1994-12-05 Regular Meeting
""'Ill
~M~NUTES OF REGULAR M~ETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
. PAGE -'381
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular
Session on Monday, December 5, 1994, at 6:30 P.M. in the Assembly
Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third street,
Wilmington, North Carolina.
-
Members present were: Commissioners Sandra Barone; William A.
Caster; william E. sisson, Jr.; Vice-Chairman E. L. Mathews, Jr.;
Chairman Robert G. Greer; County Manager, Allen 0' Neal; County
Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F.
Harrell.
Chairman Greer welcomed everyone present and called the
meeting to order.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Reverend Thurman Gilchrist, Pastor of the Praise & Deliverance
Church, gave the invocation.
commissioner Caster led the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Barone requested a correction to the minutes of
the Regular Meeting of November 21, 1994, on Page 12 relative to
alternate members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment being required
to attend all meetings. She reported this is not realistic and
stated, in her opinion, this was not a consensus of the Board, but
only a topic of discussion; therefore, she would recommend a
correction to the minutes.
e
Chairman Greer and commissioner sisson reported, in their
opinion, it was a consensus of the Board.
commissioner Barone reported, if the other members of the
Board feel it was a consensus, she would prefer to vote no.
Motion: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
sisson to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November
21, 1994, and approve the minutes of the Closed Session of November
21, 1994, as presented by the Clerk to the Board. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster
commissioner Sisson
Vice-Chairman Mathews
Chairman Greer
Voting Nay: Commissioner Barone
After further discussion of the decision to require alternate
members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to attend all meetings,
Chairman G~eer requested Staff to place this item on the agenda for
December 19, 1994.
e
ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS OF OFFICE
COMMISSIONERS
The Clerk to. the Board, Lucie
of Office to Commissioner Robert G.
A. 'Caster.
TO
NEWLY
ELECTED
COUNTY
F. Harrell, administered Oaths
Greer and Commissioner william
RE-ELECTION OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT G. GREER TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD THE ENSUING YEAR
. County Attorney Copley opened the floor to receive nominations
for Chairman of the Board for the ensuing year.
commissioner Barone nominated commissioner Robert G. Greer.
The nomination was seconded by Commissioner E. L. Mathews, Jr.
, .
\ ,
,
'1.::
~
/
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 199'4'
PAGE' 382.
There being no further nominations, County Attorney Copley
declared the nominations closed.
County Attorney Copley called for vote on the nominee.
Vote: Upon vote, commissioner Robert G. Greer was UNANIMOUSLY re-
elected to serve as Chairman of the Board for the ensuing year.
RE-ELECTION OF COMMISSIONER E. L. MATHEWS, JR. TO SERVE AS VICE-
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR THE ENSUING YEAR
County Attorney Copley opened the floor to receive nominations
for Vice-Chairman of the Board for the ensuing year.
o
commissioner Caster nominated commissioner E. L. Mathews, Jr.
to serve as Vice-Chairman. The nomination was seconded by
Commissioner sisson.
There being no further nominations, County Attorney Copley
declared the nominations closed.
c~unty Attorney Copley called for a vote on the nominee.
\
Vote: ,Upon vote, commissioner E. L. Mathews, Jr. was UNANIMOUSLY
re-elected to serve as Vice-Chairman of the Board for the ensuing
year.
RE-ELECTION OF COMMISSIONER E. L. MATHEWS, JR. AS CHAIRMAN OF THE
DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER &
SEWER DISTRICT FOR THE ENSUING YEAR
County Attorney Copley opened the floor to receive nominations
for Chairman of the District Board of commissioners for the New
Hanover County Water & ,Sewer District.
commissioner Sisson nominated commissioner E. L. Mathews, Jr.
The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Caster.
o
There being no further nominations, County Attorney Copley
declared the nominations closed.
County Attorney Copley called for a vote on the nominee.
Vote: Upon vote, commissioner E. L. Mathews, Jr. was UNANIMOUSLY
re-elected to serve as Chairman of the District Board of
Commissioners of the New Hanover county Water & Sewer District for
the ensuing year.
RE-ELECTION OF COMMISSIONER SANDRA BARONE AS VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE
DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER &
SEWER DISTRICT FOR THE ENSUING YEAR
County Attorney Copley opened the floor to receive nominations
for Vice-Chairman of the District Board of Commissioners for the
New Hanover County Water & Sewer District.
Commissioner Caster nominated commissioner Sandra Barone. The
nomination was seconded by Chairman Greer.
There being no further nominations, County Attorney Copley
declared the nominations closed.
County Attorney Copley called for a vote on the nominee.
o
Vote: Upon vote, commissioner Sandra Barone was UNANIMOUSLY re-
elected to serve as the Vice-Chairman of the District Board of
commissioners of the New Hanover county Water & Sewer District for
the ensuing year.
BREAK
Chairman Greer called a break from 6:45 P.M. until 7:00 P.M.
e
e
e
~:
~;~,
,.' .
.....
,.
; ;::,,,~:, t;;"i::"'.'::.~'"',,',~,,,,
~9' ~'l!i;-~~~tl'f';~dt.11t~
~n,4S.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 383
NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general
public would like to present an item not listed on the Regular
Agenda or comment on an item listed on the Consent Agenda.
No items or comments were presented.
POSTPONEMENT OF ITEMS 3, 4, 5, AND 6 ON THE REGULAR AGENDA
'-Chairman Greer announced Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 on the Regular
Agenda have been removed due to the number of public hearings
scheduled to be heard tonight. These items will be placed on the
next agenda.
'ACTION DEFERRED UNTIL JANUARY 3, 1995, ON CONSIDERATION OF
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE CITY OF WILMINGTON
FOR THE PROPOSED PARKING DECK IF THE DOWNTOWN OFFICE BUILDING
,PROJECT IS TERMINATED BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1996
Chairman Greer reported in June, the city of Wilmington came
to the County and requested a funding appropriation for demolition
and,constr~ction of a parking deck. At that time, the County, in
,an effort. to 'work cooperatively with the city, voted to fund
$600,~00 to be paid over a period of five years to assist the City
in constructing a new parking deck and help defray the decreased
revenue that would be incurred by the City during the construction
period. As the process began to develop, the City and PPD could
not reach an agreement because the City became quite concerned
about the parking deck being demolished and the possibility that
the PPD project could fall through, which would leave the city
,without,a parking deck or construction of a building to generate
'tax revenues. since that time, an agreement was reached whereby
the city would demolish only one-third of the parking deck at an
approximate cost of $100,000; however, an additional $20,000 would
be needed to shore up the remaining portion of the parking decking.
'The demolished portion of the parking deck would be used as the
construction site for the proposed building. Even though the new
, agreement ,had been reached, the city would still be vulnerable if
'th~ PPD.project should be terminated. In an effort to assist the
-City, t~e County will consider tonight the payment of a sum not to
exceed $400,000 if the PPD project is terminated before December
31, 1996, through no fault of the city of Wilmington. If PPD
should terminate the project, this firm is prepared to provide a
Letter of Credit in the amount of $1,000,000 to the City, and the
County would pay the original $600,000 plus the additional $400,000
to help the City construct a parking deck somewhere in the downtown
area, whether on this site or on another lot.
Chafrman Greer opened the floor to receive comments and
allotted 10 minutes for persons to speak in favor of the project
and 10 mi~utes for persons to speak in opposition to the project.
Mr. Peter Fensel, representing the Committee of 100 and the
Chamber of Commerce, reported on the amount of time spent on the
.proposed project, which has been reviewed by attorneys, bankers,
and developers, who feel this is an excellent deal for the city.
Under -the proposed development, the city has been provided an
agreement with a small amount of risk and at the same an agreement
that wi~l allow the project to be constructed. One item to keep in
,mind when considering the proposed resolution is the fact that DARE
approached the city of Wilmington about the project, not PPD. DARE
h~s tried for the past ten years to find a suitable use for this
waterfront site that would replace the unsightly parking deck. A
"vIable project has been found with mixed uses and excellent design
for the waterfront site, but unfortunately, it appears the project
m~y fall through. The residents of the area can be assured that
-a'll guarantees and paperwork are in place before any portion of the
p~rking deck will be demolished. This is a quality project with
'excellent design, and a quality tenant, who will bring good jobs
'into the downtown area. The Commissioners were urged to consider
the additional $400,000 funding commitment to allow this project to
-move fqrward and enhance the entire downtown area.
'~_lltf.:'
A~~~i
.....
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 384
Mr. Ed Connelly, Vice-President of Ika Works, reported his
firm selected Wilmington over many other cities throughout the
nation through the efforts of the Committee of 100 and DARE. The
Commissioners were urged to support economic development in the
downtown area by approving the additional $400,000 funding
commitment to the city, which will allow the PPD project to move
forward.
" Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone
like to speak in opposition to the proposed project.
remarks were received.
present would
The following
Mr. Harper Peterson commented on everyone being in favor of
economic growth in the community and reported that real growth
demands specific strategies and sound management with a strong
commitment to a master plan developed with a community-wide
consensus. To realize the goals of the community, everyone must
understand where the downtown area is, from which it came, and
where it is going. Years ha'(e gone into developing downtown
Wilmington through dedicat!,!d persons committed to planning and
acceptable growth. Currently, the downtown area is a vital
commercial district with a mix of uses. The future is exciting and
challenging, but at the prese~~ time, there is no comprehensive
master plan to achieve desirable development. The city and County
now have an opportunity to plan fo~ the downtown area, specifically
the PPD project.
I
Mr. Peterson reported on support of PPD as a company, its
jobs, and the mixed use plan for the site, but expressed concern
for_not having a managed plan in place. The city's resolution
adopted on May 31, 1994, which provided a land-gift incentive for
PPD's corporate headquarters, has now evolved into the agreement of
November 8, 1994, which gave t~e. land to PPD for corporate
headquarters, an employment center, and "other" uses. Mr. Peterson
reported no one has or will qe~ine the meaning of an employment
center and other uses. It has simply become a speculative, private
real estate venture subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Why has PPD
continually refused to provide, in an appropriate confidential
manner, a full financial disclosure to the wilmington city Council?
When involving public property and money, why have the City and
County not expected as much from PPD as from other land or property
transactions? If the taxpayers are giving so much money, why is it
too much to request PPD to backup their good intentions, financial
stability, and growth expectations with evidence? The answer is
that this firm should provide this information. Now, the County is
considering the provision of an additional $400,000 in addition to
the already committed $600,000 of City and county taxpayer dollars
toward securing collateral for a private developer with very little
known about the firm's growth expectations. This project has
become a run-away train at every turn, and the process has not been
prudent or pragmatic, but a blur of fear, hopes, and generalities
of impending doom. PPD and the reported 200 hundred jobs will not
disappear. The downtown area has been thI;eatened, intimidated, and
mislead as a community. will PPD be the salvation, or the ruin of
the downtown area? At best the - company can be a part of the
downtown's healthy managed growth, or at worst the company could
leave a temporary void that' would soon be filled by other
interested and established businesses. In closing, the
Commissioners were urged to be thoughtful and thorough in aSking
and receiving answers to all questions involving taxpayer dollars,
and not reactive to a fast track process that has ended with the
present situation. He urged the .commi~sioners to make decisions
based upon sound business practice~ and common sense.
.,'
.' Mr. William Poole, a resident who moved from Raleigh to
Wilmington, informed the Board that he had moved to wilmington and
renovated an old building and house in downtown Wilmington. He
reported on his investment in. these properties and expressed
concern for the PPD project. As to ~he PPD pledge of a corporate
headquarters and the creation of 200 jobs, he feels the firm plans
o
o
o
. :'!
"Ill
t
,~ '~':
(.'~'~':~
,
r'{.:".,.f"""~;;_;,~ );;'r~',''''',,' , .
:~'1?"~ '~'t'01,1id:!;JJ" "",-,"'}~i,^j.;,~,:"'.~,~ii1?~\j,~<'~.~ 't,'~ .:1..
, ';';:~~')~ff,~",( ''':'t.''t::Y''T!'':;.~, ,,\' ',: 1."
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 385
e
to have a simple employment center which can be as few as two jobs.
As to the number of PPD employees in Wilmington, he would like to
see some unbiased confirmation of the precise number because he has
reason to believe this figure is much less than 200. PPD has not
asked for just any building site, but probably the most valuable
piece of available river front property in downtown Wilmington, and
the City has given the company the property. Also, the City and
County have agreed to improve the property by paying all related
costs for demolishing the existing parking deck plus a waiver of
fees, a waiver of taxes, and a new parking deck in excess of $10
million in subsidies and concessions. Now the City has asked PPD
to furnish an additional $2 million Letter of Credit against them
not fulfilling their obligation to construct the building, and PPD
has refused to furnish the letter.
e
< Mr. Poole stated this project is not about a corporate
headquarters or creating 200 good jobs, but the financing of a
private, speculative real estate deal with taxpayer funds. The
taxpayer has already been put at risk in this speculative real
estate venture, and now the County Commissioners appear to be
willing to consider guaranteeing the PPD project with $1 million of
taxpayer funds. In his opinion, the company who stands to gain
from this transaction should assume the financial obligations
involved, not the taxpayers. If this project is completed, the
estimated property taxes are approximately $200,000 of combined
City and County taxes per year. The annual interest on
construction cost for the parking deck equals $200,000 per year for
15 years. When and how will all of these expenses be met? Just
remember the City will have given away prime real estate, waived
normal impact fees, and given PPD a tremendous tax break. What
justifies this deal, and will the County and City be ready to offer
similar subsidies to the next developer who applies for this type
of deal? If not, how will the City and County explain why this
company was subsidized and not another company? In his opinion,
~~ough is enough and too much has alr~ady been given.
Chairman Greer read the following resolution:
Whereas, at a Special Meeting of the Board of
Commissioners on June 2, 1994, the County Commissioners
adopted a resolution authorizing New Hanover County to
participate in a joint venture with the city of Wilmington for
the demolition/construction of a downtown parking deck; and
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners authorized the County
Manager to enter into an agreement with the City of Wilmington
to provide funding not to exceed $600,000 over a five-year
period to offset the operating loss resulting from the
demolition/construction of the parking deck.
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners is now willing, under
certain conditions, to provide additional funding for the
proposed parking deck.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1.
If the downtown office building project is terminated
before December 31, 1996, through no fault of the city of
Wilmington, New Hanover County will pay the City a sum
not to exceed $400,000 to be applied toward the increased
expense incurred, or to be incurred by the City in
replacing parking downtown.
e
:<'
2.
The County Manager is authorized to enter into
agreement with the City of Wilmington incorporating
terms OD this resolution.
,
an
the
d'
commissioner Barone inquired as to whether the $400,000 is in
addition to the $600,000?
, '.
~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER.5, 1994
PAGE 386
Chairman Greer explained that the $600,000
commitment by the County, and the $400,000 will serve
to the city if the project should be terminated.
is a pledged
as a security
Vice-Chairman
proposal seven days
before adopting the
Mathews commented on
ago and requested more
proposed resolution.
receiving the latest
time to study the issue
Motion: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Sisson to delay action on the proposed resolution until the regular
meeting of January 3, 1995. The floor was opened for discussion.
o
commissioner Sisson reported, for the record, he does not
oppose the PPD project but he is concerned about the intensity of
the pressure to move quickly with the project. He has received
information that some people. have been pressured beyond a
reasonable point, and he, also, feels other points should be
clarified in terms of the firm's authenticity before making a final
decision.
Chairman Greer expressed concern for not taking action and
reported, in his opinion, postponing the decision will be a "no"
vote.
Vice-Chairman Mathews disagreed and reported 30 days is not an
unreasonable amount of time for PPD to wait so that ample time can
be provided for further study of this important matter.
commissioner Barone reported this is a city project, and the
Commissioners have previously pledged up to $600,000 over a five-
year period of time. Now, the County is considering an additional
$400,000 to better protect the City and make this a viable project
for the city, which will greatly increase the City's tax base. In
her. opinion, it would be reasonable for the county to expect
something in return, and she. would AMEND THE RESOLUTION to state
that during the term of this agreement, the City of Wilmington will
not annex the County taxpayers; because they are already
contributing to the downtown revitalization project. The City
should "not have both annexation and County funding for the PPD
project. .
o
After discussion of amending the resolution, Vice-Chairman
Mathews and Commissioner Sisson refused to AMEND THE MOTION to
include an amendment to the resolution as requested by Commissioner
Barone.
Upon vote, the MOTION TO DEFER ACTION ON THE PROPOSED
RESOLUTION until January 3, 1995, CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Commissioner Barone
Commissioner Sisson
Vice-Chairman Mathews
Voting Nay: Commissioner Caster
Chairman G:r::eer
commissioner Sisson reported, for the record, this vote does
not mean he is against the project, but he needs more time to
consider the resolution.
o
Vice-Chairman Mathews reported, for the record, he serves as
the county's representative on the Committee of 100 and that he is
very much in favor of economic. development; however, he needs more
t~me to study the aspects of this project.
commissioner Barone reported, for the record, she serves as
the County's representative on the'DARE Board of Directors and she
is very much in favor of economic development in downtown
Wilmington; however, she does not feel the City should have it both
ways.
e
e
e
., .~~[tU~~'.;v.~\I!,:i;' -::~~4\~:~Mt.~\.
I" -"'~\.~"~"~j;.',J~~:~. ;:~:..,
.....
J;l'
':'
l' \,~
f\' 'r;~;~~i~Wi\~~~\t4~~Ji ,i;~~~6'i;;~~)r,:~:,~\r;.t~,-.
"<'9"",;;",,,<,:,,,-,. ,,-,}il. ri' ,,10 ._,
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 387
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL BONDS AND ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED
RESOLUTIONS
County Attorney Copley reported copies of resolutions to
approve existing bonding of the Finance Officer, Sheriff, Register
of Deeds, ABC Board members handling funds, and the setting of an
amount for the Sheriff's bond have been presented to the Board.
She requested adoption of the resolutions.
Chairman Greer read the resolution pertaining to the bond
requirements for the ABC Board Members and requested a motion for
adoption of the resolution.
Motion: commissioner Caster, MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Barone to adopt the resolution as read and presented. Upon vote,
the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Greer read the resolution approving the bonds of the
Clerk of Superior Court of New Hanover County, New Hanover County
Finance Officer, New Hanover County Sheriff, Register of Deeds of
New Hanover County, ABC Board, and authorization for the Chairman
to certify said approval on the original of each Bond, with the
exception of the Bond for the Clerk to Superior Court, which is not
physically present in New Hanover County. He requested a motion
for adoption of the resolution.
Motion: commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson
to adopt the bond resolution as read and presented. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Greer read the resolution determining the required
Sheriff's Bond to be in the amount of $5,000. He requested a
motion for adoption of the resolution.
Motion:
Mathews to
presented.
-'~.
commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman
adopt the resolution for the Sheriff's bond as read and
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
"
Copies of the resolutions are hereby incorporated as a part of
the minutes and are contained i~ Exhibit Book XXII, Page 24.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Greer requested approval of the Consent Agenda with
removal of Item 1, the minutes, which have already been approved.
Motion: commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson
to approve the Consent Agenda items as presented. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
voting Aye: Commissioner Caster
commissioner Sisson
Vice-Chairman Mathews
Chairman Greer
Voting No: Commissioner Barone
Commissioner Barone reported, for the record, she voted no
because she could not support the relocation of County Departments
as recommended by the County Manager in Item 6 on the Consent
Agenda.
Approval of a county Match in the Amount of $2,000 to the
D~partment of Aging Emergency Fund and Approval of Budget Amendment
#95-0086
The Commissioners approved a County match of $2,000 and the
following Budget Amendment to the Department of Aging Emergency
F.und to be used to assist moderate to low-income elderly persons
who cannot pay for required medications.
~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 388
Budget Amendment 95-0086 - Non-Departmental - Aging
Debit
Credit
Non-Departmental
contingencies .
$2,000
Medical Supplies
$2,000
Approval of Budget Amendment #95-0095 to Move Debt Service from the
Environmental Management Fund to the General Fund
The Commissioners approved the following Budget Amendment to
move debt service from the Environmental Management Fund to the
General Fund as recommended during the annual audit by McGladrey &
Pullen.
95-0095 Non-Departmental/Environmental Management
Debit
Credit
Non-Departmental Transfer to Other Funds
Transfers Out-Environmental Management
$609,452
Non-Departmental Principle on Bonded Debt
Principle on Bonded Debt
'$465,000
Non-Departmental Interest on Bonded Debt
$144,452
Environmental Manaqement/Landfill Operations
Debt Service $609,452
Environmental Manaqement
Transfer In/General Fund
$609,452
Adoption of Proclamation Declaring January as "UNC-TV MONTH" in New
Hanover county
The Commissioners adopted a proclamation declaring January as
UNC-TV MONTH in New Hanover County.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as a part of
the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXII, Page 24.
Ratification of Appointment of virginia Gorman to Serve on the
criminal Justice partnership Advisory Board
The Commissioners ratified the appointment of Virginia Gorman
to serve on the Criminal Justice Partnership Advisory Board as the
representative for the Substance Abuse Category. She will replace
Mary Kelly.
Approval for Relocation of county Departments
The Commissioners approved the relocation of the following
departments as recommended by the County Manager:
1. Moving the Planning Department to the third floor of the
County Administration Annex Building from the fourth
floor of the County Administration Building.
2.
Move the Human Resources Department to the fourth floor
of the County Administration Building from the third
floor of the County Administration Annex Building.
Move Human Relations to 402 Chestnut Street (the recently
acquired old restaurant) from the fourth floor of the
County Administration Building.
4. Move the management staff of Property Management to the
Property Management Building on Division Drive from the
third floor of the County Administration Annex Building.
3 .
These moves will require minor alterations in the County
Manager's office to allow the creation of a new office for the new
Budget Analyst position. Also, the MIS support Division and
o
o
o
e
e
e
..I ,. ,~"gt:.-r,' ,jt~1'~~"~;i%i!~" ~!i~ .yli'~"
"'II
,/t-
'." ,.",".' " '. ,
"Jr'~djt~~~~l ~i:"ii~'flit-.;,~,.~ ,~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 389
Communication Division will have to move from one end on the fourth
floor of the County Administration Building to the other end.
Adoption of Resolution Requesting the Addition of Orchard Trace
Road to the state Highway system
The Commissioners adopted a resolution requesting the addition
of Orchard Trace Road to the state Highway System.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of
the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXII, Page 24.
Adoption of Project Ordinance and
Kirkland community Revitalization
The Commissioners adopted
following Budget Amendment
Revitalization Project:
#95-23 for the
Budget Amendment
project
a Project
for the
Ordinance
Kirkland
and the
Community
95-23 Kirkland Revitalization project - capital Project Ordinance
Debit
Credit
Kirkland Revitalization proiect
Transfer from Fund 110
Transfer from Fund 800
CDGB Grant
$ 80,000
$706,627
$850,000
Kirkland Revitalization proiect
Construction
Planning/Administration
$1,611,627
$ 25,000
commissioners
Appropriated Fund Balance
$ 80,000
.:
Non-Departmental
Transfer to Capital Projects
$
80,000
Purpose: To establish project budget according to the Capital
.. Project Ordinance. The Board of County Commissioners approved the
. gr~J1t funding agreement for the Kirkland Community Project on
November 21, 1994.
A copy of the Project Ordinance is hereby incorporated as a
part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXII, Page 24.
Budget Amendment 95-0081 Reported for Entry Into the Minutes
The following Budget Amendment was approved by the Budget
Officer and is being reported for entry into the minutes:
95-0081 Human Services Transportation
Debit
Credit
,Human Services Transportation
"
, DOT~18-B-2 Vans (Federal)
DOT Vans-18 (State)
$37,658
$ 8,070
Human Services Transportation
Motor Vehicles
TDP Match
$47,341
$ 1,613
,Purpose: To record vans received in FY 1995 from a FY 1994 grant.
, Approval of Modified Grant Agreement for State Airport Funding -
~hase II Terminal Expansion
"',:' The Commissioners approved the fifth modified grant agreement
",for State Airport funding in the amount of $300,000 for the Phase
",II Terminal Expansion. The Chairman was authorized to execute the
~grant agreements.
.
,
A copy of the grant agreement is on file at the Airpo~t.
~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER S, 1994
PAGE 390
PRESENTATION BY THE U. S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONCERNING MAINTENANCE
OF THE NAVIGATION CHANNEL IN MASONBORO INLET
Colonel Robert J. Spearberg expressed appreciation to the
Commissioners for an opportunity to present the concerns of the
Corps of Engineers about the dredging of the Masonboro Inlet
navigation channel. Conditions now exist that will require action
to stabilize the channel, improve navigation safety, and eliminate
potential for structural failure of the south jetty. The County is
being requested to review and reaffirm its commitment as the
project sponsor in accordance with previously adopted resolutions
so the Corps can begin the project next year. New Hanover County
became the non-federal sponsor of the project by a resolution
adopted in 1956, in which the County committed to provide without
cost all lands, easements, rights-of-way, spoil disposal areas
necessary for the construction and subsequent maintenance of the
project. Since 1980, the sand spit on the south end of
Wrightsville Beach has forced the Masonboro Inlet Channel to
migrate to the south. It is the feeling of the Corps that
conditions have progressed to a point where action must be taken as
soon as possible to realign the channel at Masonboro Inlet. He
requested Mr. James T. Carper, Chief of proj ect Management, to
explain the proposed project.
Mr. Carper reported Masonboro Channel was authorized in 1949
to provide a channel of 14 feet in depth, 400 feet wide, across the
ocean bar with the stabilization of the channel being provided by
the construction of two jetties, one on either side of the channel
entrance. New Hanover County became the project sponsor in 1956
with the first dredging being in 1958. The north jetty was
constructed in 1966 with completion of the south jetty in 1980.
Since the construction of the south jetty, the accreti'on has
accumulated on the south end of the beach in a spit area as shown
on the map and has pushed the channel southward toward Masonboro
Island with the current channel aligning down along the south
jetty. Navigation has become restricted and there is concern about
the safety of navigation with the present alignment of the channel
and the closeness of this alignment to the south jetty. If this
condition continues, the following items will occur:
1. The spit will continue to grow and migrate to the south
toward Masonboro Island or possibly turn into the
Masonboro Channel pushing the channel more to the south
and creating more severe problems for navigation.
2. The channel will become more restricted and narrowed with
possible undermining of the south jetty, which will be a
costly repair.
3. A breach could occur on the back side of Masonboro
Island.
The proposed action is to realign the channel in its original
position which is in the center of the two jetties. In order to
accomplish this project, the following items must occur: (1) all
environmental requirements and clearances must be met; (2) the
Corps must comply to the Coastal Zoning Management Act; and (3) New
Hanover County must sponsor the project to provide the necessary
easements and rights-of-way for the project and hold the government
harmless from any damages that may arise.
Mr. Carper reported he would be glad to answer any questions..
A lengthy discussion was held on the channel and its present
danger to boats using the inlet.. Also discussion was held on the
need for the county to sponsor the project.
Chairman Greer agreed with the need to maintain the inlet, but
expressed concern for the County being potentially liable for any
land reclaimed by this project.
o
o
o
""II
t" ';;
! ~;-, (r}$r!'i~~~~~J.~-rr ,~!,tl5'&~\~I<;
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 391
Mr. Ed Shue, representing the U. S. Corps of Engineers,
reported if the County should decide not to sponsor the project,
the following options would be available to the Corps:
(1) The navigation project for Masonboro Inlet would be
eliminated and the inlet would not be maintained by th~
Corps of Engineers, which could result in removal of the
jetties because they could become a navigational hazard;
e
(2) New Hanover County and the U. S. Corps of Engineers will
probably have lawsuits filed from the proposed project;
however, legal counsel has advised the Corps that the
federal government has the right to perform the project
and this right will be sustained in court. This approach
would not be taken by the Corps if it did not feel this
project was defensible in court.
commissioner Caster reported the Navigational Servitude Act
would probably be upheld by the courts for the U. S. Corps of
Engineers; however, the County being the liable party for reclaimed
land is a different matter and this issue may not be upheld by the
, courts.
Mr. Shue reported,
right (eminent domain)
property because of the
at. Masonboro Inlet.
, '
the Corps views this matter as a federal
that provides authority to condemn the
previously authorized navigation projects
Cha.irman Greer inquired as to why the County should be held
liable if the Court upholds the right for the Corps to take the
land?
e
Mr. Shue responded the County would be liable because of its
sponsorship.
- ,
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the project would be
performed by 'the Corps if the' County refused to sponsor the
PFo,j ect?
';...i>
Mr. Shue reported the project could be~performed by the Corps
wi thout the County's sponsorship; however, it is doubtful the
project would be performed. If this should happen, the County
would still be a partner in any lawsuit, which is not the route the
Corps would like to take. There are many other negative outcomes
other than lawsuits that will occur if the channel is not
realigned, such as flanking of the jetty, the increased
navigational risk and the potential for overwash on Masonboro
Island.
County Attorney Copley disagreed with Mr. Shue about the issue
of the County being a partner in a lawsuit if the County decided
not to sponsor the project.
Mr. Shue r~ported if the Corps should move forward with the
project, the 1956 resolution would be the basis for the County
being a partner in the lawsuit.
e,
County Attorney Copley, again disagreed, because of the
Statute of Limitations and reported when discussing this matter
with the Corps' general counsel, the cases on record were not
Atlantic Coast cases, but river cases; therefore, there are no
cases on file that address this particular issue.
Mr. Carper reported the channel is being dredged under the
federal Navigational Servitude Act; therefore, the "sponsorship"
and "hold harmless" issues come into play. The property owners
could pursue action for damages and New Hanover County would be
liable if damages were found.
~
/
"
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 392
Discussion was held on the severity of the economic impact
dollar-wise if the channel realignment project is not performed.
Mr. Tom Jarrett, a representative of the Corps of Engineers,
reported the original purpose of the project was for commercial
fishing; however, the inlet is now used predominately for
recreation. If the inlet closed, this would be a significant
impact on commercial fishing and recreational fishing which does
generate a large amount of revenue for the County and its
residents. Also, if the project was abandoned, the jetties would
have to be removed because of the impact on Masonboro Island and
potential damage to the beaches.
commissioner Barone reported after the election of the new
President in 1992, the U. S. Corps of Engineers was downsized with
discussion held on relocating the local office to Norfolk,
Virginia. In her opinion, relocation of this office would be
detrimental to the entire Cape Fear region. As to the channel, it
is imperative that the channel be realigned and kept open due to
its contribution to the economy.
Motion: After further discussion, commissioner Barone MOVED,
SECONDED by commissioner Caster to authorize New Hanover County to
sponsor the project as outlined by the U. S. Corps of Engineers,
and if lawsuits are filed, these cases will be addressed jointly by
the County and U. S. Corps of Engineers. The floor was opened for
discussion.
Assistant County Manager, Dave Weaver, requested clarification
of navigational servitude and asked if the Corps performs
condemnation, does this mean that the County does not have to
provide any compensation for the properties that have been
condemned?
Mr. Carper reported the Navigational Servitude Act recognizes
the navigation channel as originally placed; therefore, the
property has encroached into the channel which is considered
federal property. If a court should rule differently, the Corps
would h~ve interpreted the act incorrectly.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
voting Aye: Commissioner Barone
Commissioner Caster
commissioner Sisson
Vice-Chairman Mathews
Voting Nay: Chairman Greer
commissioner Caster requested a brief explanation from the
Corps of Engineers about the erosion problems being experienced at
Shell Island.
Mr. Tom Jarrett commented on discussion held with persons at
the Shell Island Resort and reported qn the limited options because
of North Carolina regulations governing hard structures. From an
engineering point' of view, the solution would involve the
construction of some type of structure, such as a terminal groin
similar to the one constructed at the north end of Oregon Inlet.
The groin would offer a permanent solution to the problem, but in
order to move forward with such a project, a variance would have to
be obtained from the Coastal Resources Commission. During the
interim period, the time remaining for the Shell Island Res?rt is
growing short before Mason's Inlet encroaches upon them. After
discussion .with John O'Malley, another 90 feet of beach was lost
during the tropical storm Gordon, 'which reduced the distance from
the inlet to the northern corner of the resort to 150 feet. Once
the inlet does encroach upon the facility, the Coastal Resources
Commission will allow the placement of sand bags along the front of
the resort, which will not be very effective. One alternative is
the possibility of entering into a channel relocation by cutting a
o
o
o
e
e
[e
""Ill
"> "
:",.
"" .
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 393
channel from the Intracoastal Waterway through the existing Mason's
Creek out across the submerged sand spit that lies off of the south
end of Figure Eight Island. This process would move the channel
northward, which would displace the process back in time for a few
years; however, the erosion process would not be stopped. This
dredging project would cost approximately three to five million
dollars.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the County could dredge
Masonboro Inlet and Mason's Inlet?
Mr. Jarrett reported the County could dredge Masonboro Inlet
after obtaining all the necessary environmental permits. In order
to dredge Mason's Inlet, there is a complicated environmental
permitting process because the land is under the Coastal Resource
Barrier Resource Act, which does prohibit the expenditure of
federal funds in the area, except for navigation.
Chairman Greer reported, in his opinion, the problem at
Mason's Inlet was caused by dredging that occurred behind Figure
Eight Island, which now allows the water to flow in a north/south
direction and cuts off the northern end of Wrightsville Beach.
.Also, tidal flushing is not occurring because of the channel being
so restricted; therefore, it would be beneficial to dredge the
inlet and allow the water to flow back into the creeks and preserve
the north end of the beach.
!
Mr. Jarrett commented on the history of Mason's Inlet since
1938 and reported the inlet was originally located on Figure Eight
Island; therefore, the inlet has moved over a mile in 50 years.
.Much of this movement occurred before the dredging, and there is
~evidence to prove that the dredging had a negative impact on the
movement of the inlet. It appears the problem occurred with the
'c~ogging of connecting channels which moved the inlet. The Corps
feels cleaning out Mason's Creek and moving the inlet channel
"northward would buy some time for the northern end of Wrightsville
;iBeach.
3
Chairman Greer, on behalf of the Board, expressed appreciation
to the Corps of Engineers for presenting the informative report.
BREAK
Chairman Greer called a break from 8:25 P.M. until 8:31 P.M.
CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY PHILIP
OWENSBY TO REZONE 1.92 ACRES AT 2016 FARLEY ROAD TO B-2 BUSINESS
FROM AR AIRPORT RESIDENTIAL (Z-510, 10/94)
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported he had just learned
that the petitioner would like to continue this case until January
3, 1995, because of an impact by another case being processed
through the Planning Board, listed as Parcel G on the map included
in the agenda packet.
,
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general
public would be opposed to postponement of the case as requested by
the petitioner?
1:.;::
No opposition was received from the general public.
Motion: Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster
t~o," continue this case to January 3, 1995, as requested by the
petitioner. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
~-' '?>f'~~
'PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY LANDMARK TO REZONE 184.84
ACRES ON ,THE EAST,SIDE OF NORTH COLLEGE ROAD SOUTH OF SIDBURY ROAD
AND WEST OF 1-40 TO CONDITIONAL USE 1-1 INDUSTRIAL (31.7 ACRES) AND
GENERAL USE'I-1 INDUSTRIAL (153.14 ACRES) FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL (Z-
585,,10/94; REY~SED,APPLICATION) . '
'<1'd Chairman<Gre~r opened th.e Public .Heanng and repor~ed the
Conaitional Use Dlstrlct requlres the lssuance of a Speclal Use
{
'i' 1"';
....4
M:!,NUTEj:! OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 394
Permit; therefore, anyone wishing to testify must be sworn in by
the Clerk to the Board.
The following persons were sworn in:
Dexter Hayes, Director of Planning
W. Chris Stephens
Margaret Gray
Dan Dawson
James B. Register
Janet C. Davis
Hanson Matthews
o
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board
voted to approve a modification of the applicant's request. The
Board supported the establishment of a conditional use industrial
district around the perimeter of Pumpkin Creek Estates and a
general use industrial district on each side of the right-of-way of
the planned Wilmington By-pass. It was recommended that the area
occupied by the by-pass right-of-way remain zoned R-15 Residential.
The conditional use portion of the application was approved
pursuant to the site plan as submitted by the applicant. Several
property owners in the area spoke and expressed concerns with
impacts created by the eventual development of the site, such as
increased traffic along Blue Clay Road and North College Road;
disturbance of wetlands on the site; and an increase in off-site
stormwater.
Planning Director Hayes informed the Board that two actions
~ust be taken: (1) approval of the proposed zoning based upon the
request being consistent with the policies and plans of New Hanover
County; and (2) approval of the Special Use Permit for establishing
the conditional use zoning.
Chairman Greer requested an explanation of the area that will
be established for the conditional use zoning.
o
Planning Director Hayes informed the Board that lots 1-12 will
be the area proposed for Conditional Use 1-1.
The following preliminary findings of fact by the Planning
Board and Planning Staff were presented:
General Reauirement #1: The proposed 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 has direct access to Blue Clay Road.
b. Water and sewer services are available to serve the intended
uses.
c. The site is located in the Castle Hayne Volunteer Fire
Department.
General Reauirement #2. The proposed use meets all required
conditions and specifications of the zoning Ordinance based upon
the following findings:
0,
a. The site plan as submitted illustrates that buffering, setbacks,
and related standards equal or exceed minimum requirements.
e
e
e\
, ,
~';..!""m'
"Ill
""ft!:t1~ ("i;'J," !-.{ ~~~- ~ '"'-t
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 395
d. A general inventory of on-site vegetation has been provided.
Currently, the site consists of a mixture of loblolly pines, oaks,
and sweetgums. A specific inventory of protected trees will be
required prior to any lot clearance.
e. Traffic generation: The applicant estimates that the site will
generate 11.3 vehicle trips per acre during weekdays.
f. No minimum lot size is required by the ordinance.
plan indicates that the 12 lots proposed will range in
1.75 acres to 4.8 acres.
The site
size from
g. The site is not within the 100 Year Flood Plain.
h. Individual structures are not sited for each lot; instead, an
illustration is provided that depicts a worse case scenario: a
four-story building with a footprint of approximately 130 feet by
55 feet.
i. The site plan also shows all existing easements that encumber
the property.
General Requirement #3. The proposed 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 proposed project is adjacent to Pumpkin Creek Acres, a
small single-family subdivision. To preserve the integrity of that
project, the applicant proposes to leave a 60 foot strip of land
zoned residential to serve as a natural buffer from planned
'industrial uses. This strip would be in addition to other setback
"an& buffer standards applied for uses on the planned industrial
'lot's.
b. Othe~ nearby properties are either zoned B-2 Business, vaca~t,
e~cumbered by a major electrical transmission line, or in the path
. of' .the proposed Wilmington By-pass.
;.-1.
General Reciuirement #4: The proposed use 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. A variety of land uses is located in the general area. The
site is adjacent to residential uses and a partially developed B-1
Business District. The site is also near NorthChase's Industrial
Park; a sewage treatment plant; a major electrical transmissiori
'line and substation; and a major interstate and part of the route
for the planned Wilmington By-pass.
other Conditions:
..,k
1. All other applicable federal, state and local law.
2. Provide a 40 foot buffer adjacent to residential property
reg<lrdl.ess, of whether a "Residential Use" is in
(specifically, section 1 and 2 of Pumpkin Creek Acres).
{. ."
areas
place
3.' Provide' an additional 60-foot restricted use area adjacent to
Lots l-ll/Block 6 and Tract B/Block 5 of section 2, Pumpkin Creek
L , ' ;.. .
A<::res. ,:
4. The following permitted uses in the 1-1 District shall be
e~iminated for consideration to the Conditional Use District:
a) Livestock
b) Livestock Feedlots
c) Dry'~r~aning/Laundry Plant
.....
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 396
d) stables
e) septic Tank Vacuum Services
f) Demolition/Landscape Landfill
g) Adult Entertainment Establishments
h) Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles
5. Restrictive covenants will be recorded which govern
architectural appearance (building styles and materials).
6. The following uses in rear and side yards shall be shielded
from view from the property line of the residential use by means of
a 100% opaque screening:
a) Dumpsters
b) outside storage areas
c) Loading/unloading areas
7. outside
light from
residential
light fixtures shall be shielded in
the fixture will not directly
use buffer strip or beyond.
such a manner that
radiate into the
8. Subsequent development in the Conditional Use Zone will require
strict adherence to the companion Special Use Permit. (No building
permit shall be issued otherwise.) The Inspections Director shall
enforce this provision.
9. Restrictive covenants and architectural review will be
conducted/enforced by the property owner and/or association.
10. Maximum building height of 40 feet.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the petitioner would
like to comment. The following remarks were received.
Mr. W. Chris Stephens, Vice-President of Landmark Developers,
reported on the time required to prepare the plan and expressed
appreciation to the Planning Staff for their assistance in helping
to develop a very creative and detailed zoning request. Many
meetings have been. in the community and every effort has been made
to develop a plan that will be acceptable to the surrounding
neighborhoods. He reported on the changes that have occurred in
this area and the concern of residents about drainage, increased
traffic, noise from the outer loop, and EMF concerns from the
Carolina Power & Light power station. It is felt the proposed plan
will help to address these concerns. The property is bound
completely on one side by I-40 with a CP&L power station in the
middle of the property that covers 18 acres of the tract, and the
plans for the northern outer loop will divide the property in half.
The property will provide buffering for any use, and the petitioner
concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Board except for
requiring the area within the proposed northern outer loop right-
of-way to remain zoned R-15 Residential. This requirement is
questionable as to legality since the County has no financial
interest in the area and Landmark is planning for location of the
road. The Planning Board did have a problem with involving the
County ih the value of property for the northern outer loop right-
of-way. Officially, no one knows exactly where the outer loop will
be located and Landmark would like to request the Commissioners to
give additional consideration for rezoning this right-of-way area
because Landmark could possibly be left with a piece of R-15 land
between two pieces of commercial property that would be useless.
Chairman Greer inquired as to why conditional zoning should be
in one area if the remaining portion of the property is not going
to be rezoned?
Planning Director Hayes explained that the right-of-way
acquisition, as indicated between the dotted lines on the map, was
proposed by the N. C. Department of Transportation. Jhe Planning
Board's recommendation was that the area wi thin the proposed
o
o
o
~]:,,"';,,;,""h~:,;';'.~ ;.."
"'Il
'. '
;,'" 1>~>hi't~' r,:; ,,"'... /:t
. ','
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 397
e
boundaries of the right-of-way for the Northern outer Loop
interchange be excluded from the rezoning and remain R-15, which
would leave an industrial piece of property on the souths ide of the
proposed right-of-way, and an industrial piece of property on the
northside of the right-of-way with the remaining area shown in
white being part of the Conditional Use 1-1 District. As
referenced by Mr. stephens, the Planning Board was concerned about
the impact of the zoning changes on the future acquisition and
development of the property for the Northern Outer Loop.
Mr. stephens requested Ms. Margaret Gray to present more
details about the proposed plan.
e
Ms. Margaret Gray, an engineer representing Landmark, reported
after holding meetings with adjoining property owners, many
concessions have been made by the petitioner and are attached to
the Special Use Permit. The petitioner has identified drainage,
traffic, buffers, permitted uses, facility operations and the
enforcement of these provisions within the Conditional Use Permit.
The site will be designed with a central pond as required by the
State with a controlled discharge rate to address drainage
concerns. The pond will be located in a manner that will allow
section 2, Pumpkin Creek residents to continue to use a private
drainage ditch. As to traffic, a right-turn lane will be provided
off of Blue Clay Road, if permitted by the Department of
Transportation, and the entrance road will be aligned an equal
distance from adjacent intersections to promote safe
maneuverability and vehicular visibility. Also, the entrance road
will be aligned with an existing road to avoid impacts on
individual residents. As to buffering, the plan will provide the
minimum 40 foot buffer adjacent to residential property plus a 60
foot R-15 restricted use area which will create a 100 foot minimum
.buffer from residential property. The facility operations will be
~shrelded from the property line of the adjacent residential
properties .by an opaque screen, and the outside lighting will be
'shielded to avoid a nuisance to adjacent residential properties.
Enforcement and conditions of'the use are outlined in the
'Conditional Use Permit.
,~. :l(.'t ~.'
commissioner sisson inquired as to whether there is a
provision for professional maintenance of the retention pond?
Ms. Gray responded there will be maintenance of the retention
pond.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general
public would like to speak in opposition to the proposed rezoning.
,
The following remarks were received:
e
Mr. James Register, a resident of 4501 Blue Clay Road since
'1963, reported when he moved to this area, he thought the property
would always remain residentially zoned. He commented on the
covenants to his property and stated when the County zoning became
effective in 1973, the homeowners did not extend the covenants
beibause they did not feel the covenants would be needed. Now,
there is a plan at his front door that will open the entire area to
commercial development. After meeting with Landmark numerous times
with a different plan proposed each time, he still has not seen the
plar being proposed tonight. In his opinion, this is an example of
1 overkill with the NorthChase Industrial Park, Burton Steel
corporation, .and 160 acres near Prince George Estates that are
,. commercially zoned and have not been developed. The plan being
.. proposed will not compliment his property or the property of his
n~ighbors. Tne'Co~issioners were requested to deny the plan being
p~oposed by Landmark.
are
>
}
'.,
Commissioner sisson inquired as to
opposed t~ the proposed rezoning?
,..
{
how many property owners
.....
/
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 398
Mr. Register reported there are approximately 12 property
owners who are strongly opposed to the rezoning request plus an
additional 20 other people in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether Landmark had a copy of
the plan so that Mr. Register could see that some of the concerns
have been worked out among the citizens?
Mr. Stephens reported Mr. Register had participated and
attended the various meetings. The only change being requested is
allowing the right-of-way property to be rezoned instead of
remaining R-15 Residential recommended by the Planning Board.
Mr. Hanson Matthews reported for the past three years, his
company has been marketing the property. After contacting major
residential developers in North Carolina and other states, not one
company has chosen to develop the property for residential use.
After making follow-up calls, 'the developers felt the property
would not market well for residential use because it is located
between major thoroughfares, major transmission lines, and an
interstate highway. Also, the property is very desirable as an
area for business and light industry along the I-40 corridor and
future outer loop. The existing Pumpkin Creek neighborhood will be
buffered from the business and light industry on the interstate
side of the current property; however, the 187 acres cannot be
buffered from raised interstate extensions, acceleration lanes and
crossover ramps. In his opinion, this property is ideally suited
for the proposed project. After reviewing the deeds of Pumpkin
Creek, he has not seen any restrictions on the 187 acres. Also,
Mrs. Betsy Wallace, Mrs. Currin's daughter, has attended all
meetings and shares the feelings and conviction~ that will be
expressed by her sister, Janet C. Davis, since the land has been in
the family for 40 years.
Ms. Janet Currin Davis, Betsy Wallace's sister and co-owner of
Pumpkin Creek Acres, reported this land has been in the family for
45 years. Through the years, Highway 132 and Interstate I-40 have
taken much of the area; therefore, her mother and father's desire
for a large residential development is not possible, and she and
the members of the family are very much in favor of the development
plan being proposed by Landmark.
There being no further comments, Chairman Greer closed the
Public Hearing.
Motion: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Caster to approve the Conditional Use Zoning. 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 AND 8B OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 7, 1972" is hereby incorporated as a
part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, section 8-
A, Page 20.
Chairman Greer asked the petitioner if he concurred with the
findings of fact as presented by the Planning Director, including
the conditions.
Mr. Stephens agreed with the findings of fact and conditions
as presented by the Planning Director.
Commissioner Sisson requested adding another condition to the
Special Use Permit that will require the petitioner to abolish or
move the wire fence along the Blue Clay Road frontage behind the
buffer strip.
Mr. Stephens responded that Landmark has no interest in
keeping the wire fence; however, at the request of the neighbors or
o
o
o
e
e
e
.;J,. ~"1".(?,:<~f; ~':J" rl':}11/~(J':"Ii_'l"" ~.
"'Il
""~'
''l .:.;.
, Y_'~' ',,. . ." ~_
..,': (1t~~t~~ ~~-l~l't~ ,.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 399
at the desire of Landmark, he would like the right to construct a
much nicer structure along the road frontage on Blue Clay Road.
Commissioner sisson reported the condition would not preclude
placement of a better fence or structure along the road frontage.
Motion: Commissioner sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman
Mathews to grant the Special Use Permit with the conditions agreed
upon including removal of the wire fence along the road frontage on
Blue clay Road based upon the evidence presented demonstrating 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 and approved; the proposed use meets all required
conditions and specifications of the Ordinance; the proposed use
will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property; and
the proposed use 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 9.
Chairman Greer requested direction from the Board as to the
back portion of the property and if any or all of the property
should be rezoned. The Planning Board has recommended that the
area occupied by the by-pass right-of-way remain zoned R-15
Residential.
Commissioner Sisson inquired as to whether the area in
question for the by-pass right-of-way is a firm access proposal?
Planning Director Hayes explained that the northern outer loop
is firm from 1-40 East; however, there is still some debate as to
the route once the loop leaves 1-40, which will be decided by the
;'Department of Transportation by the end of the year. This highway
project is different because it is part of the TIP and is listed in
N. C. Legislation for the Highway Trust Fund that was approved by
the General Assembly. The Department of Transportation has chosen
,'the southern route as the preferred alternative, but the final
document has not been published.
Commissioner Sisson asked if the southern alternative route
would move the proposed access?
Planning Director Hayes responded that the southern route will
not greatly impact the access. Staff's recommendation was to wait
until a final decision had been made on the route of the northern
outer loop, or include this area as part of the conditional zoning
with the reservation that the area be reserved for the right-of-way
for a minimum period of time in order to avoid any problems with
,permits being requested for the area.
.'
Chairman Greer inquired as to the purpose of leaving the area
zoned R-15 Residential?
Planning Director Hayes responded that Staff did not agree
with the recommendation by the Planning Board, and in his opinion,
a better recommendation would be to include the area in the
industrial zoning under the conditional use portion of the request
with the reservation of the right-of-way or defer action until the
a~ignment of the northern outer loop is finalized..
,},~;'
Motion: After further discussion,
SECONDED by Commissioner Caster to
acres from R-15 Residential to 1-1
ope~e? for di~cussion.
commissioner Barone MOVED,
rezone the remaining 153.14
Industrial. The floor was
Commissioner Sisson expressed concern for rezoning the entire
tract industrial with building permits being issued before knowing
, I..
...oIIl
/
/
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER S, 1994
PAGE 400
the exact boundaries of the northern outer loop, which means the
state could later come in and condemn the property.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
voting Aye: Commissioner Barone
Commissioner Caster
Vice-Chairman Mathews
Chairman Greer
o
Voting Nay: Commissioner Sisson
A copy of "AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP OF ZONING AREA NO. 8A AND 8B OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 7, 1972," is hereby incorporated as a
part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, section 8B,
Page 42.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY MILDRED GANTT TO REZONE S.6
ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF CAROLINA BEACH ROAD NORTH OF GOLDEN ROAD
TO CONDITIONAL USE B-2 BUSINESS FOR A GIFT SHOP AND RETAIL NURSERY
FROM R-1S RESIDENTIAL (Z-S14, 1194)
Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing and reported the
Conditional Use District requires the issuance of a Special Use
Permit; therefore, anyone wishing to testify must be sworn in by
the Clerk to the Board.
The following persons were sworn in:
Dexter Hayes, Planning Director
Ms. Mildred Gantt
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board
recommended a conditional use district at this site in recognition
of the existing use and the fact that the planned expansion was
relatively small. The Planning Board did not feel the entire site
should be rezone to B-2 Business and recommended the site be
rezoned to Conditional Use B-1 to a depth of 300 feet.
o
Planning Director Hayes presented the following preliminary
findings of fact:
General Requirement #1: The proposed 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 will utilize an existing well and septic tank for
water and sewer services.
b. The site is located in the Myrtle Grove Volunteer Fire
Department District.
c. The property has direct access to Carolina Beach Road. No
modifications to existing driveway connections are anticipated.
c. The facility does not process, sale or store any known
hazardous wastes or chemicals.
o
General Requirement #2: The proposed use will meet all required
conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance based upon
the following findings of fact:
a. A site specifying the existing and planned uses has been
submitted.
b. Setbacks, off-street parking, signage and related design
requirements can be met.
e
e
e
t-~''-'M;.r.~l~''~~~~i;~; 'W::-,~l';jh.;',1,.,
,
~, '
"III
1"\"';(~",,~'iI\;;~~ ~'(~t.:.~~.-:.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 401
c. The minimum area needed to establish a free-standing B-2
District is 5 acres. The site contains 5.6 acres.
d. No specific development schedule is known.
e. The site is not located within the 100 Year Flood Plain.
f. No estimated traffic counts are provided; however, the total
area of existing and planned commercial square footage would not
create high volumes of traffic.
General Reauirement #3: The proposed 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. There are very few residential structures in the general area.
The applicant lives in a house located behind the gift shop.
b. The gift shop has been in operation for a number of years.
General Reauirement #4: 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. Most adjoining lands are undeveloped.
general area include a church, convenience
center and scattered residential uses.
other uses in the
food store, shopping
b. Except for the small addition, the proposed activities would be
located in the existing gift shop.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the petitioner would
like to comment. The following remarks were received:
Ms'. Gantt, the petitioner and manager of the Ten Mile Gift
Shop, reported her original request was to improve her sign;
however, when checking into the matter, she was informed she would
1" . ..
have to rezone the property to bus1ness use 1n order to construct
a greenhouse. She requested the Commissioners to approve the
Conditional Use B-1, Neighborhood Business Zoning District
Classification for the site.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general
public would like to comment.
No remarks were received.
Motion:
Caster to
300 feet.
Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
rezone the site to a Conditional Use B-1 with a depth of
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. 4 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA, ADOPTED APRIL 7, 1971," is hereby incorporated as a part
of the 'minutes ',and is' contained in Zoning Book I, section 4, Page
41. .
Chairman Greer requested the Board to consider granting the
Special Use Permit for the conditional use and asked Ms. Gantt if
she agreed with the findings of fact as presented and read by the
Plarining Director.
Ms. Gantt concurred with the findings of fact as presented.
There being no further comments, Chairman Greer closed the
Public Hear ing . '
./ :;0..,
~
(
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 402
Motion: commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner caster
to grant the Special Use Permit for the conditional use based upon
the evidence 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 and approved; the
proposed use meets all required conditions and specifications of
the ordinance; the proposed use will not substantially injure the
value of adjoining or abutting property; and the proposed use 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 ~he minutes and is contained in SUP Book II, Page 9.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY DICK STAUB TO REZONE 20
ACRES ON THE FRONT HALF OF THE CAMELOT CAMPGROUND ON THE WEST SIDE
OF MARKET STREET TO B-2 BUSINESS FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL (Z-516,
11/94)
Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board
voted to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the
exclusion of the area west of Parcel D and south of Parcels Band
C, which will remain zoned R-15. The Planning Board felt the site
would be a good stopping point for northern expansion of the Ogden
commercial node. There was no opposition present.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general
public would like to comment. The following remarks were received.
..
Mr. Dick Staub, representing the owners Mr. and Mrs. st. John,
presented a map to clarify the proposed rezoning and reported this
site has been an on-going camp site since 1970. The land south and
east is currently zoned B-2 Business and since this area is .a
transition area, the rezoning recommended by the Planning Board is
agreeable with Mr. and Mrs. st. John. The Commissioners were
requested to approve the rezoning request.
I
There being no further comments, Chairman Greer closed the
Public Hearing.
Motion: Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster
to approve the rezoning recommended by the Planning Board which is
to rezone the site with the exclusion of the area west of Parcel D
and south of Parcels Band C. 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. 8B OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 7, 1972," is hereby incorporated as a part
of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, Section 8-B,
Page 43.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY G. A. RYALS AND OTHERS TO
REZONE 15.69 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF MARKET STREET OPPOSITE
MIDDLE SOUND ROAD TO B-2 BUSINESS FROM R-15 RESIDENTIAL (A-516,
11/94)
Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the planning Board
voted to rezone the property as requested. In support of that
position, the Planning Board noted that the rezoning would be
generally consistent with the Land Use Plan's goal of siting of
commercial activities along major roads in clusters or nodes. The
property is located directly opposite of the entrance to Middle
Sound, and there is enough room to provide an access to the
property with the construction of a new road through the existing
commercial area. Staff did have some concerns about leaving a
residential wedge between the commercial frontage on Market Street;
o
o
o
e
e
e,
~~..t' '~~~\td.,i,);f:''.( ...~
, '
~
". ?:../
\1" -!<
.: t' ~.j?~Rl'~~t.~ "1'tl51,.;, t.':' .
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 403
however, the Planning Board felt this property could be rezoned at
a later date since there is existing residential use on the land.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general
public would like to comment. The following remarks were received.
Mr. G. A. Ryals, representing the petitioner, Leon Skinner,
reported when first submitting the rezoning application, he
contacted Mr. H. H. Hall, who owns the residential wedge between
the properties, about being included in the rezoning request. Mr.
Hall decided not to include the property in the rezoning because it
is currently being used as rental property for mobile homes. The
Commissioners were requested to approve the rezoning request as
recommended by the Planning Board which will establish the south
end of the commercial node and will allow better access to the
commercial property with construction of another road.
Chairman Greer closed the Public Hearing.
Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman
Mathews to approve the rezoning request 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. 8B OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA, ADOPTED JULY 7, 1972," is hereby incorporated as a part
'of; the ,minutes and is contained in Zoning Book II, section 8-B,
Page 44.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVISION REQUESTED
BY 'EUGENE DAVIS TO CONSTRUCT ONE DUPLEX AT 242 GREENVILLE AVENUE
< (S-344, 10/92; REVISED 11/94)
f' ',V 'Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing and announced the
"~pecial.use process requires a quasi-judicial hearing, therefore,
p~~sons wishing to speak must step forward to be sworn in by the
Clerk to the Board.
. . ;..
The follo~ing persons was sworn in:
Dexter Hayes, the Planning Director
Eugene C. Davis
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board
unanimously recommended approval of the request feeling that the
existing project was extremely well done; therefore, the addition
of one duplex would not be inconsistent with development in the
general area. The Special Use Permit was granted by the County in
1992 to allow for the construction of two duplexes as indicated on
the site plan with the proposed duplex to be constructed in the
northeast corner of the site.
The following preliminary Staff findings of fact were
presented:
General Reauirement #1: The proposed 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 proposed duplex is located on a parcel that has direct
"" access to Greenville Avenue.
b. The unit will be served by county sewer and private water.
c. The site is located within the Seagate Volunteer Fire
Department.
d. There are no special site design limitations that affect.
., ,di::ainage.
':,lj:,
~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 404
e. The site is not located in the 100 Year Floor Plain.
General Reauirement #2: The proposed use meets all required
conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance based upon
the following findings:
a. Duplexes are permitted by Special Use Permit in the R-10
District on lots at least 15,000 square feet in size. This
property is zoned R-10 and the total tract exceeds 75,000 square
feet.
o
b. Adequate area is available to provide for the minimum number of
off-street parking spaces.
c. No special buffering or fencing is required.
General Reauirement #3: The proposed 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. There are four duplexes already on the site.
b. A variety of housing styles can be found in the general area.
c. No documentation has been provided to indicate that duplexes on
this site have been detrimental to the area.
General Reauirement #4: 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. A variety of housing styles can be found in the area, including
mobile homes, patio homes, duplexes, and single-family dwellings.
o
Chairman Greer asked the petitioner if he concurred with the
findings of fact as presented.
Mr. Davis concurred with the findings of fact as presented.
Chairman Greer asked if anyone from the general public would
Like to comment.
No remarks were received.
Chairman Greer closed the Public Hearing.
Motion: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by commissioner
Sisson to grant the modification of the Special Use Permit to add
one duplex based upon the evidence presented 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 and approved; the proposed use has met all
required conditions and specifications of the ordinance; the
proposed use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining
property; and the proposed use 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.
o
A copy of the order revising the special Use Permit is hereby
incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in SUP Book
II, Page 9.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED
BY BESSIE HAYWOOD TO ESTABLISH A MOTORCYCLE CLUB AT 8929 STEPHENS
CHURCH ROAD (S-369, 11/94)
Chairman Greer opened the Public Hearing and announced the
special use process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore,
l
e
e
e
"'f,;,~"1''''
".
.....
~
"
"
"
., :{.....'" -;l.
~;'J..1";tj:tt.,.j..
~~f,';:~""'~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 405
any persons wishing to testify must be sworn in by the Clerk to the
Board.
The following persons were sworn in:
Dexter Hayes, the Planning Director
Ms. Bessie Haywood
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported the Planning Board
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to establish
a motorcycle club at 8929 Stephens Church Road subject to the
following conditions:
a. The premises may not be used in such a manner that creates a
public nuisance.
b. The site identification shall be a ground sign not to exceed
twelve feet in area and six feet in height.
c. The Fire Marshal shall inspect the building and rate the
structure for maximum occupancy.
d. Off-street parking shall be landscaped pursuant to existing
zoning requirements.
e. A formal charter outlining organizational and membership
requirements shall be filed with the County.
f. The building must be inspected to satisfy building code
requirements.
The following preliminary Staff findings of fact were
presented:
General Reauirement #1: The proposed 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:
r:'
~: The proposed club would be located in an existing building that
is' served by an individual well and septic tank.
b. The site is located in the Ogden Volunteer Fire Department
District.
c. The site has direct access to Stephens Church Road.
General Reauirement #2: The proposed use meets all required
conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance based upon
the following findings:
a. Membership organizations and social organizations are permitted
by Special Use Permit in residential districts. The subject parcel
is zoned R~15 Residential.
b. All sites must be no less than two acres in size. The subject
parcel encqmpasses 2.29 acres.
c. The minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks shall be 50
feet. The club will be located in an existing 25' x 80' building.
This building does not currently meet the minimum setbacks imposed
f'or this typeiqf use'j The existing front yard setback is 30 feet
and the side and rear yards have not been determined. Because the
;:lot is on,ly 10~ p~et wide and ,the J:;>uilding is 25 feet wide, it
'would be ~mposs~ble to comply w~th s~de yard setbacks.
c. .No specific standards exist for minimum off-street parking.
The site plan submitted shows about 93 spaces can be provided.
ii'';;' ~,~ ~,..
e. The applicaht 'proposes to erect a free-standing "port-of-sig'n"
f
.....
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 406
32 square feet in size. No specific standard is prescribed by the
ordinance.
f. No details are presented outlining the provisions for food,
refreshments or entertainment.
General Reauirement #3: The proposed 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 club will be located in an existing building.
building has historically been used by local residents
community center.
This
as a
o
b. No evidence has been presented
it presently exists, or as it
undermine property values.
to indicate that the building as
is intended to be used, will
General Reauirement #4: 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. Except for the building in question, the majority of land uses
in the- area consists primarily of older single family structures
and mobile homes.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether anyone from the general
public would like to comment?
Ms. Bessie Haywood, the petitioner, reported all the
conditions recommended by the Planning Board have been met with the
site inspected for off-street parking.
o
Chairman Greer asked Ms. Haywood if she agreed with the
findings of fact as presented by the Planning Director?
Ms. Haywood concurred with the findings of fact as presented
by the Planning Director.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether food and beverages would
be sold?
Ms. Haywood responded that she would like to sell food,
beverages, and alcoholic beverages, if possible.
'. Chairman Greer recommended limiting alcoholic beverages to the
members of the Club and their guests.
County Attorney copley reported the Board of county
Commissioners is preempted by the ABC Board and does not have
authority to limit the sale of alcoholic beverages.
commissioner sisson inquired as to whether there would be a
problem with submitting a formal charter?
Ms. Haywood reported she would not object to submitting a
charter.
o
Chairman Greer inquired as to the hours of operation?
Ms. Haywood reported she would like to remain open u~til 3:00
A.M. on Friday and Saturday nights.
commissioner sisson commented on 3: 00 A.M. being late and
stated he would be more comfortable with closing at midnight.
~ '" . .
Ms. Haywood responded that after being in a motorcycle club
for 18 years, she has never seen a fight in a group. Most of the
e
e
e
~",,,,,.,;!-,,,,~..,
,,'.
"'Ill
. j. _...:.. r-..,.,'
.... ~~t~'J
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 407
not interested in
If the club is
type of incident
members are 40 to 60 years of age and are
creating a public nuisance to the community.
allowed to stay open until 3:00 A.M. and some
should happen, the hours could be changed.
Commissioner Barone reported the hours of operation are
addressed under the condition that the premises cannot be used in
a manner that would create a public nuisance; however, if
complaints are received from the neighbors, the hours would have to
be limited.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the hours in the Special
Use Permit could be changed at a later date?
Planning Director Hayes reported if a public nuisance is
created, the Special Use Permit would be revoked and reissued under
new criteria.
Chairman Greer closed the Public Hearing.
Motion: After discussion of the Special Use Permit being revoked
if a public nuisance is created, Commissioner Barone MOVED,
SECONDED by Commissioner Caster to grant the Special Use Permit to
establish a motorcycle club at 8929 Stephens Church Road subject
the'conditions listed by the Planning Board, A-F, and based upon
evidence presented 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 and
approve.d; the proposed use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the ordinance; the proposed use will not
substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property,
"and, the "proposed use will be in harmony with the area in which it
',is toto :,be located and in general conformity with the plan of
dev;eI opmerit ' for New Hanover County. The floor was opened for
"discussion'.
I ~'" i,'., ;.'1' ). $' .~ t<'
"c. ,'" Cci~rssioner Sisson inquired as to the procedure that would be
followed ~f ~ condition of the Special Use Permit was violated?
1-" .,. \~, ~
Planning Director Hayes responded the County Zoning
Enforcement Officer would enforce the conditions of the Special Use
Permit, and if a condition had been violated, the permit would be
revoked. The petitioner would then have the right of appeal which
would bring the matter back to the Board of County Commissioners.
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 9.
,
BREAK
, ' Chairman Greer called a break from 10:30 P.M. until 10:45 P.M.
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CLOS'E' A.SEGMENT OF AN UNNAMED ROAD CONNECTING SILVA TERRA DRIVE AND
HORN'\ROAD (BC '63, 11/94)
"':, Plinning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported Mr. James Willoughby
supmitted~a' request, to close a portion of an unnamed road in Silva
Terl:"a Subdi vis~on: .", According to the petitioner, the unimproved
road 'is' vei;y': i1l1stable and poses a safety hazard to children and
" <'--. _ " .2 ""\ . .
'adults who~attempt to travel from S1lva Terra Dr1ve to Horn Road.
'\ .. ~.M:. t,' #~..~l~ if
He re'~orf~a ~if t~e resolution is adopted, the Planning Staff
feels the following concerns must be addressed prior to the Public
'r .. ~, !)
Hearing to~be scheduled on January 3, 1995:
'1.- " , '''-;
., ,
y
1. AdditionaY access from Silva Terra development to Horn Road and
o.ther' nearby stree'ts may be eliminated if this road segment is
ci'6sed.. -Presently;: Ilex Drive in Silva Terra provides the only
irl€ernai accesslto the Silver Lake Subdivision.
. "
~
I
,
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 408
2. The County may require utility, drainage or maintenance
easements along the dedicated right-of-way.
staff feels the road should remain open because it provides an
alternative access to the two subdivisions.
Mr. James Willoughby, the petitioner, reported there are three
other accesses: Carolina Beach Road, Horn Road, and Silver Lake
Drive. In his opinion, the road is a sand pit and an ideal place
for four-wheel drive vehicles to race up and down the road, which
has created a safety hazard for the neighborhood.
Motion: After discussion of hearing the evidence when the road
closing is considered, Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by
Commissioner Caster to adopt the Resolution of Intent and schedule
a Public Hearing to consider closing a portion of an unnamed road
connecting Silva Terra Drive and Horn Road to be held on January 3,
1995. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Commissioner Barone
Commissioner Caster
commissioner Sisson
Vice-Chairman Mathews
voting Nay: Chairman Greer
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as a part of
the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XXII, Page 24.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPEAL REQUESTED BY L. ORZEPOWSKI, ET
AL, PERTAINING TO THE LAYOUT AND ALIGNMENT OF STREETS IN THE MILAM-
BEASLEY SUBDIVISION
Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, reported L. Orzepowski, et
aI, is ~equesting an appeal to the Technical Review Committee's
approval for road design in the Milam-BeaSley development. The
petitioner and her neighbors are concerned about the entrance road
into the project from Greenville Loop Road north abutting the rear
property line of eleven lots in Raintree Subdivision. Concerns
include noise, safety, and possible devaluation of lots. If
developed as proposed, vehicular traffic from this project will
have only one ingress and egress from the development. Given the
need to lessen the impacts on adjoining lots and increase the
safety of both developments, the Planning Staff recommends an
alternative road design.
commissioner Sisson requested an explanation of the Staff's
recommendations.
Planning Director Hayes commented on a reserved right-Of-way
and reported this easement could have provided another connection
and access to the Milam-Beasley property by construction of a
connector road between this project and the Raintree Subdivision.
There was a purposely left stub street in the Raintree Subdivision
that would have provided a secondary access to the Milam-BeaSley
property. Staff recommended that this connection be made to
provide another access.
Attorney George Fletcher, representing the Milam-Beasley
Company, presented a map, marked Exhibit I, which reflected the
history on the development of the land. Originally, there were
four tracts of land with three tracts that belonged to Ms. Virginia
Woody (of which a portion still does) and the Milam-Beasley Company
has acquired from Ms. woody the tract at the back, which is ,shaded
in purple, on the map. Also, the Milam-BeaSley Company acquired
the entire tract along the bottom side of the property shown as
Tract D on the map; (the 60 foot wide area) from Mr. William Pope,
Mr. William Crawford, and Mr. Branch Crawford, who were the
original developers of Lands End Subdivision. The plan of
development is to develop the land in phases. Tract A, shown in
purple on the map, is owned by Milam-Beasley Company, Tracts Band
o
o
o
e
e
e
f"i.~'\',"~
"'Ill
"'f.'~'tV;I:J.':';- ~N'it ~ ~.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER S, 1994
PAGE 409
E have some contractual obligations entered into by Ms. Woody,
which will allow the development of the two tracts including an
easement over Tract C as indicated in the yellow section of the
map. The tract, designated in pink on the map which fronts along
the Greenville Loop Road, is currently being farmed by a member of
the Woody family. Ms. Woody still owns the tract and there is a
contractual agreement with the Milam-Beasley Company to develop the
tract; however, she wants to reserve this tract for farming until
she feels it is necessary to develop the tract. The original
recommendation by the Planning staff was to move the roadway from
its location as shown on the approved map, which encroaches into
the 60 foot tract along the bottom of the property. Originally,
there was concern as to whether a roadway could be placed on the
tract because of wetlands. Most of the environmental concerns have
been resolved; however, Ms. Woody agreed that if the environmental
issues were not resolved and the roadway could not be placed beside
the Raintree lots, she would trade some land. The land to be
traded from the front of Tract E (marked in pink on the map) is
located on the northwestern corner of Tract E near the Woodland
Trace Drive road; however, after investigation of the Woodland
Trace Drive property, it was found that the property traded was too
close to Woodland Trace Drive for construction of an access road.
Even though the Milam-Beasley Company has not filed for a driveway
permit, it felt the N. C. Department of Transportation would not
issue a permit for two access points that close on Greenville Loop
Road because of a traffic hazard. The Technical Review Committee
approved the plan as submitted, and if the Board of County
Commissioners, decides not to uphold the decision by the Technical
Review Committee, the property cannot be developed.
Attorney Fletcher presented a deed, marked Exhibit II, and
reported this is the deed to the 60 foot-wide strip that runs from
the Greenville Loop Road to the back of the property in question.
This property was deeded by John D. Woody, Jr., Robert C. Woody,
arid virginia C. Woody in 1984 to William o. Pope, William N.
Crawford, and Branch M. Crawford subject to a perpetual right-of-
. way and easement; therefore, this property has always been a
roadway. In this particular case, both tracts were originally
'. zoned for residential development, which has not changed throughout
the years, and the deed was recorded in 1984 before the Raintree
Subdivision was developed. In his opinion, it was only reasonable
to expect residential development of the property. If the property
owners had any problem with the development of Raintree
SUbdivision, they could have easily hired an attorney to review the
title and inform the developers that a roadway was located behind
, the property as indicated in the deed recorded in 1984. Now, after
many years, complaints are being received, which is not fair. The
company has tried to accommodate surrounding properties with a
reserved 10-foot wide strip for planning and fence purposes in
order to create an attractive area between the actual pavement and
lot lines of the Raintree Subdivision. Again, this tract
(indicated as Tract C on the map as outlined in yellow) has always
. been an easement, and the plan of development will consist of
'houses in the ~250,000 to $275,000 range, which should only enhance
'1 the entire ,area. . The Commissioners were requested to uphold the
decision of'the Technical Review Committee.
commissioner Caster inquired as to the status of Tract B, as
outlined in yerlow on the map?
:..,. .'
,; Attorney Fletcher responded that this area wou~d be the next
phase of development. Once the Tract A is developed, Tract B will
t "'..'
be developed .;1,' ,."
,
, Commissioner Caster inquired as to how the road can be
constructed without ownership of the property?
. ~}V ,,;
:<..; ...
~ Attorney Fletcher reported there is an easement right-of-way
." . th
from Ms. WoodYi:,to-;,construct the road across Tract C. She was e
record owner of~ the"entire 'tract and when Tract A was acquired, the
,.
.....
/
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 410
company obtained the right to cross the property. The road
intersects with the 60 foot strip that is owned by Milam-Beasley.
Mr. Mike Walsh, a resident of 5812 Oak Bluff Lane and wife of
the petitioner, Linda Orzepowski, reported the issue of concern is
drainage and road access into the proposed development, not the
development of the land. He presented the following items of
concerns that should be addressed before final approval of the
proposed development:
1. The Technical Review Committee did review the plan, and
the Planning staff recommended that the road not be
placed adjacent to the Oak Bluff property because it
would be in direct violation of the County's standard
policy, e.g., a double roadway, one on the front side of
the property and one on the back side of the property.
o
2. The proposed roadway would not only be close to Oak Bluff
Lane, but directly across from Cedar Landing, which will
create three lanes of traffic that will funnel into an
area of 100 feet. The Woodland Trace Drive alternative
would be much safer because it is a private road with
only seven homeowners. The roadway as proposed will
create traffic congestion in this area and create more
potential for traffic accidents with the number of
residents from Cedar Landing, Lands End and Darby street
using Oak Bluff Lane as an access road.
3. The proposed double roadway could negati vely impact
property values.
~ l' .
4.
Drainage is of great concern because there is a tidal
basin in the 60 foot easement which is part of the
drainage system for the Raintree Subdivision and Oak
Bluff Subdivision.
o
.'
Mr. Walsh requested the Commissioners to take time to review
the facts listed and halt the project by the Milam-Beasley Company
until an adequate evaluation has been performed, including the
Planning Staff's Woodland Trace Drive access road alternative.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the adjacent property
owners would feel better if the access road was placed through Lots
10 and II?
Mr. Walsh reported this is an alternative. Also, he is not
sure that the Woodland Trace Drive alternative is completely out of
question.
Chairman Greer reported, in his opinion, the N. C. Department
of Transportation would not allow two access points that close on
the Greenville Loop Road.
Mr. Walsh commented
regulations and inquired as
private drive?
on not being familiar with road
to whether there is a difference for a
Planning Director Hayes responded that Woodland Trace Drive is
not considered a road, but an easement or driveway. since the road
does not comply to county standards, a subdivision could not be
developed on the road until it is in compliance.
o
Commissioner sisson inquired as to whether a joint entrance
could be established on the easement traded by Ms. Woody through
negotiation with the residents living on Woodland Trace Drive?
Planning Director Hayes commented on viewing this matter from
many directions and stated it cou~d be possible to perform a joint
venture with the owners living on Woodland Trace Drive to allow
this road to be used as a joint entrance. .
e
e
e
,;..-~.~
....
<;.~:;!;'k>'r.., '\ 'J.~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 411
Attorney Fletcher reported Ms. Woody was willing to provide an
easement near Woodland Trace Drive if the proposed access road
could not be constructed in the 60 foot area because of wetlands.
The environmental problems have been resolved, and no one has
requested Ms. Woody to provide the Woodland Trace Drive easement
since the road can be constructed as proposed. The Milam-Beasley
Company does not have a legal easement to the Woodland Trace Drive;
therefore, this is not an option. Also, if the Commissioners
should decide for the Milam-Beasley Company to negotiate with the
property owners on Woodland Trace Drive, the developer would be
placed in the position of having to go to adjacent property owners
before he can develop property that he owns and that has been
approved by the Technical Review Committee. The developer would be
forced to go off of his property to obtain access.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the property owners were
aware of the perpetual easement?
Mr. Walsh responded the property owners were not aware of this
fact and were told by the real estate agents that this area would
remain undeveloped. In retrospect, the property owners should have
checked as to the ownership of the property.
Mr. Doug Miller, a resident of Oak Bluff Lane shown as Lot 2,
commented on being involved with the development of the Raintree
Subdivision and reported the road at that time was owned by William
Pope, William Crawford, and Branch M. Crawford. The owners allowed
, the developer to use the road because their land would be
developed, which is now called Lands End. At that time, it was
dispovered that this was an illegally subdivided piece of land, and
it remains so'at this time. He explained that he was not opposed
,to:the ,developer's plan, but he was opposed to the road that will
"run' behind the 10-12 lots, which is a traffic ,hazard with access to
the,Greenville Loop Road. Also, some good alternatives have been
mentioned tonight; therefore, he would like to see them evaluated
,b~f,ore approving the proposed subdivision.
"'/ :J ',::;
commissioner sisson requested Mr. Miller to further explain
the illegally' subdivided piece of land.
Mr. Miller explained that when the 60 feet of land was sold by
John D. Woody, Jr. and Mr. and Mrs. Woody to the owners of Lands
End, they retained a one-foot strip between his property on Oak
Bluff Lane, R~intree Subdivision and their 60 foot easement. No
one knows the reason why the strip was retained, but this is an
iilegal subdivision. Also, he was told as a developer that this
piece of property could not be developed as a parallel street
because it would be behind the other lots in a parallel street to
.,.~,
Oak Bluff Lane. Consequently, the people were sold on the idea
that this piece of property could not be developed.
.,:."
, ,
Attorney Fletcher reported New Hanover County owns the one-
foot strip of land and has accepted a deed from Mr. Woody. If the
s~bdivision is illegal, he is not aware of this fact.
Assistant County Attorney, Kemp Burpeau, reported the one-foot
strip of land was to prevent the two parcels -of land from being
contiguous to each other, which was in violation of the Subdivision
ordinance.'Tne',former County Attorney filed a lawsuit and the case
~~ . .
was settled,';' ~ytconveyance of the one-foot stn,p of land to New
Hanover County.'
. . . ~ ~
\'j,
,
, Commissioner
now" legal? " t ,
Caster inquired as to whether the subdivision is
Planning Director Hayes reported the subdivision is now
conforming. The illegal division was resolved by conveyance of the
, property to tI1e County. The one-foot strip will probably be deeded
t'o 'the proper ',owner, when the land is developed into lots.
. j. ~,~
,
,~
...0IIII
~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER S, 1994
PAGE 412
commissioner sisson expressed concern for the persons owning
the first eleven lots and reported he would like to see someone
approach Ms. Woody to see if some form of access can be worked out
on the west side of the property, which would provide a better and
more reasonable route.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the Planning staff ever
informed the potential owners that the land would not be developed
because there was no road access?
Mr. Richard Trotta, a resident of 5700 Oak Bluff Lane,
commented on meeting with the Planning Director about concern for
the southern outer loop when purchasing his property; however, he
did not ask, and was not informed about the 60 feet of property
along the back of the land with an easement for a roadway. He was
informed that the southern outer loop would probably go on the west
side of the property close to Woodland Trace Drive. He commented
on the number of children living on Oak Bluff Lane and requested
the Commissioners to see if an alternative access can be negotiated
as recommended by Commissioner sisson.
Mr. Paul Milam, the developer, informed the Board that
negotiation had been held with Ms. Woody; however, she had refused
to sell the piece of property. Also, the Milam-Beasley Company is
certainly sympathetic for the situation that has" occurred, but the
company is not responsible for representation made by other
developers to the sellers; however, it would be an injustice to
hold the company responsible for the situation. The company does
not desire to impact negatively on the residents living on Oak
Bluff Lane, but if a proper title search had been performed on the
property, the property owners would have known about the perpetual
right-of-way on the property. The company feels the proposed
roadway is the best alternative considering all factors involved
for the provision of a legal access to the property.
Discussion was held on possible negotiations. Attorney
Fletcher explained that two negotiations would have to occur, one
with the owners on Woodland Trace Drive, and the other with Ms.
Woody. The idea on Woodland Trace Drive came about because of the
wetlands issue, which has been resolved.
commissioner Caster inquired as to whether the proposed road
lines up directly with Cedar Lane?
Attorney Fletcher responded that the proposed road is close,
but not a direct alignment.
- .
~otion: commissioner sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman
Mathews to hold the appeal in abeyance and direct the developers to
make a good faith attempt to see if the 60 foot "easement can be
flipped flopped with the owner of Tract E and ascertain whether or
not the property owners on Woodland Trace Drive would be willing to
share a common entrance to provide access to the proposed
subdivision. If this is not possible, the developer can reappear
before the Board, at which time action will be taken. Upon vote,
the MOTION DID NOT CARRY AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Commissioner sisson
Vice-Chairman Mathews.
voting Nay: Commissioner Barone
Commissioner Caster
Chairman Greer
commissioner Barone reported if she was going to acquire
property, she would be sure to perform a title search and know how
the land would be used.
,- Chairman Greer agreed.
o
o
o
.., . "..,,,"-
{:; IT-'~' ""4"[5'
. .
"'III
l~fi~:i.. I: II,....
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 413
Motion: Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster
to uphold the findings of the Technical Review Committee. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Commissioner Barone
Commissioner Caster
Chairman Greer
e
voting Nay: Commissioner Sisson
Vice-Chairman Mathews
Petitions marked Exhibit I and Exhibit II are on file in the
Planning Department under the case file.
Commissioner Sisson expressed concern for this type of
situation occurring and recommended that an attempt be made to
better inform people on property being acquired when constructing
a home: He recommended directing all County Departments to inform
people whenever possible.
. 1-
REGULAR MEETING CONVENED FROM REGULAR SESSION TO HOLD A REGULAR
,MEETING OF, THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER & SEWER DISTRICT.
" Chairma:n' Greer convened from Regular Session at 11: 41 until
11:50 to hold a meeting of the New Hanover County Water & Sewer
Di~trict.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS - COUNTY MANAGER
e
DISCUSSION ON CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS
County'Attorney Copley commented on the Commissioners being
concerned about informing prospective buyers about private roads on
properti,es, and she requested the Commissioners to look at the map
presented during the Public Hearing on the Milam-Beasley property,
whi'ch refl'ects a certificate of Disclosure for Private
Developments. This certificate states that prior to contracting
wi.th a prospective buyer, the developer will give the buyer a
written statement which discloses the existence and location of
. such prfvate' area and specifies the maintenance responsibilities
for the same. County Attorney Copley pointed out that this
certificate does address some of the concerns expressed about
informing people when purchasing property that the State nor the
County shall be responsible for maintenance of any streets, parks,
dra1nage, open space or other area which are designated for private
use.
County Manager O'Neal reported Staff will forward a memorandum
to all Department Heads relative to any discussion held involving
the acquisition of property and urge them to answer and advise
persons of easements or other impacts to properties.
vice~Chairman Mathews reported realtors and attorneys should
also be responsible for informing people about private areas and
other impacts"that are relative to a piece of property.
. :-:~ '
e
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY TO ENTER INTO BUY/SELL AGREEMENTS WITH
THE OWNERS OF..PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 700 NORTH FRONT STREET AND 908
NORTH FRONT STREET TO BE USED FOR THE EXPANSION OF CAPE FEAR
COMMUNITY COLLEGE~AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT #95-0088
," County Manager O'Neal requested authorization to proceed to
purchase ~he following pieces of property for Cape Fear Community
cpllege:
;> -1;>
(1) 700 North Front Street at a purchase price of $465,000 with
finan6ing provided by First citizens Bank with five annual payments
of"'$'112, 0'00,. ,.
'j "':.
"
(2i~ 908 North Front Street at a purchase price of $110,000 with
financing provrded by First citizens Bank. Since the property will
I 'not.he'closed until environmental studies are completed, the exact
inte:i:'est rate or paym'ent are not known; however, there will be
~. .
"
~
,/
/
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994
PAGE 414
additional costs not to exceed $10,000 to cover the environmental
study and loan closing costs.
commissioner Barone inquired as to why the $110,000 purchase
should be financed and recommended that the County pay for this
property.
County Manager O'Neal reported staff will consider this once
the environmental study has been completed.
Chairman Greer requested to be excused from voting on
North Front street property because the property is
adjacent to a piece of property owned by his mother.
the 908
located
o
commissioner Barone stated, in her opinion, this is not a
conflict of interest and she does not feel comfortable with the
Chairman being excused from voting on this item.
Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman
Mathews to excuse Commissioner Greer from voting on the 908 North
Front Street property as requested. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster
commissioner Sisson
Vice-Chairman Mathews
Chairman Greer
Voting Nay: Commissioner Barone
Motion: commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman
Mathews to authorize Staff to enter into a buy/sell agreement with
the owners of the property located at 700 North Front Street at a
purchase price of $465,000. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
o
Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman
Mathews to authorize Staff to enter into a buy-sell agreement with
the owners of the property located at 908 North Front Street at a
cost of $110,000 with not more than $10,000 to cover the
environmental study and loan closing costs. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Commissioner Barone
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Sisson
Vice-Chairman Mathews
Excused: Chairman Greer
Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson
to approve the following Budget Amendment to budget funds for
purchase of the property located at 700 North Front Street. Upon
vote; the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Budget Amendment #95-0088 - Commissioners' Office Non-Departmental
cape Fear Community College/current operating
Debit
Credit
o
commissioners' Office
Appropriated Fund Balance
$125,470
Non-Departmental
Installment Payment
$112,470
Cape Fear Communitv Colleqe/Current Operatinq
Contracted Services
$ 13,000
e
e
e
""11II
, ~ f' .~~r;,i:-_""
.~11'f-";:1~"
.r. .
,~Li4'.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1994 PAGE 415
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Greer adjourned the meeting at 12:10 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~;<a~
Clerk to the Board
j