2001-12-03 Regular Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 904
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday,
December 3, 2001, 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.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Pastor Carl Holiday, of Judah - The House of Praise, gave the invocation.
Commissioner Caster led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Davis requested removal of Consent Agenda Item 6 to the Regular Agenda because
he was related to several people who would be receiving tax releases, and he felt he should be recused
from voting on this item.
Commissioner Pritchett referenced Consent Agenda Item 13 and asked if the Wrightsville
Beach renourishment plan would impact the Mason Inlet Relocation Project.
Assistant County Manager Weaver responded that the Wrightsville Beach renourishment plan
would not pass the Holiday Inn Sunspree Resort; therefore, the plan would not impact the Mason
Inlet Relocation Project.
Chairman Davis called for a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
Motion:
Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to remove Item
6 and approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 5, 2001, as
presented by the Deputy Clerk to the Board.
Annual Review and Approval of Public Official Bonds
The Commissioners reviewed and adopted resolutions approving public official bonds for the
Finance Officer, Sheriff, Register of Deeds, ABC Board members handling funds, and set 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 XXVII, Page 13.
Acceptance of Bicycle Safety Mini-Grant from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) to the Sheriff’s Department and Approval of Associated Budget Amendment #02-
0091
The Commissioners accepted a bicycle safety mini-grant from the NCDOT to the Sheriff’s
Department in the amount of $2,000 and approved the associated budget amendment. The Sheriff’s
Department will use the funds to purchase bicycle helmets. No county match is required.
Budget Amendment #02-0091 - Sheriff-Uniform Patrol
ADJUSTMENTDEBITCREDIT
NCDOT Bicycle Safety Grant $2,000
Supplies $2,000
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 905
Explanation:
To establish a budget for the mini-grant awarded to the Sheriff’s Department for the
purchase of bicycle helmets.
Authorization for New Hanover Transportation Services (NHTS) to Submit a Grant
Application to the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for FY 2002-2003 Funding
The Commissioners authorized NHTS to submit a grant application in the amount of
$425,000 to the Community Transportation Program Funding of the N. C. Department of
Transportation for FY 2002-2003; adopted a resolution for use of the funds; and authorized the
Chairman, County Manager, and County Attorney to execute the grant application certifications and
assurances. The funding includes $209,000 in administrative assistance and $236,000 in capital
assistance for replacement of six vans. Local matching funds are $55,750 which have been included
in the NHTS budget request for the upcoming year.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 13.
Acceptance of Additional Funding to the Department of Aging from the Home and
Community Care Block Grant and Approval of Associated Budget Amendment #02-0089
The Commissioners accepted additional funding in the amount of $7,077 received by the
Department of Aging from the Home and Community Block Grant and approved the associated
budget amendment. Funds will be placed in the Home Delivered Meal Program salary line, and the
local match of $786 is included in the existing budget.
Budget Amendment #02-0089 - Aging
ADJUSTMENTDEBITCREDIT
Nutrition-CDBG$7,077
Temporary Salaries $7,077
Explanation:
To increase the budget for additional funds awarded to the Department of Aging.
Funds will be used to pay the salary for a temporary meal packer.
Approval of Snows Cut Park Sub-Lease with the Town of Carolina Beach
The Commissioners approved the Snows Cut Park sub-lease with the Town of Carolina Beach
and authorized the Chairman to execute the necessary documents. When the County approved the
new lease with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Snows Cut Park property, the County
agreed to sub-lease the 9.13-acre tract on the southern shore of Snows Cut to the Town of Carolina
Beach. The town will develop, maintain, and operate the property at its expense as a passive
recreation area. The term of the lease will run concurrently with the 25-year lease with the Corps of
Engineers. The site plan proposed by the Town of Carolina Beach for use of the acreage has been
approved by the Corps of Engineers.
A copy of the sub-lease is on file in the Legal Department.
Adoption of Capital Project Ordinance for the Orthophoto Mapping Project, Adoption of
Resolution Awarding Orthophoto Mapping Contract #02-0138 to the Aero-Dynamics
Corporation, and Approval of Associated Budget Amendment #2002-21
The Commissioners adopted a Capital Project Ordinance for the Orthophoto Mapping Project
in the amount of $281,390, adopted a resolution awarding the contract to the Aero-Dynamics
Corporation of Charlotte, North Carolina, in an amount not to exceed $281,390; approved the
associated budget amendment; and authorized the County Manager to direct and execute the contract
documents.
The orthophoto mapping project is necessary for the County to comply with the FCC Report
and Order 94-102 PSAP requirements to enable New Hanover County to receive and utilize location
data for 911. A request for the qualification package was developed by the County and reviewed
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 906
by the Administrator of the N. C. Wireless 911 Board. The County has received approval to utilize
wireless 911 funds for the project.
Budget Amendment #2002-21 - Orthophoto Capital Project/Wireless 911 Fund
ADJUSTMENTDEBITCREDIT
Orthophoto Project:
Transfer in from Wireless 911 Fund $281,390
Extended Project Expense$281,390
Wireless 911 Fund:
Appropriated Fund Balance $281,390
Transfer to Capital Project-Orthophoto$218,390
Explanation:
To establish a budget for the Orthophoto Capital Project according to the Capital
Project Ordinance.
Copies of the Capital Project Ordinance and Resolution are hereby incorporated as a part of
the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 13.
A copy of the contract is on file in the Legal Department.
Adoption of the Ordinance on the First Reading to Approve the 2002 N. C. Fire Prevention
Code and Related Provisions as the New Hanover County Fire Prevention Code
The Commissioners unanimously adopted an ordinance approving the 2002 N. C. Fire
Prevention Code and related provisions as the New Hanover County Fire Prevention Code under
Chapter 26, Section 26-33 and added Section 26-35 to allow the Fire Marshal to issue a citation
penalty of $35.00 for parking in a designated fire lane.
A copy of the ordinance is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 13. The ordinance will be codified into the New Hanover County Code.
Authorization for the Sheriff’s Department to Submit a Grant Application to the Governor’s
Crime Commission to Purchase Automatic External Defibrillators
The Commissioners authorized the Sheriff’s Department to file a grant application in the
amount of $46,053.75 to the Governor’s Crime Commission to purchase automatic external
defibrillators. The required match of $15,351.25 will be paid from Federal Forfeited Property Funds.
The County Manager and Finance Director were authorized to sign the grant application, accept the
grant and approve the necessary budget amendment if the grant is awarded.
Acceptance of Criminal Justice Partnership Continuation Grant and Approval of Associated
Budget Amendment #02-0096
The Commissioners accepted a Criminal Justice Partnership grant award and approved the
associated budget amendment in the amount of $141,515 to partially fund the Pretrial Release
Program and the Day Sentencing Center. These programs are necessary to provide Judges with
alternative sentencing measures.
Budget Amendment #02-0096 - Criminal Justice Partnership Program
ADJUSTMENTDEBITCREDIT
Criminal Justice Partnership Program $141,515
Contracted Services$124,000
Telephone 1,015
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 907
(Budget Amendment #02-0096 continued)
DEBIT CREDIT
Travel and Training 500
Commissioners:
Appropriated Fund Balance $ 16,000
Explanation:
To budget the grant award received from the Criminal Justice Partnership Program.
This will reduce the appropriation from the Fund Balance by $16,000.
Adoption of Resolution in Support of Adding Roads in the Brewster Place Subdivision to the
N. C. Highway System
The Commissioners adopted a resolution in support of adding roads in the Brewster Place
Subdivision to the State Road System.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 13.
Approval of 2002 Wrightsville Beach Renourishment Plan
The Commissioners approved the 2002 Wrightsville Beach Renourishment Plan as
recommended by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and approved by the Port, Waterway and Beach
Commission. The Commissioners agreed to forward $112,000 from the Room Occupancy Tax Fund
to the Corps by December 5, 2001 to avoid a delay in the bid award scheduled for December 6, 2001.
The total cost of the renourishment project is $1,800,000 with funding broken down as follows:
Federal Funds $1,170,000
State Funds 518,000
Room Occupancy Tax 112,000
Total$1,800,000
Approval of Budget Amendment #02-0093 - Hurricane Expense
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
ADJUSTMENT DEBITCREDIT
FEMA Revenues $15,000
Contracted Services$15,000
Explanation:
To increase the budget for final anticipated revenue and expenses to close out FEMA
projects.
Approval of Budget Amendment #02-0094 - Health Department
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
ADJUSTMENT DEBITCREDIT
TATU (Teens Against Tobacco Use) Grant $350
Training & Travel $350
Explanation:
To budget a mini-grant award from the Health Action Council of North Carolina.
These funds will be used to support smoking prevention in New Hanover County Schools.
Approval of Budget Amendment #02-0095 - Health Department
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 908
ADJUSTMENTDEBITCREDIT
Robert Woods Johnson Youth Center$11,800
Contracted Services$ 9,000
Departmental Supplies 2,800
Explanation:
To budget a Robert Woods Johnson Youth Center grant award. Funds will be used
to assist with a media campaign and supplies for the Wilmington Health Access For Teens Youth
Tobacco Prevention Program.
Approval of Budget Amendment #2002-22 - Controlled Substance Tax - Sheriff’s Department
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
ADJUSTMENTDEBITCREDIT
Controlled Substance Tax$3,479
Extended Project Expense $3,479
Explanation:
To increase the budget for additional revenue received on November 14, 2001.
Controlled Substance Tax funds are budgeted as received and must be used for law enforcement
activities as deemed necessary by the Sheriff.
Approval of Budget Amendment #2002-25 - Federal Forfeited Property - Sheriff’s Department
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
ADJUSTMENT DEBITCREDIT
Federal Forfeited Property $3,559
Extended Project Expense $3,559
Explanation:
To increase the budget for additional revenue received on October 24, 2001. Federal
Forfeited Property funds are budgeted as received and must be used for law enforcement activities
as deemed necessary by the Sheriff.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 6 - RELEASE OF TAX VALUES
Motion:
After discussion of Chairman Davis asking to be recused from voting on this item because
of being related to several people who will be receiving tax releases, Commissioner Caster MOVED,
SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to recuse Chairman Davis from voting on Consent Agenda
Item 6. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0.
Chairman Davis called for a motion to approve Consent Agenda Item 6.
Motion:
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to approve the
following release of values as recommended by the Tax Department. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED 4 TO 0.
1. Granted Senior Citizen/Disability Exclusions to the following persons. Applications and
letters explaining the late filings are available upon request at the Tax Office.
Gaskins, Gwendolyn J.$20,000
Lewis, Ruth Funderburk$20,000
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 909
2. Released late listing penalties for the following taxpayers because this was their first offense,
or a death occurred in the family, or the taxpayer certified the listing had been mailed on time.
Al Hart & Company$ 8.75
Corbett Farming Company$ 78.06
Corbett Package Company$1,078.61
Fenner, Inc.$1,858.51
Wilmington Trampoline, Inc.$ 4.73
3. Approved delinquent applications for exemption from property taxes for the following
organizations. Applications and letters explaining late filings are available upon request at the
Tax Office.
Cornelia Nixon Davis Nursing HomeRO3700.002.109.000
Institute of Marine & Agricultural Research, Inc.RO5614.001.114.000
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE ENSUING YEAR
County Attorney Copley opened the floor to receive nominations for Chairman of the Board
of County Commissioners for the ensuing year.
Commissioner Pritchett nominated Commissioner Ted Davis, Jr. to serve as Chairman. The
nomination was seconded by Commissioner Greer.
There being no further nominations, County Attorney Copley declared the nominations closed
and called for a vote.
Vote:
Upon vote, the Board unanimously elected Commissioner Ted Davis, Jr. to serve as Chairman
of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners for the ensuing year.
County Attorney Copley opened the floor to receive nominations for Vice-Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Caster nominated Commissioner Robert G. Greer. The nomination was
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
There being no further nominations, County Attorney Copley declared the nominations closed
and called for a vote.
Vote:
Upon vote, the Board unanimously elected Commissioner Robert G. Greer to serve as Vice-
Chairman of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners for the ensuing year.
Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to the members of the Board for their confidence in
him and stated that it was an honor to serve as Chairman for another year.
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 at 5:29 P.M.
Chairman Davis reconvened to Regular Session at 5:36 P.M.
PRESENTATION OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY UNITED WAY EMPLOYEE
CAMPAIGN REPORT
County Manager O’Neal reported that despite the recent economic downturn and the
September 11 tragedies, the employees of New Hanover County set a new record in contributions
to the United Way Campaign. He congratulated Museum Director Ruth Haas, as the United Way
Loaned Employee, and DSS Human Services Planner Chris McNamme, Chairperson of the New
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 910
Hanover County United Way Campaign, for this outstanding achievement.
Ms. McNamme advised that through a dedicated effort by a large number of County
employees, this year’s contributions increased 5% over last year’s, which set a record contribution
of $56,514.45. She expressed appreciation to County employees for caring enough about their
community to help people in need during a weak economic period. She also expressed appreciation
to Ms. Haas and Department Coordinators for the hard work and effort given to reach and surpass
the County’s goal.
On behalf of the Board, Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Ms. Haas and Ms.
McNamme for conducting an exceptional campaign during difficult economic times, and he thanked
the County employees for achieving a new record in contributions.
A round of applause was given to Ms. Haas and Ms. McNamee.
RENEWAL OF COAST LINE CONVENTION CENTER LEASE
Mr. Bruce Shell, Director of Finance, reported that the Coast Line Convention Center
currently leases space from the owner, and the County pays $50,000 of the lease per year. The
current lease will expire April 30, 2002. The Coast Line Convention Center would like for the
County to extend the lease for an additional three years with the option to renew the lease for another
two years to secure the Convention Center through April 30, 2007 and still maintain the County’s
support of $50,000 per year through 2007.
The City Council approved a lease extension on October 2, 2001 for a period of three years
with the expectation that the County would do the same. After a review of the lease, the County
Manager and Staff recommend adopting a resolution to approve a three-year funding plan with a 5%
reduction each year. The resolution also includes a non-appropriation clause for a review of funding
on an annual basis.
Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment. Hearing no
questions or remarks, he called for a motion.
Motion:
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to adopt a
resolution extending the current lease and terms of the agreement with the Coast Line Convention
Center for an additional three years from the current expiration date of April 30, 2002, to be funded
as follows: $47,500 for the year ending April 30, 2003; $45,125 for the year ending April 30, 2004;
and $42,870 for the year ending April 30, 2005, subject to a non-appropriation clause being included
in the lease agreement.
Discussion followed on the meaning of a non-appropriation clause. Finance Director Shell
explained that the clause would be part of the lease agreement to provide the Board an opportunity
to review the funding appropriation on an annual basis.
Chairman Davis expressed concern for entering into contractual obligations that commit the
County to a specific amount of funding to an agency because this type of contract increases the
County’s debt and could result in a property tax increase. He suggested considering funding to all
outside agencies during the annual budget process based upon the availability of County funds.
Commissioner Caster pointed out that the motion on the floor decreases each year and
contains a clause to allow the Board to consider funding for the Coast Line Convention Center on
an annual basis.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis called for a vote on the motion. Upon vote,
the MOTION CARRIED 3 to 2 as follows:
Ayes:Vice-Chairman Greer
Commissioner Caster
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 911
Commissioner Pritchett
Noes:Chairman Davis
Commissioner Boseman
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 13.
A copy of the lease agreement is on file in the Legal Department.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM DOWNTOWN AREA REVITALIZATION
EFFORT, INC. (DARE)) FOR A LONG-TERM CONTRACT
County Manager O’Neal advised that DARE, Inc. has requested the County to enter into a
long-term contract for the provision of services as outlined in the letter from Mr. Mark A. Saulnier,
President of DARE, Inc. After a review of the request, Staff recommends entering into a 5-year
contract with DARE with a 5 percent reduction in funding beginning FY 2002-2003. At the end of
5 years, the County’s commitment should be re-evaluated. He noted that DARE, Inc. was an
excellent organization and stated this agency is needed to drive the economic train for downtown
Wilmington; however, funding DARE, Inc. is primarily a City function. The proposed reduction in
funding over the next five years should allow DARE, Inc. and the City time to develop funding
strategies. The Wilmington Film Commission and Wilmington Industrial Development have been
mentioned as comparable organizations, but these are county-wide functions. The specific
responsibility of DARE, Inc. is to promote development of downtown Wilmington; therefore, this
is a City function.
County Manager O’Neal advised that Ms. Susie Hamilton, Director of DARE, Inc., was
available and would like to speak.
Ms. Hamilton reported that DARE, Inc. was formed in 1977 as a public/private partnership
between New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington to focus on developing the downtown
area. DARE, Inc. is committed to continue promoting downtown Wilmington, implementing
incentive programs to insure redevelopment, and recruiting new businesses while retaining existing
businesses.
DARE, Inc. has recently been involved in a partnership with Wilmington Industrial
Development for recruitment of Castle Branch, Inc. headquarters into downtown Wilmington
beginning February 2002. This company has 45 employees and will occupy 7,000 square feet of
previously unused space in the downtown area. DARE, Inc. has also been instrumental in
development of the Water Street Center and the Promenade, which replaced tax exempt properties.
In closing, Ms. Hamilton requested the Board to approve a 5-year funding contract with
DARE, Inc. at $19,000 per year as done for the Film Commission and Wilmington Industrial
Development.
After discussion of entering into a 5-year contractual funding agreement with DARE, Inc.,
Commissioner Pritchett stated that she would be more comfortable approving the request if a non-
appropriation clause was written into the contract.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to enter into a 5-
year contract with DARE, Inc. at $19,000 per year with a non-appropriation clause included in the
contract.
For the record, Chairman Davis stated that he fully supported the services provided by
DARE, Inc., but could not vote to enter into a funding contract that will incur more debt for the
County before starting the budget process.
Vice-Chairman Greer stated as a matter of clarification, the motion to fund DARE, Inc. at
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 912
$19,000 per year will not increase the County’s debt since this agency has been funded $19,000 for
a number of years.
Chairman Davis explained that in previous years the Board had discretion to decide if funding
should be appropriated to each outside agency during the budget process. Funding contracts with
Wilmington Industrial Development and the Film Commission do obligate the County to fund these
agencies according to the terms of the contract.
Vice-Chairman Greer disagreed with the statement made by Chairman Davis and stated that
the contracts with Wilmington Industrial Development and the Film Commission do have cancellation
clauses.
Chairman Davis responded that he did not believe a cancellation clause was included in either
contract.
After hearing no further discussion from members of the Board, Chairman Davis called for
a vote on motion made by Vice-Chairman Greer.
Upon vote, the MOTION to enter into a 5-year contract with DARE, Inc. at $19,000 per year
inclusive of a non-appropriation clause CARRIED 4 to 1 as follows:
Ayes:Vice-Chairman Greer
Commissioner Boseman
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Pritchett
Noes:Chairman Davis
A copy of the contact is on file in the Legal Department.
For the record, Commissioner Boseman noted that she voted in favor of funding DARE, Inc.
because she felt it was important to continue to invest in the community’s economic growth to benefit
future generations and meet future downturns in the economy.
Mr. Roy Clifton, a downtown businessman, presented background information on the history
and growth of downtown Wilmington since the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad moved its headquarters
to Jacksonville, Florida. He stated at that time, the City and County leaders had the wisdom to invest
$100,000 to send a public relations person north to recruit and encourage industries, such as General
Electric, Corning, Dupont, etc., to locate in the Wilmington area. This move was the contributing
factor to the major growth that has occurred in the community since that time, and the
Commissioners must continue to invest in our future.
BREAK
Chairman Davis recessed the meeting for a break from 5:45 P.M. until 6:00 P.M.
APPEAL TO A DECISION RENDERED BY THE TECHNICAL REVIEW (TRC)
COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING BOARD REGARDING CONNECTING COUNTRY
PLACE ROAD TO WINDS RIDGE DRIVE
Chairman Davis announced that in order to move forward with the appeal, he would allow
10 minutes for the Planning Director to make a presentation, 10 minutes for the appellants to speak,
10 minutes for the developer, and 5 minutes for rebuttal. He requested the Planning Director, Dexter
Hayes, to begin the presentation.
Planning Director Hayes presented a map showing the location of Winds Ridge Subdivision
and noted this was a performance development that was submitted and approved by the Technical
Review Committee (TRC) of the Planning Board on March 7, 2001. The plan consists of 60 lots with
connections and access from Carolina Beach Road, Country Place Road, and a future
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 913
connection to Golden Road.
In October, a revised plan for the same property was reviewed by the TRC and denied. This
plan changed the 60 single-family lots originally approved to 56 attached dwellings. The Planning
Board noted that the primary reason for the denial was the absence of a public road connection to
Country Place Subdivision to facilitate alternative access to both developments. Following the denial,
the applicant asked the TRC to reconsider the Winds Ridge Subdivision plan based upon additional
information provided by the developer’s engineer concerning drainage, wetlands, and other issues
related to sewer service. This information was presented to the TRC on November 7, 2001, and the
TRC approved the modified plan with the provision to be included in the homeowners covenants to
allow public access through the development via a connection to Country Place Road. The Planning
Board felt that since the connector road was narrow with sharp 90 degree curves, there would be no
incentive for cars to use this road as a cut-through from Myrtle Grove Road to Carolina Beach Road.
Planning Director Hayes advised that residents living along Country Place Road were opposed
to the street connection and have filed an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners to reverse
the decision made by the TRC. He noted that the Wilmington-New Hanover County Land Use Plan
encourages the use of connector streets to improve traffic flow and provide a secondary access for
emergency vehicles.
Planning Director Hayes informed the Board that Mr. Dick Thompson, the developer of
Winds Ridge Subdivision, was present and would be glad to answer questions.
Chairman Davis asked if the TRC took into consideration the increase of traffic to residents
living in Country Place Subdivision if the two roads are connected.
Planning Director Hayes responded that the driving force behind the decision made by the
TRC was a secondary access for emergency vehicles to provide services to residents living in the
Country Place Subdivision.
Chairman Davis requested an explanation as to why letters were received from the Sheriff’s
Department and Myrtle Grove Fire Station indicating that it was not necessary to require the
proposed access road.
Planning Director Hayes responded from a planning and emergency point of view, it is always
better to have two accesses to a subdivision.
Chairman Davis requested the appellants to present their appeal.
Ms. Angela S. Waldorf, an attorney and resident of Country Place Subdivision, advised that
Mr. Pat Mazzarone was passing out documents that were submitted to Lucie F. Harrell, Clerk to the
Board, last Friday, plus some new documentation. She also presented a petition signed by 107
residents living in Country Place Subdivision and surrounding areas requesting the Board of County
Commissioners to reverse the decision of the TRC.
Chairman Davis requested Mr. Mazzarone to present the petition and complete packet of the
information to the Clerk to the Board so this documentation could become a part of the record.
The information packet was marked as Exhibit I by the Clerk to the Board.
Ms. Waldorf advised that she was appearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
appeal the TRC mandate to require the developer, Mr. Dick Thompson, to connect the proposed
Winds Ridge Subdivision to Country Place Road. At the November 7, 2001, meeting of the TRC,
it was evident that Mr. Thompson did not want to connect the two subdivisions. The residents have
no objection to the development of Winds Ridge Subdivision, but they do object to connecting
Winds Ridge Drive to Country Place Road. If these roads are connected, it will create a cut-through
from Myrtle Grove Road to Carolina Beach Road. The members of the TRC stated at the meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 914
that the road could become a “race track” with people speeding between the two roads.
None of the arguments from residents against connecting the two subdivisions were heard by
the members of the TRC. After numerous requests to be heard, the TRC added approval of Winds
Ridge Subdivision to its agenda after the meeting began and approved the development without
giving an opportunity for the residents to speak. As noted in the last two pages of the transcript from
the meeting of the TRC, a deliberate decision was made by the TRC to deny the residents an
opportunity to participate. The TRC informed the residents that TRC meetings were not public
meetings and if the residents had been given an opportunity to comment, the decision would have
been the same.
Ms. Waldorf concluded her presentation by saying that she hoped this matter could be
amicably resolved by the Board of County Commissioners to preserve procedural issues of due
process and possible violations of the North Carolina Open Meetings Law. She presented the
following objections to be entered into the record:
1. Concern for the TRC insisting that Winds Ridge Drive and Country Place Road should be
connected. There is no County ordinance requiring contiguous neighborhoods to be
connected.
2. Concern for discussion regarding the specifications applicable to the construction and
maintenance of Winds Ridge Drive. The New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance specifies
that both public and private roads must be built to NCDOT standards. The TRC waived this
requirement and specified that the connecting road would be a private road not built to
NCDOT standards that would be designated for public use. After a review of State Law,
there is no regulation referencing a private road dedicated for public use. This appears to be
a designation that is not supported by North Carolina Law, and it is questionable whether it
can be enforced.
In concluding her portion of the presentation, Ms. Waldorf advised that Mr.Pat Mazzarone
would address technical and safety issues regarding why the TRC decision should be reversed.
Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to question or make any
comments on the presentation by Ms. Waldorf.
Hearing no questions or comments, Chairman Davis requested Mr. Mazzarone to continue
the presentation.
Mr. Mazzarone, speaking on behalf of residents of Country Place Subdivision, requested the
Board of County Commissioners to reverse the decision of the TRC to require the connection of
Country Place Road to Winds Ridge Drive based on the following concerns:
1.Safety: The proposed connector road does not meet NCDOT standards. The road as planned
will be very narrow with continuous head-in parking on both sides of the road making it a
dangerous cut-through street. With speeding on this street, it will be extremely dangerous
for people in cars backing out of their driveways and for children playing and riding bicycles
in both developments.
2. Environment: The connecting portion of this road will be built through designated wetlands.
By requiring the developer to build the road, the TRC has ignored this environmental issue.
3. Unnecessary Connectivity: Golden Road, less than 800 feet south of Country Place
Subdivision, is a through street from Myrtle Grove Road to a crossover at Carolina Beach
Road. With a connecting road already in place, the new road connection is not needed to
alleviate traffic or to improve access.
When reading the transcript of the TRC meeting, it is clear that the TRC never considered the
impact of the 1.3 acre commercial development site located at U.S. Highway 421 South.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 915
If the two subdivisions are connected, the residents will be subjected to commercial traffic on
a marginal road. Also, the transcript does not indicate any discussion of advantages to
connecting the two roads.
In concluding the presentation, Mr. Mazzarone requested the County Commissioners to
consider keeping Winds Ridge Drive as a private road with no through traffic to create a win-win
situation for everyone. By allowing this road to remain private, Country Place Road will remain a
safe dead-end street to be enjoyed by the residents living on the road, and the wetlands will not be
disturbed. The developer will be happy, and the County will receive new tax revenue from the
project.
Mr. Michael Eaton, representing residents living on Country Place Road, advised that the
main reason for wanting to keep this road closed to through traffic was safety. He stated that the
residents were not worried about decreasing property values or opposed to the new subdivision, but
they were concerned about the following issues:
1. Connecting the roads will increase traffic from the outside that will create speeding on a
narrow road and bring crime into the neighborhood.
2. Connecting the two roads will not gain faster emergency service or a faster fire response as
indicated by letters from the Myrtle Grove Volunteer Fire Department and Paramedic
assigned to the Myrtle Grove Fire Station. The current route used to deliver fire and
emergency services is from the Fire Station at Monkey Junction to Golden Road, to Myrtle
Grove Road, and to Country Place Drive. This is a faster and safer route.
3. Connecting the two roads will increase traffic making it unsafe for children to ride their bikes,
play with friends, or visit neighbors.
4. Connecting the two roads will make it unsafe for residents living in a State funded house for
handicapped persons when using Country Place Road for exercise activities.
In closing, Mr. Eaton requested the Board to rescind the decision of the TRC and keep
Country Place Road safe and closed to through traffic.
Chairman Davis asked if the developer, Mr. Dick Thompson, would like to comment.
Mr. Thompson requested the Commissioners to determine if the connector road was needed.
When originally discussing the plan to develop the site with the neighbors, he informed them that if
they were opposed to the connector road, he would not build the road. When appearing before the
TRC and Planning Board for approval of the project, he was told that the connector road would be
required in order for the project to be approved.
Mr. Thompson closed his remarks by saying that he would yield to the decision rendered by
the Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment.
Commissioner Caster advised that he did not feel the members of the TRC rendered a bad
decision because they were considering the need for another access to insure a quick response for
emergency vehicles delivering services; however, after hearing safety concerns from the residents and
letters from the Myrtle Grove Fire Department showing the use of Golden Road as the best route for
emergency vehicles, he feels the road is not necessary. He stated that if the Board reverses the
decision of the TRC, it is important for all residents to understand that if a person dies because an
emergency vehicle can not respond in a timely manner due to only one access, the residents will have
made this choice.
There being no further comments, Chairman Davis called for a motion.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 916
Motion:
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to overturn the
TRC requirement to connect Country Place Road to Winds Ridge Drive. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Caster requested County Attorney Copley to check into whether TRC
meetings are public meetings and report back to the Board.
BREAK
Chairman Davis called a break from 6:15 P.M. until 6:25 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY HOWARD CAPPS TO REZONE
THE WESTERN PORTION OF A 2.23 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 5700 NIXON LANE
NORTH OF HOLLY SHELTER ROAD FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL TO B-2 HIGHWAY
BUSINESS (Z-731, 11/01)
Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director Dexter Hayes presented a map and slides of the 2.23 acre parcel and
reported that the petitioner was requesting B-2 Highway Business rezoning for the western portion
of a parcel located in the northeastern quadrant of the I-40 Holly Shelter Road Intersection. The
subject property and surrounding area were originally zoned in July 1974. With the exception of a
200 foot wide strip of R-15 Residential on either side of Holly Shelter Road, the majority of the area
is zoned I-1 Heavy Industrial. The larger R-15 Residential District adjacent to the north of the
subject site was developed in 1981 to accommodate the relocation of several houses impacted by the
construction of I-40. The existing B-2 Highway Business District was created in a series of rezonings
in the late 80's and 90's in anticipation of the proposed I-40 interchange. Although the remaining R-
15 property was created to accommodate a transition of uses, it would be difficult to utilize the land
for residential purposes because it is the lowest part of the site and contains wetlands. Since this is
the lowest elevation, this portion of the site is likely to be utilized for storm water management.
Unless the storm water system accommodates runoff from nearby residential uses, storm water
management for commercial projects has to be located within the commercial district.
At the Planning Board meeting, the petitioner presented the rezoning request and surrounding
neighbors expressed concern about having a commercial district along their street. The Planning
Board explained that the commercial district was already in existence and the petitioner was asking
for a small expansion to the existing district. The Planning Board voted 5 to 1 to rezone the property
from R-15 Residential to B-2 Highway Business as requested by the petitioner.
Chairman Davis asked Planning Director Hayes why one member of the Planning Board voted
in opposition to the rezoning.
Planning Director Hayes responded that one member was concerned about the wetlands.
Chairman Davis asked if the rezoning was consistent with the Land Use Plan, and if Staff felt
the property should be rezoned.
Planning Director Hayes responded that Staff felt the rezoning was consistent with the Land
Use Plan and should be approved because the property is located at the I-40 interchange.
Chairman Davis asked if the petitioner would like to speak.
Mr. Howard Capps, representing owners of Holly Shelter Road I-40 LLC, reported that the
property owner feels there is a need for more commercial uses in this growing area of the County.
The property is already zoned B-2 Highway Business with the exception of 0.3 of an acre zoned R-15
Residential. The petitioner is requesting the rezoning of this small portion of the property to B-2
Highway Business to address storm water requirements with commercial development on the site.
Chairman Davis asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in opposition to the
rezoning.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 917
Mr. Willie J. Sidberry, Jr., a property owner on Nixon Lane, expressed concern for decreasing
the value of a large tract of land owned by his family adjacent to the site if the B-2 zoning is
approved. He also spoke on concern for the safety of children walking to the bus stop once traffic
increases from the proposed commercial use. He presented a petition of 41 signatures from people
in surrounding neighborhoods who would like for the property to remain residentially zoned to
protect their safe and quiet community.
Mr. Capps informed Mr. Sidberry that since a small tributary runs through the small piece of
property being rezoned, it is considered a wetland, which means it would be highly unlikely that any
type of structure could be placed on the site. He also explained that when residential property is
adjacent to commercial property, there is a setback of 55 feet from the property line based on a
building height of 20 feet.
Mr. Sidberry again expressed concern for six children who walk down Nixon Lane to the bus
stop. When this piece of property is commercially developed, traffic will increase and the safety of
the children will be in jeopardy unless the Board of Education decides to allow a bus to pick up the
children at the end of the cul-de-sac.
After discussion of the need to protect the safety of the children, Vice-Chairman Greer
suggested authorizing the Chairman to write a letter to the Board of Education once construction
begins on the project.
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 approve
rezoning the western portion of a 2.23 acre parcel located at 5700 Nixon Lane north of Holly Shelter
Road from R-15 Residential to B-2 Highway Business as recommended by the Planning Board, and
authorize the Chairman to write a letter to the Board of Education requesting consideration of routing
a school bus down Nixon Lane to pick up the children once construction begins on the project. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1 as follows:
Ayes:Chairman Davis
Vice-Chairman Greer
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Pritchett
Noes:Commissioner Boseman
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA N0. 8A OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 17, 1972, is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is
contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8A, Page 30.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 72
REGARDING SPECIAL USES AND SECTION 50.5 OF THE PERMITTED USE TABLE
OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BY PERMITTING
RESIDENTIAL USES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITHIN COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS (A-312, 10/01)
Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director Dexter Hayes reported as a result of discussions regarding mixed use
development at previous Planning Board meetings and TRC meetings, the proposed text amendment
is being recommended by the Planning Board to amend the Table of Permitted Uses to permit
Residential Uses within Commercial Zoning Districts by issuing a Special Use Permit. Staff has
recommended several performance criteria to guide development and assure that the proposed use
will be harmonious with the area and will meet the intent of the County’s policies for growth and
development as outlined in Section 72. The following recommendations were presented:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 918
Residential Uses Within Commercial Districts: A dwelling unit or units may be permitted in
the B-1 or B-2 Commercial Districts provided:
(1) The dwelling units are part of a mixed use development established to provide innovative
opportunities for an integration of diverse but compatible uses into a single development that
is unified by distinguishable design features with amenities and walkways to increase
pedestrian activity. Such a development shall be in single ownership or unified control of a
property owners association.
(2) Uses within the development are restricted to residential and neighborhood businesses.
(3) Uses should be at a neighborhood scale.
(4) A conceptual elevation indicating the proposed architecture style shall be provided.
(5) Sidewalks must be provided throughout the project.
(6) Parking location and quantity should be shared.
(7) Community facilities and/or Common area shall be provided.
(8) A conceptual lighting plan must be provided.
(9) Residential uses are permitted and encouraged in the same building as commercial uses.
(10) Density can exceed 2.5 units per acre up to a maximum density of 8 units per acre in
Resource Protection areas if the development is located inside the urban services boundary,
provides a minimum of 25% pervious area, and is exceptionally designed. Exceptionally
designed projects shall reduce runoff from impervious surfaces through porous paving and/or
infiltration devices as well as managing runoff with at least one or more of the following water
quality Best Management Practices: Bio-retention area, filter strip, sand filter, or grassed
swales.
Planning Director Hayes advised that the Planning Board voted 6 to 0 to approve the text
amendment with the following changes:
(1) Delete Criteria (3).
(2) Modify Criteria (10) to read as follows: Density can exceed 2.5 units per acre in Resource
Protection Areas if the development is located inside the urban services boundary, provides
a minimum of 25% pervious area, and is exceptionally designed.
Chairman Davis asked why the “up to a maximum density of 8 units per acre” was removed
from Criteria 10 by the Planning Board.
Planning Director Hayes responded that the Planning Board felt design characteristics should
determine the density of the site. Staff felt that Criteria 3 and Criteria 10 should remain in the text
amendment to provide more specificity to the compatibility of the neighborhood scale and attractively
blend the commercial development with surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Commissioner Caster advised that he did not have a problem with removing Criteria 3 because
when trying to define uses at a neighborhood scale, each developer would have a different
interpretation. If the builder and the buyer are satisfied, there is no need for this criteria. He also
noted that he was not opposed to removing the “up to a maximum density of 8 units per acre” in
Criteria 10 as recommended by the Planning Board.
Commissioner Pritchett advised that she would be uncomfortable with removing Criteria 3
and modifying Criteria 10 as recommended by the Planning Board.
Vice-Chairman Greer reminded the Board that placing too many restrictions in the approval
process could become a problem because this is a new concept. He noted that the purpose of the text
amendment was to integrate residential uses within commercial zoning districts by granting a Special
Use Permit; therefore, flexibility is needed to allow the developer and neighborhoods to come up with
an acceptable plan. Since the process requires a Special Use Permit, the County Commissioners will
have an opportunity to deny or approve the concept subject to certain conditions.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 919
Chairman Davis asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on the text
amendment.
Hearing no comments, Chairman Davis requested direction from the Board.
Motion:
After referring to the recommendation submitted by the Planning Board, Chairman Davis
MOVED to accept Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, delete Criteria 3, and include the clause “up to a
maximum density of 8 units per acre” in Criteria 10.
Substitute Motion:
After commenting on being in favor of mixed use, Commissioner Boseman
MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to approve the
recommendation of the Planning Board which includes deleting Criteria 3 and removing the clause
“up to a maximum density of 8 units per acre” in Criteria 10.
Chairman Davis called for a SECOND to the original motion. Commissioner Pritchett
SECONDED the original motion.
Chairman Davis called for a vote on the SUBSTITUTE MOTION. Upon vote, the
SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve the recommendation of the Planning Board CARRIED 3 to 2
as follows:
Ayes:Vice-Chairman Greer
Commissioner Boseman
Commissioner Caster
Noes:Chairman Davis
Commissioner Pritchett
A copy of an ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER, NORTH
CAROLINA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY
ADOPTED OCTOBER 6, 1969, is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 13.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20,
SECTION 32, AND SECTION 50 OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE AND SECTION 23-432 OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY STORM
WATER REGULATIONS (A-313, 11/01)
Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director Dexter Hayes advised that the Planning Board recommended several
changes to the New Hanover County Subdivision Ordinance to allow for the approval of construction
plans prior to permitting and development. After a Public Hearing held on November 1, 2001, the
Planning Board agreed to amend the Storm Water Management Ordinance to reflect new procedures
for subdivision approval.
Until recently, construction plans and profile drawings were only required for the sewer
system. Other improvements such as private water systems and public roads were reviewed by non-
county agencies. With adoption of the Storm Water Management Ordinance in September 2000, the
County now requires drainage plans to be submitted and approved prior to receiving preliminary
approval for subdivisions. Many of these improvements, such as drainage or private streets, become
the responsibility of homeowner associations. It was felt that when the County allows construction
it should be built in accordance with approved plans.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the following changes:
Existing Ordinance: Section 50-2:
Improvements shall be installed in accordance with
requirements and standards set forth in this ordinance and other specifications and policies of New
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 920
Hanover County. The Planning Department, in conjunction with the County Engineer, shall review
the improvements to verify general conformity to the approved preliminary plans. The developer shall
inform the various County inspection officials as to the progress of field work so that timely
inspections can be made.
Revisions:
Section 50-2 Improvements:
Following approval of the preliminary plan, the sub-divider shall
submit to the County Engineer and other appropriate State and local agencies design and construction
plans for the installation of the improvements as required by the ordinance and other specifications
and policies of New Hanover County.
Add Section 50-3 to read as follows:
Upon satisfactory completion of construction plans, the
County Engineer shall issue an approval letter for the installation of the required improvements in
accordance with the approved plans and the design standards specified in this ordinance. The
Planning Department in conjunction with the appropriate agencies shall review and approve all
required improvements prior to final plat approval.
Add Section 50-4 Construction Procedures to read as follows:
(1) Access: All public agencies shall have access to the premises and structures of a
subdivision under this chapter during reasonable hours to make those inspections
deemed necessary by them to ensure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
(2) Inspection: The sub-divider and/or contractor, prior to commencing any work within
the subdivision, shall notify those public agencies charged with the enforcement of the
provisions of this ordinance to allow scheduling for adequate inspection of these
improvements.
Add to Section 20 - Definitions:
20-23:
Plans, profile, and detail drawings sufficient to indicate the construction of all improvements
associated with the property to be subdivided must be prepared by a professional who is legally
recognized by a State of North Carolina Licensing Board as being licensed to perform such activities
or undertakings.
Revisions to Section 32 Preliminary Plan:
32-2(3):
Construction plans, if included, shall be prepared by a professional who is legally recognized
by a State of North Carolina Licensing Board as being licensed to perform such activities or
undertakings.
32-3(3):
Preparation of Construction Drawings: Upon approval of the preliminary plan, the sub-
divider may proceed in accordance with the preliminary plan as approved and the requirements of the
ordinance in the preparation of construction drawings:
(a)Construction Plans and drawings shall be submitted and approved by the County
Engineer or other agencies prior to the installation of any required improvements.
(b) Subject to the provisions of the ordinance, no land-disturbing activity or tree removal
may begin on any site until all construction permits have been issued.
(c) Following the installation of the required improvements, the sub-divider may proceed
in accordance with the preliminary plan as approved and the requirements of the
ordinance in the preparation of a final plat.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 921
32-4:
Building Permits Issuance: Subject to sewer availability, building permits may be issued after
approval of Construction Plans.
Article VII: Storm Water Management - Section 23-432: Applicability - Section (f):
All projects
subject to the provisions of this article shall require the issuance of an “Authorization-to-Construct”
by the County before receiving approvals of construction plans for subdivisions, and building permits
for non-subdivision projects.
Chairman Davis asked if the Commissioners felt the text amendments should be approved by
the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Committee before being approved by the Board of
County Commissioners.
Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern for approving the recommended text amendments
prior to approval by the UDO Committee. He noted that the Committee had been working for a
number of years to develop a City/County Unified Development Ordinance; therefore, he felt the text
amendments should be presented to the Committee before being approved by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Planning Director Hayes explained that the proposed text amendments were consistent with
current City regulations; therefore, no changes would have to be made by the UDO Committee. He
also noted that the reason for moving forward with the text amendments was because developers
were concerned about the current management of storm water requirements in the County. The
developers feel it is an added burden to require a developer to prepare costly engineering drainage
plans and drawings prior to receiving preliminary approval of a project.
Chairman Davis asked if anyone from the public would like to comment.
Mr. C. Warren Wakeland, Director of Governmental Affairs & Public Relations of the
Wilmington-Cape Fear Home Builders Association, advised that he had received calls from six
developers who have problems with the proposed text amendments. He requested the Board to defer
action on the amendments until the development community can meet to review and discuss the
proposal.
Mr. Frank Smith, a member of Planning Board, advised that the Planning Board and TRC felt
it was necessary to adopt the proposed text amendments because the existing procedure is in reverse.
Currently, the developer is required to present plans to the TRC, and frequently the TRC finds items
that need to be changed which have already been installed by the developer. The proposed procedure
will establish a more linear process to allow the TRC to see a preliminary plan and make adjustments
before the developer spends money on engineering documents and begins construction. He requested
the Board to approve the text amendments and then forward the documents to the UDO Committee
for approval.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing and called for a
motion.
Motion:
After discussion of the need to allow time for the UDO Committee and developers to review
the text amendments, Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to
table action on this item until January 7, 2002. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Discussion followed on when the subdivision regulations in the Unified Development
Ordinance would be presented to the Board for approval. Planning Director Hayes responded that
all essential elements of the subdivision portion of the UDO Ordinance have been completed and
should be presented to the Board of County Commissioners in February 2002.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 922
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RENAMING OAKLAND DRIVE TO OLD OAKLAND
DRIVE (SN-90, 12/01)
Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director Hayes presented a map of the area showing Oakland Drive and advised that
this was a road name duplication; therefore, to satisfy Emergency 911 requirements, Staff
recommends renaming the road to Old Oakland Drive. All residents living along the road have agreed
to rename the road from Oakland Drive to Old Oakland Drive, and Emergency 911 has approved
the road renaming. In accordance with the New Hanover County Address Grid System, assignment
of new mailing addresses will be needed. Presently, addresses being utilized do not incorporate
numerical flexibility between parcels which may pose a problem in the future for assigning additional
addresses. If the road renaming is approved, the effective date of change will be March 4, 2002.
Chairman Davis asked if any member of the Board would like to comment.
Commissioner Pritchett asked if the reassignment of house numbers was required by the 911
Center.
Planning Director Hayes explained that when road names are changed, the house numbers are
reassigned to comply with the New Hanover County Grid System.
Chairman Davis asked if anyone from the public would like to comment.
Mr. Tom W. Carver, Jr., representing residents living on Oakland Drive, informed the Board
that the residents were not opposed to renaming the road, but they were opposed to reassignment of
house numbers. He referenced the map presented by the Planning Director and explained that
Oakland Drive runs down to the edge of the property line, which means that no houses can be built
on the left-hand side of the road. The industrial property on the right-hand side of the road has its
own access road; therefore, with only five houses on the Oakland Drive, the residents feel the existing
house numbers should remain unchanged.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing.
After further discussion, Chairman Davis requested the Board to vote separately on the
renaming of the road and reassignment of house numbers.
Motion:
Chairman Davis MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to rename the road
from Oakland Drive to Old Oakland Drive effective March 4, 2002. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Motion:
After discussion of the inconvenience caused by changing house numbers, Commissioner
Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer, not to reassign street numbers on Old
Oakland Drive.
Planning Director Hayes urged the Board to approve reassigning house numbers because this
is a critical component of the New Hanover County Grid System for the delivery of emergency
services. The current numbering system is an organized, logical way to number residences, and the
County has never departed from the existing system.
Chairman Davis called for vote on the motion.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 to 2 to allow the house numbers to remain unchanged:
Ayes: Vice-Chairman Greer
Commissioner Boseman
Commissioner Pritchett
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 923
Noes:Chairman Davis
Commissioner Caster
A copy of the order changing the road name is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes
and is contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 13.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY DAVID HUGGINS TO NAME TWO
PRIVATE UNNAMED ROADS LOCATED NEAR THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF
PRINCE GEORGE AVENUE IN CASTLE HAYNE TO SCHLEGEL DRIVE AND GLOD
DRIVE (SN-91, 12/01)
Chairman Davis opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director Hayes advised that a request was received from David Huggins to name
two private roads in Castle Hayne in order to receive a proper street name and mailing addresses.
Both roads consist of 18 foot rights-of-way and are unimproved. The private road to be named
Schlegel Drive is approximately 1,104 feet in length, and the private road to be named Glod Drive
is approximately 602 feet in length. Several residential homes exist on both roads with plans for one
new home to be built. Both road name proposals have been approved by Emergency 911 and street
mailing addresses will be assigned in accordance with the New Hanover County Address Grid
System. With the enhanced 911 System, the Planning Staff recommends approval of naming both
roads and assigning mailing addresses.
Chairman Davis asked if anyone from the public would like to speak.
Mr. David Huggins, the petitioner, advised that he chose both names based on the history of
two residents that migrated from Holland to grow daffodils in the early 1900's.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis closed the Public Hearing.
Motion:
Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to adopt an order
to name a private road approximately 1,104 feet in length near the western end of Prince George
Avenue in Castle Hayne to Schlegal Drive and name the other private road approximately 602 feet
in length to Glod Drive as requested by the petitioner, and to approve an order assigning mailing
addresses pursuant to the New Hanover County Address Grid System. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Copies of the orders are hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and are contained in
Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 13.
BREAK
Chairman Davis called a break from 7:55 P.M. until 8:15 P.M.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CLOSE A PORTION OF AN UNNAMED
ROAD (SC-77, 12/01)
Planning Director Hayes advised that Teela Rivenbark had petitioned to close a 492 foot
segment of an unnamed roadway located near Sea Shell Lane in the Porters Neck Community (Plat
Book 21, Page 81). In accordance with NCGS 153A-214, a Resolution of Intent to close a road or
easement must be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to scheduling a Public
Hearing.
Planning Director Hayes presented a map of the unnamed road segment which abuts a 5-acre
tract accessible to Edgewater Club Road and four other lots to the southwest that have double
frontage on Ramblewood Drive. The County Engineering Department may require utility or drainage
easements along the roadway and consideration should be given to future development and alternative
access points before finally deciding to close this portion of the unnamed road. If the Resolution of
Intent is adopted, a Public Hearing will be held on January 7, 2002.
Commissioner Pritchett referred to the map and asked if this segment of the road currently
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 924
provides access to Lots 3 and 4.
Planning Director Hayes responded that the road segment does not provide access to Lots
3 and 4; however, if future development occurs on Lot 7, another road configuration may be needed.
Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern for adopting a Resolution of Intent to close this
segment of the road unless the Board was in favor of closing the road. He stated with continued
development in this area of the County, the rights-of-way should be retained for utility or drainage
easements.
Planning Director Hayes agreed with Vice-Chairman Greer and explained that the unnamed
road was platted approximately 50 to 60 years ago and has never been utilized. If the road is closed,
the rights-of-way will revert back to the property owners.
Motion:
After discussion of the Resolution of Intent not binding the Board to close the road,
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to adopt a Resolution of
Intent to hold a Public Hearing on January 7, 2002, to consider closing a segment of an unnamed
roadway located near Sea Shell Lane in the Porters Neck Community. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED 3 to 2 as follows:
Ayes:Chairman Davis
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Pritchett
Noes:Commissioner Boseman
Vice-Chairman Greer
A copy of the Resolution of Intent is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is
contained in Exhibit Book XXVII, Page 13.
PRESENTATION OF 2002-2003 DRAFT BUDGET CALENDAR
County Manager O’Neal presented a draft Budget Calendar for FY 2002-2003. He requested
the Board to schedule a Budget Work Session on January 17, 2002 or January 24, 2002.
Consensus:
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to schedule a Budget Work Session
on January 24, 2002, at 5:30 P.M. in Room 501 of the County Administration Building.
County Manager O’Neal informed the Board that State forecasts for mandated human
services programs are not good, and it appears that counties will be required to assume a larger
percentage of funding for the next fiscal year.
CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING A BID TO HALE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FEDERAL POINT FIRE STATION
Fire Services Administrator Donnie Hall reported that in May 1999, a project was developed
to allow the New Hanover County Fire District to provide better services to its citizens by relocating
the Federal Point Fire Station from Carolina Beach to a location north of Snows Cut off Carolina
Beach Road. In August of 1999, the Board of County Commissioners approved the concept of
selling the existing Federal Point Volunteer Fire Department building to Carolina Beach and using
the proceeds from the sale to assist with funding a new location for the Federal Point Volunteer Fire
Department. Costs for land acquisition and construction were then estimated at $950,000.
During the land acquisition process, the Seabreeze Community Development group
approached the Board of County Commissioners about the purchase of 21 acres of Freeman property
to build a Federal Point Fire Station and develop a southern park and recreation facility; however,
due to the cost and size of the parcel of land, this action did not occur. The Board of County
Commissioners then decided to accept the concept of including a smaller community meeting/training
room within the new Federal Point Fire Station. Provisions were added to the design to incorporate
a meeting room, kitchen, and restroom facilities that changed the scope of the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 925
project from a fire department to a community based facility, providing more than one service to the
community. This increased the cost of the project.
Following the selection of the property by the Board of County Commissioners, the
programming, environmental assessments, design work and permitting process continued. On
September 17, 2001, Project Architect, Ken Newell, presented the site plan, design plan, floor plan,
and cost of construction including a community meeting/training room element. During the
presentation, the Board of County Commissioners authorized Staff to proceed with the bidding
process for construction of the building. On November 8, 2001, bids were opened and the low bidder
was Hale Construction Company with a total bid of $1,194,378 which did not include additional
construction and land costs, furniture, fees and fixtures.
Fire Services Administrator Hall presented a statement showing the original cost estimate of
$950,000 and the current cost estimate of $1,766,901. He explained that the current cost estimate
includes additional parking, a community meeting/training room, enlarged kitchen area, additional
public restroom facilities, and extra storage. He stated if the Commissioners decide to eliminate the
community meeting room to save money, a training room will still be needed to comply with the dual
response agreement with the Town of Carolina Beach.
In concluding the presentation, Fire Services Administrator Hall spoke on the advantages of
having a community meeting/training room as an element of the Federal Point Fire Station and
requested the Board to approve the project cost at $1,766,901.
Commissioner Caster asked if the Fire Commission was in favor of the proposal presented by
Fire Administrator Hall.
Commissioner Pritchett, the Board’s representative on the Fire Commission, responded that
the Commission was enthusiastic and supportive of the new Federal Point Fire Station as proposed.
Chairman Davis asked if anyone from the public would like to speak.
Mr. Michael Puritis, President of the Board of Directors of the Federal Point Volunteer Fire
Department, spoke on this being an on-going project for 2 ½ years and stated that an agreement was
signed with the Town of Carolina Beach for the building to be occupied last January. The County
has been paying rent in the amount of $2,400 monthly to the Town of Carolina Beach to lease the
existing building on Pleasure Island. The rental lease agreement will expire next month. He urged
the Commissioners to move forward with the project to protect the morale of the firemen and allow
the Federal Point Volunteer Fire Department to plan for future needs.
Ms. Ruby Freeman, speaking on behalf of the Seabreeze Community Center group, expressed
concern for not being informed about the possibility of reducing funding for the Seabreeze
Community Center to be located in the new Federal Point Fire Station. She requested the
Commissioners to move forward with the project as planned since the County had not provided any
type of community meeting room to the Seabreeze area.
Chairman Davis expressed appreciation to Ms. Freeman for her remarks. He stated in
discussion of this topic on numerous occasions, no promise was ever made by the Board to provide
a community meeting/training room to the Seabreeze Community. He requested other members of
the Board to correct him if this statement was incorrect.
Ms. Freeman disagreed and stated that residents of the Seabreeze Community will be
disappointed if this promise is not fulfilled.
A lengthy discussion was held on the additional cost of the community meeting/training room
and other items. County Manager O’Neal informed the Board that the $225,000 for fixtures, fees,
additional space, etc. could be paid from the General Fund instead of the Fire Service District Fund.
Financing and accounting could be established for the project over a 20-year period at
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 926
$18,750 per year representing $.012 of a cent on the property tax rate.
Commissioner Caster strongly objected to using the General Fund because people from the
municipalities would be contributing to constructing a fire station that should be paid by revenue
generated by the Fire Service District Tax.
Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern for an $800,000 increase in the construction cost and
requested an explanation.
County Manager O’Neal responded that he was to blame for the cost estimate not including
the additional items and stated in the future all items would be included in the original estimate of a
capital project.
After hearing no further comments, Chairman Davis requested direction from the Board.
Motion:
Commissioner Pritchett MOVED to award the bid to Hale Construction Company in the
amount of $1,776,901, authorize the Chairman to execute the contract, and approve the associated
budget amendment. Due to the LACK OF A SECOND, THE MOTION FAILED.
Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern for having to spend $225,000 to purchase furniture
and equipment, etc.
Project Manager Max Maxwell explained that the $225,000 covered the purchase of furniture,
finishes and equipment comprised of desks, offices, chairs, computers, telephone equipment, a vent
system for the garage, range equipment for the kitchen, tables and chairs for the meeting room, and
extra outlets for computers and data. A major expense was the garage vent system at $55,000.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked what happened to the furniture and equipment in the building sold
to Carolina Beach.
Fire Services Administrator Hall responded that all furnishings and equipment were sold with
the building.
Further discussion was held on reducing the cost of the building. Fire Services Administrator
Hall advised that if the community meeting/training room was removed from the cost of the project,
the public restrooms could be removed, the size of the kitchen could be reduced, and the square
footage of the community meeting/training room could be reduced. This action would require
redesigning the interior of the building to comply with ADA requirements, which will involve paying
additional architect fees.
Commissioner Caster requested the Board to allow him to SECOND THE MOTION by
Commissioner Pritchett even though it had failed due to the lack of a second.
The Board agreed to allow Commissioner Caster to SECOND THE MOTION, and Chairman
Davis called for a vote on the following motion:
Motion:
Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to award the low
bid to Hale Construction Company in the amount of $1,766,901, authorize the Chairman to execute
the contract, and approve the associated budget amendment. Upon vote, the MOTION FAILED 2
to 3 as follows:
Ayes:Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Pritchett
Noes:Chairman Davis
Vice-Chairman Greer
Commissioner Boseman
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 927
Motion:
After commenting on the need to support the Seabreeze Community, Commissioner
Boseman MOVED to award the bid to Hale Construction Company with the additional $225,000 for
the community meeting/training room and associated equipment being paid from the General Fund.
Commissioner Pritchett SECONDED THE MOTION.
Substitute Motion:
After expressing concern for spending too much money for the fire station, Vice-
Chairman Greer MOVED to approve the project at a total cost not to exceed $1,566,901.
Commissioner Pritchett asked Fire Services Administrator Hall if he could work with the
reduced figure and still maintain the integrity of the building.
Fire Services Administrator Hall responded that he could work with the proposed figure.
Chairman Davis called for a second to the SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
Commissioner Caster SECONDED THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1 to approve the construction of the Federal Point Fire Station in an
amount not to exceed $1,566,901:
Ayes:Vice-Chairman Greer
Commissioner Boseman
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Pritchett
Noes:Chairman Davis
For the record, Chairman Davis stated that he voted in opposition because of concern for the
County incurring additional debt over the original cost estimate of $950,000 for the Federal Point Fire
Station.
County Manager O’Neal informed the Board that Staff would try to negotiate a lower price
with the bidder to avoid having to rebid the project.
CONSIDERATION OF FINAL STATE PERMIT FOR THE MASON INLET RELOCATION
PROJECT
Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver advised that the final permit from the State for the
Mason Inlet Relocation project had been received. The conditions reflect significant modifications
through cooperation from the State Division of Coastal Management. Staff is satisfied with the
conditions that basically reflect many approved earlier by the federal government.
Motion:
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer to approve the final
State Permit, accept the conditions in the permit, and authorize the Chairman to sign the permit.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1 as follows:
Ayes:Vice-Chairman Greer
Commissioner Boseman
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Pritchett
Noes:Chairman Davis
CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING CONTRACT TO KOESTER EQUIPMENT, INC. FOR
DREDGING OF MASON INLET
Project Manager Greg Thompson reported that the contract price for dredging Mason Inlet
had increased by $186,515.57 due to adjustments from the subcontractors. The Mason Inlet
Preservation Group has agreed to pay for the increased cost through assessments and Staff
recommends award of the contract as presented.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 928
Chairman Davis requested Mr. Thompson to comment on the original bid.
Project Manager Thompson explained that the contractor, Koester Equipment, Inc. had tried
to honor the original price. Due to the time required for the permitting process, many of the
subcontractors and suppliers that had committed materials to the Mason Inlet Project used these
supplies for other projects because no definite time frame could be established. The majority of the
increase involves materials, suppliers, surveying, labor, and trucking.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the homeowner associations involved in the project were
willing to accept the increased costs.
Mr. Frank Pinkston, representing the Mason Inlet Preservation Group, advised that the
homeowner associations were willing to accept the additional cost.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to award the
contract to Koester Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $5,171,592.08 to perform the dredging work
at Mason Inlet, approve the associated budget amendment, authorize the Chairman to execute the
necessary contract documents, and authorize the County Manager to issue the Notice to Proceed.
Chairman Davis referenced the correspondence just received from Attorney Neil Yarborough
and requested the Board to read the letter since Mr. Yarborough has reservations about the validity
of the assessment process and feels there is a potential for litigation.
Commissioner Boseman spoke on wanting to be sure that no money from the General Fund
would be used for the project, and she asked County Attorney Copley if a case is filed in court and
the Judge rules that the property owners can not be assessed, will the cost of relocating Mason Inlet
be paid from the beach renourishment portion of the Room Occupancy Tax Fund.
County Attorney Copley responded that all costs would be appropriated from the Room
Occupancy Tax Fund.
Commissioner Boseman also noted that Mayors from the beach communities had endorsed
the project and were aware of the risk to the beach renourishment fund.
Chairman Davis called for a vote on the MOTION to award the contract to Koester
Equipment, Inc. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1 as follows:
Ayes:Vice-Chairman Greer
Commissioner Boseman
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Pritchett
Noes:Chairman Davis
A copy of the contract is on file in the Legal Department.
MEETING RECESSED TO HOLD A MEETING OF THE WATER AND SEWER
DISTRICT
Chairman Davisconvened from Regular Session to hold a meeting of the Water and Sewer
District at 9:52 P.M.
Chairman Davis reconvened to Regular Session at 10:10 P.M.
NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Davis announced that time had been reserved for any one from the public to present
an item. He requested all persons speaking to limit their remarks to three minutes.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 929
The following item was presented.
Opposition to the Extension of the Wrightsville Beach Town Ordinance Prohibiting Dogs Off
Leash on Shell Island
Ms. Heather Pirtle, speaking on behalf of dog owners, expressed concern for approval of a
permit and biological opinion recommending that human and dog access be restricted on the northern
end of Wrightsville Beach. To comply to this condition of the permit, the County has requested the
Town of Wrightsville Beach to extend its ordinance to leash/prohibit dogs from using this end of the
beach to minimize environmental impacts. Many pet owners feel that some other arrangement should
be found because this end of the beach has been used for years to allow pet owners to carry their dogs
to exercise, socialize, and swim in the ocean off leash.
Ms. Pirtle noted that it was her understanding that New Hanover County would construct a
pathway with directional fencing on either side leading to the shoreline. The pet owners are proposing
to keep the dogs on a leash while on the pathway until they reached a designated area near the
shoreline. The leash and fencing would be a form of restriction that should satisfy the condition in
the permit.
In concluding her comments, Ms. Pirtle advised that 2,000 people have signed petitions
regarding the use of this area for dogs and she requested the Board to consider the proposal.
Commissioner Boseman requested Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver to comment on
this issue.
Assistant County Manager Weaver reported that numerous meetings have been held with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services as well as other State and Federal agencies about what could be done
to mitigate environmental impacts at Shell Island. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services requested the
County to limit human and pet access as a condition of the permit. Since no guidelines were received
on how to address this condition, Staff contacted the Town of Wrightsville Beach to extend
enforcement of its ordinance to this area of the beach. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services accepted
the extension of the Wrightsville Beach ordinance as a satisfactory way to address the condition. He
advised that Staff would be glad to contact the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services and Corps of
Engineers to discuss the possibility of modifying this condition; however, there was strong opposition
by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services about allowing dogs to roam off leash at the northern end of
the beach.
Commissioner Pritchett advised that she did not mind Staff contacting these agencies if the
Mason Inlet Relocation Project would not be delayed by trying to resolve this issue.
Ms. Pirtle reported on dogs being allowed on the beach year around in Duck, N. C. northward
and on Virginia Beach, Virginia during certain hours of the day. She requested the Board to see if
this issue could be resolved.
Mr. John Grant spoke on the issue of prohibition versus limitation and stated that the number
of parking spaces at the northern end of Wrightsville Beach currently limit the number of people who
carry their dogs to this area of the beach.
Consensus:
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board for Ms. Pirtle to work with Assistant
County Manager Weaver to see if this issue can be resolved.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS - COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Adoption of Resolution in Support of United States Senate Bill 1715 Entitled Bioterrorism
Preparedness Act of 2001
Commissioner Boseman requested the Board to consider adopting a resolution of support
for U. S. Senate Bill 1486 introduced by Senator Edwards to assist local governments to be prepared
for an attack using biological or chemical weapons.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 930
Assistant County Manager Patricia Melvin reported that based on recent information received
from Senator Edward’s office, SB 1715 (not Senate Bill 1486) is the bill that will be presented by
Senator Tom Daschle and supported by Senator Edwards. She asked if the Board was interested in
revising the resolution to support SB 1715.
Motion:
After further discussion, Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Pritchett, to adopt a revised resolution in support of SB 1715 to be reviewed by the Board before
being signed by the Chairman. 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 13.
Discussion of Preparing Text Amendments to Modify the Appeal Process of Decisions Made
by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) of the Planning Board
Vice-Chairman Greer requested the Board to consider changing the current appeals process
that allows appellants to come before the Board of County Commissioners when dissatisfied with
decisions rendered by the TRC. He stated that the TRC was designed to review technical aspects of
development projects; however, the existing ordinance does clearly define the responsibilities of TRC
or who has the right to appeal and for what purpose. He suggested requesting Staff to amend the
current ordinance.
Planning Director Hayes explained that the subdivision approval process is the responsibility
of the Board of County Commissioners. The Commissioners can delegate this responsibility to
another planning group. New Hanover County chose to delegate this responsibility to the Planning
Board. In the Rules of Procedure for the Planning Board, the TRC was established to review
subdivision plans. This is an administrative committee created to expedite the Planning Board
process. The Chairman of the Planning Board is responsible for approving subdivisions and he
appoints the Chairman of the TRC. The TRC is comprised of members from the Planning Board with
no set number. Once a decision is made by the TRC on a subdivision approval, this is a final decision
unless it is appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. Historically, there have been only18
subdivision appeals within the last 20 to 25 years. During the subdivision approval process, most
issues are worked out between the Planning Board and developer.
Planning Director Hayes advised that County Attorney Copley has suggested drafting more
specific language in the ordinance to clarify who has the right to appeal decisions made by the TRC.
Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern for ambiguous areas in the subdivision approval
process. He stated if the TRC is responsible for dealing with technical aspects of the subdivision
approval process and suddenly the Committee requires the developer to place a road connector at a
certain point when there is no specific language in the ordinance requiring the road, the TRC has gone
beyond the point of being a review committee. He again requested clarification of the duties and
responsibilities of this committee.
Planning Director Hayes explained that exceptions to existing rules and regulations will always
occur during the review process because of the configuration of lots or one traffic pattern being better
than another. This is the discretionary part of the site review process.
After commenting on this being an extremely confusing issue, Commissioner Pritchett
requested the Planning Staff to provide some guidelines on the subdivision approval process
explaining who has the right to appeal and what items can be appealed. She also suggested calling
a moratorium on future appeals until these definitions are clarified and placed into the ordinance.
County Attorney Copley advised that language can be drafted to specifically determine who
has the right of appeal. An aggrieved party must be a person with standing, such as a contiguous
property owner; however, when a developer submits a site plan for review and abides by the decisions
of the TRC, the developer feels that all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance have been met and no
appeal should be heard. On the other hand, surrounding neighbors who are dissatisfied
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 931
with the decision of the TRC want the right to appeal to the Board of County Commissioners.
Discussion followed on whether persons attending meetings of the TRC were provided an
opportunity to speak. Planning Director Hayes explained that TRC meetings are not Public Hearings.
They are administrative meetings with the Chairman making the decision on whether to receive public
comments.
Chairman Davis expressed concern for the Board not having adequate information on the last
TRC appeal, and he requested the Planning Staff to provide sufficient information on future appeals.
County Manager O’Neal offered to work with Staff to prepare guidelines that will clarify the
appeals process and allow time for adequate information to be presented to the Board before hearing
future appeals.
Commissioner Pritchett asked if these guidelines could be received within 90 days.
Planning Director Hayes responded that the guidelines could be prepared and presented to
the Board within 90 days.
Discussion of Funding for Legion Stadium
Chairman Davis advised that he had been approached by Mayor David Jones and Council
Member Frank Conlon about the Board of County Commissioners making a firm commitment to pay
$250,000 each fiscal year for a period of 20 years to fund operations, maintenance, and debt service
for Legion Stadium. The resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 21,
2000 clearly states that the County will pay up to $250,000 per year for 20 years to pay one-half of
the debt service. This $250,000 payment will replace the $150,000 paid for the past five years by the
County to the City for capital improvements to Legion Stadium.
Chairman Davis asked if the Board wanted to follow the resolution as adopted or consider
the request by Mayor Jones and Council Member Conlon.
Vice-Chairman Greer suggested following the resolution as adopted.
Consensus:
It was the consensus of the Board to abide by the resolution adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners on August 21, 2000.
MEETING CONVENED FROM REGULAR SESSION TO CLOSED SESSION
Chairman Davis called for a motion to convene from Regular Session to Closed Session to
discuss a proposed contract for the acquisition of real property pursuant to NCGS 143-318-11(a)(4)
Motion:
Commissioner Boseman MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to convene
to Closed Session.
Chairman Davis convened to closed Session at 10:20 P.M.
Chairman Davis reconvened to Regular Session at 10:45 P.M. and reported that during the
Closed Session, the Board discussed an offer from Cape Fear Development Corporation AME Zion
Church for the County to purchase the Shaw Speaks Building to be used as a Juvenile Day Reporting
Center. He requested a motion from the Board to accept the offer.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to enter into a
buy and sell agreement with the Cape Fear Development Corporation AME Zion Church for the
County to purchase the Shaw Speaks Building (Tax Parcel No. 5409-017-006-000 and Tax Parcel
No. 5409-017-005-000 described in Deed Book 1281, Page 453, New Hanover County Registry)
at an negotiated price not to exceed $650,000 contingent upon a satisfactory environmental
assessment, approval by the Local Government Commission and appropriate bank financing. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 to 1 as follows:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PAGE 932
Ayes:Vice-Chairman Greer
Commissioner Boseman
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Pritchett
Noes:Chairman Davis
Chairman Davis stated, for the record, he voted in opposition because the County should not
incur additional debt with funding shortfalls that will have to be addressed in the FY 2002-2003
budget.
A copy of the agreement is on file in the Legal Department.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Davis called for a motion to adjourn.
Motion:
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Boseman, to adjourn.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at 10:58 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucie F. Harrell
Clerk to the Board