1998-12-07 Regular Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 815
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday,
December 7, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. in the New Hanover County Courthouse Assembly Room, 24 North
Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members present were Commissioner Buzz Birzenieks; Commissioner Ted Davis, Jr;
Commissioner Charles R. Howell; Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer; Chairman William A. Caster;
County Manager, Allen O’Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie
F. Harrell.
Chairman Caster called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone present.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Theodore Jones, Pastor of the Church of Life Saving Ministries, gave the invocation.
Vice-Chairman Greer led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS OF OFFICE
The Honorable Allen J. Cobb, Jr., Superior Court Judge, administered the Oath of Office to
Commissioner William A. Caster and Commissioner Robert G. Greer.
Copies of the Oaths of Office are hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and are
contained in Exhibit Book XXIV, Page 35.
ELECTION OF WILLIAM A. CASTER TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR
THE ENSUING YEAR
County Attorney Copley opened the floor to receive nominations for Chairman of the New
Hanover County Board of Commissioners for the ensuing year.
Commissioner Birzenieks nominated Commissioner William A. Caster. The nomination was
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
There being no further nominations, County Attorney Copley declared the nominations
closed.
Motion:
Commissioner Birzenieks MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Davis to appoint
William A. Caster to serve as Chairman of the Board for the ensuing year. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ELECTION OF ROBERT G. GREER TO SERVE AS VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE ENSUING YEAR
County Attorney Copley opened the floor to receive nominations for Vice-Chairman of the
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners for the ensuing year.
Commissioner Howell nominated Commissioner Robert G. Greer. The nomination was
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
There being no further nominations, Chairman Caster closed the nominations.
Motion:
Commissioner Howell MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Davis to appoint Robert
G. Greer to serve as Vice-Chairman of the Board for the ensuing year. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MEETING CONVENED FROM REGULAR SESSION TO HOLD A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
Chairman Caster convened from Regular Session at 6:40 p.m. to hold a meeting of the Water
and Sewer District.
Chairman Caster reconvened to Regular Session at 6:45 p.m.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 816
BREAK
Chairman Caster called a break from 6:46 p.m. until 7:00 p.m.
NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Caster announced that time had been reserved to allow the public to present an item
that was not listed on the Regular Agenda or comment on an item that was listed on the Consent
Agenda. He requested all persons speaking to limit their remarks to three minutes.
Resolution of Appreciation Presented to the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
by the Council of Neighborhood Associations, Inc. in Recognition of Purchasing Airlie
Gardens
Mr. Johnnie N. Henagan, President of the Council of Neighborhood Associations, Inc.,
presented a resolution of appreciation to the Board for the leadership shown in moving forward with
the purchase of Airlie Gardens. He expressed appreciation to the Board for preserving this natural
resource and at the same time improving water quality in this environmentally sensitive area.
Mr. Henagan read the resolution, and he requested the Board to consider appointing one
representative of the Council of Neighborhood Associations, Inc. to serve on the Airlie Gardens
Foundation Board.
Chairman Caster, on behalf of the Board, expressed appreciation to Mr. Henagan for the
resolution of appreciation.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Motion:
Commissioner Birzenieks MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer to approve the
items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
The Commissioners approved the following sets of minutes as presented by the Clerk to the
Board:
Regular Meeting, November 9, 1998
Regular Meeting, November 23, 1998
Approval of Budget Amendment #99-0057 to Allocate $3,500 for National Coalition Building
Institute Workshop During Human Relations Month
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment in the amount of $3,500 for
the Human Relations Commission to hold a National Coalition Building Institute Workshop during
Human Relations Month in February 1999 for the purpose of building relationships among the
citizens and community groups. A similar workshop was held in February 1998, and the event was
so successful, the Commission felt it would benefit the entire community to hold another workshop.
#99-0057 - Non-Departmental/Human Relations
DebitCredit
Non-Departmental:
Contingencies$3,500
Human Relations:
Contracted Services$3,500
Purpose:
To transfer funds from Contingencies for a community based forum designed to improve
relations among community groups.
Adoption of Resolutions to Request the N.C. Department of Transportation to Add Roads to
the N.C. Highway System
The Commissioners adopted resolutions for the State to consider adding Glazier Road, roads
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 817
in the Commons Subdivision, and roads in the Georgetowne Subdivision to the N. C. State Highway
System.
Copies of the resolutions are hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and are contained
in Exhibit XXIV, Page 35.
Approval of Budget Amendment #98-18 - Controlled Substance Tax Funds - Sheriff’s
Department
The Commissioners approved the following budget amendment:
99-18Controlled Substance Tax Capital Project
DebitCredit
Controlled Substance Tax
Capital Project Expense$2,604
Capital Project Expense$2,604
Purpose:
To increase the budget for additional revenue received November 17, 1998. Controlled
Substance Tax funds are budgeted as received and must be used for law enforcement activities as the
Sheriff deems necessary.
Adoption of Project Ordinance for the Judicial Building Expansion Project and Approval of
Associated Budget Amendment #99-20
The Commissioners adopted a Project Ordinance in the amount of $7,254,375 and approved
the associated budget amendment as listed below to authorize the establishment of a Judicial Building
Capital Project Fund.
A copy of the Project Ordinance is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is
contained in Exhibit Book XXIV, Page 35.
Budget Amendment #99-20 - Judicial Building Capital Project
Debit Credit
Judicial Building Expansion Capital Project
Installment Financing (COPS) $7,254,375
Capital Project Expense$7,254,375
Purpose:
To authorize and budget for the Judicial Building Expansion Project.
Adoption of Resolutions Approving Public Official Bonds
The Commissioners adopted resolutions setting the Sheriff’s bond at $5,000 and approving
existing surety bonds for the Clerk of Superior Court, Finance Officer, Sheriff, Register of Deeds,
Tax Collector, and ABC Board members that handle funds.
Copies of the resolutions are hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and are contained
in Exhibit Book XXIV, Page 35.
Acceptance of Report from Information Technology Department on the Status of the Year
2000 Software Problem
The Commissioners accepted the report from the Information Technology (IT) Department
on the status of the Year 2000 software problem. The IT Department prepared a Year-2000 project
status questionnaire and forwarded it to all county agencies. With few exceptions, the agencies
indicated that they expect no difficulty in meeting the target date of September 1999.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 818
Authorization to Apply for 1998-99 Work First Transitional/Employment Transportation
Assistance Funds
The Commissioners authorized submission of an application to the N. C. Department of
Transportation for FY 1998-99 Work First Transitional/Employment Transportation Assistance
funds. In FY 1997-98, $50,000 was received to continue the employment transportation
demonstration project. Staff was authorized to accept the funds if the funding request is approved.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ACQUISITION OF CITY PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 138 NORTH FOURTH STREET
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing.
Finance Director, Bruce Shell, reported that the City of Wilmington has accepted an offer
made by New Hanover County in the amount of $1,100,000 for the acquisition of the 138 North
Fourth Street property. The City financed the building through Certificates of Participation and until
the City’s equity reaches 110% of the remaining principal balance, the City cannot convey the
property to the County without encumbrance. The County will lease the building with an option to
buy with the principal portions of payments made by the County credited to the purchase price of
$1,100,000.
Chairman Caster asked if anyone from the public would like to comment.
No comments were received.
Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
Motion:
Commissioner Birzenieks MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer to adopt a
resolution approving Budget Amendment #99-0060; Contract #99-0178 with the City of Wilmington
for financing the 138 North Fourth Street property; authorize the Finance Officer and County
Manager to act on behalf of New Hanover County in regard to Contract #99-0178 and other actions
not inconsistent with the resolution. 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 XXIV, Page 35.
Budget Amendment #99-0060 - Judicial Building Expansion Capital Project/Commissioners’
Office - Appropriated Fund Balance/Non-Departmental - Installment Payments
DebitCredit
Judicial Building Expansion Capital Project
Installment Loan $1,250,000
Buildings $1,100,000
Other Improvements 150,000
Commissioners’ Office
Appropriated Fund Balance $ 36,000
Non-Departmental/Installment Payments
Installment Payments$ 36,000
Purpose:
To budget proceeds from installment loan with the City of Wilmington in financing the
building located at 138 North Fourth Street.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXIV, Page 35.
DISCUSSION OF LEGION STADIUM
Chairman Caster, reported that approximately two years ago the Legion Stadium Commission
was established with the task of making recommendations to the Wilmington City Council and New
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 819
Hanover County Board of Commissioners regarding permanent ownership of the property. On
November 4, 1998, the Legion Stadium Commission adopted a motion to request the Board of
County Commissioners and Wilmington City Council to consider transferring the ownership of
Legion Stadium from the City to New Hanover County.
The Legion Stadium Commission has proposed the following actions:
1.An “equity payment” in the amount of $961,903 would be paid to the City by the County for
capital expenditures paid by the City to improve Legion Stadium from 1988 through 1997.
2.The County would be required to adopt and implement the Capital Improvements Program
prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates. The cost of the plan is estimated to be $6,400,000.
Some of this work has been completed, and some of the work is underway at the present
time. The balance of the work is estimated to cost $4 million.
3.The Legion Stadium Commission would be continued as the policy-making body for the
purpose of scheduling and maintaining the complex.
4.The City would continue to maintain the property under a contract with the County.
Commissioner Howell reported the City Council and Board of County Commissioners must
decide if the proposal by the Legion Stadium Commission is for the benefit of the community and the
taxpayers. He advised that City taxpayers are paying for a facility that is being used primarily by the
New Hanover High School as well as county residents; therefore, it would be more equitable for
county taxpayers to pay for operation of this facility.
Vice-Chairman Greer spoke on the need for the everyone to understand what New Hanover
County was trying to accomplish. He reported a few years ago, the schools were experiencing
difficulty in scheduling the Legion Stadium field. At that time, the Board of County Commissioners
offered to assist the schools in trying to resolve the problem. The Legion Stadium Commission was
established with representatives from the City Council, Board of County Commissioners, New
Hanover County School System, and other interested parties to resolve the school scheduling
problems and discuss the most efficient way to operate Legion Stadium.
Mr. Chris Furr, Associate Principal and Athletic Director for New Hanover High School,
expressed appreciation to the Board for an opportunity to comment on this issue. He passed out a
list of recommendations from a group of concerned parents regarding the use of Legion Stadium.
The following items were presented:
1.New Hanover High School must have priority use of Legion Stadium for athletic events.
2.New Hanover High School needs to be able to gain access to use Legion Stadium without an
attendant or middle man.
3.New Hanover High School needs to have some control over the use of Legion Stadium by
other groups or events.
4.New Hanover High School would like to have Legion Stadium designated as its “home field.”
There is concern for other events being held at the stadium that could create a problem for
New Hanover High School in scheduling events.
5.New Hanover High School would like to be involved in the planning and design of future uses
and/or renovations and improvements to Legion Stadium.
In concluding the presentation, Mr. Furr said that some parents and students were present
and they would like to make a few comments.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 820
Ms. Evelyn Small, a mother of two children who attend New Hanover High School and
participate in sports, expressed concern for the inconvenience of having to carry children to various
practice fields. She emphasized the importance of having a home field where teams can practice,
hold games, and serve as a home for the Wildcat Mascot. She urged the Board to do whatever was
necessary to see that Legion Stadium was considered a home field for New Hanover High School,
which is the only high school in the county without a home field.
Miss Morrie Mallen, a Senior at New Hanover High School and member of the Soccer Team,
expressed concern over the scheduling problems experienced for the use of Legion Stadium during
the past two years. She spoke on being sad to see the oldest high school in the county without a
home field, and she urged the Board to do everything possible to designate Legion Stadium as a home
field for New Hanover High School.
Mr. Dixon Baxter, the parent of a daughter playing soccer at New Hanover High School,
spoke on the need to provide New Hanover High School with a home field. He urged the Board to
acquire Legion Stadium.
In closing, Mr. Furr expressed appreciation to the Board for allowing the parents and students
to speak on this use.
Vice-Chairman Greer advised that currently the City is paying for operating and maintaining
Legion Stadium. The City has done a good job, but the cost of operating the facility continues to
increase. If Legion Stadium is becoming too costly for the City to operate, the County is willing to
take over the operation of Legion Stadium and pay for the maintenance cost, but the County should
not have to pay the City $961,903 for acquiring the facility.
Commissioner Birzenieks spoke in favor of transferring Legion Stadium to the County so the
facility could serve as a home field for New Hanover High School. He expressed concern for the
County being requested to pay $961,903 for the transfer when this money could be used to upgrade
Legion Stadium at an estimated cost of $4,000,000.
Chairman Caster advised that recommendations presented by the Legion Stadium Commission
were negotiable; however, philosophically, the City and County must decide if the stadium should
be transferred to the County. He asked the Commissioners if they were willing to move forward with
Legion Stadium being transferred to the County.
Vice-Chairman Greer said if the Commissioners are not willing to pay money for Legion
Stadium, the City of Wilmington and Legion Stadium Commisson should be informed about this
decision.
Motion:
After further discussion, Commissioner Birzenieks MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-
Chairman Greer to encourage Chairman Caster and Commissioner Howell to continue to work with
the Legion Stadium Commission to transfer Legion Stadium from the City to the County without
payment and to eventually seek enabling legislation to transfer the facility to the School System. The
floor was opened for discussion.
Ms. Marinda Rutledge, the parent of a New Hanover High School athlete, stated that she
could understand the complexity of the issue, but she did not understand the intent of the Board. She
asked if the Commissioners are not willing to pay $961,903 for Legion Stadium, would the County
be willing to pay any amount for the facility, or could the price be negotiated.
Chairman Caster informed Ms. Rutledge that he hoped an agreement could be reached with
the City so the stadium could be transferred to the County. He urged Mr. Rutledge and other
concerned parents to discuss this issue with the Wilmington City Council.
Vice-Chairman Greer stressed the importance of everyone understanding that if the City
desires to continue to operate Legion Stadium, the Commissioners will encourage the City to make
Legion Stadium available to New Hanover High School.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 821
Chairman Caster called for a vote on the motion requesting the Legion Stadium Commission
to continue to work toward reaching an agreement to transfer Legion Stadium from the City to the
the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
County. Upon vote,
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER INSTALLMENT FINANCING FOR ACQUISITION
OF AIRLIE GARDENS
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing.
Finance Director, Bruce Shell, explained the manner in which Airlie Gardens would be
financed.
Chairman Caster opened the floor to receive public comment and the following person spoke:
Mr. Harper Peterson, a member of the Wilmington City Council and resident of 215 Ann
Street, Wilmington, North Carolina, expressed appreciation to the Board of County Commissioners
for having the vision to acquire Airlie Gardens on behalf of the community. He urged the Board to
ensure that every citizen of New Hanover County would be provided access to the gardens.
There being no other comments, Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
ADOPTION OF AIRLIE GARDENS CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE, ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION FOR INSTALLMENT FINANCING CONTRACT #99-0177 TO ACQUIRE
AIRLIE GARDENS, AND ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS #99-
19, #99-0055 AND #99-0056
County Manager O’Neal requested the Board to adopt a revised Project Ordinance to
establish the Airlie Gardens Capital Project Ordinance, approve financing contract #99-0177, and
approve the associated budget amendments as presented in the agenda packet.
Budget Director, Cam Griffin, explained the changes on the revised Project Ordinance and
she reported that New Hanover County would finance $10,561,200 through installment financing
with $2,000,000 of the N. C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund being used toward the purchase
of Airlie Gardens. Appropriated fund balance will have to be used to provide the initial operating
expenses.
Motion:
Commissioner Birzenieks MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer to approve the
revised Capital Project Ordinance; adopt a resolution approving installment financing contract #99-
0177 with First Union National Bank for acquisition of Airlie Gardens; authorize the Finance Officer
and County Manager to act on behalf of New Hanover County regarding the financing contract; and
approve the following associated budget amendments. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Copies of the Project Ordinance and Resolution are hereby incorporated as a part of the
minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XXIV, Page 35.
Budget Amendment #99-19 - Cooperative Extension
DebitCredit
Airlie Gardens Capital Project
Installment Financing $10,561,200
Clean Water Management Trust Fund 2,000,000
Capital Project Expense $12,561,200
Purpose:
To establish the budget for the Airlie Gardens Project according to the Capital Project
Ordinance.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 822
Budget Amendment #99-0055 - Cooperative Extension Service/Airlie Gardens
DebitCredit
Installment Proceeds $250,000
Capital Outlay $250,000
Purpose:
To reflect proceeds from financing for startup costs for Airlie Gardens. (For accounting
purposes only).
Budget Amendment #99-0056 - Non-Departmental/Various Cooperative Extension
Service/Airlie Gardens
DebitCredit
Non-Department/Transfer to Other Funds
Transfer to Capital Project (Airlie) $343,387
Non-Departmental/Installment Payments
Installment Payments$ 28,000
Interest on Bonded Debt$350,000
Cooperative Extension Service/Airlie Gardens
Clean Water Management Trust Fund $500,000
Salaries and Wages$144,400
FICA 11,047
Retirement 7,148
Medical Insurance 19,260
Limited Disability Insurance 332
Utilities 15,000
Equipment Rent 64,000
Advertising Cost 35,000
Contracted Services 29,700
Telephone 4,000
Cellular Expense 1,000
Postage 5,825
M&R Buildings & Grounds 37,000
M&R Equipment 5,000
Printing 10,000
Departmental Supplies 5,000
Initial Supplies 20,000
Fuel & Supplies 3,700
Uniforms 2,800
Safety Shoes 425
Miscellaneous 15,000
Training & Travel 2,250
Insurance and Bonds 2,500
Signage 25,000
Purpose:
To budget project costs and operating budget for Airlie Gardens.
Chairman Caster expressed appreciation to Ms. Camilla Herlevich for the hard work and
effort given to assist the County in acquiring Airlie Gardens.
BREAK
Chairman Caster called a break from 7:58 p.m. until 8:15 p.m.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 823
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM KATHLEEN BUFFKIN TO ADD
16 BOAT SLIPS TO THE EXISTING COMMUNITY BOATING FACILITY SERVING
INLET POINT HARBOR (S-430, 6/98)
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing and announced that the special use process
requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any persons wishing to testify must step forward to be
sworn in by the Clerk to the Board.
The following persons were sworn in:
Dexter Hayes
Teddy J. Morawski
Michael D. Coleman
Haywood Newkirk
Willard S. Buffkin, Jr.
Adele T. Aquino
Timothy Lee Chase
Robert Cantwell
David Greer
Steve Morrison
Wayne A. Hanson
Attorney Bill Raney
Attorney Reid G. Hanson
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board voted 3 to 2 to recommend
denial of the petition as submitted. The Planning Board felt that expansion of the existing facility
could negatively impact the property values of lots on both sides of the channel near the expansion
area and could potentially impede riparian access for at least two lots in the development. Several
persons spoke in opposition at the Planning Board meeting expressing concern for the use negatively
impacting water quality and eroding the finfish and shellfish populations in the vicinity as well as
additional noise, increased boating traffic, and lighting. The attorney representing one of the
property owners claimed that the facility would impede the riparian rights of his client.
Planning Director Hayes presented the following preliminary staff findings:
The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or
1.
safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and
approved based upon the following findings:
A.The proposed facility does not require water and sewer services.
B.The site is located in the Federal Point Volunteer Fire Department District.
C.Access to the site is available via private roads connecting to Carolina Beach Road.
D.A CAMA permit application has been filed.
The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the
2.
Zoning Ordinance based upon the following findings:
A.Community boating facilities are permitted by Special Use Permit in the R-15
Residential District. The property is zoned R-15.
B.With the addition, the total number of slips does not exceed the number of residential
lots to be served.
C.Off-street parking will be provided at individual residences. (Note: The County
ordinarily requires a separate off-street parking lot, but has routinely approved
permits to allow parking to be provided at individual lots to reduce environmental
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 824
impacts, specifically the impacts from storm water run-off.)
D.All lots have access to the facility over existing private streets.
The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or
3.
abutting property or that the use is a public necessity based upon the following
findings:
A.In general, these facilities compliment property values.
B.Similar facilities are located on nearby tracts.
The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according
4.
to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is
to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover
County based upon the following findings:
A.The proposed slips would be an expansion of an existing facility containing dock
space for boats.
B.New Hanover County land policies encourage access to public waters.
Commissioner Howell commented on riparian rights and he asked if the Board should rule
on this item.
Planning Director Hayes responded that one attorney felt the Board should not rule on this
issue; however, the question becomes a matter of property ownership regarding who has the right to
build a facility in terms of riparian access. It will be the decision of the Board as to whether this issue
should be addressed.
Chairman Caster asked if the petitioner would like to comment.
Attorney Bill Raney, representing Kathleen Buffkin the owner of the property, presented a
notebook (marked as the petitioner’s Exhibit I) consisting of recorded documents and materials that
provided background information on the request for the Special Use Permit. He advised that it would
not be necessary to take time to address each issue, but he would say the Commissioners must find
that the request meets the four requirements of the Zoning Ordinance from the evidence presented.
He also pointed out there were five additional items specific to community boating facilities which
have been highlighted in the notebook under Tab 2.
Attorney Raney informed the Board that three witnesses would presenting testimony:
(1)Mr. David Greer, the developer of the property and the son of Kathleen Eagle, would furnish
information on the history of the development.
(2) Mr. Steve Morrison, Environmental Consultant with the Land Management Group of
Wilmington, would address environmental issues.
(3)Mr. Haywood Newkirk, President of the Clontz-Newkirk Real Estate Group, would address
property value issues.
Attorney Raney reported that before testimony was heard from the three witnesses, the issue
of riparian rights access had been addressed in the material provided in the notebook. This should
give the Board some comfort in deciding that this issue should not be decided as part of the request.
The subject boat basin was excavated out of upland property and the State of North Carolina has
recognized the ownership of the bottom in that area. This is unlike instances of natural environment
where the State claims to own the submerged land. In this instance, this is not the case as noted in
the last document of the notebook. In addition, the developer has specifically addressed this issue
by reserving the shoreline area as a common property. On the Subdivision Map, Page 6 under Tab
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 825
8 or 9 in the notebook, there is a separation between the bulkhead and the property line of the various
lots so the developer can retain control, and according to restrictive covenants, make it the
responsibility of the community itself to maintain and repair the bulkhead. It is felt this is a non-issue;
however, if the Board is concerned about the riparian rights, this issue should be decided in a court
of law. If the Special Use Permit should be approved by the Board and a lot owner felt it infringed
on his/her rights, this question could be addressed in an appropriate court proceeding.
Mr. David Greer, a native of Wilmington and home builder for 20 years, said that he currently
lived at Inlet Point Harbor, and he informed the Board that he planned and designed the Inlet Point
Harbor Subdivision. He reported that he, his mother, and stepfather, Willard Buffkin, Sr. purchased
the property in 1989. The current development had already been started by Alexander Malpass with
involvement of Charlie Lewis. They dredged into the upland 400 to 500 feet to create the existing
basin. A permit had been obtained to dredge further to create a turning basin. When the family
purchased the property, known as Inlet Point Harbor, the following work was performed: (1) the
property was developed into single family lots; (2) the channel and turning basin were constructed;
and (3) the bulkheading and dredging required to create the waterfront lots were completed, which
was 1,500 feet further inland.
Mr. Greer said the subdivision was patterned after similar subdivisions in New Hanover
County based on a boat basin and channel with lots, such as Shinn Point, Pleasure Cay and Channel
Haven. To create a different development from the other similar subdivision, it was decided to give
all lots access to the water, not just the waterfront lots. In order to provide water access to
approximately 30 lots, two different docking easements were created. Docking Easement 1 was
located in the existing basin that the family modified by dredging and bulkheading the south side,
which is back of the basin begun by the previous developer. Docking Easement 2 was located in the
front basin that had been partially constructed. In those easements “common dock areas” were
created for non-waterfront lots to have a boat slip on the body of water. This means that each
waterfront lot would have its own dock, and the two common dock areas would have multiple slips
for property owners living off the water. This concept would allow people to walk down the street
to their boats. All property owners would share the same amenities.
Mr. Greer said with the anticipation of future development, there was an adjacent piece of
property south of Inlet Point Harbor, known as the Richardson property, consisting of 9 acres of
land, marked on the recorded plat as future development. In 1990, when recording the plat for Phase
II, the record showed that 9.2 acres was going to be developed as Phase III of Inlet Point Harbor;
however, at that time, it was not possible to obtain the necessary boat slips to go with the property
because the lots had not been divided. It was necessary to provide one lot for every boat slip.
Mr. Greer said that currently, there are 22 slips in the back and 8 slips in the front for a total
of 31 boat slips, which represents the total number of lots platted in Phase II. Mr. Greer said at that
time CAMA would not issue another permit because there were not enough lots to go with the boat
slips. After showing everyone the future plans for Phase III, the slips were recorded on the plat. In
order to build homes on the 19 residential lots in Phase III, a Special Use Permit is needed to provide
the additional boat slips needed for that phase.
Mr. Greer reported when the Planning Board heard the request, it was at 10:30 p.m., and
there was confusion about riparian rights being affected by this additional expansion. Nothing was
mentioned at the Planning Board meeting about immediate adjacent property owners, where the slips
are to be built, having riparian rights in the existing 8 slips that are already built in Docking Easement
2. There were 8 slips, one assigned to lot 34 and the other assigned to lot 35. These people are
immediately adjacent to where the docks will be constructed and they already have floating docks,
which means they will not lose any riparian rights.
Mr. Greer commented on not being able to elaborate at the Planning Board meeting and he
stated if anyone looked at the map, it would be easy to understand what he was trying to do as a
developer and builder. The map shows 9 acres as future development with docks on the recorded
plat. The bulkhead would be a common area that would be owned by the boat owners association.
Any maintenance on the bulkhead or canal would be borne by the association, both non-waterfront
and waterfront property owners. Every step was taken to inform each person about the restrictions
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 826
before they purchased a lot. The plat was recorded on August 16, 1990 and a Master Plan was
available for everyone to see. Now, seven years later, the neighbors have some concerns about the
Phase III project.
In closing, Mr. Greer informed the Board that he was trying to follow the project as outlined
in the Master Plan, and he requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit so he could
complete the project.
Mr. Steve Morrison, Environmental Consultant with the Land Management Group of
Wilmington, presented a brief report on the status of the CAMA permitting process, and he said the
CAMA permit for the 16 community boat slips was currently on a voluntary administrative hold at
the office in Raleigh until the required Special Use Permit could be secured from the Board of County
Commissioners.
The CAMA major development permit application has been submitted to the N. C. Division
of Coastal Management and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for review. The State review of this
permit is coordinated by the N. C. Division of Coastal Management. Other reviewing state agencies
include the Division of Water Quality, Land Resources, Water Resources, Marine Fisheries,
Environmental Health, Achieves and History, Community Assistance, the Wildlife Resources
Commission, N. C. Department of Administration, and the N. C. Department of Transportation. The
Federal review is coordinated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection
Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. A total of 15 different
State and Federal agencies will have an opportunity to recommend approval or denial of the requested
CAMA major development permit.
A county Special Use Permit is allowed for community boating facilities providing that it can
be demonstrated that the project will have minimal impacts on water quality, primary nursery areas
(PNA), shellfish grounds, and conservation resources. Regarding, water quality, the proposed slips
are to be located within an existing upland basin, which is the preferred siting for marinas. Upland
basins have the least effect on the environment outside the basin and open waters. The proposed boat
slips within the basin will not impact the functioning of primary nursery areas outside the basin in the
open waters. Technically, the creation of the upland basin actually extended the bounds of the
primary nursery area inland when it was built.
Mr. Morrison presented a handout to the Board. He reported on July 14, 1998 a shellfish
survey was conducted utilizing guidelines from the North Carolina Marine Fisheries to determine the
extent of the nearby shellfish resource. Results of the survey quantified the resource below the
natural shellfish bed definition of 10 bushels per acre within 400 feet of the inside of the basin. No
significant shellfish resource for existing use would be impacted by the proposed slips within the
basin. No conservation resources including the various public resources would be significantly
affected by addition of the proposed slips.
In closing the presentation, Mr. Morrison advised that the State permitting by CAMA and the
Corps of Engineers could not be completed until a decision has been made by the Board of County
Commissioners on granting the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Haywood Newkirk, President of the Clontz-Newkirk Real Estate Group located in
Wilmington N. C., reported this firm has over 45 years of general real estate experience of which a
great majority lies in the field of real estate appraisal. Clients include BB&T, First Citizens Bank,
Centura Bank, the N. C. Department of Transportation, New Hanover County Board of Education,
Pender County Board of Education, and Carolina Power & Light Company.
The Clontz-Newkirk Real Estate Group was hired by Ms. Kathleen Eagle to determine if the
addition of 16 boat slips would substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property located
on Gazebo Court and Inland Point Drive. After a review of the issue, it was decided to inspect all
waterfront residential communities in the area that were located on boat basins or had associated boat
slips, and to track the sales of lots and homes in these developments within the last several years. The
procedure used was to determine if prices increased or decreased, how quickly
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 827
lots were being sold, and how many waterfront lots of this type were available with a boat basin or
waterfront slips.
In performing the research, it was found that more than ten residential communities located
between Figure Eight Island on the north and Carolina Beach on the south were located on boat
basins or included boat slips for similar residential properties. The three most comparable
developments are located within a mile or one-half mile by boat from the subject property. Slides
were presented on the following communities:
(1)Oceania is located approximately one-half mile south down the Intracoastal Waterway from
Inlet Point Harbor. The most recent data indicates that residential lot prices on the boat basin
in Oceania have escalated at an average of 20% annually over the last three to four years.
Oceania has a 105 slip facility with approximately half of those slips dedicated to a private full
service marina. There are only 48 lots in this development, which represents a slip-to-lot ratio
of 2.2 to 1. This means that residential lots located on an operating marina with a much
higher slip-to-lot ratio are increasing in value at 20% per year.
(2)Inlet Watch, the most similar community, is located about one-fourth a mile north of Inlet
Point Harbor on the same side of the Intracoastal Waterway. The most recent data indicates
that residential lot prices on the boat basin have escalated at an average rate of 23% annually
during the last two to three years. The slip-to-lot ratio is more than 2 to 1. In this
development, front yards are approximately 15 to 20 feet in depth; whereas, the Inlet Point
Harbor expansion will have greater setbacks from the boat basin. Also, there is a common
parking area similar to what is proposed for the Inlet Point Harbor project.
(3)Federal Point Yacht Club is located approximately three-fourths of a mile south of Inlet Point
Harbor. The most recent data indicates that residential lot prices on the boat basin have
escalated at an average of 23% annually over the last two years. This is a similar
development with single family lots located on a boat basin. Two years ago, the 18 lots were
placed on the market, and the lots sold within two months. There are 110 boat slips in the
Federal Point Yacht Club basin which represents a slip-to-lot ratio of 6 to 1.
In summary, Mr. Newkirk noted that each of the subdivisions have experienced an annual
increase in lot value at an average rate of 18 to 26 percent. Also, the study indicates that lots on the
boat basin sold more quickly than second or third row lots. There is a substantial demand for lots in
front of community docks. The slip-to-lot ratio in the three examples ranged from 2.1 to 6.1. The
proposed Inlet Point Harbor expansion will have a slip-to-lot ratio of 1 to 1. In tracking the property
appreciation rates, it was found that the highest slip-to-lot ratio had the highest property appreciation
rate. Using these comparables, it is felt the proposed expansion would appreciate the value of lots
in the proposed project.
Attorney Raney advised the Board that this concluded the evidence. He requested an
opportunity to summarize the information presented after hearing from the opposition.
Chairman Caster asked if anyone other sworn-in persons would like to testify.
Attorney Reid G. Hinson, representing Mr. Willard S. Buffkin, Jr., the former son-in-law,
presented a slide presentation showing where the proposed 18 lots would be developed. The boat
slips would go behind Mr. Buffkin’s home, and this is why he is opposed to the issuance of a Special
Use Permit. The Planning Board recommended denial of the request with one of the major reasons
being parking. There is no parking for the boat slips being proposed.
Commissioner Howell asked how the boat slips would be accessed.
Attorney Hinson explained that the proposed boat slips would be built toward the waterway
from the area at the end of the cul-de-sac known as the common area where people walk down to
the existing boat slip. He stated a problem with the proposed expansion is the lack of space for
parking in the area. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per boat slip. In order to issue
a Special Use Permit, the Commissioners must find that all four requirements have been met.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 828
There is no proposal for parking, and contrary to the report from the appraiser, there is no parking.
People will be required to walk from their homes. It will be over 2,000 feet to walk from any home
in the new section to the boat slip. People are currently driving to the existing facility who live only
200 feet away because it is difficult to carry boating paraphernalia down the road. As noted, this is
not a good area for this use, the project was not properly planned, and the necessary easement for
the community boating requirements has not been met; therefore, the request should not be permitted
In closing, Attorney Hinson informed the Board that witnesses would be making comments.
He requested the right to discuss riparian rights at the conclusion of the presentations because he felt
this was a key issue.
Mr. Willard S. Buffkin, Jr., a resident of 229 Gazebo Court, marked as lot 35 on the map,
reported he had several problems with 16 boat slips being located behind his home with no parking
area. Pictures were presented (marked as the Exhibits 1-11) showing that in order to get to the boat
slips residents would have to walk 2,000 feet. In the same group of pictures, the same vehicles were
shown parked at the boating facility on five different days in a one month period.
Mr. Buffkin informed the Board that the residents drive because it is difficult to carry fishing
rods, coolers, floats and other boating necessities. With 16 boat slips proposed and zero parking, one
or two cars parked in the circle (the proposed entrance to the boat slips) would prohibit any way for
vehicles to turn around. This means that his private drive or his neighbor’s yard would be used as
a turn around area.
Mr. Buffkin also expressed concern for devaluation of his property, and he stated that a lot
with a private boat was more valuable than a lot of the same size with 16 floating docks.
Chairman Caster asked Mr. Buffkin if he knew that the proposed 16 boat slips were in the
Master Plan.
Mr. Buffkin responded that he did not know about the proposed 16 boat slips when he
purchased his lot in 1990. The site for the boat slips was not purchased until 1995.
Commissioner Howell commented on Mr. Greer testifying that the additional boat slips were
included in the Master Plan and that all property owners had been informed about this expansion
when purchasing lots, and he asked Mr. Buffkin if he had an option to purchase a slip.
Mr. Buffkin responded that he could not answer this question because the property was
originally purchased by his father.
Mr. Robert Cantwell, a State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser in Wilmington, N. C.,
reported that for the past 30 years he had appraised all types of real estate, primarily in Southeastern
North Carolina. He advised that Attorney Hinson had requested him to review this situation and to
form an opinion on the effect of the proposed Special Use Permit on the value of Mr. Buffkin’s lot.
After inspection of the property and the proposed plan, he felt that construction of a community pier
in front of Mr. Buffkin’s lot would reduce the value of the property. The construction of the pier
would have two possible effects: (1) Mr. Buffkin’s view and privacy normally associated with
waterfront property would change; and (2) it would eliminate Mr. Buffkin’s ability to build his own
private pier. In the course of the investigation, a study was made on the sales of similar lots that
differ only in having the ability to construct a private pier. There were very few examples of sales
from which meaningful conclusions could be drawn. In most instances, there were other differences
that also impacted on the relative value of the lots. There are different subdivisions offering different
amenities or different lot sizes and other variables; however, a group of lot sales was located within
Inlet Point Harbor that appear to show the value of the right to build a pier. Lot 22 sold in November
1997 for $150,000. This lot lies behind the existing community pier. During the same general time
period, Lot 12 sold in August 1997 for $165,000 and Lot 28 sold in July 1998 for $168,000, and
these lots were located on the channel where a private pier could be built. During the period when
the lots that could have private piers sold from $165,000 to $168,000, which increased from $11.10
to $14.62 per square foot, Lot 22, which was behind the community pier, sold for $150,000 which
was $9.63 per square foot. These sales indicated the value of the right to build a pier. There are
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 829
several instances in both New Hanover and Brunswick Counties where the owners of upland lots have
purchased the marsh adjoining their property in order to gain the right to build a pier. Their
willingness to pay for the marsh demonstrates the value of that right. Others have felt the right to
build a private pier was worth the cost of suing over it as shown by the recent Landfall case.
Mr. Cantwell presented the following example of applying the appraisal principle of
substitution:
Two similar lots were offered for sale. If a pier could be built on one lot, but not on the
other, and both lots were offered for sale at the same price, which one would you prefer to
purchase.
Mr. Cantwell concluded that with this choice, the value of right has been demonstrated, and
he believes that construction of the pier in front of Mr. Buffkin’s lot will diminish the value of his
property.
In summarizing Mr. Buffkin’s position, Attorney Hinson said it was not the case that the
developer properly reserved the right to control who could build the pier in front of Mr. Buffkin’s
lot. The developer did not reserve a strip of high ground. The map, marked Exhibit 13, compared
to Exhibit 12, clearly demonstrates that in the old basin, the developer did reserve a strip of high
ground; whereas, in the subject area, the property line ends at the bulkhead and is contiguous with
the bulkhead. The courts since 1894 have stated that only the owners of the upland, and in this case
that is Mr. Buffkin, own riparian rights. Although the developer may have wanted to reserve this
strip, it was not reserved. When the developer’s experts testified that boat slips enhance the value
of land, it becomes clear that the developer would seek to provide a boat slip with each lot. Who can
fault the developer for trying to earn more money. But, the developer sold the right to build the boat
slip eight years ago to Willard Buffkin, and he should not be allowed to go back and get a Special Use
Permit for a community boating facility that fails to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,
such as failure to provide parking, diminishing the value of abutting property by building a
community boating facility in the proposed location, and realizing additional profits from sales.
Attorney Hinson responded to the question asked earlier regarding whether or not Mr.
Buffkin knew the land would be purchased, or if he knew that a boat slip would go with his land when
his lot was purchased. The answer is no. Looking at the map in the materials provided by the
developer, it shows that the boat slips are numbered from 1 to 28. When purchasing the lot, Mr.
Buffkin was told his boat slip would be 30, which does not exist. He presented a certificate for boat
slip 30, and he stated the Special Use Permit should not be issued because it will deprive Mr. Buffkin
of the right to build and enjoy a boat slip.
Mr. Wayne Hanson, a resident of 246 Inlet Point Drive, Lot 1A, and a former District
Engineer of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, said that he was speaking on behalf of property
owners in Phase I of the subdivision that began in 1979. At that time, the property owners did not
know they were buying into a yacht club. Everyone thought they were purchasing lots on Inlet Point
Drive that had water access. In 1989, when returning from Alaska, his last assignment with the Corps,
he moved back to New Hanover County to construct a home on Inlet Point Drive to enjoy the area.
He said that one day, he observed a backhoe taking out wetlands. Since he was a District Engineer,
he knew this was not an authorized activity. He contacted CAMA about this illegal action and was
informed since the land was formerly an upland area, the developer could do as he pleased. Several
years later, he checked the CAMA file and found that the agency had violated the water quality
certification when the CAMA permit was issued because marsh grass had been planted as mitigation
for wetland losses in the original development by Mr. Malpass. As a result, a marina was built across
from his property to be used for Phase II of the property, and his disposal area was taken away.
Mr. Hanson informed the Board that Mr. David Greer did tell the property owners about his
plan, but the property owners never agreed. However, the property owners were not informed about
adding 16 boat slips in the proposed area, which would bring the number of boat slips to 79. There
are 29 slips authorized for property owners that abut the water and 28 showing on the plat. The
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 830
covenants for this development allow the developer to continue to buy property adjacent to whatever
they own and add more boat slips. He questioned whether CAMA and the County make decisions
based upon the number of lots determining the number of boat slips, and he asked if the County
considers environmental concerns, such as water quality, when rendering a decision on a Special Use
Permit. He also questioned if the County would ever place a limit on the number of boat slips that
could be placed in a community.
In closing, Mr. Hanson challenged the statement that Phase II and III development had
enhanced the property values in Phase I. The residents living in Phase I are not members of the
Homeowners Association and still have septic systems, private wells, and maintain their road. If this
development had not occurred, the residents of Phase I would still have water access and the lots
would have increased in value. The property owners do not object to the overall development, but
they are concerned about devaluation of property, water quality and other environmental issues.
Mr. Hanson requested the Board to deny the Special Use Permit to allow 16 additional boat
slips.
Mr. Michael D. Coleman, an agent with Laney Real Estate in Wilmington, N. C, said he was
representing the residents of 227 Gazebo Court, which is the house adjacent to Mr. Buffkin. He
informed the Board that this house had been on the market for 10 months and had formerly been on
the market for two years. With the uncertainly about the boat slips and concern for the common
property issue, many buyers are interested in the home but are afraid to purchase since they do not
know what will happen to the adjacent property. The value of the home is now priced at $75,000
under its appraised value, which was evaluated eight months ago before the property was placed on
the market.
In closing, Mr. Coleman advised the Board that he felt the value of this property would
continue to decrease if the boat slips are permitted.
Mr. Timothy Lee Chase, a resident of 234 Inlet Point Drive, spoke in opposition to the 16
additional boat slips for the following reasons: (1) decrease of his property value as evidenced by the
information presented at the meeting; (2) a continued decrease in marine life; (3) concern for the noise
from the boats 50 yards from bedrooms where his children sleep; and (4) safety of the children in the
area that swim and ride rubber rafts up and down the canal. He requested the Board to deny the
Special Use Permit.
Commissioner Howell asked Mr. Chase if he was aware of future expansion plans.
Mr. Chase stated that he was not aware of the expansion plan. When purchasing the property
in Phase I three and one-half years ago, there were only a few boat slips in this location.
Ms. Adele Aquino, a resident of 222 Inlet Point Drive and a partial owner of Lot 3 with her
parents, expressed concern for being invisible after living in the community for 20 years. When she
and her husband constructed their home, it was a beautiful quiet area. As permits were approved to
build more homes and boat slips, the view from her home was lost. She expressed concern for the
inability of fire trucks or other emergency vehicles to access the boat basin if 16 more boat slips are
added to the boating facility. She requested the Board to deny the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Teddy J. Morawski, a resident living directly behind the site of the proposed boat slips,
reported that he moved into his home in March 1980 and worked with Mr. Malpass, the original
developer. No plans for expansion were discussed or recorded at that time. When Mr. David Greer
became involved in the development, meetings were held with residents in the community and no
agreement could be reached as to how the property should be developed. Mr. Greer informed the
residents that he would have to proceed with his own plan without considering the concerns of the
neighbors. At that time, there were no written documents to present to the court system.
In closing Mr. Morawski stated with development of Phase III, 16 additional boat slips will
be constructed behind his house and the homes of Mr. Chase, and Ms. Aquino. The canal will be
narrowed by 30 feet, which will hinder all boating activities, and the noise and traffic will increase.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 831
He requested the Board to deny the Special Use Permit to protect the Phase I residents from living
at a marina.
Attorney Raney expressed concern for the misleading remarks and he discussed the following
items:
(1) Two major questions to answer are when was the plan drawn, and who was informed about
the plan. As indicated by the dates on the recorded documents, this plan showed the number
of proposed boat slips was on record in 1990 before the first lot in Phase II was sold. Every
potential property owner had public knowledge of this information. What information was
provided by the attorneys and realtors is unknown. But, the documents indicate that the plan
was shown on the subdivision map showing all the boat slips, as depicted behind Tab 8 in the
notebook presented to the Board.
(2)The parking standard must be met before the Special Use Permit can be granted. Under the
New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Item 2, Section 72-37, Community Boating Facility
Requirements, it states that off-street parking shall be provided at a ratio of one parking space
per boat slip. The proposed project has met this requirement by providing close access to the
proposed boat slips in lieu of constructing a large parking lot. Two off-street parking spaces
are provided for each home in the development. The restricted covenants prohibit residents
from parking in the cul-de-sac. The residents will drive to their boat slips, unload their
boating equipment, drive back to their homes and walk back to the boat slips. This is a much
more environmentally sensitive plan for parking.
(3)The New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance requires that the proposed use will not
substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. From the information
provided by Mr. Newkirk, there is a large market for persons who want single-family
residences with a boat dock. The Commissioners must apply an objective standard taking into
account how the property can be used and what the appraiser considers when valuing
property. An appraiser looks at existing property as well as future use of the adjoining
properties. Any appraiser assigned to appraise the lot owned by Mr. Buffkin would review
the recorded documents that clearly state a community boating facility was reserved for the
area, with a docking easement and boat slips shown on the plan. This must be taken into
consideration. The developer should have an opportunity to carry out the Master Plan.
In closing, Attorney Raney advised the Board that all the requirements had been met. The
property owners in the first section did not know what might or could be planned for the area across
the street. However, they did know at the time of purchase, that future development rights were
reserved by the developer, including the boat basin which could be subject to enlargement or used
for another type of boating facility as shown in Item 19 under Tab 5 in the notebook. The
documentation presented clearly shows that all residents were informed about potential future
development. The subdivision map, Page 1 under Tab 7, shows the area reserved for future
development. The subdivision map for Phase II shows the docking easement clearly defined
numbering slips 1 through 28. Mr. Buffkin testified that he did not have a boat slip assigned to him.
Attorney Raney presented a handout (marked as Petitioner’s Exhibit 2) to the Board showing
that a certificate was issued to Mr. Buffkin for assignment of boat slip 30. Tab 9 in the notebook
shows the layout of the new development, which depicts the entire development, with the docking
easement at the turning basin and all boat slips as originally planned and platted under Docking
Easement 2. Tab 10 shows the State’s declaration of the ownership of the boat basin area. The
riparian rights issue should be pursued through the court system.
Commissioner Howell asked Attorney Raney if Mr. Buffkin would own boat slip 30.
Attorney Raney responded that Mr. Buffkin was told when the new dock was constructed,
he would have a slip at the end of the dock. The numbers may not correspond, but he does have a
boat slip.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 832
Commissioner Howell asked Attorney Raney if the residents will have to walk 2,000 feet or
700 feet to the dock.
Attorney Raney referenced the map under Tab 9 and he stated that he could not vouch for
scale on the map since it has been reduced.
Commissioner Howell commented on the maps being dated in 1990, and he asked Attorney
Raney if any of the lots in Phase II were sold prior to that date.
Attorney Raney responded that no lots were sold in Phase II prior to 1990.
Commissioner Howell expressed regret for any property owner not being told by their
attorneys or real estate agents about future development of Phase II; however, this is not the fault of
the developer. It is unfortunate that potential property owners are not advised of future development
that has already been recorded.
Attorney Raney agreed with Commissioner Howell and stated he felt sorry for these property
owners, but the developer should not be penalized when all of the requirements in the Zoning
Ordinance have been met.
Vice-Chairman Greer referenced the map under Tab 6, dated August 17, 1979, showing a
private boat basin in the subject area, and he requested an explanation from Attorney Raney.
Attorney Raney replied the map shows the larger portion of the basin known as Docking
Easement 2. This basin stopped at Lot 5 as shown in Section I of the map. Later this basin was
extended and elongated into a turning basin so the canal could be used with additional community
docks, as shown under Tab 9. The original development had the boat basin extending to the middle
of Lot 5 in Section I. The permit for Section I could go beyond this point, and the new developer
used the existing permit to extend the boat basin to the turning basin for the additional property
needed to develop Phase II.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked Attorney Raney if the boat basin was shown on the August 1979
map.
Attorney Raney responded that the boat basin was shown on the map. The dimensions are
probably the same and there is some discussion in the Section 1 restricted covenants about reserving
an area for a freeway channel through the property with docking potential on the other side.
Commissioner Howell asked Attorney Hinson if Mr. Buffkin could obtain a boat slip.
Attorney Hinson responded that he did not know. Mr. Buffkin does have a certificate with
assignment of boat slip 30 that does not exist. Mr. Buffkin also noticed that none of the proposed
additional boat slips in front of his property were designated for him, which is an important point.
The boat slips were intended for the new section of the development. At the time the plat was
recorded in 1990, the land for future development did not exist. The developer is adding land as he
expands and not providing boat slips to existing homes in the community. He is selling boat slips to
new homeowners under Phase III, and at the same time has sold riparian rights of 1990 when
conveying lots. The plat shows no ownership of the high ground to which riparian rights must be
attached to be conveyed.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked Attorney Hinson if the property owners of the new lots would
be members of the Homeowners Association.
Attorney Hinson responded that in his opinion, this was not clear. The developer should be
asked if the new lot owners will be members of the Homeowners Association. In 1990 when the plat
was recorded, the new lots were not owned by the developer and were not platted. Also, the same
plat conveyed the riparian rights to the area in discussion with his client Mr. Buffkin.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 833
Vice-Chairman Greer expressed concern for being pulled into deciding on riparian rights, and
he requested the County Attorney to comment.
County Attorney Copley commented on the complexity of the issue and responded that the
past policy of the Board had been to presume that the petitioner has ownership of the property unless
there was evidence of fraud. She stated it would be helpful if the attorneys could meet and agree on
the facts in dispute so the Commissioners can understand the issues being presented.
Attorney Hinson expressed appreciation to the County Attorney for her remarks. He stated,
however, this is a relevant issue because under Section 72.37 of the County Zoning Ordinance, the
developer has to confer by an easement appurtenant to the right to use the facility that is built. In this
case, the developer cannot comply to that requirement. For example, boat slips cannot be
constructed in a development and sold to outsiders instead of the residents living in the community.
Vice-Chairman Greer stated this means that it does not make any difference if the Board
approves or disapproves the request.
Attorney Hinson stated in this case, the burden for demonstrating whether a Special Use
Permit should be issued is placed upon the applicant. There have been serious questions raised by
a number of different people about this request. The Board of County Commissioners will have to
determine what is right. The special use process must have evidence to show that the applicant’s
request has met the four general requirements. In this case, the use has not met these requirements,
and the Planning Board felt that sufficient evidence had not been presented to grant the Special Use
Permit. Parking is an issue, and it has not been demonstrated that the boating facility will benefit the
community. Also, the property value has not been addressed. There was a declaration to the bottom
land as indicated by Attorney Raney; however, under Tab 10 of Attorney Raney’s materials, it is
spelled out in paragraph 4 that the final resolution does not affect or impair the common law, riparian
or rhetorical rights running with lands located above the mean high water mark, which in this case
is the Buffkin property.
Attorney Raney advised the Board that he had a recorded document that was not in the
information presented to the Commissioners.
Chairman Caster expressed concern for additional information being added to the amount of
materials already received.
Commissioner Birzenieks asked Attorney Raney if the information presented in the notebook
was presented to the Planning Board.
Attorney Raney responded that not all of the material was presented to the Planning Board
because the members of the Planning Board would have been overwhelmed.
Commissioner Birzenieks asked County Attorney Copley if it would be appropriate to refer
this item back to the Planning Board.
County Attorney Copley responded that the Board is responsible for determining if the four
general requirements of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. The ownership or riparian rights
should be decided by CAMA and the Court System. This application is like any other Special Use
Permit and should be determined on the evidence and findings presented by the petitioner and
opposition.
Commissioner Howell asked if the petitioner had met the parking requirements.
Planning Director Hayes advised that in a community boating facility, the ordinance requires
one space per boat slip. However, many community boating facilities may not be located in the
development itself. There is no requirement that the community boating facility has to be in the
development. In order to avoid duplication of parking, the County has assumed the residents living
in the development can utilize their own parking spaces. If the community boating facility is located
off site or at some distance from the neighborhood, parking spaces would be required.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 834
Commissioner Howell asked Planning Director Hayes if he felt in this case the parking
requirement has been satisfied.
Planning Director Hayes stated the parking requirement has been satisfied, and he advised the
Board that if the Special Use Permit is granted, the request will be subject to receiving CAMA
permits.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked Planning Director Hayes if he would have assumed that the
boating facility would have been constructed when reviewing the 1979 map.
Planning Director responded that the original map filed in the Planning Department indicated
there would be future expansion of the community boating facility. The Planning Staff was not
concerned because at that time, the County was not involved with issuing Special Use Permits for
boating facilities.
Chairman Caster inquired as to the feeling of the Planning Board when the 3 to 2 vote was
cast.
Planning Director Hayes responded the Planning Board was concerned about property values
and water quality.
Chairman Caster asked Attorney Raney if he concurred with the preliminary findings
presented by the Planning Director.
Attorney Raney agreed with the findings as presented.
Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
Vice-Chairman Greer stated for the record, he was not related to Mr. David Greer.
Discussion was held on the fact that all of the information was not presented to the Planning
Board by the attorneys. Planning Director Hayes informed the Board that the Planning Board does
not have authority to grant a Special Use Permit or require sworn testimony. The responsibility of
the Planning Board is to review the proposal in a broad context and make general recommendations
with suggested conditions. The County Commissioners are responsible for establishing the findings
of fact based upon the evidence submitted during the hearing and issuing or denying the Special Use
Permit based upon this evidence and findings of fact.
Commissioner Birzenieks expressed concern for all the facts not being presented to the
Planning Board as well as the time required to hear a request of this complexity. He objected to
having a large volume of information presented to the Board during the Public Hearing.
County Attorney Copley noted that in all due respect to the attorneys, the record must clearly
reflect the evidence presented.
Chairman Caster agreed with Commissioner Birzenieks and stated that he felt the Planning
Board should be presented the same information as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Howell stated after serving six years on the Planning Board, many of the
petitioners do not expect to receive strong opposition on a request. During the period of time from
Planning Board decision until the item has been scheduled to be heard by the Board of County
Commissioners, more evidence can occur, and the facts can change.
Motion:
After discussion of the documentation presented, Commissioner Howell MOVED,
SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer to GRANT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT to Kathleen
Buffkin to add 16 boat slips to the existing community boating facility serving Inlet Point Harbor
based upon the evidence presented and findings of fact concluding that the use will not materially
endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan
as submitted; the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance; the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 835
use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public
necessity; and the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted
and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity
with the plan of development for New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION FAILED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
Voting Aye:Commissioner Howell
Vice-Chairman Greer
Voting Nay:Commissioner Birzenieks
Commissioner Davis
Chairman Caster
Motion:
After further discussion of concern for property values and water quality, Commissioner
DENY THE SPECIAL USE
Birzenieks MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Davis to
PERMIT
to Kathleen Buffkin to add 16 additional boat slips to the existing community boating
facility serving Inlet Point Harbor based upon the evidence presented and findings of fact showing
proposed use does not satisfy the third general requirement
that the , namely that the use will not
substantially injure the value of adjoining property as indicated by the testimony provided by a
certified/licensed appraiser which indicated that the property value of the adjacent residential use
would not increase as fast or could be restricted if a community dock was built next to it when
compared to similarly situated parcels without a community dock. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Voting Aye:Commissioner Birzenieks
Commissioner Davis
Chairman Caster
Voting Nay:Commissioner Howell
Vice-Chairman Greer
A copy of the Special Use Permit denying the request is hereby incorporated as a part of the
minutes and is contained in SUP Book II, Page 24.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY GEARON
COMMUNICATIONS TO CONSTRUCT A 160 FOOT COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON
THE EAST SIDE OF INTERSTATE 40/NORTH COLLEGE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 900
FEET SOUTH OF GORDON ROAD (S-435, 10/98)
Ms. Kim Barber, representing Gearon Communications, requested the Board to continue the
Public Hearing regarding the construction of a 160 foot communications tower until the next meeting.
Motion:
Commissioner Howell MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Birzenieks to continue the
Public Hearing until January 4, 1999 as requested by Ms. Barber. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY JIM BONNER FOR MERCER MARINE SALES AND
SERVICES TO REVISE THE SPECIAL HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT TO SPECIFY
THAT BOAT SALES AND AUTOMOBILE SALES BE EXEMPT FROM THE ENCLOSED
FACILITY LIMITATION TO PERMIT OUTSIDE DISPLAYS IN THE FRONT YARD(A-
292, 10/98)
Planning Director Hayes informed the Board that the petitioner has requested continuation
of the Public Hearing until January 4, 1999.
Motion:
Commissioner Howell MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Birzenieks to continue the
Public Hearing until January 4, 1999 as requested by the petitioner. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 836
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY WILLIAM ALEXANDER TO
REZONE 3.15 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ALEXANDER ROAD AND
U. S. HIGHWAY 17 SOUTH OF BRICKSTONE ESTATES TO CONDITIONAL USE
OFFICE AND INSTITUTION FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL (Z-635, 9/98)
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing and announced that the conditional use process
requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any persons wishing to testify must be sworn in by the
Clerk to the Board.
The following persons were sworn in:
Dexter Hayes
Peggy Brunamonti
Val Shivar
Carol L Lasch
Harold Crocker
Virginia Crocker
Myra Nevarz
John Hooton
Deborah Dinwiddie
Chris McQuinton
Cindee Wolf
Planning Director Hayes reported this item was continued from the November 9, 1998,
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant at that time was instructed to revise
the site plan. A revised site plan has been prepared. Instead of the CD(B-2) and CD(O-I)
recommended by the Planning Board, the revised plan calls for rezoning the site to Conditional Use
Office and Institution and permit all uses now permitted in the O-I District. The site plan would
remain the same. The standings of the Planning Board and Planning Staff have not changed;
however, some of the findings have been changed to accommodate the Office and Institution zoning.
No changes were proposed concerning the number of square feet and orientation of buildings.
Planning Director Hayes presented the following preliminary findings:
1.The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or
safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and
approved base upon the following findings:
A.The site has access to adequate water and sewer services.
B.The site is located within the Ogden Volunteer Fire Department District.
C.The site has direct access to Market Street.
2.The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the
Zoning Ordinance based upon the following findings:
A.A site plan pursuant to the Ordinance has been submitted.
B.All other setbacks can be met.
C.It appears protected trees will be preserved to the greatest extent practical with many
being incorporated into the design of the project.
3.The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or
abutting property or that the use is a public necessity based upon the following
findings:
A.The site plan calls for the preservation of a substantial portion of the natural
vegetation found along the western boundary adjacent to the residential use.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 837
4.The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according
to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is
to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover
County based upon the following findings:
A.The site has direct frontage and there are other conditional use districts located along
the road.
Ms. Cindee Wolf, representing the petitioner Mr. William Alexander, stated the revised plan
calls for the entire development to be rezoned Conditional Use Office and Institution with sole access
to the property from a driveway off Market Street. The buffering around the perimeter of the site
will separate the use from the adjacent neighborhood. The location and character of the use will
comply with the zoning regulations and provide an excellent transitional use. She requested the
Board to approve the request as revised.
Commissioner Davis expressed appreciation to Ms. Wolf for working with the neighbors to
resolve the areas of conflict.
Chairman Caster asked Ms. Wolf if she agreed with the findings presented by the Planning
Director.
Ms. Wolf concurred with the findings as presented.
Chairman Caster asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in opposition.
Ms. Val Shivar, a resident of Brickstone Estates, informed the Board that many people in the
area are confused about the revised plan. She requested clarification of the portion of the site that
will be zoned B-2 Business.
Chairman Caster informed Ms. Shivar that the revised plan will rezone the entire site to Office
and Institution Conditional Use with no B-2 Business uses.
There being no further comments, Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
Motion:
Commissioner Howell MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Birzenieks to rezone the
3.15 acres at the southwest corner of Alexander Road and U.S. Highway 17 south of Brickstone
Estates to Conditional Use Office and Institution from R-15 Residential and to grant a Special Use
Permit in a Conditional Use Zoning District to use the property located on Market Street based upon
the evidence presented concluding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety
if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved; the use
meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance; the use will not substantially
injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA NO. 5 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ADOPTED JULY 6, 1971 is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning
Book I, Section 5, Page 38.
A copy of the Special Use Permit is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is
contained in SUP Book II, Page 24.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY MASON AND ASSOCIATES TO
CONSTRUCT A 45 UNIT ELDERLY HOUSING PROJECT AND PERSONAL CARE
FACILITY AT 6612 GORDON ROAD (S-436, 11/98)
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing and announced that the special use process
requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any persons wishing to testify must step forward to be
sworn in by the Clerk to the Board.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 838
The following persons were sworn in:
Dexter Hayes
Billy Wood
Cindee Wolf
Jon Mason
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the applicant proposes to construct nine 5-unit
buildings designed to serve the elderly (age 55 and older) with incomes at 60% or less than the
median county income. In addition to providing housing for this segment of the market, the applicant
plans to provide health maintenance services, including personal care services on a periodic basis.
The project includes the construction of a small building to house a resident manager and personal
care headquarters. A parish nurse will be provided for counseling and other community health issues.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application subject to
the following conditions. The conditions were included to address concerns raised by property
owners in Weatherwood Subdivision and by the Planning Staff.
?
The personal care services provided on-site shall not be restricted to any one age group.
?
The site identification must be limited to a 12 square foot ground sign.
?
Night lighting must be directional to minimize impacts on adjacent properties.
?
A security fence must be erected around the retention pond planned for the site.
?
Natural vegetation along the site’s perimeter adjacent to Weatherwood must be left
undisturbed and supplemented by additional plantings as needed. Also, fencing must be
incorporated into the buffer scheme to prevent pedestrian access to and from the
Weatherwood Subdivision.
?
An alternative project name must be provided.
?
Turn lanes and related improvements must be made pursuant to the N. C. Department of
Transportation approval.
Planning Director Hayes advised that property owners in the Weatherwood Subdivision felt
that drainage could be negatively impacted with additional impervious surfaces created by
construction of the facility. Also, they were concerned about children wandering onto the property
and falling into the storm water retention pond.
Planning Director Hayes presented the following preliminary staff findings:
1.The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or
safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and
approved based upon the following findings:
A.The site located in an area where public sewer and community water services are
readily available.
B.The site is located in the Ogden Volunteer Fire Department District.
C.The property has direct access to Gordon Road.
2.The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the
Zoning Ordinance based upon the following findings:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 839
A.Personal care facilities and similar facilities are permitted by Special Use permit in the
R-15 Residential District. The property is zoned R-15.
B.The minimum lot size for this type of facility is 2.0 acres. The site contains 5.66
acres.
C.The minimum required front, side and rear yards are met.
D.Approximately 78 parking spaces are provided. The minimum requirement is one
space per bed and one for each employee on the greatest shift. The applicant plans
23 units with two bedrooms and 22 units with one bedroom.
3.The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or
abutting property or that the use is a public necessity based upon the following
findings:
A.The property is currently being used as a mobile home park. (Big W)
B.Property to the south includes Weatherwood Subdivision, a performance residential
development, and Dutch Square, an industrial park.
4.The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according
to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is
to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover
County based upon the following findings:
A.The primary land development pattern is single family residential, but farming
activities (U-Pick Strawberries) educational uses, public recreation, high density
residential and industrial uses are located in the area.
Chairman Caster asked if the petitioner would like to comment.
Ms. Cindee Wolf, representing the petitioner, reported the existing vegetation would remain
at a width of 45 feet behind the units and the fencing requirements have been addressed. There is a
documented need for a Rest Place in the community, and the location and character of the use is
consistent with the Land Use Plan. All County regulations have been met including drainage issues.
She advised that the developer was present and would address any features or services offered by the
facility.
Commissioner Davis asked if the applicant agreed to conditions recommended by the Planning
Board.
Ms. Wolf concurred with conditions presented by the Planning Board.
Chairman Caster asked Ms. Wolf if she agreed with the findings as presented by the Planning
Director.
Ms. Wolf concurred with the findings as presented.
Vice-Chairman Greer requested an explanation as to why the facility was not limited to the
elderly.
Ms. Wolf responded that since this was a personal care facility, it was felt limiting the facility
to the elderly would discriminate against young handicapped persons who would fit into this type of
community living.
Chairman Caster asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in opposition.
No comments were received.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 840
Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Birzenieks to grant a
Special Use Permit to Mason and Associates for the construction of a 45 unit elderly housing and
personal care facility at 6612 Gordon Road contingent upon the conditions recommended by the
Planning Board and based upon the evidence presented and findings of fact concluding that the
proposed use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and
developed according to the plan as submitted; the use meets all required conditions and specifications
of the Zoning Ordinance; the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property or that the use is a public necessity; and the location and character of the use if developed
according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be
located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the Special Use Permit is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is
contained in SUP Book II, Page 24.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY E. W. MERRIT, JR. TO REZONE
15 ACRES ALONG STATE ROAD 1300 (INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY ROAD)
SOUTH OF THE USS N. C. BATTLESHIP ROAD TO B-2 BUSINESS FROM I-2 HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL (S-436, 11/98)
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the petition as submitted and to incorporate Staff’s suggestion that Parcel
B be rezoned to B-2 to avoid isolating it from the primary I-2 Heavy Industrial District to the west.
No one spoke in opposition to the rezoning request at the Planning Board meeting.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the owner of Parcel B had been informed about rezoning that
parcel to B-2 Business.
Planning Director Hayes advised the property owner had been notified by a letter; however,
no response had been received.
Mr. Eugene Merritt, Jr. advised that the property owner did not have a problem with the
rezoning of Parcel B to B-2 Business.
Chairman Caster asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in opposition.
No comments were received.
Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Birzenieks to approve
rezoning 15 acres along State Road 1300 south of USS North Carolina Battleship Road to B-2
Business from I-2 Heavy Industrial including the Parcel B as recommended by the Planning Board.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA NO. 9A OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA ADOPTED JULY 1, 1972, is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is
contained in Zoning Book II, Section 9A, Page 43.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY TO
REZONE 2.2 ACRES AT MENDENHALL DRIVE AND US HIGHWAY 17 TO R-15
RESIDENTIAL FROM CONDITIONAL USE B-2 BUSINESS, RETAIL NURSERY (Z-639,
11/98 - PLAN EXPIRATION)
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 841
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported that pursuant to Section 59.7-6, Staff is required
to initiate a petition to revoke a Special Use Permit and to simultaneously rezone a Conditional Use
District back to its original classification if a building permit for the approved use(s) has not been
obtained within 24 months of the date of approval. The rezoning was approved on July 1, 1996 and
a building permit for the approved use was not obtained on or before July 1, 1998.
Planning Director Hayes reported the Planing Board voted unanimously to recommend the
property to be rezoned back to its original R-15 Residential classification. The Planning Board noted
that the lack of activity since the original approval and the fact that the owner still did not have
definitive plans to develop the property was evidence enough to rezone the property back to R-15.
Discussion was held on granting a six-month extension, but that was ruled out because the plan had
already expired. In concluding remarks, the Planning Board said that future rezoning for this site
should only be considered when the owner had a development plan for the land. There was no
opposition expressed at the Planning Board meeting.
Chairman Caster asked if anyone from the public would like to comment.
No remarks were received.
Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Howell to approve
rezoning 2.2 acres at Mendenhall Drive and U.S. Highway 17 to R-15 Residential from Conditional
Use B-2 Business, Retail Nursery, as recommended by the Planning Board. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA NO. 5 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ADOPTED JULY 6, 1991 is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning
Book I, Section 5, Page 39.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM THE CAPE FEAR COMMUNITY
COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO REZONE 142.5 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
SIDBURY ROAD AND EAST OF PUMPKIN CREEK ESTATES TO O-I OFFICE AND
INSTITUTION FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL, I-1 INDUSTRIAL, B-1 BUSINESS AND
CONDITIONAL USE I-1 INDUSTRIAL (Z-640, 11/98)
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported that the Planing Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the petition as submitted. In reaching the decision, the Planing Board noted
the requested change promoted less intense land uses than what was permitted by right under the
existing designation. Also, it was noted that the change would be consistent with the Land Use Plan
and would offer better protection to nearby residential uses. One person spoke in opposition
expressing concern that rezoning the site would jeopardize the preservation of extensive wetlands.
Chairman Caster asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in opposition.
No comments were received.
Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
Motion:
Commissioner Davis MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Birzenieks to approve
rezoning 142.5 acres on the southside of Sidbury Road and east of Pumpkin Creek Estates to O-I
Office and Institution as recommended by the Planning Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA NO. 8A OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 842
CAROLINA ADOPTED JULY 7, 1972 is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is
contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8A, Page 25.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY ARCELIA WICKER
FOR R. BRITT TO REZONE .62 OF AN ACRE AT 324 GREENVILLE AVENUE JUST
SOUTHEAST OF WRIGHTSVILLE AVENUE TO B-1 BUSINESS FROM R-15
RESIDENTIAL (Z-641, 11/98)
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board voted to approve the petition
with the added provision that the B-1 District line south of Greenville Avenue be realigned to follow
the property lines. The Planning Board felt that arranging the zoning boundary along property lines
would, as Staff had noted, make it easier to administer land use regulations and tax valuations. The
Planning Board also noted that the rezoning would better define the small neighborhood commercial
node that has existed since the 1970's.
Chairman Caster asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in opposition.
No comments were presented.
Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
Motion:
Commissioner Birzenieks MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Howell to rezone the
.62 of an acre at 324 Greenville Avenue just southeast of Wrightsville Avenue to B-1 Business from
R-15 Residential as recommended by the Planning Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA NO. 9B OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA ADOPTED JULY 1, 1972 is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is
contained in Zoning Book II, Section 9B, Page 86.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM DAVID SNEEDEN TO REZONE
1.03 ACRES AT 6770 GORDON ROAD TO B-2 BUSINESS FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL (Z-
642, 11/98)
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Board voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the petition as submitted. In support of this position, the Planning Board noted the
change would be consistent with the existing zoning pattern as well as the emerging land use pattern.
There was no opposition present at the Planning Board meeting.
Chairman Caster asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in opposition.
No comments were received.
Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
Motion:
Commissioner Davis MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Birzenieks to approve 1.03
acres at 6770 Gordon road to B-2 Business from R-15 Residential as recommended by the Planning
Board. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA NO. 8A OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II,
Section 8A, Page 25.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 843
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY TOM AND JAN BROADFOOT TO
CLOSE A SEGMENT OF BUENA VISTA CIRCLE LOCATED AT THE EASTERN END
OF MASON LANDING ROAD IN THE MIDDLE SOUND COMMUNITY (SC-74, 10/98)
Chairman Caster opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director Hayes reported that Tom and Jan Broadfoot had requested the southeastern
segment of Buena Vista Circle located in the Middle Sound Community to be closed. After an
examination of the area, it was found that Buena Vista Circle has an unimproved 30 foot private
right-of-way width approximately 450 feet in length. Anticipating the closure of this segment of
Buena Vista, the applicants have submitted and received preliminary road right-of-way dedication
approval by the Planning Board’s Technical Review Committee for a new segment of road to prevent
landlocking of adjoining properties. After a review of the petition by the County Engineering Staff,
a utility easement will be needed at both ends of the road to be closed. The creation of these
easements will facilitate the installation of County sewer in the near future. Staff recommends that
this segment of Buena Vista Circle be closed providing the utility easements are incorporated at each
end of the road as recommended by the engineering staff.
Chairman Caster asked if anyone from the public would like to speak.
No comments were received.
Chairman Caster closed the Public Hearing.
Motion:
Commissioner Howell MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Birzenieks to approve
closing a segment of Buena Vista Circle contingent upon utility easements being incorporated at each
end of the road as recommended by the Planning Staff. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the order is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit
Book XXIV, Page 35.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
Ratification of Proclamation Declaring December 1, 1998 as World AIDS Day in New Hanover
County
Motion:
Vice-Chairman Greer MOVED. SECONDED by Commissioner Birzenieks to officially
adopt the proclamation declaring December 1, 1998 as World AIDS Day in New Hanover County.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in
Exhibit Book XXIV, Page 35.
Approval of Sheriff’s Retention and Disposition Schedule
Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell requested the Board to approve the amendment to the
Sheriff’s retention and Disposition Schedule as required by State law.
Motion:
Commissioner Birzenieks MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Greer to approve the
amendments to the Sheriff’s Retention and Disposition Schedule. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Discussion of Recommendations to Better Control Planning Items
Commissioner Birzenieks requested Staff to prepare recommendations on how to better
handle the planning items, particularly the submission of information before a meeting. He expressed
concern for the amount of time that applicants and citizens have to wait for their public hearings when
a large volume of new information is presented to the Board for an item at the meeting.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26
REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1998 PAGE 844
Deputy County Manager Atkinson advised that he would be glad to prepare some
recommendations and present them to the Board.
Discussion of U. S. Housing and Urban Development Grant through the HUD Disaster
Recovery Initiative Program
Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the $288,000 received for the Wilmington/Hanby Beach area
as part of the Disaster Recovery Initiative grant could be used to reduce the individual cost for
persons living in the area.
Assistant County Manager Weaver responded that some of the funding could be used to
establish a low interest revolving loan program; however, it is questionable that residents living in this
area would meet the 50% low to moderate income criteria.
Status Report on Locating Meeting Rooms During Renovation of the Assembly Room
Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell, reported that she was in the process of locating a
meeting room for the months of February, March, April and May. She advised that once contacts
have been made to available places, the Board will be informed.
Discussion of Scheduling a Meeting with the Board of Education
After discussion of scheduling a meeting with the Board of Education, the Clerk to the Board
was directed to work out a meeting date. Commissioner Davis requested the Board to invite Dr. Eric
McKeithan to attend the meeting.
Expansion of the Greenspace Advisory Board by Two Members
Deputy County Manager Atkinson reported that at the retreat, the Board agreed to appoint
two additional members to the Greenspace Advisory Board, one member representing the City of
Wilmington and one member representing the New Hanover County Schools.
Consensus:
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board for the Chairman to write a letter
to Mayor Hicks and Mr. Edward Higgins, Chairman of the Board of Education.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion:
Commissioner Birzenieks MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Davis to adjourn.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Caster adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucie F. Harrell
Clerk to the Board