Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-09 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