1988-03-09 Regular Meeting
~
58
MINU~E~ er RE@ULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of
Regular Session on Wednesday, March 9,
P.M. in the Assembly Room of the
Administration Building, 320 Chestnut
North Carolina.
commissioners met in
1988, at 7:00 o'clock
New Hanover County
Street, Wilmington,
Members present were: Commissioners Jonathan Barfield,
Sr.; W. Albert Corbett, Jr.; Fred Retchin; Vice-Chairman, I
Nolan O'Neal; Chairman, John M. Dolan; County Manager, G.
Felix Cooper; County Attorney, Robert W. Pope; and Deputy
Clerk to the Board, Joyce B. Bragg.
Chairman Dolan called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Reverend Joseph Windley, Pastor
United Methodist Church, located at
Streets, gave the invocation.
of Wesley
Fifth and
Memorial
Campbell
Emily Shumate and Amber Coly, members of Girl Scout
Troop #349, lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Retchin MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Barfield, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meetings of
February 1, 1988, and February 15, 1988, as presented. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
NON AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Dolan asked if anyone from the general public
wished to speak on an issue not listed on the Regular Agenda
or an item listed on the Consent Agenda. The following
issues were discussed:
Postponement of Agenda Item No. 14, Public Hearing to
Consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Denial of Zoning
Text Amendment to Modify the Open Space Requirements for
High Density, Detached Residential Developments
Mr. Harold Seagle, Attorney for the petitioner,
requested the continuance of the public hearing.
I
Commissioner Retchin MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Corbett to continue the public hearing until the meeting of
April 4,.1988. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Dolan stated since the agenda is lengthy, that
some items be delayed until another meeting time.
Commissioner Retchin MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Corbett, to delay discussion of items past No. 16 until
Monday, March 14, 1988, at 7:00 o'clock P.M. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Request by Robert Kendricks to be Placed on the March 21,
1988 Agenda.
Mr. Robert Kendricks requested that he be allowed to appear
before the Commissioners to discuss four different
worksheets referencing salaries and auto expense and be I
placed on the Agenda for the March 21, 1988, meeting. He
stated he had been turned down upon his initial request.
commissioner 0' Neal suggested that he meet with the
Finance Officer. Commissioner Dolan requested Mr. Kendricks
meet with one of the staff to help him understand the
computer sheets. Mr. Cooper stated that he would assign the
New Hanover County Internal Auditor, Bruce Shell, to meet
wi th Mr. Kendricks to go over the figures to assist in
resolving this matter.
~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 (CONTINUJ&,,!
.
'5~
Commissioner Barfield requested that feedback of the
results be received by the Commissioners.
I
DISCUSSION OF BIDDING PROCEDURE BY NEW HANOVER MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CARDIAC SURGICAL UNIT
Chairman Dolan explained the purpose of having this
item on the agenda was simply informational, stating that
he did not intend to let anyone make a political football
out of it. He added that apparently there is some sort of a
problem and the public has a right to and must be assured to
know that the County Commissioners are aware of their own
responsibility and will follow up. He stated that the basic
responsibility is still with the New Hanover Memorial
Hospi tal Board of Trustees, but the County Commissioners
appoint them and it is their responsibility to see that the
Trustees are carrying out their mandate. He intended
nothing said at this meeting is to take away or relieve the
Trustees from carrying out their responsibility, neither
does it take away from the Commissioners' responsibilities
as elected officials. Chairman Dolan stated that the Board
of Trustees has been looking into the matter and has
presented a preliminary report and intends to submit a more
comprehensive report. Their efforts are welcome and they
can look into the matter without fear or favor.
I
Chairman Dolan stated that the Commissioners are aware
there is a problem and will do whatever is necessary to
carry out their responsibilities. If it turns out that the
evidence indicates the matter is not strictly civil and
should go beyond that, then the Commissioners have the
responsibility to refer it to the appropriate agency and
that decision should be reached if some evidence is found to
indicate that that's where it belongs. Chairman Dolan
suggested that if anyone wants to make speeches of a
political type nature, he would not allow it.
Commissioner Retchin stated that he has been on record
as standing behind the hospital administration and the
hospital board of trustees since he has been a County
Commissioner, but this issue has raised a lot of mistrust
and a lot of questions by a lot of people in the community
and he does not feel that anything has been done wrong, but
the questions that have been raised need more answers than
the Commissioners could possibly raise during this meeting.
He stated that the hospital has addressed the Attorney
General's office and has sent them a preliminary discussion
of what has occurred.
Commissioner Retchin MOVED that the Commissioners ask
the Attorney General's office to investigate the questions
further than they have at this point, stating he .felt this
is the best way for the citizens of New Hanover County and
the Board of Trustees and the hospital administration to put
this issue to rest.
I
Commissioner Barfield stated that he has had problems
with the hospital administration since he has been County
Commissioner and he was very much opposed to restructuring
the hospital because of the way he and his constituents felt
about it. He stated that the Commissioners have discussed
some very serious matters concerning the hospital. The
Commissioners have allowed all appointed boards to evaluate,
investigate, doing whatever is necessary about a situation,
then moved from that point.
He stated he feels the Hospital Board of Trustees have not
been irresponsible in any way, because they did send the
preliminary report and are going to send another report. He
feels the Commissioners appointed them to exercise the
authority they were given to investigate and present the
j
60
facts at a public meeting afterwhich any citizen may voice
their concerns. Commissioner Barfield expressed concern
that qualified citizens may not wish to serve on Boards and
Commissions if the Commissioners begin reprimanding them.
He stated the Commissioners should allow the Board of
Trustees to present their comprehensive report at the March
21, meeting and if the Commissioners or the general public
are not satisfied, then refer it to the appropriate
investigative agency.
Commissioner Corbett stated it would be premature to
refer the matter to the Attorney General's office in the
midst of the report within two weeks which is a reasonable
request and at that time the Commissioners have the option
to take action.
n
,-_J
Vice Chairman 0' Neal stated that to turn the matter
over to the SBI infers that there has been bribery, or
favoritism or personal gain, that there is no evidence, and
it is insulting to suggest that the SBI investigate them.
The MOTION FAILED due to a lack of a second.
Mr. James Parker, Chairman of the New Hanover Memorial
Hospital Board of Trustees, stated that he had advised the
Commissioners by letter on March 3, 1988, that the Board of
Trustees were continuing to investigate the public bidding
questions surrounding the cardiac surgery renovation
contracts and that they would complete that investigation
forwarding to the Commissioners a final report of the
findings and actions taken as soon as possible. Mr.
Parker requested the Commissioners to understand that the
Board of Trustees is very concerned about the situation and
feel a great responsibility and are acting in a very proper
manner, and requested the opportunity to finish what they
have been appointed to do. He stated that it would not be
possible for the public to have a clear understanding of all 0
the facts at this meeting, that things would be taken out of
context and he felt the Trustees need at least two weeks to
complete the report.
Mr. Parker stated that he has been available to give
any information, at any time or place, but has not been
requested to do so. He requested the Trustees be allowed to
continue and report to the Commissioners and answer any
questions at the March 21, meeting.
Commissioner Corbett MOVED that this item be continued
to a Special Meeting on March 21, at 7:00 o'clock P.M., for
presentation of the final comprehensive report from the
hospi tal Board of Trustees. The MOTION was SECONDED by
Commissioner O'Neal.
After further discussion
follows:
the Commissioner voted as
Aye:
Commissioner Barfield
Commissioner Corbett
Commissioner Retchin
Vice Chairman O'Neal
Nay:
Chairman Dolan
c
BREAK
Chairman Dolan recessed the meeting for a break from
8:00 o'clock P.M. to 8:10 o'clock P.M.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Corbett inquired what the total cost is
for the Emergency Medical Services building Mr. John
~
..,
<01
.,
MINQTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 ( CONTlNUE~
-
Commissioner Retchin MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Corbett to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
I
Adoption of Bid Resolution #35-1087 for Microfilm Reader
Printers - Register of Deeds.
The Commissioners adopted Bid Resolution #35-1087 to
purcha~e microfilm reader~-printers - for use ip _the Register
of Deeds office, awarding the bid to Eastman Kodak Company,
Charlotte, NC in the amount of $35,540.
A copy of the Resolution and bid tabulation are
contained in Exhibit Book XVI, page 11.
Adoption of Amendment to New Hanover County Personnel Policy
The Commissioners amended the New Hanover County
Personnel Policy related to Employee Appeals.
Approval of Budget Amendment #88-0220 - Social Services
Department
88-0220 Department of Social Services
Debit
Credit
Child Day Care
Office of Day Care Services
$8,916
Assistance Payments
$8,916
Received third reallocation from State funds.
Approval of Budget Amendment #88-0203
88-0203 Governing Body
Debit
Credit
I
Non-Departmental
Contingencies
$4,000
Governing Body
$4,000
Transfer of funds from Contingencies to Governing Body
for additional allocation for Advertising Expense.
Approval of Budget Amendment #88-0205 - Department of Social
Services
88-0205 Department of Social Services
Debit
Credit
Administration
DSS - Administrative Grants
$21,185
CP & 1 Intervention Program
Assistance Payments
$21,185
Received additional
Intervention Program.
State
allocation
for
CP&L
Approval of Budget Amendment #88-0211 - Emergency Medical
Services
I
88-0211 Capital Project/Emergency Medical Services Building
Debit
Credit
General Fund
Appropriated Fund Balance $95,390
Transfer to Other Funds (Capital
Project/EMS Building)
Transfer/Emergency Medical Services
Building $95,390
j
Ii"',
t1
I
G2
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 ( CONTINUED)
To budget balance of funds needed for completion of EMS
Building. Originally planned to be budgeted in FY 88/89.
Due to ample fund balance, budget transfer is recommended at
this time by the County Manager.
Approval of Budget Amendments Approved by Budget Officer for
Entry Into Record
Debit
Credit
88-0204 - Tax Department
Non-Departmental
contingency
$2,500
[]
Tax Department
Capital Outlay
2,500
Transfer of funds from contingencies to Tax Department for
Capital Outlay - Equipment (computer terminals).
Approval of Budget Amendment for Entry Into the Record
88-0120 - Non-Departmental
Debit
Credit
Contingencies
$5,600
Volunteer Recognition Reception
$5,600
Funding was approved by the County Commissioners on February
15, 1988 allocating $5,600 from Contingencies for the New
Hanover County Volunteer's reception to be held on May 1,
1988.
88-0212 outside Agencies/Domestic Violence
Services
Shelter
&
Debit
Credit
Non-Departmental
contingencies
$25,000
[]
outside Agencies
Domestic Violence Shelter & Services
$25,000
Approved February
transfer $25,000
Domestic Violence
new facility.
15, 1988, by the County Commissioners to
from Contingencies to be allocated for
Shelter and Services towards purchase of a
WITHDRAWAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 - APPROVAL OF NEW HANOVER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND POLLUTION CONTROL FINANCING
AUTHORITY BONDS FOR INTERROLL CORPORATION
Mr. Wallace Murchison, Attorney for New Hanover County
Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Financing
Authority, requested postponement of approval of bonds for
Interroll corporation.
Commissioner Retchin MOVED, SECONDED by Vice Chairman
0' Neal to postpone approval of bonds for Interroll
corporation until the regular meeting of March 21, 1988.
Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION FOR NEW HANOVER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND POLLUTION CONTROL FINANCING
AUTHORITY REVENUE BOND ISSUE FOR APPLIED ANALYTICAL
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT ON PRINCIPAL
Commissioner Retchin MOVED, SECONDED by Vice Chairman
O'Neal to hold the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
~
I
L~
Mr. Scott Bannerman, Comptroller for Applied Analytical
Industries, Inc., appeared before the Commissioners to
explain that approval of the revenue bond issue and approval
of the project on principal would be utilized to purchase
the property previously owned by Expo Communications for
~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 ( CONTINUED)
~
~'3
sale of over-the-counter products. The project would
provide thirty-one additional jobs in New Hanover County.
I
Commissioner Corbett requested the County Manager to
explain to the public what impact this issue has on the
County. Mr. Cooper stated that the Industrial Facilities
and Pollution Control Financing Authority was established
under General Statues of North Carolina, which allows this
company to borrow money at a reduced interest rate, tax free
and provide jobs without any County involvement. County
endorsement is necessary so that they can get a better rate.
Chairman Dolan asked if there were any comments from
the general public.
Mr. William Funderburg, a resident of Castle Hayne,
requested that Chapter 159 C, Section 8 of the North
Carolina General Statutes be read for clarification.
Attorney Murchison read into the record the General Statute
Chapter 159 C-8 with reference to approval of bonds. Mr.
Funderburg inquired if the "Commission" referred to in the
statute meant the County Commissioners. County Attorney
Pope stated it meant the Local Government Commission, a
Division of the State Treasurer's Office in Raleigh.
Commissioner Retchin MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Corbett to close the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Attorney Murchison read a resolution approving the
project in principle and issuance of revenue bonds by the
New Hanover County Industrial Facilities and Pollution
Control Financing Authority to finance the project for
Applied Analytical Industries, Inc.
,I.
'-
Commissioner Corbett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Retchin. Upon vote, the resolution was adopted unanimously.
A copy of the Resolution is contained in Exhibit Book
XVI, Page 11.
PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION FOR NEW HANOVER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND POLLUTION CONTROL FINANCING
AUTHORITY BOND ISSUE FOR BERTRAND CORPORATION AND APPROVAL
OF PROJECT ON PRINCIPAL
Commissioner Corbett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Retchin to open the public hearing. Upon vote the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Surgio Masory, President of Bertrand of America,
requested approval of the project and issuance of the bonds
to assist them in the renovation and lease of the old Timme
Building and finance equipment to manufacture high quality
acrylic yarn for velvets. He stated that 80 employees will
be hired with a possible increase in 1989.
:1
"'-
Commissioner Corbett requested information on how the
Company plans to take care of waste from dyes. Mr. Masory
stated that pretreatment facilities for wastewater is
already in place with a permit issued to Wilmington
Corporation, the lessor.
Chairman Dolan asked if anyone from the general public
wished to comment. No one commented.
Commissioner O'Neal MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Retchin to close the public hearing. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Attorney Murchison read a resolution for approval of
the project on principal and issuance of revenue bonds by
j
,,6,4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 ( CONTINUED)
the New Hanover County Industrial Facilities and Pollution
Control Financing Authority for Bertrand Corporation.
Commissioner Corbett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Retchin to adopt the resolution. Upon vote the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the resolution is contained in Exhibit Book
XVI, Page 11.
PUBLIC HEARING - DENIAL OF REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 6
ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF BLUE CLAY ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 300
FEET SOUTH OF SR 2074 (BERWICK DRIVE) TO 1-2 INDUSTRIAL FROM
R-15 RESIDENTIAL
Chairman Dolan opened the Public Hearing.
o
Mr. O. K. Pridgen, attorney representing the petitioner
Clyde Burgess, requested approval of the rezoning to enable
the Burgesses to have a automobile body repair shop on the
back part of their property. Mr. Pridgen read a letter from
Mr. Sanford Doxie, owner of fifty acres adjoining the above
referenced property on the North, stating that he has no
objection to the rezoning request. Mr. Pridgen also
exhibited a petition from nearby property owners which
states they have no objection to the rezoning.
Planner Pete Avery, presented slides giving the
background information, stating the Planning Board and Staff
recommended denial of rezoning this property.
Chairman Dolan asked if anyone present wished to
comment. The following persons commented:
John Hladik
William C. Howard, Jr.
Gene Leonard
r
~
Chairman Dolan closed the public hearing.
Commissioner O'Neal MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Barfield to deny the request to rezone approximately six
acres on the West side of Blue Clay Road, 300 feet south of
SR 2074 (Berwick Drive) to I-2 Industrial from R-15
Residential on the basis that it is random zoning. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING - ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A
MOBILE HOME ON THE EAST SIDE OF SYCAMORE STREET,
APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET NORTH OF PRINCE GEORGE AVENUE IN
CASTLE HAYNE
Chairman Dolan opened the public hearing.
Planner Pete Avery commented on the petitioner'S
Special Use request stating that application has been made
to the County Health Department for Septic Tank suitability
analysis and mobile homes are permitted in the RA Rural
Agriculture District.
Chairman Dolan asked anyone present wishing to give
testimony to step forward to be sworn. The following person
was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk: r-
Mr. J. D. Loughlin l__
Chairman Dolan asked Mr. Loughlin if he agreed
statements and recommendations presented by the
Staff. Mr. Loughlin stated he concurred.
Chairman Dolan asked if anyone present would
speak in opposition to the special use request.
commented.
with the
Planning
like to
No one
Chairman Dolan closed the public hearing.
\
~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 (CONTINUED)
~
6'5
I
Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Retchin to grant the Special Use Permit after hearing the
evidence drawing the following conclusions and approving the
conditions as recommended by the Planning Staff: (1) the
use will not materially endanger the public health or safety
if located where proposed and developed according to the
plan as submitted and approved; (2) the use does meet all
required conditions and specif ica tions ; ( 3 ) the use wi 11
not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property; and (4) the use if developed according to the
plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the
area in which it is to be located and in general conformity
with the plan of development for New Hanover County. Upon
vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the Special Use Permit is contained in SUP
Book I, page 33.
PUBLIC HEARING-ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT CHANGES (ZONING, MOBILE
HOME PARK) THAT MITIGATE THE IMPACT BETWEEN NON-RESIDENTIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Planner Dave Weaver, explained that the text changes
are a result of a series of meetings by the Planning Board
with input from developers and citizens concerning setbacks
and vegetation retention. Upon the request of Mr. Jim
Sandy, Mr. Weaver explained the Planned Development District
high density development using Wilson's on the corner of
Murrayville and College Roads, Highway 132, the new
Cardinal Lanes Bowling Lanes on US 17 at Ogden, and the
American Carpet store at the corner of US 421 and McQuillan
Drive as examples of setbacks for different sizes of
buildings in different zoning districts adjacent to
residential districts.
I
Chairman Dolan asked if anyone present wished to
comment. The following persons commented:
Mr. Jim Sandy
Mr. John Sawyer, Planning Board Chairman
Mr. Michael Jordan
Mr. Billy Towles, representing mobile home
parks
Mr. Bill Grathwol
Mr. Ted Sewell, Representative of the
Legislative Committee of the Board of
Realtors.
Ms. Judy Smith
Mr. William C. Howard, Jr.
Mr. Larry Sneeden, Engineer and Land Planner
Mr. Steve Weiss, Representative of the
Construction Industry Advisory Council
Mr. Robert Brown
Chairman Dolan inquired if there has been a general
agreement worked out with residential groups, developers and
contractors on this highly controversial issue.
I
Mr. Sawyer stated that he feels the Planning Board has
made a compromise between both sides of this issue during a
lot of long meetings. He stated that the mitigated impact
has to do with commercial development abutting residential
uses. Their reasoning for not requiring the buffer between
commercial land and residential land that was not yet
developed was to say to residential developers as well as
commercial developers that it is a two way street. If the
Commercial was there and has been zoned to develop a
subdivision, then the burden should fall on the residential
developer to provide the buffer.
Other concerns" of the citizens commenting were setback
requirements; the discrepancy between the City and County
Zoning Ordinances in mitigating between adverse impact with
I
~
66
\
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 (CONTINUED)
density; concern that the change would drastically devalue
undeveloped land; commercial projects that abutts
residential property; no activities in the buffer area
except maintenance of buffer suitable; multiply the table in
the ordinance instead of dividing; and the burden of
emotional stress on residents.
After a lengthy discussion and public comments, Vice
Chairman O'Neal MOVED, SECONDED by Chairman Dolan to accept
the text changes as presented that mitigate the impact with
the understanding that it may be changed as necessary.
o
Commissioner Barfield stated his concern for the need
of study and input by organizations and citizens and
requested postponement adoption of these changes for thirty
days.
Commissioner Retchin stated that instructions must be
given if it is delayed. Commissioner Retchin MOVED,
SECONDED by Vice Chairman O'Neal to amend the Zoning
Ordinance of the County of New Hanover Adopted October 6,
1969, as follows:
Amend Section 1. B-1 District
Replace Section 54-4(3) with the following:
54-4(3) Minimum side and rear yards for property
abutting residential districts
a. The required minimum setbacks for structures shall
be calculated in accordance with section 69.11
b. Buffering and landscaping shall meet the
requirements of Section 67-4.
o
Delete 54-7
B-2 District
Replace Section 55-4(3) with the following:
55-4(3) Minimum side and rear yards for property
abutting residential districts
a. The required minimum setbacks for structures shall
be calculated in accordance with section 69.11.
b. Buffering and landscaping shall meet the
requirements of Sections 67-4.
Delete section 55-7
1-1 Industrial District
Replace Section 56-4(3) with the following:
56-4(3) Minimum side and rear yards for property
abutting residential districts
a.
The required minimum setbacks for structures shall
be calculated in accordance with section 69.11.
[
b.
Buffering and landscaping shall meet the
requirements of Section 67-4.
Delete Section 56-7
1-2 Industrial Section 57-4(3) with the following:
57-43 Minimum side and rear yards for property
abutting residential districts
""
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 ( CONTI~)
67"
in Section 6 7 . In no case, however, shall any
side or rear yard setback be less than specified
in Table 69.11.
Replace
following:
Section
69.4(5)
High Density with
the
69.4(5)
Setbacks and uses:
A.
The required minimum setback for High Density
development from any existing detached residential
development (not including Mobile Home Parks or
other High Density Developments or Planned
Developments) shall be calculated from the
following formula:
I
1. Required setback = (Building Height) x (2.75)
2. Reductions in setbacks
setbacks may be reduced as
Section 67. In no case,
the minimum setback be less
The required
specif ied in
however, shall
than 25 feet.
B. In no case shall any part of a structure
containing dwelling units be located closer than
20 feet to any part of another structure
containing dwelling units nor 10 feet to any
adjoining property line.
Replace Section 53.5-2(4) Planned Development - Fringe Use
Area with the following:
I
53.5-2(4) Fringe Use Area: To insure compatibility with
adjoining land uses and districts, a fringe use area
200 feet in width shall be established along the
exterior property lines of the PD district adjacent to
residential districts. Only residential uses or open
space may be permitted within the fringe use area. The
maximum building height within the fringe use area
shall be 35 feet.
Required setback = (Building Height) x (2.75). In no
case shall the minimum setback be less than 25 feet.
The part of the yard adjacent to the residential
districts shall be used only for buffering and as
specified in Section 67.
Amend Section 67 Landscaping as follows:
67-2 Applicability: In order to meet the above function,
landscaping shall be required for the purposes of ....
( 3 )
Retaining existing trees
development or Planned
commercial, office and
industrial developments that
or more...
on High-Density
Development; and
institutional, and
will disturb one acre
I
67-3 General Standards for Landscaping...
(1) Retention of existing vegetation Vegetation
existing on the site at the time of development
shall be retained as required below:
A. If existing trees and shrubs on the site
where a buffer is required meets at least 50%
of the required opacity standard, then those
trees and shrubs shall be retained for use in
buffering and supplemented as needed with
plantings, fences, and/or berms to meet the
~
6@
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 (CONTINUED)
a. The required minimum setbacks for structures shall
be calculated in accordance with section 69-11.
b.
Buffering and landscaping
requirements of Section 67-4.
shall
meet
the
Delete Section 67-7
O&I Office and Institutional District
Replace Section 59.1-6 (4) and (5) with the following:
LJ
59.1-6 (4) Minimum side and rear yards for property
abutting residential districts
a. The required minimum setbacks for structures shall
be calculated in accordance with section 69.11.
b.
Buffering and landscaping
requirements of Section 67-4.
shall
meet
the
Delete 59.1-7
AI Airport Industrial District
Replace Section 59.3-4(4) and (5) with the following:
59.3 -4 (4) Minimum side and rear yards for property
abutting residential districts
a. The required minimum setbacks for structures shall
be calculated in accordance ~ith section 69.11.
b. Buffering and landscaping
requirements of Section 67-4.
shall
meet
the
Amend Section 59.3-5 as follows:
n
59.3-5 Protection for Residential Areas It is
required, in order to protect and promote existing or
future residential development, that any means of
direct access to or from any permitted or Special Use
in the AI zone shall not be through any residentially
zoned or developed area or along any street or road in
any residential subdivision.
Add Section 69.11 Setbacks within commercial, office and
institutional and industrial districts abutting residential
districts
The required minimum setbacks for structures located
within commercial, office and institutional and industrial
districts abutting residential districts, shall be
calculated from Table 69.11 utilizing the following
formulas:
1. Side yard
Required setback = (Building Height) x (Factor
from
Column B, Table J
69.11)
2. Rear yard
Required setback = (Building Height) x (Factor
from
Column D, Table
69.11)
3. Reductions in setbacks
The required setbacks may be reduced as specified
~
~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 ( CONTINUED)
:69
required standards. In all cases, existing
trees greater than 10" in diameter at 4.5
feet in height (DBH) shall not be removed
from a twenty foot buffer strip along the
perimeter.
B.
All hardwood trees at least 12" DBH and all
conifer trees at least 16" DBH anywhere on
the site shall be considered protected, and
shall be preserved to the greatest extent
practical and incorporated into required
landscaping. . .
I
4. A minimum of 15 trees at least 2"
diameter (measured 6" above the ground) shall
be retained or planted on the parcel for each
acre or proportionate area disturbed by
development.
Amend Section 67-4 as follows:
67-4 Additional Requirements for Buffers and for Yards
in which Buffers are Required
Buffer strips are designed to protect adjoining land
uses, particularly residential, from the noise, heat,
dust, lights, threats to privacy, and aesthetic impacts
from more intense land-users. Buffer strips shall be
required along all property lines adjacent to a
residential use and/or existing platted residential
lots. The more intense land use shall be required to
provide the buffer as part of its yard requirements.
The following requirements shall be met for buffer
strips and the yards in which buffers are required:
I
(1) Location of buffer strips - Buffer strips shall be
required to screen any residential use from any
B-1, B-2, O&I, I-2, I-lor AI district. Buffer
strips shall also be required to screen any
existing detached residential development from any
attached housing development or mobile home park
or High Density Development or Planned
Development.
(2) Width of buffer strips - The buffers shall have a
base width equal to at least 50% of the required
setback. In all cases the base of the buffer
shall be equal to or greater than 20 feet.
( 3 )
Allowance for a decrease in
increase in buffer width
structures may be decreased if
the buffer strip, as determined
above, is increased by the same
setback with an
The setback for
the base width of
in Section 67-4(2)
amount.
( 4 )
Uses in the buffer - No activities shall occur in
the buffer except for maintenance of the buffer
and the installation and maintenance of water,
sewer, electrical and other utility systems where
the installation causes minimal disturbance of
existing vegetation.
I
( 5 )
Uses in the rear
residential use
shielded from view
residential use by
wall.
and side yards abutting a
The fOllowing uses shall be
from the property line of the
means of a 100% opaque solid
dumpsters or other trash holding area
outside storage areas
loading/unloading areas
heating/air conditioning units, including
roof mounted units.
~
.7'70
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 ( CONTINUED)
In addition, all lights shall be shielded in such
a manner that light from the fixture will not
directly radiate into the buffer strip or beyond.
(6) Types of buffer strips Buffer strips shall
provide approximately 100% opacity. Buffer strips
may be occupied only by natural and/or planted
vegetation, berms and fencing, as specified below:
A. Natural vegetation must be retained in
accordance with Section 67-3(1)(A).
B. One or more of the following means shall be
used to supplement the natural vegetation as
necessary or to provide an adequate buffer
where no natural vegetation exists:
1. planted buffer strips The planted
buffer strips shall be at least six feet
tall and give approximately 100% visual
opacity within one year of planting.
Three rows of planted materials shall be
required.
2. Combination planted buffer strip with
artificial fencing:
a) Artificial fencing shall be between
six to ten feet in height,
b) If solid artificial fencing is
used, two rows of planted materials
shall be provided at a minimum
height of three feet at initial
planting, and give at least 50%
visual opacity of the fence at
planting.
c) If permeable artificial fencing is
used, two rows of planted materials
shall be provided and give
approximately 100% visual opacity
of the fence wi thin one year of
planting.
d) The buffer vegetation shall be
located between the fence and the
common property line.
31. Combination berm with vegetation:
a) An earthen berm may be used in
conjunction with planted vegetation
provided that the combined height
of the berm and planted vegetation
shall be at least six feet and
provider approximately 100% opacity
within one year of planting.
b) The slope of the berm shall be
stabilized with vegetation and no
steeper than 3: 1. The height of
the berm shall be 6 feet or less,
with a level or rounded area on top
of the berm. The berm shall be
constructed of compacted earth.
Amend Section 67-5 as follows:
67-5 Additional Landscaping Requirements for Parking
Lots.
(2)(A) Parking Lot Perimeters - A landscaped strip six
feet in width shall be required along any side of a
parking lot abutting a street right-of-way...
(2)(B) Parking Lot Interiors - Interior landscaping is
defined as the landscaping required within the parking
lot perimeters. Interior landscaping shall be provided
equal to 8 percent of the total area to be used for
parking, loading area, or for other vehicular or
pedestrian use ...
.~
CJ
n
I'
I
l./
"
MARCH 9 1988 (CONTINUED)
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, ,
71
Amend Sec~lon 67-6 as follows:
67-6 Maintenance
I
(1) All existing vegetation that is used to meet
landscaping requirements, all required planted
living material, and all required berms shall be
maintained by the owner...
Amend Section 67-7 as follows:
(1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
any new project or renovation or expansion to an
existing project required to have landscaping
...projects involving the renovation or expansion
of existing structures shall meet the requirements
of Section 67-4 to the extent practicable.
Amend Section 67-8 as follows:
67-8 Landscaping Plans Landscaping plans shall be
submitted before or at the time of application for the
Building Permit for all applicable projects specified
in section 67-2. These plans shall contain the
following information:
4.
C.
Approximate locations and species of all
hardwood trees at least 12" DBH and all
conifer trees at least 16" DBH. If groves of
the protected trees exist that will not be
removed or disturbed, it is permitted to
label the grove as such on the map, stating
the approximate number of protected trees and
species mix, without specifying data on each
indi vidual tree. Reasons for removing
protected trees shall be explicitly stated on
the plan.
I
H. Approximate locations of all trees greater
than 10" DBH within required buffers and of
all areas of natural vegetation to be used as
part of the buffer.
I. Setbacks of all structures and specifications
and shielding of certain uses, as required.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BREAK
Chairman Dolan recessed the meeting for a break from
10:50 o'clock p.m. to 11:00 o'clock p.m.
I
PUBLIC HEARING TABLED AN APPEAL OF THE THE TECHNICAL
REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DENIAL OF A 24 LOT SUBDIVISION (SANDERS
CREEK) LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF MARATHON AVENUE
Planner Sam Burgess presented facts stating that a
request was made by Mr. Web Trask to overturn the decision
by the Technical Review Committee denying approval of a 24
lot subdivision known as Sanders Creek, that the denial was
based on inadequate ingress and egress to the property.
Chairman Dolan asked if anyone representing the
developer of Sanders Creek was present to comment.
David Barefoot, attorney representing the developer
stated the existing dirt road was in excellent condition,
describing the beauty of the subdivision. Mr. Barefoot read
a letter from Mr. Thomas Lee Simmons, a retired road
maintenance supervisor for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation with thirty years of experience, stating that
he examined the mile long dirt road at the West end of
Marathon Avenue which serves Sanders Mill Creek Subdivision
j
! 72
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 ( CONTINUED)
and determined whether the dirt road could stand additional
traffic for 24 new households averaging six trips daily with
little additional maintenance. Mr. Barefoot stated that
regulations require that a private homeowners association be
formed to maintain roads and share the cost of maintenance
of the present roads and contend that it would not add to
the burden. He stated that the developer is willing to
permit the present homeowners to join that association or
they may want to form a separate organization so that
everyone could join for the purpose of maintaining those
roads.
Chairman Dolan asked if anyone from the general public
wished to comment. The following came forward to comment:
J
Mr. Jim Hunnicutt
Mr. Tommy Norris
Ms. Sandra Parker
Mr. Lowell Garrett
Mr. Ernie Hanie
Mr. Web Trask, Developer
Mr. Barry Thomas
Mr. Jim Hunnicutt stated that Mr. Tommy Norris, a
resident of Sanders Mill Creek Subdivision, grades the road
and presented photographs of the road after heavy rains with
non existing drainage, stating that after the water dries,
the road has deep ruts and is dusty and cannot be graded.
He commented on the burdens presented by not being able to
drive on the road in these conditions.
Mr. Norris stated that possible solutions would be to
pave the road or get another access to the subdivision
property, that he opposed the subdivision for the reason of
increased traffic.
commissioner Barfield stated that he was informed by n
the Department of Transportation that since this subdivision
was established after 1975, if 75% of the homeowners want it
paved the County may finance the paving and access each
property owner living on the road and the proposed lots.
commissioner Retchin commented on the need of the road
improvements.
Chairman Dolan MOVED to support the Technical Review
Board's rejection of the request. The MOTION FAILED due to
lack of a second.
Commissioner Corbett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Retchin to table the appeal of denial by the Technical
Review Committee of the 24 lot Sanders Creek subdivision
until the County Attorney reports back details for County
financing the paving of Marathon Avenue and accessing
property owners, with the condition that the homeowners meet
to work out the problems. Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
i
PRESENTATION AND APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE TO N.R.C.D'S PLAN OF
CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES FOR AMHOIST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROJECT NUMBER 84-C-6878
Assistant County Attorney Miller presented options of [
compromise to the Natural Resources and culture
Development's plan of closeout procedures for the AmHoist ~
Community Development Block Grant #84-C-6878, recommending
Plan B, in which $194,997 will be budgeted for community
development activities, primarily benefiting low and
moderate income persons through the County's community
development program.
After discussion of the proposed compromises for this
unforeseeable problem with AmHoist, commissioner Corbett
~~
~
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 ( CONTINUED)
73
MOVED, SECONDED by Vice Chairman O'Neal to accept Compromise
Plan B as follows:
Compromise B
Original employment goal
Employment at time of closeout
Shortfall
560
415
145
Percentage short of goal
145/560 = 26%
I
(Shortage)
26%
(Total Grant)
x $749,997
=
(Projected Budget)
$194,997
$296,606
194,997
$ 91,609
Figure required by NRCD
Requirement lessened by
Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION TEXT AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE
REQUIRED WIDTH OF EASEMENTS FOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
Planner Pete Avery, stated that the Planning Staff
recommends the modifications by the Engineering Department.
Chairman Dolan asked if anyone was present wishing to
comment. The following person commented.
I
Mr. Bill Grathwol stated that his interpretation of the
Subdivision Regulation on page 13 refers to an open ditch,
not a closed drainway, however this is not the Engineering
Department's nor the County Attorney's opinion. He stated
that drainage ditches are not considered a utility and
recommended that one word under "easements not less than 15
feet" for both underground and aboveground public and
private utilities, add "public and private utilities for
pipe drainage"; adding the following in Section D "at the
discretion of the Engineering Department."
Engineer Wyatt Blanchard commented on the need for
space for maintenance of the pipeline. The Sewer Ordinance
allows the Engineering Director to narrow an easement down
where there is a legitimate reason and the line can be
properly maintained.
Commissioner Barfield MOVED to allow staff to study the
Ordinance and prepare the necessary amendment to accomplish
the task. The MOTION FAILED due to lack of a second.
Commissioner Corbett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Retchin to ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER,
NORTH CAROLINA AMENDING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF NEW HANOVER
COUNTY ADOPTED OCTOBER 18, 1965 as follows:
Modify 4l-l(5)(b) to read:
I
Easements up to thirty (30) feet or more in width will
be required for gravity sewer lines and not less than
fifteen (15) feet for water lines, other underground
and above ground public and private utilities, or for
piped drainage facilities.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1988 AT 7: 00 0' CLOCK
P.M.
Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Corbett to adjourn the meeting until Monday, March 14, 1988
at 7:00 o'clock P.M. to continue the Agenda.
Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
~
I
(
74
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 9, 1988 ( CONTINUED)
.: -
. -:: . -": 2 j
a.m.
~
Chairman Dolan adjourn the meeting at 12: 30 0' clock
r-'t
L~
n
~~
n
G