Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-02 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 401 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, December 2, 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 being disruptive during presentations and deliberations by the Board of County Commissioners. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Honorable James H. Faison, District Court Judge, gave the invocation. The Eugene Ashley High School Navy JROTC presented the Colors. Chairman Ted Davis, Jr. led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Miss Amy Davis, the daughter of Chairman Davis, sang the National Anthem. ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS OF OFFICE The Honorable J.D. Hockenbury, Superior Court Judge, administered the Oath of Office to Robert G. Greer and William A. Caster, newly re-elected members of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. BREAK Chairman Davis called a break from 5:45 p.m. until 5:55 p.m. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE ENSUING YEAR County Attorney Copley opened the floor to receive nominations for Chairman of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners for the ensuing year. Vice-Chairman Greer nominated Ted Davis, Jr. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Pritchett. Hearing no further nominations, County Attorney Copley declared the nominations closed and called for a vote. Vote: The Board voted unanimously to re-elect Ted Davis, Jr. to serve as Chairman of the Board for the ensuing year. Chairman Davis stated that it was an honor and privilege to be re-elected to serve as Chairman for the next year, and he expressed appreciation to the members of the Board for their vote of support. A round of applause was given to Chairman Davis. County Attorney Copley opened the floor to receive nominations for Vice-Chairman of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. Chairman Davis nominated Robert G. Greer. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Pritchett. Hearing no further nominations, County Attorney Copley declared the nominations closed and called for a vote. Vote: The Board voted unanimously to re-elect Robert G. Greer to serve as Vice-Chairman of the Board for the ensuing year. Vice-Chairman Greer expressed appreciation to the members of the Board for re-electing him to serve as Vice- Chairman. A round of applause was given to Vice-Chairman Greer. MEETING CONVENED FROM REGULAR SESSION TO HOLD A MEETING OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT Chairman Davis convened from Regular Session at 6:05 p.m. to hold a meeting of the Water and Sewer District to elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Water and Sewer District Board of Commissioners. Chairman Davis reconvened to Regular Session at 6:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to remove an item from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Commissioner Pritchett requested removal of Item 3 for a separate vote. Commissioner Boseman requested further discussion of Consent Item 1 and removal of Item 2 for a separate vote. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 402 Hearing no further requests, Chairman Davis requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with removal of Items 2 and 3. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to remove Items 2 and 3 from the Consent Agenda and approve the remaining items. CONSENT AGENDA Discussion and Acceptance of Additional Home and Community Block Grant Monies and Approval of Associated Budget Amendment #03-0077 - Department of Aging After discussion of the need to financially assist Elderhaus and other programs for the elderly, Commissioner Boseman asked if the funds received by Elderhaus from the Community Block Grant monies would help this agency with its current funding shortfall. County Manager O’Neal responded that Ms. Pearce had discussed the funding shortfall with him last week and she was requested to submit a written report. No information has been received, but contact will be made with Ms. Pearce and a report will be forwarded to the Board about the financial condition of this agency. After hearing no further discussion, the Commissioners approved the request to accept the additional Home and Community Care Block Grant funds in the amount of $44,030 and approve associated Budget Amendment #03-0077. Matching funds for the grant in the amount of $4,892 are included in the current budget for the Department of Aging. The funds will be used for Transportation, Home Delivered Meals, Congregate Nutrition, Case Assisted/I&R, Coastal Adult Day Care, In Home Aide, Elderhaus Adult Day Care, Elderhaus Group Respite, and Elderhaus Adult Health for Department of Aging clients. Budget Amendment #03-0077Aging/Transportation/Nutrition-Home Delivered/Nutrition-Congregate/Case Management/In-Home Aid/Adult Day Care AdjustmentDebitCredit Aging/Transportation: CDBG-Social$ 7,573 Salaries and Wages$ 2,000 Contracted Services$ 5,573 Aging/Nutrition-Home Delivered: Nutrition-CDBG$ 9,994 Contracted Services-Meals$ 9,994 Aging/Nutrition-Congregate: Nutrition-CDBG$ 7,705 Salaries and Wages$ 3,705 Contracted Services-Meals$ 4,000 Aging/Case Management: CDBG-Social$ 1,849 Salaries and Wages$ 1,849 Aging/In-Home Aid: CDBG-Social$11,758 Contracted Services$11,758 Aging/Adult Day Care: CDBG-Social$ 5,151 Contracted Services$ 5,151 Explanation: To budget additional Federal and State Home and Community Block Grant funds received in the amount of $44,030. There is a required 10% match of $4,892. The New Hanover County portion of this match ($3,013) is already allocated in the approved Department of Aging budget for FY 2002-2003. Coastal Adult Day Care, DMS Services (In-Home Aid Services), and Elderhaus are required to cover the 10% match for funding allocated to their respective agencies. Adoption of Resolutions Approving Public Official Bonds The Commissioners adopted resolutions approving public official bonds for the Finance Officer, Sheriff, Register of Deeds, and ABC Board members handling funds. The Commissioners also adopted a resolution establishing the amount of the Sheriff’s bond at $5,000. Copies of the resolutions are hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 3.2. Approval of Funding for Contracting Security Services for the Library The Commissioners approved the use of funds in the current Library budget to hire a private company to provide security services during the hours of operation for the remainder of the current fiscal year at a cost of $19,836. The cost to hire a deputy to provide these services would have been $27,000. With the expansion of the Library and construction of the parking deck, it has become clear that the public requires some uniformed presence because of several incidents that have occurred. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 403 DISCUSSION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 2, AWARD OF CONTRACT TO BMS ARCHITECTS TO PROVIDE DESIGN SERVICES FOR AIRLIE GARDENS After expressing concern for spending money on this project when there are so many outside agencies in need of funding, Commissioner Boseman requested a separate vote on this item. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to award a contract to BMS Architects to provide design services for the new Garden Services Building and public restrooms at Airlie Gardens. The Chairman was authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1. Commissioner Boseman voted in opposition. A copy of the contract is on file in the Legal Department. DISCUSSION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 3, A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TRITON PCS COMPANY, L.L.C. AND NEW HANOVER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Commissioner Pritchett spoke on the hospital building being owned by New Hanover County and stated that any revenue received from leasing that property should be paid to the County instead of the Medical Center. She requested the Board to consider changing the lease policy. County Attorney Copley responded that a lease amendment would have to be prepared. The current agreement is for New Hanover County to lease the hospital building to the Medical Center for $1.00 per year. The Medical Center operates as corporation and writes its own leases and contracts. The leases are between the Medical Center and the party leasing the building. The County has never received any funds from leasing any space in the hospital building. Commissioner Caster advised that the Medical Center has budgeted approximately $28 million to pay for indigent care during the current fiscal year. Since the taxpayers are not being required to pay for indigent care, it is difficult to understand why this request was made by Commissioner Pritchett. Chairman Davis responded that he understood why the request was being made by Commissioner Pritchett because he and many other citizens are concerned about the large salary increases given to the President and Vice- Presidents of the hospital with very small increases given to the nurses and other personnel. If the Medical Center is making a profit of this size, some of the money should be given back to the County. After hearing no further discussion, Chairman Davis requested a motion to approve Consent Agenda Item 3. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to approve a lease agreement between Triton PCS Company, L.L.C and New Hanover Regional Medical Center. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2. Commissioner Boseman and Commissioner Pritchett voted in opposition. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CONFIRMATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR MASON INLET RELOCATION PROJECT Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing and announced that each person registered to speak will be allowed five minutes to present concerns about the preliminary assessment roll for the Mason Inlet Relocation Project. He requested all persons speaking to adhere to the time limit established. Chairman Davis advised that the basis for the assessment was originally determined at a Public Hearing held by the Board of County Commissioners in 1999. Under N.C.G.S. 153A-186, the Board’s decision as to the method of assessment is final and not subject to further review or challenge. Should a person who has signed up to speak wish to request the Board to reconsider its decision, he or she may request a reassessment. However, the Board is not under any obligation to hear any argument in support of a reassessment or to consider a reassessment at this time. A reassessment decision is completely at the discretion of the Board. Tonight, the Board will listen to arguments concerning mathematical or clerical errors in the determination of an assessment. The mathematical and clerical accuracy of a proposed assessment will be determined by the Board. Some owners may want to question tax values. The Board has no authority to adjust ad valorem tax values. The opportunity to appeal valuations to the Board of Equalization and Review for 2002 has been closed. The only valuation adjustments authorized are to address clerical errors or misapplication of Schedules of Value, which is a mathematical error. In absence of such clerical error or misapplication, the ad valorem tax value will be final and it must be used where called for as a basis in this special assessment. Some parties may want to discuss whether their lots are buildable. The test for assessment is whether any benefit is received by the assessed property, not whether the property is buildable. It is the County Staff’s position that all assessed lots in this case are benefitted, and no adjustment is appropriate for oceanfront lots that are presently not buildable under CAMA standards. Chairman Davis requested Finance Director Bruce Shell to make a brief presentation. Finance Director Shell reported on providing the Commissioners with a list of mathematical and clerical adjustments for the following properties. •Margaret Pleasants - 12 Oyster Catcher Road: Due to a clerical error when keying in the property, the value increased from $149,997 to $299,997 for a difference of $150,000. This was an increase of $1,318 in the assessment to the property owner. •Joe W. and Nancy T. Pryor - 419 Beach Road North: Due to a clerical error, the land value increased from $119,999 to $299,997 for a difference of $179,998 in value. The assessment increased from $1,059 to $2,642. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 404 •R. W. Fraser, III and Norine R. Fraser - 321 Beach Road North: Due to a clerical error, the land value increased from $449,996 to $499,995 for a difference of $49,999 in value. The assessment increased from $3,973 to $4,403. •Wrightsville Dunes: The Finance Department was notified by the homeowners that an adjustment had been made in the condominiums at Wrightsville Dunes. The highest increase was $312 and lowest decrease was $312. These adjustments have been made and are reflected in the revised preliminary assessment roll. Finance Director Shell advised that a list of persons registered to speak has been presented with two of the parties not present; however, these property owners would like for their letters to be read into the record. Chairman Davis opened the floor to receive comments. Dr. Martin Chipman, a resident of 256 Beach Road, Figure Eight Island, Parcel #RO3818-001-024-000, reported that some of the properties were assessed based on the ocean frontage with other properties being assessed based upon the value of the property. The use of this mixed criteria created a great deal of confusion, and he requested the Board to reconsider whether both criteria or only one criteria should be used as the basis for the assessment. He also advised that his property was assessed at $7,657 and the ocean frontage listed at 105 feet. After measuring the ocean frontage, the footage is between 95 to 96 feet. He asked if a mathematical adjustment could be made in his assessment. In closing, Dr. Chipman noted that in reviewing the assessment rolls, he found that houses on each side of his home were valued at twice the valuation of his property; however, the assessment for these properties was the same as his assessment. He requested the Board to consider his concerns and make the appropriate adjustment to his assessment. Ms. Mary McCabe, a resident of 417 Beach Road North, Figure Eight Island, Parcel #RO3815-002-020-000, advised that Finance Director Shell had answered most of her questions; however, she would like to know if any effort was made to determine the accuracy of every piece of property on Figure Eight Island. For example, she informed Mr. Joe Pryor about the large discrepancy in his land value. She requested the Board to check into the method used for valuing properties on Figure Eight Island. Mr. George Freeman, a resident of 30 Saltmeadow Road, Figure Eight Island, Parcel #RO4519-001-006-000, expressed appreciation to the Board and Staff for the effort and assistance given when seeking information. He respectfully disagreed with the Board on the requirements of N.C.G.S. 153A-195, giving the Board the right to alter, annul, modify, or confirm the assessment. The Mason Inlet Relocation Project was more a tax levy than an assessment. When reviewing Exhibit A of the preliminary assessment roll, it is easy to see the vast number of people that have benefitted from the inlet relocation. The northern end of Wrightsville Beach, Shell Island Resort, parts of Figure Eight Island, persons living along the Intracoastal Waterway, boaters, and everyone using the public beaches have benefitted from the inlet relocation project. The formula used for the assessment narrowed these categories down to only a few people that supposedly received more benefits from the inlet relocation, which is a questionable procedure. Mr. Freeman questioned whether the contract for moving the inlet should have been rebid when the cost increased between the time the project was bid and the contract was let. The assessment method chosen is an extremely restrictive law that must be closely followed. The Board had the right to determine the basis for the assessment; however, the following questions should be answered: 1.Beach Renourishment Fund: This project was not for beach renourishment but for moving and relocating Mason Inlet. Was this project eligible to receive beach renourishment funds collected from the Room Occupancy Tax? 2. Selected Method: Beach zones or assessment zones must follow the criteria set forth in the General Statutes which are distance from the shoreline, distance from the project, elevation or other relevant factors. 3. Other Relevant Factors: All relevant factors should clearly be set forth: a.Was the assessment on Figure Eight Island based on a $5.50 per cubic yard cost? It appears that the cost was predetermined before the actual cost was known. In April 1999, the cost per cubic yard was estimated at $5.47, but the final cost was actually $5.50 per cubic yard. b.Why are property owners on Figure Eight Island paying 51.7% of the construction cost? Included in the cost of construction are the inlet relocation, the sand pushed on Shell Island and other costs of the project that do not represent the cost of delivering sand to Figure Eight Island. c. Rates of Assessments: The rates of assessments may vary from zone to zone; however, within each zone, the rates must be uniform. In the preliminary proposal, it was said that residential lots benefitted equally on Figure Eight Island , but the land value of the Club was assessed, the land value of the utility was assessed, and the land value of the Homeowners Association was not assessed. It does appear that a uniform system of assessment was used throughout the zones. d. After reviewing the information on how the benefit and risk formulas were established and applied, the only information found was that ATM Engineering, Inc. developed the formulas used. No one knows how these formulas were calculated. The guidelines set forth in the General Statutes impose a heavy duty on the Board of County Commissioners and Staff to be sure that the application of the tax falls on the right people in the right way. e. Under the General Statutes, the Board was to determine the actual cost of the project. This a condition NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 405 precedent to several actions already taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Action has been deferred by the Board on the construction mitigation area at a cost of $495,000. Will this cost be considered at a later date, and if so, can this cost be part of the assessment? The County has sought to dismiss some costs through a contract instead of through the assessment. There is a court case pending which may nullify a contract of this type. What will happen to this cost if the contract is nullified? If the County has not been able to determine a final cost, it appears that considering the assessment and preliminary roll is premature. The County has injected a concept into the notice referring to the first phase, which was not mentioned in the preliminary assessment resolution, which means that the Mason Inlet Relocation project cannot be a multi-phase project. Under Section 194, the determination and cost of conditions must precede the determination of the final preliminary role. Under Section 195, it says that the Board shall annul, modify, or confirm the assessments in whole or in part. However, the notice mailed said that after the Public Hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will confirm the final assessment roll and determine the payment terms. The language used in the notice is a serious matter and is close to denial of due process. There were no alternates to the confirmation suggested in the notice. f.Maintenance: The issue of maintenance throughout the project under Section 204.1 gives the Board the right to perform maintenance on an annual basis or less frequently without any hearings and safeguards that were built into the original process. In other words, the basis is fixed and assessments will be made on this basis. If the Board assesses on the basis that Figure Eight Island is buying the sand and maintenance occurs one year without the sand being sold to Figure Eight Island, will Figure Eight Island still be assessed and what will happen to the total assessment of the project at that point? g.Collateral Issues: The County now appears to be prepared to battle with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies in fulfilling the conditions of the permit issued by the Corps of Engineers. If the County denies any of these requests made by the Corps and later decides to include these items in the scope of the project, it will be a violation of the rules because these items were not set forth in the preliminary assessment resolution. h.Increase in Project Cost: The Mason Inlet Relocation project has almost doubled in size. The cost has increased 161% from the original figure of $4,200,000 to $6,740,000. In concluding the presentation, Mr. Freeman said that his assessment has increased from $1,840 to $5,300. If a contractor gives an individual a price of $4,000,000 to construct a building and later bills that person $6,700,000, the scope of the project has drastically changed. He requested the Board to step back in the name of good faith and fairness to the citizens and carefully review how the assessments were determined on Figure Eight Island. Chairman Davis asked if Mr. Alton J. Boyer was present. Finance Director Shell responded that Mr. Boyer could not attend the Public Hearing and read the following email into the record: My name is J. Alton Boyer and I am the owner of Figure Eight Island Parcel #RO3811-003-025-000, situs address at 507 Beach Road North, and residence address at 1250 South Washington Street, Alexandria, Virginia. My property is non-oceanfront and is undeveloped. Your proposed assessment is $1,986 based upon a stated land value of $224,998. In your roll of proposed assessments, you have placed the same numbers upon the immediately adjacent lots owned by Frederick and Lynn C. Poisson, Jr. and by Melvin and Elizabeth Rollins. The Poissons and Rollins properties have been both extensively filled, graded and landscaped while my lot is the low point of the neighborhood and will require extensive and expensive filling and grading to be buildable. It is perfectly clear that these three lots cannot fairly or reasonably be valued at the same appraisal, independent of the fact that the other two properties have already been developed. My lot should be valued at least $25,000 to $50,000 less, which would be acceptable and realistic. In addition, it appears to me that undeveloped properties are valued and assessed at the same level as developed properties of comparable value in the assessment roll. I submit that the burden of this assessment is placed disproportionately upon non-oceanfront properties compared to oceanfront properties. From the notice of the hearing, it is not clear whether the Board will hear these grounds of opposition. I am requesting the Board to reallocate the overall burden of the assessment to require developed properties to bear a heavier burden than undeveloped properties and to require oceanfront properties to bear a proportionately heavier burden than non- oceanfront properties. Respectfully, J. Alton Boyer. Chairman Davis called on the next speaker, Mr. Frank Pinkston. Mr. Frank Pinkston, speaking on behalf of the Mason Inlet Preservation Group (MIPG), stated that MIPG approves the cost and assessment allocation established for the Mason Inlet Relocation project. He expressed appreciation to the County Commissioners and County Staff for working with the MIPG over the past four years in making the relocation of the inlet become a reality. Mr. Pinkston also noted that Shell Island Resort residents have no opposition to the overall assessment value of $3,148,388; however, the residents are requesting a minor adjustment in how the assessment is allocated to the property owners for the Shell Island Resort common area which has been valued at $212,625. He requested the Board to consider adding $1,258.14 to each assessment of the 169 units for the common area instead of requiring the Shell NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 406 Island Homeowners Association to set up a separate assessment to collect the money for this area. Staff has agreed to make the adjustment, but it will be a slight variation and will require approval by the Board of County Commissioners. In concluding the presentation, Mr. Pinkston expressed appreciation to the Board for support of the project and he requested approval of the common area adjustment to the assessment roll as suggested. Chairman Davis noted that the next speaker was Mr. Charles B. Campbell III and asked if he was present. Finance Director Shell advised that Mr. Campbell forwarded an email to the Finance Department saying that his questions had been answered and it was not necessary to read his remarks into the record. Chairman Davis advised that based upon Mr. Campbell’s email, the appeal will be withdrawn. Chairman Davis noted that the next speaker was Ms. Nan Heinbaugh and asked if she was present. Finance Director Shell responded that Ms. Heinbaugh could not attend the Public Hearing and read the following letter dated December 2, 2002, into the record: Dear Board Members, My property at 17 Comber Road, Figure Eight Island, Parcel #RO3811-002-005-00, is one of 16 or more properties that required sandbagging this summer to avoid losing the property altogether. The cost of $17,300 for the sandbagging was not covered by any assessment; although during the Mason Inlet Project, we were in desperate need of some of the extra sand and it was denied. I am being asked to pay for an assessment on a project which has been of great value to others but has left me and nearly 20 other properties even closer to the brink. I would ask for an adjustment in my assessment. Thank you, Nan Heinbaugh. Chairman Davis noted that the next speaker was Mr. Raymond C. Parker Mr. Raymond C. Parker, a resident of 323 Beach Road, Figure Eight Island, Parcel #RO3815-002-001-000, stated that he was glad to see the newly elected County Commissioners being sworn into office and swearing to uphold the laws of North Carolina because he had a issue regarding the State law. Mr. Parker advised that when the basis selected for assessment was either area or valuation, the Board should have established one or more benefit zones according to beach erosion control, the distance from the shoreline or water course, the distance from the project, the elevation of the land or other relevant factors. If more than one benefit zone is established, the Board should establish different rates of assessments to apply uniformly throughout each benefit zone. This criteria in the General Statute was not adhered to in the resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Parker stated that his carport is 27 feet above sea level, which means that his property is one of the highest pieces of land on Figure Eight Island. There was no benefit zone denoted through elevation of land in the assessment process. Two tenths of a mile of the 3.9 mile beach was not renourished. The entire northern half of Figure Eight Island has received no benefit and no protection from the Mason Inlet Relocation project. This inlet was moving south and none of the property on the north end was threatened, yet these properties are being assessed for the cost of the project. This is not fair, legal or in compliance with the intent of the General Statutes. Mr. Parker also expressed concern for the allocation of cost between oceanfront and non-oceanfront properties. This allocation was premeditated and sold to the Board of County Commissioners by the Board of Directors of the Figure 8 Island Homeowners Associations since this method had been used in the past. Beach renourishment projects at Emerald Isle require a non-oceanfront lot to pay approximately 5 -10% of the amount paid by an oceanfront lot. In the Mason Inlet Relocation project, the non-oceanfront lots on Figure Eight Island are paying 50%. This is an unfair methodology of assessment by the Figure 8 Island Homeowners Association because an effort is being made to subsidize oceanfront properties at the expense of non-oceanfront properties. In closing, Mr. Parker advised that the Board is taking from one group of property owners on the northern end of Figure Eight Island that did not receive any benefit, and giving this benefit to property owners on the southern end of Figure Eight Island and across the waterway on the north end of Wrightsville Beach. He stated that he did not believe this was the intent of the legislators when writing the Statute, and he requested the Board to rethink the process and conduct a reassessment for Figure Eight Island. Ms. Jane Freeman, a resident of 30 Saltmeadow Road, Figure Eight Island, Parcel #RO4519-001-006-000, requested an explanation of why the final assessment resolution adopted in 1999 did not mention the assessment for maintaining Mason Inlet for a period of 30 years. She stated that no written information was ever received by the benefitted property owners from the County or from the Figure 8 Island Homeowners Association. County Attorney Copley advised that she felt the agreement with the Figure 8 Island Homeowners Association included the maintenance. She noted that Mr. Bill Raney, the attorney representing the Homeowners Association was present and could better respond to the question. After hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis requested Finance Director Shell to answer the following questions: Question: Were the oceanfront and non-oceanfront tax values mixed in the assessments as referenced by Dr. Chipman? Answer: Finance Director Shell responded that assessments for Figure Eight Island were based on the sand purchased NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 407 at an approximate cost of $2.7 million. The properties were broken out into oceanfront and non-oceanfront properties. The oceanfront properties were treated as two shares compared to one share for non-oceanfront properties. Under this formula, 52% of the assessment was allocated to oceanfront properties and 48% to non-oceanfront properties. The 52% set aside for oceanfront properties was assessed based on front footage. The value of the land was not relevant for oceanfront properties. The 48% of non-oceanfront properties was based on the tax value of the land as shown in the tax records of January 1, 2002. The oceanfront and non-oceanfront properties have been treated differently for purposes of the assessment and it is difficult to draw parallels between values of oceanfront properties and values of non-oceanfront properties. Question: Was the measurement of the oceanfront property owned by Dr. Chipman correct? Answer: Finance Director Shell responded that measurements within the GIS Maps System were used based upon a digitalized aerial photo with calculations being made from these sources of information. Staff did not identify property markers or use tapes to measure the properties. Question: Were neighbors with higher fair market values being assessed the same as neighborhoods with lower fair market values as referenced by Dr. Chipman? Answer: Finance Director Shell advised that in non-oceanfront property values were reviewed by the Tax Office and it was found that some properties had CAMA restrictions causing the fair market value to be lower. Each assessment was based upon the land value listed at the Tax Office. When irregularities occurred between two adjacent properties, the assessment was based upon the value in the Tax Office. Some of the values could be clearly explained and some values may have to be appealed to the 2003 Board of Equalization and Review to determine if the tax value has been fairly assessed. Question: Was there accuracy and uniformity in the assessment of the adjacent land values on Figure Eight Island as referenced by Ms. Mary McCabe? Answer: Finance Director Shell advised that values were accurate and were based on the Tax System. When tax bills are mailed to property owners, these values can be appealed to the Tax Office and an appraiser will visit the property and try to arrive at the most accurate value. Question: Will the later cost of mitigation be a part of a future assessment to the benefitted property owners as referenced by Mr. Freeman? Answer: Finance Director Shell explained that the $6.4 million assessment being confirmed at this meeting will not be the end of costs involved with the inlet relocation project. There are numerous projects relating to maintenance and monitoring that will have to be conducted in the future. All future cost will follow the guidelines in the original resolution adopted in 1999 and the same assessment process will be followed. Question: Are assessments disproportionate between developed and non-developed non-oceanfront properties as referenced in the letter from Mr. Boyer? Answer: Finance Director Shell responded that the Tax Office looked specifically at Mr. Boyer’s property and determined that the value was correct. Mr. Boyer has been advised of his right of appeal and he may choose to follow that route. The Tax Office did take into account developed land versus undeveloped land. Question: Should there be some reduction in the assessment for Figure Eight Island property owners who did not receive sand as referenced in the letter from Ms. Heinbaugh? Answer: Finance Director Shell responded that no reduction should be given to property owners who did not receive sand because the methodology used was based upon the entire island benefitting from the beach renourishment project. Question: In reference to the question directed by Mr. Raymond Parker to the Board of Directors of the Figure 8 Island Homeowners Association, was there any intentional subsidizing of oceanfront properties by non-oceanfront properties? Answer: Finance Director Shell responded that no intentional subsidizing of oceanfront properties by non-oceanfront properties was used. The method used was analyzed and reviewed by ATM Engineering, Inc, and company representatives met numerous times to discuss the assessment procedure with Staff. Question: Would it be legal and in the best interest of the County to remove the $212,625 assessment from the Shell Island Resort common area and divide this figure by 169 units for an added assessment $1,258.14 to each individual unit? Answer: Deputy County Attorney, Kemp Burpeau, responded that Staff’s position is that the most prudent and consistent approach with the special assessment statute is to directly access the property owner; therefore, the Shell Island Homeowners Association should be assessed for the common area. This approach would be less likely to raise a judicial question. Chairman Davis asked if leaving the assessment with the Shell Homeowners Association is the easiest way to collect the assessment. Deputy County Attorney Burpeau responded that charging the common area assessment to the Shell Homeowners Association would be in accordance with the General Statutes and the best way to collect the revenue. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 408 Question: Was a vote taken by the property owners on Figure Eight Island agreeing to pay for the maintenance of Mason Inlet for 30 years as referenced by Ms. Jane Freeman? Answer: County Attorney Copley explained that in order to prepare the assessment, the total cost of the project must be determined. Staff used the total cost of the project to date and applied the formula to determine how much each property owner would be assessed. At this time, there is no way for the County to know the cost of future maintenance. Under 153-A (204-1), the General Statutes allow the Board of County Commissioners to annually, or at less frequent intervals, levy maintenance and operating assessments for any project purpose set forth in the statutes on the same basis of the original assessment. Once the maintenance cost is determined, the property owners will be assessed. Chairman Davis stated that he felt Ms. Freeman was asking if a vote was taken by the property owners on Figure Eight Island agreeing to maintain Mason Inlet for 30 years. County Attorney Copley responded that she felt there was an agreement by the Figure 8 Homeowners Association to maintain Mason Inlet. She requested Attorney Bill Raney to comment on this issue. Chairman Davis advised that residents of Figure Eight Island agreed to be responsible for maintenance of the inlet up to where Mason Creek flows into the Intracoastal Waterway, and he requested Attorney Raney to meet with Ms. Freeman to answer her questions. Attorney Raney responded the he would be glad to meet with Ms. Freeman. Discussion was held by the Board on assessments made to oceanfront properties. Deputy County Attorney Burpeau explained that if a property owner inquires about oceanfront footage, Staff uses the tax record and pulls the deed to see the actual frontage on the water. There is a misconception that a tape can be used to measure oceanfront footage by going across the property; however, the deed may have a number of convolutions that could create greater oceanfront footage. The tax records reflect the deed calls and 99% of determinations are based on the deed calls. Discussion followed on the agreement with the Figure 8 Homeowners Association regarding assessments. Finance Director Shell explained that property owners at Figure Eight Island were consulted and involved in the process, but the method and terms used for the assessment were determined by the County. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Davis called for a motion to confirm the assessment roll. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to confirm the assessment roll. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Finance Director Shell requested the Board to establish the payment terms with the assessment to become effective June 1, 2003. He advised that confirmation of the Final Assessment Roll for the Mason Inlet Relocation project would be mailed to the property owners on December, 2002. Bills for annual payment will be mailed to the property owners on April 15, 2003, with the assessment becoming effective June 1, 2003. A lump sum payment may be made with no interest charged before June 1, 2003. Any payments after this date will be charged an interest rate of 7%. The Board has provided a three-year annual payment plan with interest charged at 7%. Mr. Pinkston commented on the 7% interest being established in the resolution adopted by the Board in 1999 and requested the Board to consider reducing the rate from 7% to 6% since interest rates are much lower at this time. Commissioner Pritchett stated that in her opinion there is no way to know what the interest rates will be in June 2003 or for the next three years. Deputy County Attorney Burpeau advised that reducing the interest rate would be a variation from the resolution adopted in 1999; therefore, Staff feels the rate should not be changed. Motion: Chairman Davis MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to authorize Staff to mail bills for assessment by April 15, 2003 payable by June 1, 2003 with any payment made thereafter being subject to a 7% interest rate. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Caster spoke on some excellent points being made by the property owners, and he requested Staff to respond to all questions and concerns presented. Vice-Chairman Greer commented on the tremendous amount of work done on this project during the past six years by Staff, and he expressed appreciation to them for this outstanding effort. He also commented on some of the property owners not being pleased and stated that the Commissioners have done everything possible to fulfill the permitting requirements and satisfy the property owners. PUBLIC HEARING TO RENAME VETERANS DRIVE TO HALYBURTON PARKWAY (SN-93, 11/02) Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing. Staff Planner Sam Burgess reported that the New Hanover County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has recommended renaming Veterans Drive (the road running through Veterans Park) to Halyburton Parkway in honor William D. Halyburton, Jr., one of four Medal of Honor recipients who spent most of their lives in New Hanover County. Presently, this access serves several new schools, a residential subdivision and apartment complex which is under construction. No other residential lots have frontage, although there is a large vacant undeveloped parcel with frontage NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 409 across from the apartment complex. Halyburton Parkway has been approved by the County's E-911 Center. Several residents in the Heritage Woods development have voiced concern about the road renaming not being necessary and have suggested that other facilities near the Veterans Park campus be named after Mr. Halyburton. If the road is renamed, address changes will need to be made by the apartment complex and the existing schools. Typically, the County has allowed a two to three month grace period to make the necessary changes. The County will install new street signs. Chairman Davis asked if the Veterans Group, Board of Education and other parties involved were pleased with the road renaming. Commissioner Caster advised that all parties involved were pleased with the renaming. Chairman Davis asked if anyone in audience would like to speak in favor of the road renaming. No comments were received. Chairman Davis asked if anyone in the audience would like speak in opposition to the road renaming. Hearing no comments, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to rename the entire 1.6 mile length of Veterans Drive to Halyburton Parkway. Mr. Jim Medlin, a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, requested the Board to consider naming the road Halyburton Memorial Parkway in memory of Mr. Halyburton and other veterans who gave their lives during World War II. After discussion, of the original request being William D. Halyburton, Jr. Memorial Parkway, the Board agreed to naming the road to Halyburton Memorial Parkway. Chairman Davis requested Vice-Chairman Greer to amend the motion to rename the road to Halyburton Memorial Parkway. Commissioner Pritchett requested including an effective date for the addresses to be changed. Amended Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer amended the motion to change the name of Veterans Drive to Halyburton Memorial Parkway to become effective March 2, 2003. Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the order is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVIII, Page 3.3. BREAK Chairman Davis called a break from 7:15 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST BY AMANDA SMITH TO MODIFY AN EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE FOOD STORE/TEA SHOP IN AN R-15 ZONING DISTRICT (S-387 - 09/02) Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing and 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 Kenneth A. Shanklin David H. Smith, Sr. George Perry Chairman Davis requested Planning Director Hayes to provide the Planning Board and Staff summary of the request. Planning Director Dexter Hayes presented maps showing the site located at 7309 Myrtle Grove Road and reported that Ms. Amanda Smith, the petitioner, appeared before the Planning Board on September 5, 2002, and provided historical data about the structure and land use. No one spoke in support or in opposition to the request. The Planning Board voted 6 to 0 to deny the request because the members felt a precedent would be established for commercial zoning along Myrtle Grove Road and south along Carolina Beach Road. Planning Director Hayes entered the following findings 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 Myrtle Grove Volunteer Fire Department District. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 410 B.The site is served by an individual well and septic system. All restroom, kitchen and eating facilities will have to meet minimum health codes. C.Access to the site is from Myrtle Grove Road. D.There is an existing Special Use Permit for a Pet Grooming Facility at this location. 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-15 Residential Zoning District. Convenience food stores are permitted by Special Use Permit within the R-15 Residential Zoning District. B.Required conditions of the Zoning Ordinance can be met. C.No new structures are proposed. D.No fuel sales or auto repair type services are permitted. The proposed convenience store use is to sell specialty breads, crackers, cookies, coffee, tea and some associated accessory items. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity based upon the following findings: A.No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting property values. B.Historically the site has been used for non-residential purposes including small engine repair and most recently a pet grooming facility. 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 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the site as Resource Protection. The purpose of the Resource Protection class is to provide for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources. B.No structural expansions are proposed. In concluding the presentation, Planning Director Hayes advised that Staff feels the convenience store should only be used to sell specialty type food items and accessories. The structure should not be converted into a standard convenience store operation. Chairman Davis asked if the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Director Hayes responded that the Planning Board felt the use was not consistent with the Land Use Plan because it could set a precedent and lead to commercial zoning along Myrtle Grove Road. Chairman Davis informed Mr. Kenneth Shanklin, the attorney representing the petitioner, that he would have up to 15 minutes to make his presentation. He also asked Mr. Shanklin if the petitioner agreed with the Staff findings presented by Planning Director Hayes. Attorney Shanklin advised that the petitioner agreed with the findings as presented. Mr. Kenneth A. Shanklin, Attorney At Law, 214 Market Street, Wilmington, North Carolina, advised that the request is an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit to modify a pet grooming facility. The building has been used as a small engine lawn mower repair shop and a convenience store. Photographs of the 100-year old building were presented showing the tea speciality shop and that the structure had been well maintained. A map was presented of the site showing surrounding properties. Attorney Shanklin advised that the proposed use is consistent with Article VIII of the Land Use Plan and complies to the transportation section of the Land Use Plan because the use will not increase traffic in an area with large box retail stores. The proposed use does comply to all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and if the request is approved, a historic building will be preserved. Vice-Chairman Greer asked if this building was being used for a pet grooming facility, how were photographs shown of a tea speciality shop on the inside of the building. Attorney Shanklin responded that the petitioner made the necessary renovations to change the business from a pet grooming facility to a tea speciality shop without knowing that the Special Use Permit had to be modified. Mr. David H. Smith, the petitioner and owner of the property, advised when the property was acquired in 1957, the store was located in the north bound lane of Highway 421. The building was used for a gas station. When Highway 421 was widened, his mother purchased the store and paid for the building to be moved. Since that time, the store has been operated as a convenience store and recently as a pet grooming facility. During the past three years, $3,000 has NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 411 been spent to remove the gas tanks because of gas found in well water on the property located around the corner. The entire lot and building have been renovated and his wife would like to open a tea speciality shop in the building. Mr. George Perry, a resident of 101 North Fifth Avenue at Kure Beach, advised that he was a licensed real estate broker and stated that the use of this building as a tea speciality shop will not negatively impact the value of surrounding properties. Due to the size and nature of the business, there will be a small inventory and no gas will be sold. The use will not increase traffic, create noise or litter. He requested the Board to amend the Special Use Permit to allow this type of shop to operate in a historic building. Chairman Davis asked if anyone present would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke. Commissioner Pritchett asked if any effort had been made to establish the building as historic property. Attorney Shanklin advised that he was not aware of any historic designation for the building and stated the building is a nice reflection of the past. Commissioner Pritchett asked if the use could be changed at a later date if the Special Use Permit is modified by the Board to allow for a tea speciality shop. Chairman Davis responded that supposedly the use cannot be changed without going through another process. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to modify the existing Special Use Permit to convert a Pet Grooming operation into a Convenience Food Store/Tea Shop in an R-15 Residential District located at 7903 Myrtle Grove Road subject to the store only being used to sell tea, speciality type food items and accessories with the building not being converted into a standard convenience store 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 FAILED 2 to 3. Chairman Davis, Commissioner Boseman and Commissioner Pritchett voted in opposition because they felt the proposed use was not in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and was not in conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A copy of the order denying the Special Use Permit is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in SUP Book III, Page 18. Attorney Shanklin asked if there was anything in the application that could be changed to better address the concerns of the Board. Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern for the amount of money spent by the property owners to renovate the building and stated that was why he voted in favor of the request. No further comments were received from the Board. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY KEN SHANKLIN FOR JEFFREY CLARK TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 2.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4716 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL TO CD (O&I) CONDITIONAL USE OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL (Z-746, 07/02) Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing and announced that a conditional use zoning requires sworn testimony; therefore, all persons wishing to speak must step forward to be sworn in by the Clerk to the Board. The following persons were sown in: Dexter Hayes Kenneth A. Shanklin Scott Clark Jeffery Clark John Hutton Chairman Davis requested Planning Director Hayes to make a presentation on the zoning request. Planning Director Dexter Hayes presented a map and slides of the site showing that a majority of surrounding properties were zoned R-15 Residential. The subject property is an isolated industrial property located on Carolina Beach Road south of the City Limits. There is a commercial corner further south near the Johnson Farms development and further south approaching Monkey Junction is a larger commercial area. The subject property has several structures on the site, and the building has been at the location for a number of years. At the Planning Board meeting held on November 7, 2002, Mr. Kenneth A. Shanklin, the attorney representing the applicant, presented the request to rezone the property located at 4716 Carolina Beach Road from R-15 Residential NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 412 to CD(O&I) Conditional Use Office and Institution. He explained that the rezoning request was made to allow the petitioner to expand his existing business. Since the property is currently a non-conforming classification, the business can not be expanded unless the CD(O&I) zoning is approved. Several members of the Planning Board felt that the request was logical and would not establish a precedent for future commercial rezonings in the area. Other members of the Planning Board thought the property should remain residential, and the business should operate within the non-conforming classification. The Planning Board voted 4-2 to recommend approval with the condition that the proposed audio studio would not operate after 10:00 p.m. Planning Director Hayes presented the following Staff findings: 1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved based upon the following findings: A.The subject property is located within the Myrtle Grove Volunteer Fire Department District. B.The site has direct access to Carolina Beach Road (U.S. Highway 421). C.The site is served by County sewer, and public water service is near the site. D.One new building is proposed for the rear of the property. 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 proposed building shall be set back a minimum of 2.75 times the building height. Existing uses will continue within the existing buildings on site. B.Buffering for the proposed building is shown using a fence and landscaping material. No trees will be removed for the new construction. C.The proposed uses are permitted within the Office and Institutional District. 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.Historically the existing building fronting on Carolina Beach Road has been used for a variety of commercial uses prior to zoning in the area. B.Only one new building is proposed. C.The proposed uses are permitted within the O&I Zoning District. 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 subject property is located in the Developed Land Classification. The purpose of the Developed class is to provide for continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban areas. Urban services are already in place or scheduled within the immediate future. Planning Director Hayes explained that although there is an existing non-conforming use on the subject property, the 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. Section 40-1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the general guidelines or intent of the ordinance as it pertains to non conformities: It is the intent of this ordinance to permit these non-conformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their continual use. Policies in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan discourage the striping out of major corridors. Approving this zoning would result in a significant intrusion into surrounding residential properties. Staff is concerned that rezoning even part of this property as a conditional use will establish a precedent for future commercial rezonings and will continue an undesirable pattern of strip development along this stretch of Carolina Beach Road. Staff recommends denial of the request. Commissioner Boseman asked which Planning Board members voted against the request. Planning Director Hayes responded that Mr. David Girardot and Mr. David Adams voted in opposition. Commissioner Caster asked how the property owner was able to construct the building in the back of the property. Planning Director Hayes responded that he thought the building permit was issued for construction of a garage. He suggested allowing the applicant to answer this question. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 413 Chairman Davis informed Attorney Kenneth Shanklin that he would have 15 minutes to make a presentation and stated that no one has signed up to speak in opposition. He asked Attorney Shanklin if the applicant agreed with Staff findings as presented by the Planning Director. Attorney Shanklin responded that the applicant concurred with the findings as presented. Chairman Davis asked Attorney Shanklin if the applicant was aware of the fact that if the Board votes on a conditional use zoning and the request is denied, another application cannot be resubmitted before 12 months. Attorney Shanklin responded that the applicant was aware of this fact. Chairman Davis asked if the applicant would like for the Board to proceed with the rezoning request. Attorney Shanklin responded that the applicant would like to proceed with the request. Attorney Shanklin, representing the petitioner, Jeffrey Clark, reported that zoning is conducted for two purposes: 1) the practical use of land, and 2) the theoretical use of land. In this case, the two purposes clash. Zoning should provide some way to allow people to use their land forever. When looking at downtown Wilmington, many people would like to go back to the neo-traditional zoning. The fact is that when Wilmington was developed, there was no zoning. Zoning is a recent phenomena that applies a strict rule base orientation to property. Frequently, the rules get in the way of how the property should be used. This is when common sense has to be used. Attorney Shanklin presented a handout (marked Exhibit I) including a Table of Permitted Uses; Land Use and Urban Design Policies; and Uses Along a 1.4 Mile Section of Carolina Beach Road. He stated that after driving down Carolina Beach Road for 1.4 miles beginning at the Moose Lodge to the big box stores at Monkey Junction, it was found there were 15 houses on the east side and 16 houses on the west side; 2 mobile homes on the west side; 2 mobile home parks on the west side; 10 commercial/industrial uses on the east side; 12 commercial/industrial uses on the west side; 3 multi-family uses on the east side; 1 church on the east side; 5 vacant lots on the east side; and 5 vacant lots on the west side. The figures just presented indicate the number of mixed uses along this stretch of Carolina Beach Road, and historically zoning has been used for residential and business purposes. Attorney Shanklin advised that the proposed zoning will not require removal of trees, extensive landscaping or additional road networking. Only one building will be constructed on the site. The subject property is 172,457 square feet with a buffer of 7,240 square feet to the north and 9,240 square feet to the south, and a new 1,800 square feet building. In closing, Attorney Shanklin advised that Mr. Scott Clark and Mr. John Hutton would be making presentations and he requested time for rebuttal. Chairman Davis informed Attorney Shanklin that up to five minutes would be allowed for rebuttal. Mr. Scott Clark, owner of the property, reported that his family had owned the property since 1949 with a mixture of residential and business uses. A barber shop, service station, lawn mower repair shop, rental tool business, and real estate business have been operated on the site. In 1986, he rented the building to start his computer audio business and later purchased the property from his grandparents in 1992. Over the years, the business has grown and the need for another building is essential. The proposed building will be a small building in the back to expand the business located in the front building. He requested the Board to grant the CD(O&I) zoning to allow his business to continue to grow with minimal changes and impact to the land and surrounding neighbors. Mr. John Hutton, an independent state certified fee appraiser, informed the Board that he had appraised property in New Hanover County for 20 years. He stated that after visiting the subject property and inspecting surrounding properties, it was his opinion that the proposed expansion would not reduce the value of contiguous or surrounding properties. Attorney Shanklin presented photographs of the front of the property that will remain unchanged, the store that has been used commercially for years, the dirt road leading to the back of the building that will remain unchanged, the property across the street, the rental home, trees that will not be removed, the path going to the back of the building, and the existing building in the back of the property. No signs will be erected and the expanded use will not negatively impact surrounding properties. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan because it does not establish a dangerous precedent since the property has been used for several businesses throughout the years. In concluding his presentation, Attorney Shanklin noted that each zoning case heard by the Board should stand on its own merits. If this request is denied, apartments can be placed on the property. He requested the Board to approve the CD(O&I) zoning to allow his applicant to expand an existing business. Chairman Davis asked if any members of the Board would like to comment. Commissioner Pritchett asked if a recording studio would be considered a business service. Planning Director Haynes responded that a recording studio would fit into the business service category. Chairman Davis noted that no one from the audience had signed up to speak and he closed the Public Hearing. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis called for a motion. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 414 Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to approve rezoning approximately 2.92 acres of property located at 4716 Carolina Beach Road from R-15 Residential to CD (O&I) Conditional Use Office and Institutional. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 to 2. Vice-Chairman Greer and Chairman Davis 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 63. Chairman Davis called for a motion to grant the Special Use Permit for the conditional use. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to grant a Special Use Permit to Jeffrey Clark to expand his business subject to the proposed audio studio not operating after 10:00 p.m. 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 4 to 1. Chairman Davis 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 18. Exhibit I is on file in the Planning Department under Case Z-746. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY HOWARD CAPPS FOR MATT DI GIOIA TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.80 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4607 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL TO R-10 RESIDENTIAL (Z-756, 11/02) Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing. Planning Director Dexter Hayes presented slides of the site and surrounding properties and reported that the applicant is requesting rezoning from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential for approximately 3.80 acres of property located at 4607 Carolina Beach Road. This part of the County was originally zoned in 1969 when much of the area was still used to raise livestock. Subsequently this area has become a densely developed residential area. The property is within the Urban Growth boundary and is classified as Developed by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update adopted in September 1999. Urban Services are also available in the area. The R-10 zoning classification allows 3.3 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is in close proximity to other developments that are developing at densities greater than 3.3 units per acre. The adjacent property was recently rezoned from R-15 to R-10, and the site is in close proximity to Johnson Farms, which is being developed as a high density project with a density of approximately 3.8 units per acre. There are several multi-family high-density projects fronting St. Andrews Drive within the City limits just to the west of the property. The R-10 zoning classification will allow for construction of three additional units The request was presented by Mr. Howard Capps at the Planning Board meeting held on November 7, 2002. One nearby neighbor spoke in support of the petition. No one spoke in opposition. The property currently is accessible from an easement off Carolina Beach Road with another access from St. Andrews Drive. Both access roads are not improved. Some members of the Planning Board were concerned about approving additional density on a parcel which had limited access. The petitioner explained that he owned several of the abutting parcels and would be able to improve access in the future, when development proposals are submitted. Ultimately the Planning Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval. Policies in the Land Use Plan promote development within the urban services boundary where essential urban services exist. Density may exceed 2.5 units per acre within the Developed Land Classification. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan also supports affordable housing opportunities. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning because it is consistent with surrounding development and will be in close proximity to urban services. Chairman Davis informed Mr. Howard J. Capps that he would have 15 minutes to make a presentation on behalf of the applicant, Mathew Di Gioia. He asked Mr. Capps and Mr. Di Gioia if they both understood that denial of the rezoning request would prevent the application from being resubmitted for 12 months. Mr. Capps responded that he and the applicant were aware of the 12-month period and would like for the Board to proceed with hearing the rezoning request. Mr. Howard Capps, a landscape architect and land planner with an office located at 805 North Front Street, advised that approximately two months ago, he appeared before the Board and received approval to rezone approximately 14 acres of land located on Carolina Beach Road from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential. Since that time, the applicant has been able to secure an option to purchase 3.80 acres of land adjacent to the property. The applicant, Mr. Mathew Di Gioia, would like to incorporate this acreage into the 14 acres just recently rezoned to R-10 Residential. Water and sewer are available to the 3.80 acres. In closing, Mr. Capps requested the Board to rezone the 3.80 acres from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 415 because this was the best use of the property. Chairman Davis asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition to the rezoning request. No comments were received. Chairman Davis asked if any members of the Board would like to comment. Hearing no remarks, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Motion: Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to rezone 3.80 acres of property located at 4607 Carolina Beach Road from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential as recommended by the Planning Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE MASONBORO ZONING AREA 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, Masonboro Zoning Area, Page 22. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT # 03-0095 TO ES&J ENTERPRISES FOR THE MASON INLET MITIGATION SITE Chief Project Engineer Greg Thompson advised that General Condition No. 15 of the permit issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the initial dredging of Mason Inlet requires New Hanover County to implement wetland mitigation for the loss of habitat due to the project. Included within the permit documents is New Hanover County's proposal to meet this requirement. As part of this proposal, the County identified the restoration of 3.8 acres of marsh habitat. A dredge disposal island located adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway west of Figure Eight Island has been targeted for the restoration work. Mitigation will incorporate grading and planting activities to restore tidal flushing and marsh habitat within this area. The design work for this project has been previously approved by the Board of Commissioners. On November 15, 2002, bids were opened in the Engineering Department and the low bid was ES&J Enterprises of Autryville, N. C., in the amount of $774,170. This bid was $117,880 less than project cost of $892,050. The project is expected to generate approximately 85,000 cubic yards of sand which will be used to renourish the beach on Figure Eight Island. Based on a previous agreement between the County and the Figure 8 Island Homeowners Association, the revenue received from the sale of the sand to the Association will be used to offset the cost of the mitigation work. Commissioner Pritchett asked if an environmental assessment had been conducted on the project. County Engineer Thompson responded that an environmental assessment has been conducted with significant environmental impacts found. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to award Contract #03-0095 to ES&J Enterprises, the lowest bidder, in the amount of $774,170 for the Mason Inlet mitigation work; approve associated Budget Amendment #2003-20, which includes a 5% contingency, and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract. Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Budget Amendment # 2003-20-Mason Inlet Adjustment Debit Credit Mason Inlet Transfer in from ROTS$813,000 Extended Project Expense$813,000 Room Occupancy Tax Fund Appropriate Fund Balance$813,000 Transfer to Capital Projects$813,000 Explanation: To increase the budget for Mason Inlet Mitigation Site contract with ES&J plus a 5% contingency. A copy of the contract is on file in the Legal Department. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER TO CONTRACT #02-0242 WITH UNCW TO MONITOR PIPING PLOVERS AS CONDITION 12 OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE MASON INLET PROJECT AND APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT # 2003-21 Chief Project Engineer Greg Thompson advised that General Condition Number 12 of the permit issued for the Mason Inlet Project requires the County to comply to the biological opinion issued for the project. Included within this document is the requirement to monitor the piping plover. The County has contracted with UNCW to perform this task, and the contract must be renewed annually. The County has received a proposal in the amount of $31,813 to perform Piping Plover monitoring for a 2-year period. In concluding the presentation, Project Engineer Thompson requested the Board to approve the change order NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 416 to the contract with UNCW. Commissioner Caster asked if any other agencies were requested to bid for the monitoring. Project Engineer Thompson responded that the Audubon Society was contacted and this agency was not capable of performing this type of monitoring. This is a specialized service that can be provided by UNCW. Vice-Chairman Greer commented on weekly inspections with reports being filed by persons monitoring the Mason Inlet area and he requested Project Engineer Thompson to provide the Commissioners with a copy of the reports. He also asked if photographs of each piping plover encountered and it activities could also be forwarded to the Board. Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver explained that a report is not filed unless a piping plover is actually seen. A report is then prepared explaining the location of the bird and its activities. He advised that he was sure that photographs were included in the report, but stated all the information received would be forwarded to the Board. After hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to approve the change order to Contract # 02-0242 in the amount of $31,813 to renew the contract with UNCW to monitor the piping plovers for two years, approve associated Budget Amendment #2003-21, and authorize the Chairman to sign the necessary documents. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Budget Amendment #2003-21-Mason Inlet AdjustmentDebitCredit Mason Inlet: Transfer in from ROTS$31,813 Extended Project Expense$31,813 Room Occupancy Tax Fund: Appropriate Fund Balance$31,813 Transfer to Capital Projects$31,813 Explanation: To increase the budget for additional costs associated with monitoring Piping Plovers. A copy of the change order is on file in the Legal Department. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE NCACC LEGISLATIVE GOALS CONFERENCE Chairman Davis advised that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners has requested each Board to designate a Commissioner or other official as a voting delegate for the Legislative Goals Conference. The Conference will be held at the Sheraton Imperial Hotel & Convention Center in Research Triangle Park, N.C. on January 16-17, 2003. Motion: After discussion, Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to appoint Vice- Chairman Greer to serve as the New Hanover County voting delegate at the Legislative Goals Conference. Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Vice-Chairman Greer encouraged each member of the Board to review the list of legislative goals that will be adopted by the N. C. Association of County Commissioners and contact him about any concerns so he could voice them when voting at the conference. CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASING PROPERTY LOCATED ON DOCK STREET NEXT TO THE MUSEUM AND APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT #03-0079 Finance Director Bruce Shell advised that an offer of $40,000 has been presented for the County to purchase property located at 807 Dock Street, Wilmington, N. C. A budget amendment has been prepared in the amount of $50,000 to cover the cost of demolishing the structure and preparing the site to provide additional parking for the Cape Fear Museum. The Museum Associates have agreed to pay half of the cost at $25,000 and New Hanover County will pay the remaining half. The County will also be required to apply to the City of Wilmington for a Special Use Permit or rezoning to use the site for additional parking. After discussion with City Staff, it was decided that an application should be submitted for a Special Use Permit. All real estate fees will be paid by the seller. Chairman Davis asked if purchase was contingent upon the City of Wilmington approving the Special Use Permit. Finance Director Shell responded that a Special Use Permit was not part of the offer but stated this condition could be added to the contract. Discussion followed on whether the house could be moved off the property. Finance Director Shell advised that once the County purchases the property, the County can place an ad in the newspaper to sell the house in its present condition with removal of the structure from the property. Further discussion was held on the cost involved with preparing the property for a parking lot. County Manager O’Neal recommended leveling the property and planting grass until the site can become a parking area. He emphasized the importance of moving forward with the purchase since the Museum Associates have agreed to pay half of the purchase. He also commented on the upcoming budget process and stated that funding may not be recommended for a parking lot in the FY 2003-2004 budget. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 417 Vice-Chairman Greer spoke on the suggestion made to include the Special Use Permit as part of the bill of sale and suggested moving forward with the purchase and then addressing the Special Use Permit once a parking plan has been designed for the site and funding is available. Motion: After discussion of the property owners wanting to close the sale in 30 days and the need to move forward with the purchase, Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to direct Staff to proceed with purchasing property located at 807 Dock Street at a cost of $40,000, approve budget amendment #03-0079 to establish a budget up to $50,000 with the Museum Associates paying $25,000 of the cost involved with cleaning and grassing the lot, and direct Staff to attempt to sell the house in lieu of demolishing the structure. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the agreement is on file in the Legal Department. Budget Amendment # 03-0079-Commissioners/Contingencies AdjustmentDebitCredit Commissioners Contribution from Museum Associates$25,000 Land Purchase$50,000 Contingencies$25,000 Explanation: To establish the budget necessary for land purchase. MEETING CONVENED FROM REGULAR SESSION TO HOLD A MEETING OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT Chairman Davis convened from Regular Session to hold a meeting of the Water and Sewer District Board at 8:59 p.m. Chairman Davis reconvened to Regular Session at 9:04 p.m. 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. . No items were presented ADDITIONAL ITEMS Discussion of Lighting for the Parking Lot Behind the Cape Fear Museum Commissioner Pritchett spoke on the need to provide lighting to the parking lot behind the Museum and she requested Assistant County Manager Patricia A. Melvin to move forward with finding some form of lighting to protect the public when using this lot at night. Assistant County Manager Melvin responded that she would check into this matter and report back to the Board. Letter Received from the Cape Fear Council of Governments Complimenting the Department of Aging on Programs and Services Provided to the Community Commissioner Pritchett spoke on receiving a copy of a letter from the Cape Fear Council of Governments addressed to Ms. Annette Crumpton, Director of the Department of Aging, informing the department that after an assessment of transportation services, information and assistance services, and care management programs, the department was to be commended for providing outstanding services to the community. She congratulated Ms. Crumpton and Staff for a job well done. Discussion of Terminating the Lease with the Cape Fear Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau Commissioner Boseman requested the Board to consider terminating the lease with Convention and Visitors Bureau since this agency will become the New Hanover County Tourism Development Authority on January 1, 2003. County Manager O’Neal advised that the original lease was $60,000 per year, but it was later reduced to $25,000 per year. This space could be used to solve some space problems for the Board of Elections and Register of Deed Office. He stated that Staff will be making a recommendation about space needs after the first of the year. Discussion of Scheduling a Joint Meeting with the Wilmington City Council to Discuss Consolidation Chairman Davis asked County Manager O’Neal to comment on the status of scheduling a joint meeting with the Wilmington City Council to discuss consolidation. County Manager O’Neal responded that City Manager Sterling Cheatham will be polling the members of the City Council to see if Monday, January 13, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. is a convenient date. Once the date is selected, the place will be determined and an agenda will be prepared for the meeting. Chairman Davis asked if the Board of County Commissioners would like to meet before the meeting to discuss consolidation so the Commissioners will be on the same page. County Manager O’Neal advised that in order for the Commissioners to become familiar with the process, Staff would be glad to prepare a packet containing information from previous consolidation studies and a copy of the General NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 29 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 2002PAGE 418 Statutes outlining the consolidation process. After discussion, the Board requested Staff to prepare a consolidation packet and wait to schedule a Work Session until the City Council confirms the date of January 13, 2003. Discussion of Cost for the Library Branches to Remain Open on Fridays for the Remainder of the Fiscal Year County Manager O’Neal reported that in response to an inquiry made by one of the Commissioners at the Thursday Staff Meeting, the cost to allow the branch libraries to remain open on Fridays is $27,400 effective January 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004. The total cost for next fiscal year is $54,800. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Davis called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, to adjourn the meeting. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucie F. Harrell Clerk to the Board