and presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. After hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis called for a vote on the motion. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 23.8. BREAK Chairman Davis called a break from 10:45 P.M. until 11:00 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF WATER EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver reported that the lack of rainfall in 2001 and during the six months of this year has resulted in a significantly higher use of water by County customers, particularly for irrigation. The County water system has met the demand, but the drought conditions have challenged the County’s ability to pump water. In the event that the situation should become worse, the County must be prepared to allow the County Manager or his designee to declare a water emergency. He advised that the proposed ordinance is setup in three stages: Stage I - Water Conservation Alert: A Stage 1 Water Emergency may be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage or when there are three consecutive days when the water demand exceeds 80% of the water production capacity. Stage 2 - Water Shortage Mandatory Conservation: A Stage 2 Water Emergency may be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage or when there are two consecutive days when the water demand exceeds 90% of the water production capacity. Stage 3 - Water Shortage Danger Mandatory Conservation: A Stage 3 Water emergency may be declared in the event of an immediate water shortage or when there is one day when the water demand exceeds 100% of the water production capacity. In concluding the presentation, Assistant County Manager Weaver noted that Vice-Chairman Greer has requested the Board to adopt an ordinance adding the following sentence to Section 56-40: “This ordinance applies only to persons using water provided by the New Hanover County Water and Sewer District and does not preclude the use of private wells.” Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to adopt the Water Emergency Management Ordinance adding the following regarding preclusion of private wells. Commissioner Pritchett expressed concern for adding the last sentence to Section 56-40, which precludes private wells, and stated there is only a certain amount of water underground and removal of any water will impact the total amount of water in the aquifer. Commissioner Caster agreed with Commissioner Pritchett and referenced the golf courses at Porters Neck and said these are private wells that withdraw large quantities of water. Substitute Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to adopt the ordinance as originally presented. Chairman Davis called a vote on the substitute motion. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1. Vice-Chairman Greer voted in opposition. Due to the ordinance amendment not receiving a unanimous vote, a second reading will be held on August 5, 2002. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Appointment of Louis A. Burney, Jr. and Paula H. Lentz to Serve on the Airlie Gardens Foundation, Inc. Board of Directors Chairman Davis announced that two vacancies needed to be filled on the Airlie Gardens Foundation Board of Directors and advised that three applications had been received. He also noted that the Foundation Board was discussing the need to add another at-large position to help with the recruitment of outside funds. Chairman Davis opened the floor to receive nominations. Commissioner Caster nominated Louis A. Burney, Jr. The nomination was seconded by Vice-Chairman Greer. Commissioner Boseman nominated Christine Elizabeth Leahy. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Pritchett. Chairman Davis nominated Paula H. Lentz. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Pritchett. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 275 Chairman Davis declared the nominations closed and called for a vote on the nomination of Louis A. Burney. Vote : The Board voted 3 to 2 to appoint Louis A. Burney to serve a 3-year term on the Airlie Gardens Foundation with the term to expire June 30, 2005. Commissioner Caster, Vice-Chairman Greer, and Chairman Davis cast votes in favor of the appointment. Chairman Davis called for a vote on the nomination of Christine Elizabeth Leahy. Vote : The Board voted 2 to 3 on the appointment of Christine Elizabeth Leahy. Commissioner Boseman and Commissioner Pritchett cast votes in favor of the appointment. Since a majority of the Board did support the nominee, Ms. Leahy was not appointed to serve on the Foundation Board. Chairman Davis called for a vote on the nomination of Paula H. Lentz. Vote : The Board voted 4 to 1 to appoint Paula H. Lentz to serve a 3-year term on the Airlie Gardens Foundation with the term to expire June 30, 2005. Chairman Davis, Commissioner Pritchett, Vice-Chairman Greer, and Commissioner Caster cast votes in favor of the appointment. Appointment of Robert H. Williams to Serve on the Cape Fear Community College Board of Trustees Chairman Davis announced that one vacancy needed to be filled on the Cape Fear Community College Board of Trustees and advised that six applications had been received. Chairman Davis opened the floor to receive nominations. Chairman Davis nominated Robert H. Williams. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Pritchett. Commissioner Boseman nominated Dale E. Smith. The nomination did not receive a second. There being no further nominations, Chairman Davis declared the nominations closed and called for a vote on the appointment of Robert H. Williams. Vote : The Board voted unanimously to appoint Robert H. Williams to serve a 4-year term on the Cape Fear Community College Board of Trustees with the term to expire June 30, 2006 Reappointment of David C. Girardot and Appointment of David A. Adams to Serve on the New Hanover County Planning Board Chairman Davis announced that two vacancies needed to be filled on the Planning Board and advised that fifteen applications had been received. Chairman Davis opened the floor to receive nominations. Vice-Chairman Greer nominated David A. Adams, a member of the N. C. Coastal Land Trust and active environmentalist. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Pritchett. Commissioner Caster nominated David C. Girardot, who is eligible for reappointment. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Boseman. Commissioner Boseman nominated James W. Souders. The nomination did not receive a second. There being no further nominations, Chairman Davis declared the nominations closed and called for a vote on the appointment of David A. Adams and reappointment of David C. Girardot. Vote : The Board voted unanimously to appoint David A. Adams and reappoint David C. Girardot to serve 3-year terms on the Planning Board with the terms to expire July 30, 2005. MEETING CONVENED FROM REGULAR SESSION TO HOLD A REGULAR MEETING OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT Chairman Davis convened from Regular Session at11:31 P.M. to hold a meeting of the New Hanover County Water and Sewer District. Chairman Davis reconvened to Regular Session at 11:41 P.M. MEETING CONVENED FROM REGULAR SESSION TO HOLD A CLOSED SESSION Chairman Davis requested a motion to convene Closed Session pursuant to N.C.G.S. 143-381.11(a)(5) to discuss the negotiation of terms for possible acquisition of real estate. He requested Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to convene to Closed Session to discuss the acquisition of real estate. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Davis convened to Closed Session at 11:55 P.M. Chairman Davis reconvened to Regular Session at 1:00 A.M. He reported that the Board discussed in Closed Session the purchase of space occupied by Corning, Inc. at Market Place Mall and stated no official action was taken in the Closed Session. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 276 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF CORNING, INC. PROPERTY AT MARKET PLACE MALL, APPROVAL TO APPLY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR DEBT, AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT BUDGET AMENDMENT Finance Director Shell reported that a Buy and Sell agreement has been negotiated with Corning, Inc. to purchase the old Brendles Building occupied by Corning in the Market Place Mall for $3,500,000. The purchase price includes the building, 195 parking spaces, and furnishings. Corning, Inc. has also agreed to pay the 5 percent real estate sales commission. The appraised value of the building and land by the Tax Department is $2,600,000, the furniture and equipment is valued at $2,700,000, and building improvements made by Corning, including electrical upgrades, carpet, and 11 miles of fiber optics are valued at $900,000 for a total value of $6,200,000. Finance Director Shell requested the Board to authorize Staff to move forward with execution of the Buy and Sell Agreement. Chairman Davis requested Finance Director Shell to comment on other costs associated with the purchase. Finance Director Shell advised that approximately $100,000 will be required to pay closing costs comprised of an environmental assessment, cost of survey, and additional cost with financing associate bond underwriters. In addition, the County will have to spend approximately $950,000 to relocate the various departments to the site and relocate the Emergency Operations Center, which will require construction of a tower and purchase a generator. With inclusion of these additional costs, the total price is $4,550,000. Discussion followed on how the property acquisition would be financed. Finance Director Shell advised that approximately $600,0000 will be available from the Jail Capital Project, and the $577,000 received from ABC funds will be used to offset the cost of financing. The $65,000 from Carolina Power and Light Company for the Emergency Operations Center will be earmarked for specific uses by the Emergency Management Department. The closing will be held on August 8, 2002 and the building should be occupied by the end of September. The Emergency Operations Center will remain in place until the Hurricane Season is over. Chairman Davis welcomed Mayor Harper Peterson and stated that he would like to comment. Mayor Harper Peterson spoke on the Buy and Sell Agreement being a good deal financially, but stated that moving from the downtown area will harm the economy of the entire community. Downtown Wilmington has th experienced rapid growth for a number of years and is now a thriving area. Recently, DARE celebrated its 25 anniversary and it was amazing to see the growth that has occurred over the years. He urged the Board to protect the business and commerce already in place by continuing to pursue a site in the downtown area for relocation of employees in the Annex Building. Mayor Peterson also urged the Board to reconvene discussions about sharing office space with administration, law enforcement, and parking facilities. He also said that discussion on consolidation should continue by allowing Chairman Davis, Commissioner Pritchett, Councilman Quinn and himself to continue to meet. He emphasized the importance of the governing bodies moving forward with a more efficient and effective government. Both governments should consider merging Planning Departments, Law Enforcement, and Engineering Departments. He requested Chairman Davis to discuss reconvening the meetings with Commissioner Pritchett. On behalf of the Board, Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Mayor Peterson for his comments. After hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis called for a motion on the Buy and Sell Agreement. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to enter into a Buy and Sell Agreement with Corning, Inc. in the amount of $3,500,000 to purchase property at the Market Place Mall and authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary documents. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the Buy and Sell Agreement is on file in the Legal Department. Chairman Davis called for a motion to approve the associated budget amendment for purchase of the property. Motion: Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED Commissioner Pritchett, to approve the associated budget amendment for the property acquisition at Market Place Mall. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Budget Amendment #03-0012 - Corning Project/Jail Project/Commissioners/Emergency Management Adjustment Debit Credit Corning Project: Transfer-In from Capital Projects (Jail)$ 600,000 Installment Loan Proceeds3,950,000 Building Purchase$3,600,000 General Renovations 55,000 Emergency Management 564,000 Other Improvements 157,000 Maintenance and Repair - Equipment 46,000 Furnishings and Fixtures 30,000 Contingency 98,000 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 277 Budget Amendment #03-0012 (Continued) Adjustment Debit Credit Commissioners: Appropriated Fund Balance $ 65,000 Emergency Management: Capital Outlay$ 65,000 Jail Project: Extended Project Expense$ 600,000 Transfer to General Fund (Corning Project)$ 600,000 Explanation: To establish the budget for the Corning Project, which includes a transfer from the Jail Capital Project of $600,000 and Appropriating Fund Balance in the amount of $65,000. Chairman Davis called for a motion to adopt a resolution to file an application with the Local Government Commission for financing the property acquisition. Motion : Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to authorize the Finance Director to file an application with the Local Government Commission for financing the purchase of the Corning property at Market Place Mall. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 23.9. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO APPLY FOR DEBT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR THE FEDERAL POINT FIRE STATION Finance Director Shell requested the Board to adopt a resolution to authorize the County Staff to file an application with the Local Government Commission for financing the Federal Point Fire Station Project in the amount of $1,361,901. Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the cost of the project had been reduced by the sale of the prior fire station to the Town of Carolina Beach. Finance Director Shell responded that he would have to check the records before he could answer the question; however, his intention is to receive authorization to file the application to the Local Government Commission for financing the project so the entire package can be presented to the Board at a later date. Vice-Chairman Greer noted that he did not object to adopting the resolution as presented, but he would like for the money received from the sale of the prior fire station to be deducted from the financing of the new Federal Point Fire Station. Finance Director Shell responded that the proceeds from the sale would be deducted from the financing and he would forward a report to the Board. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to adopt a resolution authorizing the Finance Director to file an application with Local Government Commission for financing the Federal Point Fire Station project. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 23.10. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING THE GORDON ROAD LAKE AND PROPERTY County Manager O’Neal reported that on November 5, 2001, the Board instructed Staff to take steps to acquire title to the Gordon Road Lake property from the State of North Carolina. The State has executed a Non-Warranty Deed, conveying the property to New Hanover County in fee simple title for the sum of One Dollar ($1.00). The deed has been provided to the Board for review. It contains specific requirements to ensure that any plans to develop the site as a County Park are consistent with the property being a mitigation area, as defined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. These requirements will allow the County to develop an access road and parking lot, a walking trail, bridges, fences, and other amenities such as a picnic shelter, restroom building and necessary utilities. The deed prohibits motorized vehicles and motorized watercraft from the property. The deed stipulates that the removal of sand from the site must be completed within 24 months. The sale of sand will generate enough revenue to develop the park facility. If the Board accepts the property, the County will be responsible for recording the deed of sale. In closing, County Manager O’Neal advised that minimal costs will be involved with posting signs. Parks Director Neal Lewis advised that several contractors involved in highway construction projects are interested in purchasing the sand. Testing will have to be performed to determine the quality of the sand. The highest class of sand is Class 3, which is the perfect quality for highway projects. This type of sand is on the site. Once testing is completed, the department will be able to project the amount of revenue that should be generated from the sale of sand. In discussion of receiving grants to improve the site, County Manager O’Neal advised that New Hanover County has been quite successful in securing Land Water Conservation Fund grants and would be eligible to receive other State grants. He commented on the timing being poor because of budget constraints but stated this is an exceptional NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 278 opportunity for the County to secure 94 acres of open space and passive park land for the sum of one dollar. After hearing no comments from members of the Board, Chairman Davis called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to accept the Gordon Road Lake property and authorize the Chairman to execute a Non-Warranty Deed with the State of North Carolina. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the deed in on file in the Legal Department. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Davis announced that time had been reserved to allow the public to present an item that was not listed on the Regular Agenda. He requested all persons speaking to limit their remarks to three minutes. Mr. Mark Cope, representing the Kings Grant Area Concerned Citizens Group, protested the Board’s decision on May 20, 2002, to amend Chapter 36, Fee Schedule and Appendix B of the New Hanover County Code effective January 1, 2003. He expressed concern for making a request to have this item placed on the agenda and being denied by Staff. Chairman Davis interrupted Mr. Cope and stated that he would like for the record to reflect what happened to Mr. Cope’s request to be placed on the agenda. He advised that he was contacted by Staff regarding Mr. Cope’s request to make a presentation concerning the appeal by the Kings Grant Area Concerned Citizens Group. Due to the length of the agenda, he told Staff it would be better to hear this item at one of the meetings in August. Staff contacted Mr. Cope and gave him the choice of placing the item on a day or night meeting in August. Since the amended Fee Schedule does not become effective until January 1, 2003, there is ample time to hear the presentation. He also noted that the proper time for the group to have made a presentation was at the Public Hearing when the ordinance was adopted; however, no one was present to speak. Mr. Cope proceeded with his presentation by saying that it was unfair for other communities to receive sewer service for no tap fee connection cost. The citizens of King Grant should not have to pay the increased tap fee when the County has not provided sewer to this area for the past 20 years. The Kings Grant area has been ignored and deemed inconsequential by the County, and citizens have spent thousands of dollars trying to live with failing septic tanks and resulting pollution and diseases. The Water and Sewer District has bent over backward to favor developers and realtors while the quality of life has seeped away in the Kings Grant area. The County Attorney has informed him that the only options available are: (1) launch a formal protest; (2) sue the County in a class action lawsuit; or (3) refuse to pay the tap fees and let the County sue the individuals. In closing, Mr. Cope urged the Board to repeal the increased fee for the citizens of King Grant who have been neglected for years and are in desperate need of sewer. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Discussion of Consent Agenda Item 8, Award of Pre-Position Contract #02-0396 to D&J Enterprises, Inc. to Remove Debris Caused by a Natural Disaster Vice-Chairman Greer spoke on just learning that the bid awarded to D&J Enterprises, Inc. for debris removal did not include the disposal fee, which is why the firm was the low bidder. He recommend tabling this Consent Agenda item until Staff can be sure the figures are correct. In further discussion, County Manager O’Neal responded that he felt the contract was correct; however, he would notify the Board if the bid was incorrect and this item would be placed on the next agenda for clarification and correction. Discussion of Interlocal Agreement With Municipalities on Disposal of Solid Waste Commissioner Caster requested the status of interlocal agreements with the municipalities for disposal of solid waste. County Manager O’Neal responded that none of the municipalities have signed an interlocal agreement as of this date. Commissioner Caster advised that the Mayors of the municipalities are not in favor of keeping the incinerator open and stated he felt this issue should not be jammed down the throats of the municipalities. Discussion of Additional 3% Room Occupancy Tax (ROT) Commissioner Boseman advised that she had met with the beach municipalities and the City of Wilmington about the additional 3% ROT, and the Commissioners are being requested to adopt a resolution of support for the additional tax. She suggested placing this item on the August 19, 2002 agenda. Discussion of Consolidation Effort Commissioner Caster stated that he felt the Commissioners should have a joint meeting with Wilmington City Council to discuss consolidation. He urged both governing bodies to move forward with this issue. Chairman Davis responded that Commissioner Pritchett has prepared a resolution showing all the suggested changes by members of both governing bodies, but none of the Commissioners have responded to the changes. He requested the Board Members to review the resolution and give their comments to Commissioner Pritchett. Once the comments are received, the Board will decide if a joint meeting should be scheduled with the Wilmington City Council. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, JULY 8, 2002 PAGE 279 Discussion of Rumors Concerning Bill Introduced on Solid Waste Flow Control for New Hanover County Commissioner Pritchett reported that a rumor has been circulating about Representative Danny McComas planning to introduce a bill in the General Assembly that would ban New Hanover County from implementing flow control on solid waste. She requested the Chairman to write a letter to Representative McComas requesting him to stop this effort. After discussion of this being a rumor, the County Manager was instructed to verify whether Representative McComas was proposing this type of bill and report back to the Board. Proposed Legislative Goals for the 2003 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly County Manager O’Neal announced that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners is requesting all counties to submit proposed legislative goals for the 2003 Session of the General Assembly no later than August 5, 2003, so this information can be compiled and printed before the Annual Conference. He requested the members of the Board to contact him about developing a resolution for any legislative goals. MEETING CONVENED FROM REGULAR SESSION TO HOLD A CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO N.C. G.S. 143-318.11(A)(3) Chairman Davis requested a motion to convene to Closed Session pursuant to N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3) to discuss potential litigation. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to convene to Closed Session. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Davis convened to Closed Session at 1:39 A.M. Chairman Davis reconvened to Regular Session at 2:01 A.M. and reported that several matters regarding potential litigation were discussed with no official action taken. Discussion of Beau Rivage Appeals Chairman Davis advised that the Board needs to decide if the three appeals submitted by Attorney Susan McDonnell should be heard on the August 5, 2002. County Attorney Copley noted that County Manager O’Neal has informed Attorney McDonnell that the appeals will be heard on August 5, 2002. Chairman Davis asked County Attorney Copley if the Board should wait until a decision is rendered on current Beau Rivage lawsuits. Assistant County Attorney Holt Moore advised that since two appeals regarding Beau Rivage are pending in court and should be heard the first week in August, the Board may want to wait and hear the appeals at a later date. Consensus: After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to postpone hearing any further appeals regarding Beau Rivage until after the two appeals are resolved by the court. The County Attorney was directed to notify Attorney Susan McDonnell about this decision. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Davis called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to adjourn. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at 2:45 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Lucie F. Harrell Clerk to the Board