Agenda 2006 02-06
AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse
24 North Third Street, Room 301
Wilmington, NC
ROBERT G. GREER, CHAIRMAN. WilLIAM A. CASTER, VICE-CHAIRMAN
TED DAVIS, JR., COMMISSIONER. WilLIAM A. KOPP, JR., COMMISSIONER. NANCY H. PRITCHETT, COMMISSIONER
BRUCE T. SHELL, COUNTY MANAGER' WANDA COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY' SHEILA SCHULT, CLERK TO THE BOARD
February 6, 2006 5:30 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Vice-Chairman William A. Caster)
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No.
5 :40 p.m. 1. Public Hearing and 53
Consideration of Approval to Submit a Joint Application with the City of
Wilmington for 2006 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Funding from the U. S.
Department of Justice
5 :45 p.m. 2. Public Hearing and 59
Consideration of a Resolution Relating to a County/City Bond Issue
6:35 p.m. 3.1 Public Hearing 63
Street Naming - Request by Planning staffto consider naming an unnamed
road to Clemmons Way located near Trinity Avenue in the Middle Sound
Community (SN -98, 02/06)
6:45 p.m. 3.2 Public Hearing 67
Street Naming - Request by Olen & Patricia Roberts to consider naming an
unnamed road to Flounder Lane located near Royal Oak Drive in the Myrtle
Grove Community (SN-99, 02/06)
6:55 p.m. 3.3 Public Hearing 71
Rezoning/Conditional Use - Request by John E. Evans, Jr. to rezone
approximately 26.5 acres of property located at 1500 and 1551 Point Harbor
Road from 1-1 Light Industrial to CD (B-2) Highway Business with Mixed
Uses (Z-826, 12/05)
7:25 p.m. Break
7:35 p.m. 3.4 Public Hearing 77
Item 4: Rezoning - Request by Withers and Ravenel for Gulfstream Shopping
Center Properties LLC to rezone approximately 5.73 acres of property located
at 609 Piner Road behind the Junction Creek Office Park from R-15
Residential to 0&1 Office and Institutional (Z-8l7, 11/05)
7:50 p.m. 3.5 Public Hearing 81
Item 5: Special Use Permit - Request by Thelma Washington to consider a
Special Use Permit to expand a Child Care Center in an R-lO Residential
District located at 309 Cardiff Road (S-547, 01/06)
8:00 p.m. 3.6 Public Hearing 87
Special Use Permit - Request by Deborah Stafford to consider a Special Use
Permit to place a Single-Wide Mobile Home in an R-20 Residential District
located at 3321 Oakley Circle (S-550, 02/06)
8:20 p.m. 3.7 Public Hearing 91
Text Amendment - Request by John Evans, Jr. to amend the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance Section 55-4 Dimensional Requirements for Height
and FAR Requirements in the B-2 Highway Business District (A-345, 12/05)
8:50 p.m. 3.8 Public Hearing 93
Text Amendments - Request by planning staffto amend the New Hanover
County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect changes made by the
North Carolina General Assembly in the 2005 Legislative Session
(A-346, 01/06)
9:00 p.m. 4. Presentation ofProiect Results to Date on the Problem of Disproportionate 119
Minority Contact
9:15 p.m. 5. Meeting ofthe Water and Sewer District 121
9:25 p.m. 6. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
9:30 p.m. 7. Additional Items
County Manager
County Commissioners
Clerk to the Board
County Attorney
9:45 p.m. ADJOURN
Note: Times listed for each item are estimated, and if a preceding item takes less
time, the Board will move forward until the agenda is completed.
2
MEETING OF THE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
ASSEMBLY ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE
24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301
WILMINGTON, NC
ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No.
9:15 p.m. 1. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
9:20 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes 123
3
This page intentionally left blank.
4
CONSENT AGENDA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
No.
1. Approval of Minutes 7
2. Approval of Request to Submit Grant Application to The Laci and Conner Search 9
and Rescue Fund (A Program of The Carole Sund/Carrington Foundation) in the
Amount of$35,000
3. Approval of Certified Copy of Corporate Resolution from First Citizens Bank 13
Changing the Finance Director's Name to Avril M. Pinder as an Authorized
Representative of New Hanover County
4. Approval of Request for Approval of Budget Amendment to Increase Revenues 17
and Expenditures in Epidemiology Division; Additional Revenues have been
Received for Administration of Flu and Pneumonia Vaccine and Associated
Budget Amendment 06-0110
5. Approval of Family Assessment Coordination Grant of$113,000 21
6. Approval of Health Check/Smart Start Grant Request (Renewal of Existing Grant) 25
of$45,800
7. Approval of Child Care Nursing Smart Start Grant (Renewal of Existing Grant) of 29
$lSQ,QQQ
8. Approval of Primary Care Proiect Grant Application 33
9. Approval of North Carolina Institute of Public Health Improvement Fund Grant 39
Application for $17,034
10. Approval of Smith Creek Greenway Clean Water Management Trust Fund Mini 45
Q1"(]11tctllciAssQ~i(],t~ciI311cig~tAl11~1lc1111~lltQQ-QJJ7
Approval of Budget Amendment:
11. 06-0112 Health Department 49
5
This page intentionally left blank.
6
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Consent Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Governing Body Presenter: Sheila L. Schult
Contact: Sheila L. Schult
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Approve minutes from the following meetings:
Budget Work Session - January 20, 2006
Regular Meeting - January 23, 2006
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approve minutes.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
7
This page intentionally left blank.
8
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Consent Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Sheriff's Office Presenter: Sidney A. Causey, Sheriff
Contact: Sidney A. Causey, Sheriff
SUBJECT:
Request to Submit Grant Application to the laci and Conner Search and Rescue Fund (A
Program of The Carole Sund/Carrington Foundation) in the amount of $35,000
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Initially contributions to the Rocha family were used to help with expenses related to the Laci and Conner Peterson search
and trial. Going forward, the funds will be used for law enforcement and non-profit search and rescue organizations to help
fund necessary equipment, education, tools, etc., needed for search and rescue.
The grant proposal includes the following: Centurion Splash Proof System, $32,600; three Mustang Anti-Exposure Work
Suits, $1,815; and $585 training. The Centurion Splash Proof System is an underwater side reading sonar system to search
for drowning victims and evidence of crimes; the Anti-Exposure Work (protective) Suits are for divers recovering bodies and
evidence from underwater. In addition to the Sheriff's Office using this equipment, other law enforcement agencies would
benefit. Mutual Aid Agreements are currently in place with the three beach communities, U.S. Coast Guard, N.C. Marine
Fisheries and Wildlife, and N.C. State Port Police. There is no local match requirement.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Recommend approval for the Sheriff's Office to apply for a $35,000 grant from the Laci and Conner Search and Rescue
Fund (a program of The Carole Sund/Carrington Foundation). If the grant is awarded, recommend approval of the grant
and associated budget amendment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: $35,000 Laci and Conner Search and Rescue Fund (a program of The Carole Sund/Carrington Foundation)
No local match requirement
ATTACHMENTS:
Sheriff Causey's letter to the Foundation
Note: A copy of the grant application is available for review in the County Manager's Office
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
9
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
10
New Hanover County Sheriff s Office
Sheriff Sidney A. Causey
3950 Juvenile Center Road
Castle Hayne, North Carolina 28429
Phone (910) 362-3918
Fax (910) 362-3931
January 12,2006
Carole Sund/Carrington Memorial Reward Foundation
P.O. Box 4113
Modesto, CA 95352
RE: Laci and Conner Search and Rescue Fund
To Whom It May Concern:
The New Hanover County Sheriff's Office is requesting assistance from your foundation in order to purchase
necessary "equipment to be used in search and rescue efforts in our area. We are located in Wilmington, a port city,
located in southeastern North Carolina. We provide assistance to several agencies in our area to include the beach
communities of Wrightsville, Kure and Carolina Beach via our department's boat patrol and dive team. We are
requesting aid in purchasing the following equipment in attempts to increase our search, rescue and recovery efforts:
. Centurion Splash Proof System $32,600.00
. Mustang Anti-Exposure Work suit 3 @$410.00 $ 1,230.00
. Taxes, Shipping and Handling $ 585.00
. Training $ 585.00
---------
Total Request $35,000.00
The closest response time to our area with similar equipment is 4 hours. Within the past year there have been
incidents involving search, rescue and recovery where the requested equipment would have been used had it not
been for the response time delay. The requested equipment allows the dive team to focus its search efforts with
greater accuracy. This accuracy will lessen the danger to our divers. by alerting them to the hidden dangers of the
murky waters in which we would be searching.
In addition to our agency other law enforcement agencies would benefit from this equipment. Mutual aid agreements
are currently in place with Wrightsville Beach, Kure Beach, Carolina Beach Police Departments, as well as, U.S.
Coast Guard, North Carolina Marine Fishers and Wildlife, and North Carolina State Port Police. The New Hanover
County Sheriff's Office would be the second coastal agency in North Carolina to possess and render aid with quick
response. Ideally, with any search a rescue is the primary goal. However, when this can't be achieved despite all
efforts a recovery is just as important in ensuring closure for those affected.
The New Hanover County Sheriffs Office is actively pursuing other avenues of funding in order to acquire this
equipment if the Lad and Conner Search and Rescue Fund is unable to award funding. If we are awarded funding
the above mentioned equipment would be purchased immediately and made readily available for our agency and
those neighboring agencies upon request.
Sincerely,
~ b.. c..() .. . ......,
Sidney A Causey, heriff r
New Hanover County Sheriff's Office
OR! 0650000
-
11
This page intentionally left blank.
12
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Consent Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Finance Presenter: Avril Pinder
Contact: Avril Pinder
SUBJECT:
Certified Copy of Corporate Resolution from First Citizens Bank Changing the Finance
Director's Name to Avril M. Pinder as an Authorized Representative of New Hanover County
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Certified Copy of Corporate Resolution from First Citizens Bank changing the Finance Director's name to Avril M. Pinder, as
an Authorized Representative to be able to conduct business on behalf of New Hanover County.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approve Corporate Resolution.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
Certified Copy of Resolution
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
13
CERTIFIED COpy OF RESOLUTION
OF
New Hanover Countv
Chairman, New Hanover County Board
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that 1 am theof County Commissionefthe above-
named Government EntW~h is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
North Carolina ; that the fol1owing is a true copy of the Resolution duly adopted by
the Board of Directors of New Hanover county effective on the 6 day of
Februarv 2006
RESOLVED. that the officers listed below are authorized Representatives of
Ne',' H('lnnu<:>r r'Ollnty with the authority to execute all Trust Business on behalf of the
company with First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company.
NAME Title Sil!naturc
A vr i 1 M Pinnpr ~ --
1'<'i nCJnr.f' Di rector :.:tl AA.J <.,'\ -' , ,-
I f1rJ.: /
I J I" I
Julianne M McLawhon Deputv Fin Dir ~LVjV1V. ,lY; )J!( 1V:~~?r-/
I'~
Barbara D McClure Asst Fin Dir ' ct~J. /J1(1 ~
I further certify that this Resolution has neither been rescinded nor modified.
Witness my hand and seal of this
Day of
Signature
Print Name --
Title
SEAL
14
. "Long, Liz" To: bthomas@co.new-hanover.nc.us
r. <el izabeth. I ong@firstc cc "Long, Liz" <elizabeth.long@firstcitizenscom>
itizens.com> Subject: New Hanover County Bond Issues
01/12/200602:04 PM
Ms. Thomas
Attached is a blank corporate resolution that will need to be signed by Ms Pinder so she will be able to
conduct business on beh91f of the County. If you can, please fax a copy to me once she has signed tnis
resolution and drop the original In the mail.
Thanks for your help
Have a great dayl
< <corporate_resolution _g e n e ric _ tru st_ bus i ness. doc> >
'E6.za6etfi J. Long
'Trust )lccount 5 peczalist II
(919) 716-7145 (%fepfione)
(919) 716-2025 (lJ"aYj
eClZa6etfi. [oll{j@firstcitizens.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This electronic mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for
the use of individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipiem or
the person responsible for delivering the electronic mail to the intended recipient, he advised that
you have received this electronic mail in error and that any use. dissemination, forwarding.
printing, or copying of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
electronic mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by retum mail.
---------------------------------.------------------------------------
----"-------------------------------------------------------------------
[]
========= corporate_ resolution_generic_ trust_ buslnes~
- ------------
15
This page intentionally left blank.
16
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Consent Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Health Presenter: David Rice or designee
Contact: Kim Roane
SUBJECT:
Request Approval of Budget Amendment to Increase Revenues and Expenditures in
Epidemiology Division. Additional Revenues have Been Received for Administration of Flu
and Pneumonia Vaccine.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The New Hanover County Health Department has administered over 10,000 flu shots, nearly twice the projected number.
Demand for shots was greater this year due to critical vaccine supply issues resulting in shortages of vaccine in private
physician offices. To provide community protection against an outbreak, flu clinics were held over a three month period to
immunize the public. Resulting Medicare and health fee revenues have already well exceeded budgeted revenues by over
$109,000. We request approval for an increase of $100,000 in the Epidemiology Division's revenue and expenditure
budgets. Funds will be used to pay for the increased costs of vaccine, clinic supplies, costs incurred in the administration of
the vaccine (temporary help, printing, office supplies), patient service enhancements to the clinic cashier office (remodeling
to improve access), billing office equipment and medical records document scanning and lab patient processing programs
to improve efficiency and patient flow to allow increased capacity for greater numbers of patients served in the clinic.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
To approve the budget amendment for a $100,000 increase in the Epidemiology revenue and expenditure budgets.
Funding Source: Medicare revenues and patient fees.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
Budget Amendment 06-0110
Epidemiology Medicaid Revenues
iii I!I
06-0110.d Epi revenues flu
17
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
18
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Budget Amendment
DEPARTMENT: Health
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0110
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
Epidemiology:
Grant - Flu/Pneumonia Vaccine $100,000
Supplies $100,000
EXPLANATION: To increase Epidemiology revenue and expenditure budget by $100,000. A budget will be
prepared when quotes for services and prices are received.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Medicare and health fee revenues have already exceeded budgeted revenues by
over $109,000.
APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
19
Epidemiolgoy Medicare Revenues (Flu) FY 05/06
Additional
Revenue
Billed Total YTD percentag
through Revenue, e over
YTD 05/06 Percent December Received budgeted
Revenue Budget Collected 2005 and billed reven ues
$78,600.23 $24,000.00 327.50% $54,648.92 $133,249.15 555.20%
Current YTD revenues (received plus already billed) are $109,249.15 over
budgeted revenues of $24,000.
Additional revenues will be received over and above the amounts shown
above from billing currently processing (data entry continues monthly as
additional immunizations are given, so these revenues will be even
greater by fiscal year end).
20
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Consent Item #: 5 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Health Presenter: David Rice or designee
Contact: Janet McCumbee
SUBJECT:
Family Assessment Coordination Grant - $113,000
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Family Assessment Coordination (FAG) Program has been funded for four years as part of the Cape Fear Memorial
Foundation (CFMF) NAVIGATOR grant. CFMF funds have ended and the FAC part of the grant has been picked up by
Smart Start for the rest of the current FY. We are submitting an application for continued Smart Start funding for FY 06-07.
The goal of the FAC Program is to provide universal screening for prenatal and postpartum women. Surveys are done in
obstetrician's offices and prenatal clinics to determine the needs of parents for resources such as social, financial,
developmental, nutrition, medical, and educational. Social workers or nurses follow up with the families, based on their
needs. This funds one position (SW or nurse) and administrative support for the program.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Ratify the submission of the Family Assessment Coordination Smart Start grant and approve any budget amendment
related to the receipt of the grant funds, if there is a difference in what is already budgeted in the health department 06-07
County budget for organization 11061250. (The grant application deadline was 01/27/06.)
Funding Source: NHC Partnership for Children (Smart Start); No County match of cash funds is required - only in-kind
contribution of administration and supervision (currently in place). No additional space is required, as staff are currently
working in existing space. Program will not be continued if grant funding ends.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: The grant currently covers one (1) Social Worker or Nurse position and one (1) part time Administrative
Support Technician.
ATTACHMENTS:
Application Cover Sheet
Budget Summary
iii ~
2 Applic for Can't Funding-Cover SJBudget Summary Navi~
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
21
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
22
Application Cover Sheet
Project Title: Navigator/Family Assessment Coordination
Agency Legal Name: New Hanover County Health DePl.lrtment
Mailing Address: 2029 S. 17tb Street .
Street Address: same
City: Wilmington New Hanover Co. NC Zip: 28401
Phone: 910343-6522 Fax: 910341-4146
Email: kroane@nhcgov.com Website: www.nhcgov.com
Program Contact Person
Name: Juanita Sneeden Title: Public HealthNlIrse~upervisor
Phone: 910-343-6566 Email: jsneeden@nhcgov.coDl
Fiscal Contact: Kim Roane, Business Officer, 343-6522, kroane@nhcgov.com
Person Authorized to Sign Contract
Name: David E. Rice Title: Health Director
Phone: 910-343-6591 Email: drice@nhcgov.com
Tax Status: ()For Profit (X )Public ()Tax-Exernpt Organization
Federal Tax ID Number: 56-6000324
Total Project Budget: $ 125,800
Other Funding Sources: $ 12,800
Funding Requested from NHCPFC
Year (2006-2007) $ 113,000
Total Request $ 113,000
Signatures indicate completeness and accuracy of proposal packet.
.~~ 111 !Or"
Pro~O[.ct ;;";00
, I
Date
A ." 19~ .6;b'
Person Authorized to Sign Contracts
Date
36
-"-"-_. -----
23
Attachment 5
Projected Budget for Direct Services Provider Activity
Partnership:New Hanover County Partnership for Children, Inc. Fiscal Year: 2006-07
Direct Services Provider: NHC Health Department Smart In-Kind Cash Total
Contract #: Activity #: 219 Start Funds Match Funds
Activity Name: Navigator/FAC Funds Amount Amount Amount
---
~llf.e!Sonnel $110,700.00 $9,00000 $119,700~
------ --- ----
12) Contracted ServJ.c!'!s _n~O.OO
1_31~tal P~rsonnel/Contracted Services ~110,700.00 J!j..QQO.OO $0.00 $119,700.l)Q_
- ----------
14) Supplies & Materials...-_ u $1,100QO l1,1000~
15) Service-I3~lated Supplies and Male~il~___ $300.00 __~Qg()O
161 Total Supfllies & Materials $1,400.00 _J~QO $0.00 $.1..~_Q.00
17) Travel ~~OOOO $600.00
~Co.rnll1unications &Po~.'l.!!e $200.00 $200.00
19) Utilities $400.00 . . $400cQ()
20) Printi!!.>! & Binding $20000 $200.00
21) Repair and Maintenance -..--------- ----------- $0.00
22) ~etil1g1Conference Expen~e $000
23) Employee Traini~>! (no travelL $300.00 $300.00
24) Aclvertisingal1.dPublicizing_ $0.00
25) Not Available for Us_e. ---- -- ---------- $0.00
26) Total N_ol1::Fixed Operatin9_E:J(pen~e~___ -------- $900.00 $800.00 $0.00 11,700.00
---- - ----------------
27) OfflC~_~nt (Land, Buildings, etc.) ~3,000Q() $3,O.o~O.o
~lFurniture Rental $0.00
29) Equipment R~_n~<llj!'hones, Computer,et~ $0.00
30) VehJcle Rental -------------..---. - ------ $0.00
31) Dues & Subscrip_tilllls_________ $0-00
32) Insurcmce & Bonding $0.00
33) Books (Library ReferencE!_Materiill~L ~OOO
34) Notl\vajlableforUse $0.00
~5) Ottler Expens_es________ $0.00
36) Total Fixed Charges & Other Expenses !O.OO $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00
37) Not Available for Use_ _ _ ____$.Q.OO
38) Not Available for USt;l $0.00
39) Furniture/Non-Computer Eqpt., $500+ per item $0.00
40) Computer EquiflmentlPrinters, $500.+ _per item_ $0.00
41) Furniture/Eqpt.,under $500 per item_ ~()O()
42) Totat Pr~perty & Equipment 9~tl_a~_____ . $0.00 $0.00 $0.00... _lOOO
----
------ . - ------- ____n__
43) Purc.h31ses of Services $0.00
44) Not Available for Use - ------------------- $000
45)J\~ilrds (including schll~arsh.i!>s~bonusesL . _$.QOO
46) Cashg~~n_ $0.00
47) Non.Cash Grants $0.00
48) Total Services/c;ontl'acts/Gra_l1ts -------- $2.,00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00
49) Tota!F'~rticipant Trair1il1~,-~xpense _ lOOl'
113,000.00 12,800.00 125,800.00
24
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Consent Item #: 6 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Health Presenter: David Rice or designee
Contact: Janet McCumbee
SUBJECT:
Health Check/Smart Start Grant Request (Renewal of existing grant) - $45,800
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Health Check Coordination Program has been funded by Smart Start for nine years. We are submitting an application
for continued funding for FY 06-07. The goal of the Health Check Program is to ensure that Medicaid eligible children and
Health Choice insured children receive comprehensive health and dental care. The Health Check Coordinator also does
outreach in our community to find uninsured children and assist their families with the application process for Medicaid and
Health Choice. Health Check is governed by state guidelines.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Ratify the submission of the Health Check Smart Start grant and approve any budget amendment related to the receipt of
the grant funds, if there is a difference in what is already budgeted in the health department 06-07 County budget for 110
61450. (The grant application deadline was 01/27/06.)
Funding Source: NHC Partnership For Children (Smart Start); No County match of cash funds is required, only in-kind
contribution of administration and supervision (currently in place). No additional space is required, as staff are currently
working in existing space. Program will not be continued if grant funding ends.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: The grant covers one current position - Program Assistant (Health Check Coordinator).
ATTACHMENTS:
Projected Budget Sweadsheet
iii
2 Applic for Can't Funding-Cover Sl
~
HC 8 Attch 5 Projected Budge
25
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
26
Application Cover Sheet
Project Title: Health Check Coordination
Agency Legal Name: New Hanover County Health Department
Mailing Address: 2029 S. 17th Street .
Street Address: same
City: Wilmington New Hanover Co. NC Zip: 28401
Phone: 910343-6522 Fax: 910341-4146
Email: kroane@nhcgov.com Website: www.nhcgov.com
Program Contact Person
Name: Page Dunn Title: Community Service~Supervisor
Phone: 910-343-6648 Email:pd 1IIln@nhcg()v.colll
Fiscal Contact: Kim Roane, Business Officer, 343-6522, kroane@nhcgov.com
Person A uthorized to SignContract
Name: David E. Rice Title: Health Director
Phone: 910-343-6591 Email: drice@nhcgov.com
Tax Status: ( )For Profit (X )Public ()Tax-Exempt Organization
Federal Tax ID Number: 56-6000324
Total Project Budget: $ 61,700
Other Funding Sources: $ 15,900
Funding Requested from NHCPFC
Year (2006-2007) $ 45,800
Total Request $ 45,800
Signatures indicate completeness and accuracy of proposal packet.
'~~~~ I-~o..-O~
~tact Person
Date
j:Jch (jb
Person Authorized to Sign Contracts
Date
39
-------..---"
27
Attachment 5
Projected Budget for Direct Services Provider Activity
Partnership:New Hanover County Partnership for Children, Inc. Fiscal Year: 2006-07
Direct Services Provider: NHC Health Department Smart In-Kind Cash Total
-- -.._----._-- -
Contract #: Activity #: 202 Start Funds Match Funds
--- ----- -- --- - - -
Activity Name: Health Check Coordination Funds Amount Amount Amount
-- - ---,', -",. - - -.'----- -
11)1'E!rSo~n~ _$~3,000.00 $ g_50 0.0 0 $56,5QQ oll
12LContracted ~Nic~ $QOQ.
13) Toj<ll Pe/"llonneIlCllIlt~cted Servic~s $~.O()O.()O $13,~O().00_ $0.00 $56~5()0.00
-- ---. -- ---....- -- -
lj) '::;uJlPlies & Material~ ___ $800JlO $800.00
15) SeNJc:e-Related SUP!JliE!.s and Mate.rLa~ __ $400.0Q, $400.00
16l"TQ!al..::>.lJ.!:lplies & Materials___ __~1~O().OO $0.00 ~OcO~ $1,200.00
--.'--.----.--
17)Trav~__ _ _ __ _!1.16000 _$1-1~,.Q0
18) Communicatio~ & Postage._ ___.. $240_,00 _~.1..c?00 0.0 _ $,1,44000_
19) Utilitie~ _ _. _ ___ _ -- ---- - --.._- $~CJ.OO_ t200QQ
2011'rinting & Binding._ _ __ __ $}OO.OO $300.00
_2'1) Repai~rl(jMaintenance_ ~.QQ
22) ~E!ting/ConfeJ"Ell1.~ Expen~ -- $0.00
2~ Eme.lclyee Training (notravel) _ __ _ $20000 J2QQOO
24) ~dvertisinl/....<l.QCl PublicizinlL_ $0,00
25) NoV\vailable fOlJJse -- - $0 O.Q.
~6LTotalJ-l()I1-Fixed Oplll'atin9E_~el1S.e~ $1,600.00 $..1,7..00.00 $0.00 $:J,30.9,~0
--,____ ____,__u_u_ _
27) OffiCEl...Renlll.an~-,-Buil.dings, ets) _ !7'QQO_O _ $700,00
.?8lfurniture RE!I1.t~ -- $CJ.OQ.
.?9LEquiprnent RentaIJPhon_~~o.r!1fllller, etc.) _~OJlQ.
30) Vehicle Rental_____ ._ - ---,- '- -- $0.00
31) Dues & SUbscriptions $0.00
l?2J nsuran~~Bolldin9____ _ .!OJ],O_
33) Books (Library Reference Materials) _u,__ ',._____.__..____ ___ $O{)()
~4)NotAvailablefurUse___ n~OO
3~Oth~J=xpenses ------,.- ~OO
3_~ _I?l!i Fixed Charaes & Ot~r~xpenses $O.()O $700.00 $0.00 FO().QQ.
-"'-------'-----..-- -
37) Not~vailaEl13 fOr..!Jse $0.00
3~_ ~t AV~<Ible for Us..l3.._ __._ _ n $0,00
39) f=ljrniture/Non-CoIl1Puter Eqpt., $500+ peritE!~_ ~() .()O _
40) Computer EquipmenVPrinters, $500+ Pl!i" _~Il1.._ _ !g.00
~LE..urniture/Egpt.. under.!.~()() per itel11.... _ n $Q.()Q.
~l!.otal Property & Equipment Outlay_ _ __ ...!O.o~ $0.00 $0.00 ~O,OQ.
---..------------- -------.----.,-- ---
i3) Purchases .<l!...SeNice~ __ $O,Q.O
44)l'J.clt Available for U~E!...n___ ___ __~OO~
45) Awards (inciudJrlg scholarships and bonuse~!___ _ _ ...10.00
46) Ca.s1!Qi:a..llls_____ $0,00
ii'2.J.I<lrl_-Cas..f1..9rants !g.QQ
~)..!otal Services/Contr~c:ts/Qran~_ - - --- -----,- $().Oll. _. $0.00 $0.00 ...10jlO_
-------..,---.-
49)..!.otal Participal1!...Training ElCJle_l'l!l~ .. $000
45,800.00 15,900.00 61,700.00
28
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Consent Item #: 7 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Health Presenter: David Rice or designee
Contact: Janet McCumbee
SUBJECT:
Child Care Nursing Smart Start Grant (Renewal of existing grant - $186,600)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Child Care Nursing Program has been Smart Start funded for nine years. We are submitting an application for
continued funding for FY 06-07. The goal of the Child Care Nursing Program is to provide preventative services to children,
their parents, and child care providers in local child care facilities. This includes immunization follow-up, medical action
plans, health and safety education, and technical assistance for policies. Communicable disease issues are addressed and
children are referred for developmental concerns. Two child care nurses provide services to approximately 75 large
facilities and 100 family child care homes.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Ratify the submission of the Child Care Nursing Smart Start renewal grant and approve any budget amendment related to
the receipt of the grant funds, if there is a difference in what is already budgeted in the health department 06-07 County
budget for organization 11061530. (The grant application deadline was 01/27/06.)
Funding Source: NHC Partnership For Children (Smart Start); No County match of cash funds is required, only in-kind
contribution of administration and supervision (currently in place). No additional space is required, as staff are currently
working in existing space. Program will not be continued if grant funding ends.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: The grant currently covers two (2) Nursing positions and one (1) Administrative Support Technician
ATTACHMENTS:
Budget Spreadsheet
Application Cover Sheet
iii
Applic Cover - Sheet Sm
I!I
Projected Budget Spreadsht
29
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
30
Application Cover Sheet
Project Title: Child Care Nursing
Agency Legal Name: New Hanover County Health Department
Mailing Address: 2029 S. 17th Street
Street Address: same
City: Wilmington New Hanover Co. NC Zip: 28401
Phone: 910343-6522 Fax: 910341-4146
Email: kroane@nhcgov.com Website: www.nhcgov.com
Program Contact Person
Name: Page Dunn Title: COillmunity Services Supervisor
Phone: 910-343-6648 Email:. pdunn@nl1~gov.coill
Fiscal Contact: Kim Roane, Business Officer, 343-6522, kroane@nhcgov.com
Person Authorized to Sign Contract
Name: David E. Rice Title: Health Director
Phone: 910-343-6591 Email: drice@nhcgov.com
Tax Status: ( )For Profit (X )Public ()Tax-ExemptOrganization
Federal Tax ID Number: 56-6000324
Total Project Budget: $ 207,400
Other Funding Sources: $ 20,800
Funding Requested from NHCPFC
Year (2006-2007) $ 186,600
Total Request $186,600
Signatures indicate completeness and accuracy of proposal packet.
yg ~
ct Person 1 -I '1....(J ~
Date
/9rkx Pt
Date
42
-------
31
Attachment 5
Projected Budget for Direct Services Provider Activity
Partnership:New Hanover County Partnership for Children, Inc. Fiscal Year: 2006-07
Direct Services Provider: NHC Health Department Smart In-Kind Cash Total
--
Contract #: Activity #: 203 Start Funds Match Funds
----- -- --
Activity Name: Child Care Nursing Funds Amount Amount Amount
-_.....----- ..-.---.. ---
1JlPersonnEl~______ $179,300~ J14,000~ $1~3.30000
12) Contracte~ Services ~(j()-
131Iotal Personnel/Col1!rClcted ServJc:es . _ $1'7!l,300.00_ $14,llll.0.00 $0,-00 $193,3Q(),00
-_.--------
142 Supplies& Materia~ $685,00 $685.00
15) Service-Related Suppliesand Materials !El00.00 $600.00
~611otal Supplies & Material~_ $1,~~.Q~ $0.00_ $0.00 l1,285.00
-- ----------- ----
.!D Tn~v~_____ $2,400.0~ $2,400.00
18) Comm~flications & PO~C1gEl _~200.00 $800.00 $1,000.00
.l9) Utilities $1,00Q.00 $1,000.00
20) Prinlin~inding ~OO~Qo. $1-,-QOO.00 ~1,:3()000
lliRepair and Maintenance $200.00 $~()O~O
22) Meeting/Conference Expense .!QOQ
23) Employee Training (no tra_~1J. __ $~00Cl $500.00
24) Advertising and Publicizing_ __ __ $000
~~Not Available for Use -- ---- ---- ~OO~
~6) Tota!t'lon-Fixed Operating EXPll.r1.se.! $3,600.00_ g,80(),OO $0.00 $6,40o..QO
_.......----- -----"..--......--.-
III Office Rent (Land. E3lJildings,~c:t $4,000.00 . $4,000.00
28) Furniture Rental - ----- --- ~OO
29) Equipment RenIClljf'hones, Computer,-Ell.cL $O.O~
30) Vehicle Renta~__ 50.00
m Dues & Subscriptiof1.S._ g15.(j() _ ~215.00
32) Insurance &_ Bonding 50QO
33~oks (Library Reference Mclleri.'l~L $~QO
34) Not Available forUse___ $0.00
35) Other Expenses _ _______ $0.00
~~otal FixedCharges & OtherExp~nses j21~0 $4,000.0.0 $0.00 $4,2~.00
-......--------
31tN_o.t Availabll~J()rUse _$0.00
38) Not Availab~e for Use $0.00
3Q2 Furniturell'lon-gomRuter EqIlU~OO+ JJllr}em $0.00
40} Computer E~uipmentlPrinters, $500+ perJtem $2,200,00 ~2,2QClO~
~1)B1rniturf3/Eqpt:.o.JJr1der $500 p~item__ ~OO
41}Totall"roJ)erty ~~quipment Outlay .$2,200.0.0 $.().O~ $.0..00. $2,200.00
43) p.LJrchases of Servic~ ~:OO_
44) !'lot Availa~le for Use __ __ _~O,QO
45) Awa~s (including scholarships and bOr1lJS_e.~_ $0.00
i6) Cash Grants __ __ __ $0.00
~)Non-Cash Grants _m..____ _ __ _$.0 00
4111I11tal Services/Contr~ts/Gran~ $.0.00 $.0'00 $0.00 ~.o.o._
- ____ .__......._._. u_________
49) To~_'_""rticipant Training Expense $0.00
186,600.00 20,800.00 207,400.00
32
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Consent Item #: 8 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Health Presenter: Scott Harrelson, Assistant Health Director
Contact: Scott Harrelson, Assistant Health Director
SUBJECT:
Primary Care Project Grant Application
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Our department has been notified by the Division of Medical Assistance, Carolina Access of the Lower Cape Fear, New
Hanover County DSS and representatives of local pediatric groups to alert us of the need for additional providers for low
income and indigent children in New Hanover County. Currently in New Hanover County there are 14,167 children on
Medicaid, 2,168 on NC Health Choice and approximately 4,234 with no insurance coverage. When you combine all three
groups there are 20,569 children in this target population and the number is growing.
Currently in New Hanover County there are no pediatricians accepting Medicaid clients without restrictions.
Access to care is a number one priority of the New Hanover County Board of Health and the health department. Our
previous grant request for this initiative to the Office of Rural Health was not funded. Through a collaborative effort with the
safety net providers in the area we have an opportunity to re-submit this grant request in the amount of $30,000 to the Cape
Fear United Way to begin pediatric primary care services for under-served children. This would be one component of a
larger grant. The total amount needed to cover the cost of staffing this project is $85,231. The difference of $55,231 will be
funded via Medicaid/Health Choice reimbursements and fees for services.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
To accept and approve our request to be included in an application submitted by New Hanover Regional to Cape Fear
United Way for $30,000 to establish a pediatric primary care clinic geared towards low income and indigent children as
presented; to approve any associated budget amendment for the increase in revenues and expenditures, including other
funding sources, if funding is awarded.
Funding Source: Grant funding in the amount of $30,000 would enhance our capability to establish a much needed
pediatric primary care clinic for the community. Grant would be for start-up costs and would not continue past year one, but
the program would be self-sustained through other revenue sources based on patient services provided. Financial
projections based on the documented need, current reimbursement rates and similar programs in neighboring health
departments would create a self sustaining program funded by revenues received from NC Health Choice, Medicaid and
patient health fees. No County match would be required. Space for this program would be current clinic space already in
use.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: New Position(s) Number of Positions: 2
Explanation: This program would include two new positions, an LPN and an Administrative Support Assistant. The
combined salary/fringe for both of these positions would be $85,231.
ATTACHMENTS:
33
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
The item was withdrawn.
34
I I Overview of Organization (1-2 paragraphs) I
Provide a brief description of your organization. Also include the following information
on users for the time period July 1,2004 through June 30, 2005: total users, Medicaid
users, and the total number of uninsured insurers. Also as a subset of the total number of
uninsured users please report the number who are sliding fee scale, Medical Access Plan
(MAP), or free care users. Important: Please do not report the number of visits but the
number of un duplicated users (patients).
New Hanover County Health Department is located in Wilmington, NC. Our county has
a population of 173,554. Our health depmtment is one of the oldest in the state. We have
been serving the public health needs of the people of New Hanover County for over 126
years. Our department was one of the first health departments in the state to become
accredited. We provide Clinic Services, Care Coordination Services, School Health
Nurses, Animal Control, Vector Control and Environmental Health Services. Beginning
in March 2006 we will offer dental services to indigent children through a brand new
mobile dental unit.
Users from July 1,2004 through June 30, 2005
Total Users: 26,203
Medicaid Users: 2,716
Insured Users: 8,292
Uninsured Users: 15,195
III Community Need (1 page) 15 points
Describe the population served by your organization and their healthcare needs. Include
and cite demographic data wherever possible.
The population that our proposed program will target is indigent children age birth to 18.
This population can be broken down in to three groups NC Health Choice, Medicaid
eligible and the uninsured. The numbers of each group in New Hanover County are as
follows:
NC Health Choice 2,168
Medicaid 14,167
Uninsured 4.234
Total 20,569
At our recent strategic planning session one of the top priorities for our department was
to improve access to care. The Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) informs us that
there are enrollment restrictions for Medicaid clients in New Hanover County that are
~.,._.~"-------_.-
35
presenting barriers to care. We also received e-mail notification from our local DSS
Family & Children's Medicaid/Child Care Chief stating, "we now have no pediatricians
who will accept Medicaid patients without restrictions. Most are only seeing established
patients, though Carolina Pediatrics will also see siblings of established patients." As of
January 2006 all NC Health Choice children 0-5 will be rolled over to Medicaid, which
may mean more children will need to be placed with a provider. DMA has requested that
we provide primary care for children and enroll as a Carolina Access Provider to meet the
demand.
Data from the North Carolina Healthcare Safety Net Report provided by the North
Carolina Institute of Medicine shows that 85% of the uninsured in New Hanover County
do not have a primary care home. There are currently three safety net providers for the
uninsured listed for New Hanover County, NHC Community Health Center, AHEC
Outpatient Uninsured and Tileston Free Clinic. These providers saw approximately 17%
of the uninsured population for New Hanover County in 2003.
The Safety Net Report also included some interesting data entitled "Indicators of County-
Specific Categories of Nee d." They scored each county on 5 different areas in regard to
the uninsured:
. Number of uninsured in the county
. Percent ofthe county population that is uninsured
. Number of uninsured with no identified source for Primary Care
. Percent of uninsured with no identified source for Primary Care
. The ratio of primary care providers to the county population
Even though New Hanover County (NHC) scored high on the physician to population
ratio, in the top 25% for the state, the uninsured with no identified source of Primary
Care was one of the worst in the state, in the bottom 25%. This means that there is a
serious problem with access to care for the uninsured.
During our recent strategic planning process for our local Healthy Carolinians Task
Force we were presented four separate community assessments done for our area: the
NHC Health Dept 2003 Community Health Assessment, 2005 Cape Fear Area United
Way's health and human services assessment, Brunswick County Health Department
2003 community health assessment, and the Coastal Carolinas Health Alliance
regional health assessment. Each of these assessments listed access to care as a major
issue for our area.
III Project Description (3 pages) 40 points
Describe your proposed project/service. Discuss how this project will increase access to
primary care for uninsured and medically indigent persons. Include an implementation
timeline for your project assuming funding is received in January 2006.
The current problem in New Hanover County is that we do not have enough providers
accepting Medicaid to meet the demand for our child Medicaid population. The
36
additional problem is with the uninsured, 85% of them do not have a medical home. The
proposed pediatric care program will offer an additional provider of primary care for
indigent children. We have most of the necessary infrastructure in place already. We
have an Open Access Schedule clinic, which means we offer all of our services every day
much like a private office. We have a part time physician on contract three days a week
in the clinic. We have a full time family nurse practitioner and a full time physician
assistant. We currently operate two clinic suites five days a week and one clinic suite
three days per week along with a general clinic five days a week. With this funding we
could add an additional contract physician extender two days a week, a licensed practical
nurse, a community health assistant and a program assistant to expand our clinic services
to three suites operating five days per week.
The clinic would be set up to see children 0-18 on NC Health Choice, Medicaid and those
with no coverage. A 250% sliding fee scale would be utilized to offer a maximum price
break to the undocumented and the working poor with no insurance coverage. The
sliding scale would slide to 0 for truly indigent children. We would be able to offer 50
appointments a week to this target population. We will apply to be a Carolina Access
Provider to accept 750 Medicaid children as our patients. With the ability to place 750
new Medicaid patients it should relieve the strain on DSS for placement issues. The
funds realized from the Medicaid and patient pay clients will also provide us with a
method to provide charity care to the uninsured. We will act as a referral source for other
safety net providers in our community to treat indigent children. We would meet the
requirements for 24/7 coverage and hospital admissions for the Carolina Access Program
with the assistance of local partnerships with other medical providers in the community.
Financial projections show sustainability through Medicaid reimbursements as well as fee
for services for those that payout of pocket at a reduced rate. Cost settlement dollars for
Medicaid services should also increase due to increased volume of Medicaid services
provided to Medicaid children. This would infuse more money to our local cause to treat
indigent children.
I IV Collaboration (1 page) 15 points I
Describe any collaborative activities with other safety net providers in your community
related to this project; when possible include letters of support.
Our collaboration with each of the safety net providers in the community is spear headed
through our local Healthy Carolinians Task Force, the Cape Fear Healthy Carolinians.
One of our four sub-committees is Access to Care. New Hanover Health Network will be
applying for a larger grant on behalf of area safety net providers to include our $30,000
request. Letters of support from our local partners and human service agencies will
evidence this.
__.,~~._~____ _m ~-"----~-- .------
37
Salary/Fringe
LPN (fIt) 48,152.00
Physician Consultation (16 hours/month) 10,512.00
Admin Support Asst (fIt) 37,079.00
Total Salary/Fringe $95,743.00
Operating Expenses
Contract Services - Interpreter 17,000.00
Contract Services - FNP (40%) 45,760.00
On-Call Services ($400/mo) 4,800.00
M&R Equip 1,000.00
Printing 2,000.00
Supplies 18,000.00
Dues & Subscriptions 500
Employee Reimbursements 350
Training & Travel 1,760.00
Total Operating Expenses $91,170.00
Total Expenditure Budget 186,913.00
Revenues
Medicaid 139,950.00
Health Fees (private pay patients) 14,900.00
Health Choice 12,600.00
United Way/NHRMC grant 30,000.00
h"otal Revenues $197,450.00 $197,450.00
Net Income (Revenues - Expenditures) $10,537
38
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Consent Item #: 9 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Health Presenter: Scott Harrelson, Assistant Health Director
Contact: Scott Harrelson, Assistant Health Director
SUBJECT:
North Carolina Institute of Public Health Improvement Fund Grant Application - $17,034
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The NC Institute of Public Health Accreditation Board is offering funds to local health departments who have been through
the accreditation process over the last few years. These funds are to be used to improve performance relative to activities
that were found to be less than optimal by the Accreditation Board. We received our accreditation in May of 2004, with very
few deficiencies. We are requesting funds to get temporary clerical assistance for the remainder of this FY, to improve and
standardize our documents such as policies/procedures/standing orders per recommendation of the accreditation
committee. We also need to enter all staff continuing education hours into a database for annual review and to be able to
prove staff competency. If received, the two mini-grants ($8,517 each) would fund two full-time clerical temps to work from
March through June 2006. This is a one-time grant funded project which will end when grant funding ends.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Ratify submission of the applications, and if awarded, approve the acceptance of the state grant of $17,034 (Two separate
requests for $8,517 each are being submitted, due to the request covering two different activities); and to approve any
associated budget amendment related to the receipt of the grant funds in the Health Department 05-06 County budget.
Funding Source: NC Institute of Public Health Accreditation Board. No County match required. Existing space will be
used.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation: Funds would be for two temporary clerical staff/contract services for 17 weeks, March-June 2006.
ATTACHMENTS:
2006 NC Institute for Public Health Improvement Fund Grant Applications (2)
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
39
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
40
2006 NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC HEALTH
IMPROVEMENT FUND GRANT APPLICATION
Benchmark not met:
Activity not met: Section One: Standard 24 Translates adopted policies into operating procedures;
Activity 24: 1 and Activity 24:4
Remedial action for which funding is requested: N/ A
Estimated date of completion: June 30,2006
Budget requested: $8517
Budget Narrative: Request a temporary clerical person for 40 hours per week X 17 weeks (estimated
from March through June 2006); Temp would cost $501 per week. This clerical person would provide
much needed support to translate all policies into newly adopted format. He/She would also provide
assistance to the Quality Assurance team as they review, revise and develop policies, and standardize
annual review processes. This person would also assist all Divisions and teams with updating
procedures and standing orders per recommendations of accreditation committee.
Outcome or Deliverable - Document, Policy, or Physical Improvement
AIl Health Department Policies will be available on the web site in a standard format.
All program specific procedures will be standardized, with scheduled annual reviews, and in notebooks
that readily identifiable
All standing orders will be standardized, and in a format that can be reviewed annuaIly with
appropriate signatures.
The Quality Assurance Team will have procedures in place for annual reviews, creation of new
policies, etc.
~~._---------------
41
Contact Persons: David Rice, Health Director or Scott Hanelson, Assistant Health Director
Telephone:910-343-6591 or 910-343-6592 Email: drice@nhcgov.com; shanelson@nhcgov.com
Please note:
APPLICATIONS FORMS ARE DUE ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 31,2006.
Forms received after that date may not be considet'ed for funding.
Health Department: New Hanover County Health Department
Health Director's Signature and Date Submitted
42
2006 NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC HEALTH
IMPROVEMENT FUND GRANT APPLICATION
Benchmark not met:
Activity not met: Section Three: Standard 3 The agency has and implements a performance
appraisal plan, that identifies the continuing education needs of the staff.
Remedial action for which funding is requested: N/A
Estimated date of completion: June 30, 2006
Budget requested: $8517
Budget Narrative: This would pay for a temporary clerical person for 40 hours per week X 17 weeks
at $501 per week (based on March through June 2006). A clerical person is needed to provide support
for the new performance appraisal process, which includes documentation of the staff s need for
continuing education (Section 3: Standard 3). The accreditation document recommends that all staff
have continuing education needs review at performance appraisal time, and additional education needs
identified. We need all staff continuing education entered into a new database for 05-06, so that this
process can occur with the new FY (06-07).
Outcome or Deliverable - Document, Policy, or Physical Improvement
All staff continuing education will be available in a database, to include 05-06 continuing ed units.
Additional mandatory certifications or trainings will be documented.
Staff training specific to competencies such as required for Bioterrorism mandates and core functions
can be queried as needed.
Continuing ed can be easily retrieved and documented at performance appraisal time each year, to plan
for meeting continuing ed needs for new year.
_.____n___ _____._____'__m__"__n.___ ____0
43
Contact Person: David Rice, Health Director or Scott Harrelson, Assistant Health Director
Telephone:910-343-6591 or 910-343-6592 Email: drice@nhcgov.com or sharrelson@nhcgov.com
Please note:
APPLICATIONS FORMS ARE DUE ON OR BEFORE .JANlJARY 31. 2006.
Forms received after that date may not be considered for funding.
Health Department: New Hanover County Health Department
Health Director's Signature and Date Submitted
I
-~._--_._-_..--_.."~--_."."
44
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Consent Item #: 10 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Chris O'Keefe
Contact: Chris O'Keefe
SUBJECT:
Smith Creek Greenway Clean Water Management Trust Fund Mini Grant - $25,000
BRIEF SUMMARY:
New Hanover County has been awarded a "mini-grant" of $25,000 from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF). The grant is for costs associated with future acquisition of properties in the Smith Creek Greenway. These
costs will include appraisal, survey, Phase I environmental study and other pre-acquisition costs.
The Greenway expansion would be in harmony with the newly adopted Master Plan. It is hoped that we will be able to
acquire these two properties without further cost to the County through a combination of CWMTF grants and landowner
donations. Any further effort to acquire these properties will be brought to the Commissioners for approval.
The Watershed Management Advisory Board has approved the use of funds currently in the project for the match which
can be up to $5,000 (matching funds must equal at least 20% of the grant award). Vice-Chairman Caster is the Board's
representative.
A draft grant agreement is available for review in the County Manager's office.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Sign the contract entering into an agreement with the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to pay for the costs of the
project and approve related budget amendment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
06-0117.doc
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES:
45
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
46
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Budget Amendment
DEPARTMENT: Watershed Management Program
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0117
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
Tidal Creek:
Grant - Clean Water Mgmt. $25,000
Capital Project Expense $25,000
EXPLANATION: To budget funds of a grant award from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund. The total value
of the grant is $30,000 with the 20% matching funds available in the current project budget.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The grant is for costs associated with future acquisition of two properties in Smith
Creek Greenway.
APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
47
This page intentionally left blank.
48
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Budget Amendment
Consent Item #: 11 Estimated Time: Page Number:
DEPARTMENT: Health
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0112
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
Health Promotions:
Grant - State $8,175
Advertising Cost $600
M&R Equipment $150
Printing $950
Supplies $4,825
Dues and Subscriptions $250
Employee Reimbursements $700
Training and Travel $700
EXPLANATION: There is a reduction in state funding for the Health Promotions program of $8,175, with a
corresponding decrease in Health Promotions expenditures.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: This is a statewide funding cut.
APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
49
This page intentionally left blank.
50
REGULAR AGENDA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No.
5 :40 p.m. 1. Public Hearing and 53
Consideration of Approval to Submit a Joint Application with the City of
Wilmington for 2006 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Funding from the U. S.
Department of Justice
5 :45 p.m. 2. Public Hearing and 59
Consideration of a Resolution Relating to a County/City Bond Issue
6:35 p.m. 3.1 Public Hearing 63
Street Naming - Request by Planning staffto consider naming an unnamed
road to Clemmons Way located near Trinity Avenue in the Middle Sound
Community (SN -98, 02/06)
6:45 p.m. 3.2 Public Hearing 67
Street Naming - Request by Olen & Patricia Roberts to consider naming an
unnamed road to Flounder Lane located near Royal Oak Drive in the Myrtle
Grove Community (SN-99, 02/06)
6:55 p.m. 3.3 Public Hearing 71
Rezoning/Conditional Use - Request by John E. Evans, Jr. to rezone
approximately 26.5 acres of property located at 1500 and 1551 Point Harbor
Road from 1-1 Light Industrial to CD (B-2) Highway Business with Mixed
Uses (Z-826, 12/05)
7:25 p.m. Break
7:35 p.m. 3.4 Public Hearing 77
Item 4: Rezoning - Request by Withers and Ravenel for Gulfstream Shopping
Center Properties LLC to rezone approximately 5.73 acres of property located
at 609 Piner Road behind the Junction Creek Office Park from R-15
Residential to 0&1 Office and Institutional (Z-8l7, 11/05)
7:50 p.m. 3.5 Public Hearing 81
Item 5: Special Use Permit - Request by Thelma Washington to consider a
Special Use Permit to expand a Child Care Center in an R-lO Residential
District located at 309 Cardiff Road (S-547, 01/06)
8:00 p.m. 3.6 Public Hearing 87
Special Use Permit - Request by Deborah Stafford to consider a Special Use
Permit to place a Single-Wide Mobile Home in an R-20 Residential District
located at 3321 Oakley Circle (S-550, 02/06)
51
8:20 p.m. 3.7 Public Hearing 91
Text Amendment - Request by John Evans, Jr. to amend the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance Section 55-4 Dimensional Requirements for Height
and FAR Requirements in the B-2 Highway Business District (A-345, 12/05)
8:50 p.m. 3.8 Public Hearing 93
Text Amendments - Request by planning staffto amend the New Hanover
County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect changes made by the
North Carolina General Assembly in the 2005 Legislative Session
(A-346, 01/06)
9:00 p.m. 4. Presentation of Project Results to Date on the Problem of Disproportionate 119
Minority Contact
9:15 p.m. 5. Meeting of the Water and Sewer District 121
9:25 p.m. 6. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
9:30 p.m. 7. Additional Items
County Manager
County Commissioners
Clerk to the Board
County Attorney
9:45 p.m. ADJOURN
Note: Times listed for each item are estimated, and if a preceding item takes less
time, the Board will move forward until the agenda is completed.
52
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Sheriff's Office Presenter: Sidney A. Causey, Sheriff
Contact: Sidney A. Causey, Sheriff
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and Consideration of Approval to Submit a Joint Application with the City of
Wilmington for 2006 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Funding from the U.S. Department of
Justice
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed by President Bush in December 2004, consolidated the Edward Byrne
Memorial and the State and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Programs into a new program designated as the
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG).
New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington are certified as disparate agencies; therefore, FY2006 JAG funding in the
amount of $84,358 is available to be split between these two law enforcement agencies with each receiving $42,179.
Submittal of a joint JAG Grant application is required. The JAG grant process requires a public hearing be held for
discussion on the use of funds. There is no local match requirement.
The Sheriff's Office portion of the 2006 JAG grant funding would be spent to purchase Live Scan equipment to process
fingerprints and palm prints.
A Memorandum of Understanding between New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington is required as part of the JAG
Grant process and is hereby attached for consideration and approval.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Recommend the Board of Commissioners hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the use of JAG grant funds.
After closing the public hearing, recommend approval to submit a joint 2006 JAG grant application with the City of
Wilmington and execute the required County/City Memorandum of Understanding (authorizing the County Manager to sign).
If the grant is awarded, recommend approval of the grant and associated budget amendment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: $42,179 as County's portion of the 2006 JAG grant.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memorandum of Understanding
Note: The JAG grant application is available for review in the Commissioners' Office and the County Manager's Office.
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
53
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Held public hearing and approved 4-0.
54
GMS#
2006-F0686-
NC -DJ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this the _ day of
,2006 by and between the undersigned officials of New Hanover County,
North Carolina (hereinafter referred to as "County") and the City of Wilmington, North
Carolina (hereinafter referred to as "City") in order to facilitate obtaining Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) through the United States Department of
Justice. Further, all understandings contained herein are contingent upon the timely
passage of appropriate funding resolutions by the parties' respective governing boards.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice has announced thc
availability of certain Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant funds through its Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to federal law The Attorney General of the United States
and The US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, has determined and
certified that the County bears more than fifty percent ofthe prosecution or incarceration
costs arising from Part I violent crimes; and
WHEREAS, the County and the City recognize that it would be in the mutual best
interest of all parties, as well as the furtherance of the public interest and advancement of
public safety, to cooperate one with the other in the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant process, and further, to enter into an agreement to equitably share said
grant funds.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto enter into the following mutual
understandings contained herein:
1. The County and City shall join in the herein described grant process, shall use
their best efforts to facilitate said process to include, but not limited to, the submission of
55
GMS#
2006-F0686-
NC - DJ
appropriate and timely funding resolutions to their respective governing boards, and shall
cooperate one with the other.
2. The parties hereto agree to share on an equal basis any and all funds awarded
under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant and further each party shall
detennine their individual funding needs.
3. Based on the individual funding needs as determined by the parties and
subject to the approval of each party's governing board. each pal1y may contribute a
proportional share of any matching funds if deemed appropriate.
4. In the event the actual grant award is less than the original amount requested.
then the amount awarded to cach party shall be proportionately decreased and each
party's matching fund share be proportionately decreased (i.e., if the overall grant award
is reduced by 10% then the amount awarded to the County and/or the City would
decrease by 10%, and thc matching funds contributed by either the County and/or the
City \'vould be reduced by 10%).
5. The City shall act as lead agency and shall be responsible for the following:
submitting the grant application; filing all necessary attachments on behalf of both
agencies for the required application; receivc the electronic drawdown; and transfer the
shared portion to the county; and handle the grant monitoring and close-out. Further. the
County shall provide the City with receipts of the designated expenditures in order for the
City to submit the appropriate financial and program reports. No administrative fee shall
be charged hy either party. All funds will he used strictly for law enlorcement purposes.
6. I'he City Manager has designated the City Police Department Grant Manager
to submit the application on behalf of both parties and shall provide any additional
documents requested by the JAG program office.
7. This agreement shall commence on the. day of . 2006. and
shall remain in effect until completion of the grant award pursuant to the Fiscal Year
2006 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.
56
GMS#
2006-1'0686-
NC-DJ
8. The tenns and provisions enumerated herein shall constitute the entire
understanding oetween the parties. This Memorandum of Understanding shall not be
modified or otherwise amended except in writing. signed oy the parties.
IN WITNESS WlIEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of
Understanding as of the day and year first above written.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
---~-----_....__._- - --------------...-
County Manager
AITEST:
-_._-----.._._,~_._-_._~---_._-~~._._~.._-
Clerk to the Board
CITY OF WILMINCiTON
-4 -&- {j...)--- --~
__u.._,_______... .. ... .--------.---.-----...~_.----
City Manager
Al'l EST:
'/~I01J'j J'pdJl-S1dIJJIIj
City Clerk ..
J
&i
'."
57
GMS#
2006-F0686
NC-DJ
This instrument has heen pre-audited in the manner required
hy the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
--- ------
County Finance Officer
This instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required
by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Aet.
r
Ii' R"J r ( ( /
('1\1-4'>-.. /'1 ) / I ) /0 '.0
'"'V !',,/ \~L-'---
City Fi;;;'n-ce Offil'~r uT~-r--n
I '
I
Approved as to form.
----------" _._--_._---~-_._--_._-- .-....-.------------..-
County Attorney
Approved as to form:
\ (, ), /
'( I, ( _m__.________________________
-_._~---""'
City Attorney
58
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Finance Presenters: County & City Staff
Contacts: Avril Pinder and Wanda Copley
SUBJECT:
Public Meeting and Consideration of a Resolution Relating to a County/City Bond Issue
BRIEF SUMMARY:
A brief presentation will be made by County and City staff regarding the proposed $35.5 million Bond Issue. Afterwards, a
public hearing will be held to receive input from the public.
The County Commissioners will be asked to approve a resolution authorizing the Finance Director and the County Manager
to file an application with the Local Government Commission.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Hold public hearing, approve.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
Bond Resolutio
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Introduced the resolution, heard public comments. Adopted the resolution 4-0.
59
RESOLUTION MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING TO
THE AUTHORIZA nON AND ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGA nON BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW
HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA, AND AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY MANAGER AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO
FILE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL THEREOF WITH THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the County of New Hanover, North Carolina
(the "County") is considering the authorization of not exceeding $35,500,000 bonds of the
County (the "Bonds") for the purpose of providing funds, together with any other available
funds, for financing parks and recreation facilities, including the acquisition and development of
land, the construction and development of athletic fields, parks, playgrounds, swimming pools
and recreation centers, and the provision of related library, museum and beach improvements in
the County, including paying expenses related thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the Board of
Commissioners of the County:
Section 1. The Board of Commissioners hereby finds and determines in connection
with authorizing the issuance of the Bonds that (a) the proposed issuance of the Bonds is
necessary or expedient for the County, (b) the proposed principal amount of the Bonds is
adequate and not excessive for the proposed purposes of such issue, (c) the County's debt
management procedures and policies are good and are managed in strict compliance with law,
(d) the estimated increase in taxes, if any, necessary to service the Bonds will not be excessive
and (e) under current economic conditions the Bonds can be marketed at reasonable rates of
interest.
60
Section 2. The County Manager and the Finance Director are hereby designated as
representatives of the County to file an application for approval of the Bonds with the Local
Government Commission of North Carolina, and all actions heretofore taken by the County
Manager and the Finance Director and any other officers of the County relating to such matter
are hereby approved, ratified and confirmed.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
This the 6th day of February, 2006.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
(SEAL)
William A. Caster, Vice-Chairman
ATTEST:
Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
61
This page intentionally left blank.
62
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 3.1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steven Scruggs
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Case SN-98, 2/06 Naming of an Unnamed Easement
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Application by the New Hanover County Planning staff to name an unnamed easement Clemmons Way (located between
Sneeden Drive and Masons Bluff Court). The affected property owners are all in agreement with this application.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the petition.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
SN-98 .do 1 Map
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
63
New Hanover County
Planning Department
County Annex Building
230 Marketplace Drive, Suite 150
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dexter L. Hayes P 910.798.7165
Director F 910.798.7053
CASE: SN-98, 02/06; Applicant: New Hanover County Planning Staff
REQUEST: Name an unnamed easement Clemmons Way
LOCATION: Between Sneed en Dr and Masons BluffCt
Staff Summary
The subject easement is located between Sneeden Dr and Masons Bluff Ct approximately
1100 feet southwest of the Middle Sound Loop Rd-Sneeden Dr intersection, in 2100
block of Middle Sound Loop Rd. The affected properties are part of the Marsh Clyde
Harrelson Division, Map Book 5, Page 20, on the eastern side of Middle Sound Loop Rd.
The entire easement is shown on Map Book 35, Page 46. This naming was proposed to
Planning Staff by a resident following Emergency Services having difficulty locating a
home during an emergency. The existing residences and business are currently addressed
off of Middle Sound Loop Rd. The proposed naming of the easement meets the County's
criteria of serving as access to four or more addressable structures.
Staff Recommendation
Staff contacted adjacent landowners and the owners agreed upon Clemmons Way as a
possible road name. The affected property owners have signed petitions approving the
street naming. The County will be responsible for erecting a street sign should the
naming be approved.
64
>-
~
ell
r::
o
E
E
~ ~
O' · ~
.." . J
~ . ; ,
o 0
_ ...J
('II "
o C
::l Cl
ci) ~.~
I: .!! l;
._ "C ca
E :2n:
III ::;<.>
:z o~
...~'E ~ ~
Q) ",,, +."
Q) ~.r:! 7..-
~ u15. .~" .....
en.., u a. \.!!'!
<:( <( ,,8
CD
65
This page intentionally left blank.
66
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 3.2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steven Scruggs
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Case SN-99, 2/06 Naming of an Unnamed Easement
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Application by the New Hanover County Planning staff to name an unnamed easement Flounder Lane (located between
Sound Watch Drive and Royal Oak Drive). Petitions by affected property owners have been submitted in support.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the petition.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
SN - 99. do 1 Map
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
67
New Hanover County
Planning Department
County Annex Building
230 Marketplace Drive, Suite 150
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dexter L. Hayes P 910.798.7165
Director F 910.798.7053
CASE: SN-99, 02/06; Applicant: Olen & Patricia Roberts
REQUEST: Name an unnamed easement Flounder Lane
LOCATION: Between Sound Watch Dr and Royal Oak Dr
Staff Summary
The subject easement is located between Sound Watch Dr and Royal Oak Dr
approximately 550 feet southwest of the Myrtle Grove Road-Sound Watch Dr
intersection, in 6300 block of Myrtle Grove Rd. The affected properties are part of the
RF Parker Division, shown on Map Book 40, Page 93, on the eastern side of Myrtle
Grove Rd. This naming was proposed by Olen & Patricia Roberts due to the easement
not having an official street name. The existing residences are currently addressed off of
Myrtle Grove Rd. The proposed naming of the easement meets the County's criteria of
serving as access to four or more addressable structures.
Staff Recommendation
The applicant presented petitions signed by the adjacent landowners who have agreed
upon Flounder Lane as a possible road name. Due to the importance of emergency
services and adherence to the county street naming ordinance, staff recommends that the
road be named Flounder Lane. The County will be responsible for erecting a street sign
should the naming be approved.
..-.--
68
l:
..J
...
CD
'0
l:
::::I i
0 i
u: i
'"
cD t:
..
0'0"8
C\ja:a:
o ~.~
0)(; ~
s:: ..!o..
.- t: ol1
E:E l: ,*~
ctI_~
z~~
- 0 l:
Q) '" '"
~t~ c
. '" 69
"'uc-
en <0: <0:
-
This page intentionally left blank.
70
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 3.3 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Case Z-826, 12/05 Rezoning request to rezone approximately 26.5 acres of property located at
1500 and 1551 Point Harbor Road from 1-1 Light Industrial to CD (B-2) Highway Business with
Mixed Uses
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Request by John E. Evans, Jr. to rezone approximately 26.5 acres of property at 1500 and 1551 Point Harbor Road from 1-1
Light Industrial to CD (B-2) Highway Business with Mixed Uses.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the conditional use rezoning portion of the request.
The Planning Board recommends approval by a vote of 3-1 with conditions:
- Except for the existing uses and the commercial marina; new uses will be limited to B-1
neighborhood business
- Eliminate billboard sign
- Sidewalks and walkways must be provided
- Additional phases and out parcel development will require an amended plan
- CAMA and COD setbacks may apply along the waterfront and brackish marsh
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
iii iii
Z-826-Staff Summary-r Z-826 Petition Suml1 Map
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
A motion to approve the rezoning failed for lack of a second. A motion to deny was approved 3-1, Caster dissenting.
71
CASE: Z-826, 12/01 APPLICANT: John E. Evans Jr.
REQUEST: 1-1 Light Industrial to CD B-2 Mixed Use Commercial and Residential
ACREAGE: 26.5:1: Aeres
LOCATION: 1500 Point Harbor Rd south of Isabelle Holmes Bridge
LAND CLASS: Conservation - The Conservation Class is to provide for effective long-term
management and protection of significant natural resources. These areas coincide with the
100 - year floodplain where residential density is limited to no more than 2.5 units per acre.
Water dependent uses and Industrial corridors may be allowed as long as they are sensitive
to preserving the natural functions of the site.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted 7 to 0 to continue the case. The
board expressed concerns that the site plan submitted did not contain enough detail.
Planning Board Recommendation- The Planning Board met on January 5, 2006 and voted 3 to 1 to
recommend approval. The board also placed 6 conditions on the conditional use and asked the
developer to provide architectural details for the commissioners. One board member was still
concerned with the environmental impacts along the waterfront.
STAFF SUMMARY-REVISED:
The property is located along the western edge of the Northeast Cape Fear River south of the
Isabelle Holmes Bridge. The area was once the home of Wilmington Shipyard, a bustling ship
repair facility. Though some of the property has been converted to other uses, remnants of that use
still remain.
Tn February 1996, the Commissioners approved a Conditional Use Zoning that authorized the
construction of41 residential units, a liS-slip marina, a hotel, and 50,000 sq ft of retail and office
space. That development never materialized and the property was rezoned to 1-1 Light Industrial in
January 2005.
The site's primary road frontage is along Point Harbor Rd, a service road connecting to US 421.
The greatest obstacle hindering development of the site is the absence of adequate water and sewer.
This project proposes a phased plan for providing those services. Existing facilities on the property
include a Maritime Building, Rowing Club and several small offices. The marina presently has 24
wet slips. The new plan calls for 18 townhomes, and a marina office with 100 wet and 144 dry
slips. A second phase of the project shows proposed future towers that would exceed the
residential density limits of 2.5 units per acre and cannot be built.
The property is classified Conservation which typically include all marshlands and land within the
100 - year floodplain. Floodplain elevation for this property is 9 feet.
The redevelopment ofthis site is at a strategic gateway into the City of Wilmington. Construction
of the PPD offices are underway across the river. Several concerns should be addressed in
finalizing plans for this site. Since the property has a history of intensive industrial use,
environmental assessments should be completed prior to using the property for residential
purposes. Another concern is its close proximity to the heavy truck tramc along US 421 and NC
133. Traffic volumes are already high and will only become more intense with the noise from the
nearby Bridge crossings. Nevertheless, the proposed mixed-use marina facility with some limited
residential appears to be a reasonable tit for the site. Assuming the adjustments in the setbacks and
72
wetland boundaries can be satisfied in the final plan, staff would recommend approval of the
zoning change for the first phase of the project. The applicant submitted a more detailed plan as
the planning board requested.
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or
safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and
approved.
A. Water service is available from the City of Wilmington across the river.
B. Sewer service will be provided on site with a packaged treatment facil ity.
C. All of the property is located within a I DO-year flood area.
D. Access to the project will be from US 421 a major arterial and Point Harbor Rd.
E. Fire Service is available from the North Wilmington VFD.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of
the Zoning Ordinance.
A. A site plan pursuant to the Ordinance has been submitted.
B. The 18 units proposed are consistent with the density I imits for Conservation areas.
C. Parking, Building Height and Impervious coverage satisfy the County
requirements.
D. Wetlands areas need to be mapped and preserved.
E. Buffer yards and Setbacks need to be adjusted on the plan.
3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining
or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. Redevelopment of this site as planned would be a significant change to the quality
of land uses in the area.
B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of
commercial uses nearby.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according
to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is
to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New
Hanover County.
A. The 1999 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Conservation with residential
density limited to no more than 2.5 units per acre. Water dependent uses and
commercial uses may be allowed as long as they are sensitive to preserving the
natural functions of the site.
B. The property adjoins other marine activities and a truck stop to the north;
Downtown waterfront uses are planned across the river.
Suggested Conditions
. Except for the existing uses and the commercial marina; new uses will be limited
to B-1 neighborhood business
. Eliminate Billboard sign
. Sidewalks and walkways must be provided
. Additional phases and out parcel development will require an amended plan
. CAMA and COD setbacks may apply along the waterfront and brackish marsh
~ .. --."--- - -,---~-._-_.-
73
Case: Z-826, 12/05
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: John Evans, Jr.
Existing Land Use: Commercial Marina and assorted ot1ices
Zoning History: July 1,1972 (9A)
Land Classification: Conservation
Water Tvpe: City
Sewer Tvpe: Septic
Recreation Area: Cape Fear River
Access & Traffic Volume: 24,467 ADT (2003 MPO count)
Fire District: 412 North VFD
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Cape Fear River (SW)
Aquifer Recharge Area: Chiefly a discharge area for groundwater flow
ConservationlHistoric/Archaeological Resources: Open Tidal Water (river)
Soils: Dorovan, Urban land
Septic Suitability: Class IV (unsuitable), not classified
Schools: Parsley Elementary
74
"0
~ i~
z
~ ,"
c 0 1;:j
~ ~ CO
"0 (') OJ
"tl 0 ~ "! IiJ
-'i <: ,g en N 0'
Gl ..~
" , g
_Ill 01 , ,
Nl: Gl
. '" ..J ' ,
<ll >
-W
Ltl C .
o () w
..... 0<:
C\l ~.&::
_ 0 ~~
~ ...:.-,
... c,';':
~ ,~~ 7~ '^~
~ ~.~ "
Na:<(
75
This page intentionally left blank.
76
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 3.4 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Case Z-817, 11/05 Rezoning request to rezone approximately 5.73 acres of property located at
609 Piner Road from R-15 Residential to 0&1 Office & Institution
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Request by Withers & Ravenel for Gulf Stream Shopping Center, LLC to rezone approximately 5.73 acres of property at
609 Piner Road from R-15 Residential to 0&1 Office & Institution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the petition. The Planning Board recommends approval by a vote of 4-0.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
iii iii
Z-817-Staff Summary-Re Z-817 Petition Suml1 Map
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 3-1, Pritchett dissenting.
77
CASE: Z-817, 11/05; PETITIONER: Withers & Ravenel for Gulf Stream Shopping
Center, LLC
REQUEST: R-15 Residential to 0&1 Office & Institution
ACREAGE: 5.73
LOCATION: 609 Piner Road
LAND CLASS: Resource Protection - The purpose of the Resource Protection Class
is to provide for the preservation and protection of important
natural, historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on November 5, 2005 and
continued the item to allow the applicant to meet with the staff. The staff had concerns with
the compatibility with adjacent residential uses and some of the topography features of the
site.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on January 5, 2006 and voted
to recommend approval 4 to O.
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located just northeast of the College and Piner Road intersection
near Monkey Junction. Adjacent and to the west is an existing business and office park. East and
north near the property are several residential neighborhoods - Greenbrier and Wood Duck
Forest. Two 0&1 Office and Institution Districts also exist along Piner Road that were rezoned in
the late '90's. Presently, both 0&1 Districts are vacant.
Land Use patterns near the Monkey Junction area have undergone a significant
transformation since the early 1980's when most of the real estate was zoned residential.
A large commercial node has evolved during the past 20 years that include restaurants, offices
and major retail type centers. Changes in these land use patterns near Monkey Junctions during
this time have been a result ofthe extension ofthe County's sewer. Pressures to rezone in this
area will continue, especially with its proximity to a major intersection and demand for goods and
services in the southern part of the County.
This rezoning petition is a logical extension to the existing office park zoned CD (0&1)
located adjacent and to the north. Additional access to Piner Road increases interconnectivity
through the business park. Also significant is the existing topography and drainage features on
the site, which provide for a natural transition in the existing office park.
Recognizing the expansion by this commercial corner and the desire to merge the existing
residential land use pattern with existing street connections nearby, the applicant has made some
adjustments to the rezoning petition. The rear portion of the property will remain R-15
residential. This allows for more compatible uses with the adjoining property owners who will be
able to share an improved access to Piner Road. Staff is satisfied with the revised rezoning
description and the preliminary design and recommends approval.
78
Petition Summary Data
Case: Z-817, 11/05
Owner/Petitioner: Withers & Ravenel for Gulf Stream Shopping Center LLC
Existin2 Land Use: Vacant
Ori2inal Zoning: Area 4 (April 7, 1971)
Land Classification: Resource Protection
Potable Water Type: Public (located nearby)
Sewer System Type: Public (located nearby)
Recreation Facility/Area: River Road Park
Traffic Volume: 26,354 ADT near South College & Carolina Beach Rds (May '03 MPO Data)
Fire District: Myrtle Grove VFD
Watershed and Water Quality Classification: Mott's Creek C (SW)
Aquifer Rechar2e Area: Primary Recharge Area
Conservation/Historic/Archaeologic Resources: No historic or archaeological resources
located on site
Soils Septic Suitability: Class III = Severe Limitations
Schools: N/A
79
~
"0
~ ~ -
z
~ :l
c 0
.iij <( N
0. ~
"" U C> ~
.E~"Dg<ri"" If --'-' If If If If
lI.I $ c: 'i= 5; N a.' Q. ll. ,~ ~ :~ ,:...J....J _ '
H ~ :":fu1 :,'h 0 ,!,l liMO Hili'!
;;a .g g> ...J '... 51;! If;! @;! tu~ ~~ 'ggg~ r . .~ ~
o III .- "'Vi n. ~ Vi OJ! ~.~ ~" . .
:g .9 6, ~ i ~ ~ 5 o~d ~ul 5 ~ ~ e ~!!i!!i !!ij, .~ .~~
-..... &I).-.c U LU, ,m".l.LJ" ?: -3: ,~, .w 'Cf.l: . ~(f)(I)
..- ";" ~ III ...J Ili ~ 11 If :;l1dl!i 11 ~ ~ ~ 8'" ,'" ,''' .~ ':E ':E I~ .~ ""
..... ~ C. E...J, . 8 1\ za~za:~ z~~~ ~ ~ H~ l~ fzU
~ ..- ~ ~ 0 "'~ I I II ~o <( q 00 'n
...... c; ~:e LU , ~.ff); : I ~ 0 0 ~ ~ r:!2 '(Z rJ) , :U1.U)
..... .~ ~ iiS ell '-$--' ~. _S!~ .~ .~ lfi! ~.~ > >> ':; :S~ .~.~
C? N c.:= g. ili if () N Vi " N , if NVi8 .." Vi Vi 1\ 1\1\ " " " .~ ~" "
N "c." ~, " ~ ",>
~~~~ ~
--.'-- ----
80
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 3.5 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Case S-547, 1/06 Special Use Permit request to expand a child care center in an R-10
Residential district located at 309 Cardiff Road
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Request by Thelma Washington for Denise Bullock to consider a Special Use Permit to expand a day care center to eight
children in an R-10 Residential district located at 309 Cardiff Road.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Use Permit. The Planning Board
voted 4-0 to recommend approval.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
iii iii
s-547-Staff Summary-RES 547-Petition Suml2Maps
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
81
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
S-547,0l/06; Child Day Care Center for 8 Children
Request By: Thelma Washington for Denise Bullock
Location: 309 Cardiff Road
Planning Board Recommendation: The planning board met on January 6, 2006 and votcd 4 to 0 to
recommend approval.
Preliminary Staff Findings
I. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety
where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved.
A. County water and sewer serve the property.
B. The property accesses Castle Hayne Road, an identified arterial, by Rock Hill Road, an
identified collector.
C. Fire Service is available from the Wrightsboro Fire Station nearby.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the
Zoning Ordinance.
A. The property is zoned R-I 0 Residential.
B. Off-street parking requirements are on the plan and meet the requirements of Article VIII
of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance.
C. The entire play area is in an enclosed fence with a minimum height of four feet.
D. The applicant states the day care is licensed by the State of North Carolina.
E. No outside on-premises signs currently exists.
3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or
abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. Similar type facilities exist in other residential districts in New Hanover
County.
B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of
residents who live nearby.
C. No new structures are proposed for the Special Use.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the
plan as submitted and approved wiII 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.
A. The 1999 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Resource Protection, which provides for
the protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources.
B. Policies in the Comprehensive plan support providing additional services for the special
needs population, the elderly as well as for children.
Suggested Conditions: Staffrecommends no additional conditions.
-,-...----
82
Case: 8-547,01106
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: Denise Bullock
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential
Zoning History: July 1, 1974 (Area lOA)
Land Classification: Resource Protection
Water Type: Public
Sewer Type: Public
Recreation Area: Cape Fear Optimist Park
Access & Traffic Volume: 20,894 ADT (Nov 2004 MPO Count)
Castle Hayne Road and 23rd Street
Fire District: Wrightsboro VFD
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Ness Creek C (SW)
Aquifer Recharge Area: Second Recharge Area
Conservation/Historic/Archaeological Resources: N/ A
Soils: Baymeade
Septic Suitability: Moderate, Wetness
Schools: Wrightsboro Elementary
'-'.,-"~--_.__._~-
83
..
S1
{
~.f
~l..
'1-;:;;;
~~
__\ c\..
\ .,. 0 'CJ ~ ~ ~
~... \.\..~
-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ,- ~
" - '~.o"-o..- U
.Q,~ "-
'~O., QI ~ ~ [\),
t / \..L,.
. '. \...J..
~DD~ ~
.c-~..~~~ \.,
//" cC
// U
//.
../
---
J....
"'J
. "r~-~"r)'-'--;;:: ._)~:} --;;17------
, '\ r>' J '. (~>.. (
8.;; -"" .! ~
" . ",.,.....- ~ ~~.- .... ~ -
I-,_r , ,...~ ,..~.- ~ - -".'-""--~-"".",^.",.,.-~..~~
t(~ ,1
\\) .1
r,~. J
-, ,i, rut
~-
84
:r~1 \]~lliULtj!".", ,/ ·
t~! '\ ~hh-""'lIJr< rL1 ~~\ -~iJ S\
~~. .:\ ! I ~.~
-0"", 1;7 .' I ~ (~~
If ~ HD .. I ~
"h,r U' ~
- \~ ff
,: r-------_" ~ ' _ -1 '- .
1- /'1\ \\ 1[[ Jl~-
f:E I ;k"~?9N~~~' , , ~~ ~
F= ~ /i~ '\ ffiH<:) I , \\
2 \ ~L1,Vy ~
r a:: I.
-ji) \ ~ 0::
t!1 '0 t~ J ;;---.----"~
, ~ \ P ".,
,r_ ) ,,~,~;Zrn:-j "
T~__-=~~~~> ~
I 1
f\ ill -TiTr"' /:)~ ."
T7 U III I I T7\0\j: ~~J~"" ~.."
LL1= 1 g~ 'y- '];t= hi: "i':i ..'
f-- '- ~~ ,N' '0 .aii
~ f-- ---., -ti K. ~i '..,.,...
~ ~ ~ .'"
trr- / 7' <<:::: w N! k,>)iiii\iii<
J r Y \II T "'-----/,\i i ".,." '.............i> i
I r I CJ:.[ '- ............ Ij'i'
- m ~ "":., ... .... .
r-----.. /-.0 I \\'1 ~ h ~ ~ i,.'"".<ri "..,., ....,.,.'... ii...
. ?J ~ ~'rfi!f' !j!:::.'>
'. f-......... "--- \\",<
..... --....j 1\ t-- ,.
.... '-J -' 'I .t ~"
" '-----....: d ,/ "x. i.
.... ~~- I) ~ v:~'\
'. ~ fh Y .... ....
re.' " .... .... \.
! ~.,.... I---" ~ ~'i ,..,;.'i.' ..'.'.'i.;.i
, >1'. H
,.,..;.i' j I} (j '.i....;' '....'. ".,... 4.">
".. ~'" .. ;,.;.,,,,- p, "iC. "Y"'S'.U.
.......... ..i"'i' ';..,.'....1/ ,;..'.
-g ........i...,. ,'.'... '>Jii. !.~ '.;..;.. ";""',
fii J~ ~ ;~ I"' ~ I; '..;.;.. ..,.i.." .... - i.............
~ i I".' "..',..i' ...,
~ ~ i 1'1;;;)'..-'<" .."..;c-'.,'...,'..),
.~ ~ 6 !;: : 1-, ..;.,. /;> ...';.,' ...",.
" o. "' Ii 't~..
C +-' "C 0 .!2 I ;:
\ 0 c r::: "" 0> U) if) , I;t'i.
-" <Il .. ~ ~.' "'.." ""i ',.'"
.0 m " · · ',> ;V"'"
. :E ~ _ Cl) .. ~ iI :! "'. :0,;':.'_:::-,;
CI) "'.~ -.J .: '_ i~! : :::',:: ""4:: : ',:'-'-
.. ~ ~~ ~ b! 112 i.'.'.~',
<o'.no "!,,,,",,. .... . 'i'. ..~
o E E"tl -;;; - :~ ,;: Ii iw . ......
-... 4l Qj :": .- 010 I...J '2
~ ';.= t3 ~ ~ :~ i~ i~ :.,
,.:~..rn"tl. 2 Ic, ,1) IQ ~~"
..q ~ ~ ~.~ _ ~, f- ~~ :~!~ .;><:
to .~,g :a ~ '~ ' 5 ib ;!ii I~!~ I '''" N
I ~,.,. 0 c .~ .~ i~ i~ I~ .
If) ~~ilj~' iI """'i'''' ........ - /
......... .... I.. ....... ,
---
85
This page intentionally left blank.
86
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 3.6 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Case S-550, 2/06 Special Use Permit Request to place a single-wide mobile home in an R-20
Residential district at 3321 Oakley Circle
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Request by Deborah Stafford to consider a Special Use Permit to place a single-wide mobile home in an R-20 Residential
district at 3321 Oakley Circle.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Use Permit.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
S-550-MH-Staff Summ2 Maps
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0 with two conditions:
1) that it is to be occupied by a family member, if a family member ceases to occupy, the special use permit is no longer
valid; and
2) that a single driveway be used.
87
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
S-550, 2/06; Singlewide Mobile Home in an R-20 Residential District
Request By: Deborah Stafford
Location: 3321 Oakley Circle
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety
where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is near the Oakley Mobile Home Park.
B. Ajoint septic tank and individual well serve for the utilities.
C. Access to the property is from Oakley Road, off Castle Hayne Road.
D. Fire Service is available fi'om the Castle Hayne YFD.
2. The Board must find that the lIse mects all required conditions and specifications of the
Zoning Ordinance.
A. The property is zoned R-20 Residential Zoning District.
B. A Special Use Permit in the R-20 Residential Zoning District permits singlewide mobile
homes.
C. The property can accommodate the setback requirements for a singlewide mobile home.
3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or
abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. Approximately twenty (20) other mobile homes exist nearby.
B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of
residents or commercial uses nearby.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the lIse jf 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.
A. The 1999 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Urban Transition. The purpose of the
urban transition land classification is to provide for future intensive urban development
on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The location
of these areas is based upon land use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in
land utilization and public service delivery.
B. Several other mobile homes exist nearby, some for 10 years or more.
Suggested Conditions-Staff does not recommendation any other conditions.
88
Q)
"C
.-
~
Q)
-
0')
c
.-
(J)
+-'
C
Q)
E
u
fU
a.
"C
Q)
(fJ
0 CO II -+ Ua(M 'f%II-(j
0-
0
L
a.
-- 89
-
I \ c:b I I I 1\ \ ilL .,
--1---,- :"~TLEHAYNERD ~1 ~ . .....,.. .---""
1 ~ 'IF'.... IT .... ';" 7 'I / r Ul \
C\I ~. ~ \ Il/rD eir 1II1
iii ~ f--- .' .'iV;
~'1 \.. . ,. ........ ........;,-
I '\ / ,.,:<,. """"'5 I I -, ...... >---1---
\ V 1-.. ..,......... .'.. i= -". I.
,....."..,.'.:..,... ~ ,......
,\'<,' ~ il..,.....,!
, \ '2\Z< ...
,t'/';\'
A : ........... \\'>
\ _, 1'." .. 't.;,.
\ \ _ ., ....... ...,...;
J r"' j{ '\.:....,..... :.'\ .... ....
D- .l r-- I-- :S...... .,.'.... ..~.... ..21....
IT ~f!V' ~~--=, e- I l li: 'is ~/ "\
LZ~ [' l d:{! '\'\ ~ N
V r---r'=' ~/ ,', \ '\
~~ W r.\ 1 l
~----= % rI \ I
~______ ff / - / - I / ~ /
=---~ l II II
:=r===-=;; rx ' 7 7 DELVAD~ IT] 7/
r------3""^,"d '! ~ / / J --=
1/1 I ~ I RUSTICLN r-= IC ~
r--- .N! r j I I I PRIVAT"C r-
1-\ r-I < . ~ - I
,,------- V I I , " ~I t:':" 1
___J I --\"\~ N I '~L/ ~
W. "a~a3NN3" -~-!! \ . \ ,\ - '- It) ~ l.L
';"-'-
I"" I \ \\ f ~I.".-~."
~JIL8 \ ';'''W 1 U1p:" ..-
~""13a- ~
~ - Ln ' w
'U~D~ I
F=:!-T'3""('I'~UO -=: r '~\ '\ L 'J
\ \ >--r-- ~
"""0 \ t-
" at. ~ 1 \~
E "C Ili-N",~~m \.\\0
~ ~ ~ II , ~/ _...=..Uf!-~--_.
" Z N /' \ \
~ ~~ lill /,/ ,1
:;; .<'! <( I i I I \....-+--J
~ ~(;l:?; ,I I' "-
._ "C is "! '" I I ' L...J
Q) QJ . . <( I I ,....J::'--::::U \"\
g> g> :10] ~I; ~ 3i~i '~I~ --1 .// ~ \ \ '.
(j) ..J :~ ~ ~ I> IgCl: I iO .iCl: !!..._~._// ~\.---\ II . .......
It) .;.; ;. Cl: 1[/1 UJ .;'\ J'" II...
o .h 10 ~i~ICiiI ~I&l 11':- \ '-..<
~ "0 I "11<t1l!iSl.11li ,~ 7ffi" .....
N "-'I: i " I" 2 w"':' '
o ~ s .; @ I~ i'" 18 " iiE I 1\,,",C1-.V;
o ::l ~ " fj Vi 115 10': I~ I~ @ w \
~ ~ ~ .A. H U l~ II~ I~ ili' ~"OOOVldSNlA83. _. '6c~ t{ l'
I ".0 '1"- LI w 10 I;,ji <'i .:l---- 'D>
(/) ~~ ,_~'_ 7<>. _ ..'
~ \ ..
-- ..
.. _.. I 7
90
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 3.7 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Case A-345, 12/05 Request for Zoning Ordinance text amendment in the B-2 Highway Business
district
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Request by John Evans, Jr. to amend the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 55-4 Dimensional Requirements
for Height and FAR Requirements in the B-2 Highway Business District.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend the staff version of the amendment.
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the request.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
A-345- Staff Summary-R
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
A motion to table for 60 days, schedule a public hearing and reconsider at that time was approved 4-0.
91
CASE: A-345, 12/05 Applicant: John Evans, Jr.
REQUEST: Zoning Text Amendment for Section 55-4 Dimensional Requirements
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on January 6, 2006 and
voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval for the staff version of the text amendment.
The proposed text amendment can be accomplished by amending the following: (the petitioner's
amendment is underlined)
Section 55-4: Dimensional Requirements
(4) Maximum Building Height-40 feet; except that buildings located within the Urban Transition Area
and fronting along a collector, Minor Arterial or Principal Arterial as indicated on the County's
Thoroughfare Classification Plan, may exceed 40 feet provided their Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) does
not exceed 1.0 (2/7/83) (10/5/95)
The FAR may exceed 1.0, but shall not exceed 1.4 if;
(a) The ratio of the total building footprint to the total buildable site area docs not exceed
40%. and
(b) The required parking ( exclusive of off-loading and service parking) is included within
the building footprint.
NOTE: Parking deck area calculations shall be excluded from the total building area calculations
when computing the FAR and the total height of the parking structure shall be excluded from the
height limits specified in this article.
ST AFF SUMMARY
FAR (floor area ratio) requirements were adopted in the County's Zoning Ordinance in
1983 to allow for more intensive commercial development along major al1erials. At this point in
time the land economics ofthe County has not resulted in any request to use this height and density
provision. The existing Ordinance defines FAR as follows:
23-74: Floor Area Ratio - Floor Area Ratio equals the total floor area of all structures located on lot
divided by the gross lot area. (2/7/83)
FAR = TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL STRUCTURES ON A LOT
GROSS LOT AREA
This definition allows the developer to count the gross lot area to determine the amount of floor
area allowed in the Buildings. The applicant proposes a bonus in the allowable square footage if
the lot coverage is limited and the parking is within the building footprint. This idea is appealing if
additional green space can be preserved on the site.
Staff suggest an alternative change that would equate additional square footage with certain open
space amenities. Ordinarily, the FAR usually considers the buildable area of a site after setbacks
and parking areas have been subtracted. Our standard counts the gross lot area which already
increases the square footage by 40 - 50 %.
Staff agrees that parking under the building would minimize disturbance of the site and retain
additional open space.
We recommend the following bonus provisions be added to the FAR calculation:
If all surface parking (excluding visitor drop-off and pick-up) is within the building
footprint. additional floor area can be added at the rate of 1ft off/oor area per 1 ft of parking
area.
92
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 3.8 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Case A-346, 1/06 Request to amend the NHC Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Request by planning staff to amend the New Hanover County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect changes made
by the North Carolina General Assembly in the 2005 Legislative Session.
(Please note that one change concerning Development Agreements will be brought to the Commissioners separately in
March. Development Agreements can serve as a mechanism for accomplishing what Commissioners wish in approving
large subdivisions with a longer development term in return for such benefits as acreage donations to the County for parks.
A separate memo will be sent to you on this subject.)
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval.
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the request.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
A-346-Z0nllll& Sub Text Amendmelllll51S'6 .
Legislation of Interest Summary Analysis of LLegislation Ma
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
93
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
ADOPTED October 1969, Updated August 2005
CASE: A-346, 1/06
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on January 6,2006
and voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval for all of the following amendments.
Zoning and Subdivision Text Amendments -- Numerous text amendments in
response to amendments in the Zoning and Planning Enabling Legislation for
Counties that were adopted in the 2005 legislative session.
The adoption of Senate Bills 518 and 814 and 681 amends the State's planning and
development laws. Since these laws are used as the basis to enact local zoning and
subdivision ordinances, certain changes will be required to make our local ordinances
consistent with these new statutes. Dave Owens with the Institute of Government has
prepared a brief summary of the changes to the North Carolina Planning Statues which is
attached. He has also prepared a checklist that highlights the potential changes as well as
a brief explanation. Many of the changes are procedural in nature and will not require
text amendments. Revising the Rules of Procedure applicable to the various Boards can
accommodate some of these.
Following are the specific Zoning Ordinance Changes as prepared by Staff:
ENACTMENT:
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN
AREAS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT,.-A-NI} AMENDMENT OR REPEALING THEREOF, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES 153:\ 340
THROUGH 153:\ 348 (5/3/82) INCLUSIVE, AND FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH.
PREAMBLE:
WHEREAS, the General Statutes of North Carolina empowers the County of New Hanover to enact a
Zoning Ordinance and to provide for its administration, enforcement ami amendment or repealing, and
SECTION I: Authority
The provisions of this ordinance are adopted under authority granted by the General Assembly of North
Carolina. (GeReral StatHtes 153 :\, .A.rticIe 18)
59.7-4: Approval Process
(I) Overview
~,-,.,-,,,-------'-'.'-~~-_...._---'--"---
94
a. In all Conditional Use District proceedings, only testimony and other evidence
pertinent to the specific use proposed in the petition/application shall be presented.
b. After the public notice of scheduled hearing before the Planning Board is
delivered to the newspapers, no amendments to the additional conditions and
requirements specified in the petition/application shall be added which are less
restrictive, including but not limited to less setback, more dwelling units, greater
height, more access points, new uses and fewer improvements.
c. No rezoning to a Conditional Use District shall be approved unless all
conditions and requirements for the companion Special Use Permit have been
included voluntarily by the petitioner, or their authorized representative. Am'
condition and site-specific standards imposed shall address the impacts reasonably
expected to be generated by the development or use of the site.
d. No rezoning to a Conditional Use District shall be approved unless the
companion Special Use Permit is also approved for the use or uses specified.
e. The companion Special Use Permit shall be approved only if the requirements of
Article VII, "Provisions for Uses Allowed as Special Uses", Section 59.7-3 and
Section 59.7-4(2) are fully satisfied.
67-9: Tree Removal (7/01)
(5) Failure to obtain a tree removal permit prior to any timber harvest may result in a
three or five-vear delay in obtaining a building perm it or approval of anv development or
subdivision plans.
112-3: Planning Board Consideration
(5) The Planning Board shall advise and comment on whether the proposed amendment is
consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development and anv other adopted
plans that may be applicable.
112-5: Action by the County Commissioners
(I) The County Commissioners shall consider the Planning Board's recommendation for each
proposed zoning amendment, unless the Planning Board recommends denial and the petition
is not appealed at a regularly scheduled public hearing, advertised as described in Section
112-1 above and held in accordance with its rules of procedure then in effect. No amendment
shall be adopted by the County Commissioners until after public notice and hearing. Prior to
adopting or reiecting any zoning amendment. the Commissioners shall adopt a statement
describing whether its action is consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and
Development and explaining whv the Commissioners consider the action taken as reasonable
and in the public interest.
Section 122: Powers and Duties
122-1: The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have the following powers and duties:
^ ---.-.----..----.------- --- -----_._-~.._-~----
95
(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is error in any decision
made by the Building Inspector or other administrative oftlcials in the carrying out or enforcement
of any provision of the Ordinance. A concurring vote offour-fifths (4/5) of the members of the
Board shall be necessary to reverse, wholly, or partly, any such decision. Vacant seats and
disqualified members are not considered in calculating 4/5 votes.
(2) To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the ternlS of this ordinance as
will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions a literal enforcement
of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. No change in permitted
uses may be authorized by variance. In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe
appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. A concurring vote of
four-fifths (4/5) of the members of the Board shall be necessary to grant a variance. A variance
from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be granted by the Board unless and until the following
findings are made: (3/7/83)
Following are the specific Subdivision Ordinance Amendments as prepared by Staff
20-17 Subdivision - A "subdivision" shall include all divisions of a tract or parcel of land into two or more
lots, building sites, or other divisions when anyone or more of those divisions are created for the purpose,
whether immediate or future, of sale or building development, and shall include all divisions of land
involving the dedication of a new street or a change in existing streets; provided, however, that the
following shall not be included within this definition nor be subject to the regulations authorized by this
ordinance:
(I) the combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and recorded lots where the total
number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County as
shown in its subdivision ordinance.
(2) the division ofland into parcels greater than ten (10) acres where no street right-of~way dedication is
involved.
(3) the public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for the widening or opening of streets or for public
transportation system corridors.
(4) the division ofa tract in single ownership whose entire area is no greater than two (2) acres into not
more than three (3) lots, where no street right-of-way dedication is involved and where the resultant lots are
equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in its subdivision ordinance.
32-5 Contracts to sell Lots from Approved Preliminary Plat
The provisions of this section shall not prohibit any owner or its agent from entering into contracts to
sell or lease by reference to an approved preliminary plat for which a final plat has not yet been properlv
approved under the subdivision ordinance or recorded with the register of deeds, provided the contract does
all of the following:
ill Incorporates as an attachment a copy of the preliminary plat referenced in the contract and
obligates the owner to deliver to the buyer a copv of the recorded plat prior to
closing and conveyance.
ill Plainly and conspicuously notifies the prospective buyer or lessee that a final subdivision
plat has not been approved or recorded at the time of the contract, that no
governmental body will incur any obligation to the prospective buyer or lessee with
respect to the approyal of the final subdivision plat, that changes between the
preliminary and final plats are possible. and that the contract or lease may be
terminated without breach by the buyer or lessee if the final recorded plat differs in
any material respect from the preliminary plat.
-~------ ._.._---_._~._.._-- _'M _'____.__,__.~___._..________ ___ ___'_'___'__~.
96
ill Provides that if the approved and recorded final plat does not differ in any material respect
from the plat referred to in the contract, the buver or lessee mav not be required by
the seller or lessor to close any earlier than five days after the delivery of a copy of
the final recorded plat.
ill Provides that if the approved and recorded final plat differs in any material respect from
the preliminary plat referred to in the contract, the buyer or lessee may not be
required by the seller or lessor to close any earlier than 15 days after the delivery of
the final recorded plat. during which IS-day period the buyer or lessee may terminate
the contract without breach or any further obligation and may receive a refund of all
earnest money or prepaid purchase price.
The provisions of this section shall not prohibit any owner or its agent from entering into contracts to
sell or lease land by reference to an approved preliminary plat for which a final plat has not been properlv
approved under the subdivision ordinance or recorded with the register of deeds where the buver or lessee
is any person who has contracted to acquire or lease the land for the purpose of engaging in the business of
construction of residential. commercial. or industrial buildings on the land, or for the purpose of resale or
lease of the land to persons engaged in that kind of business, provided that no convevance of that land may
occur and no contract to lease it may become effective until after the final plat has been properly approved
under the subdivision ordinance and recorded with the register of deeds."
51: Guarantees of Improvements
a) Cost Estimates - The subdivider shall furnish bona fide estimates of the subject improvements
for verification by the County Engineer. Upon approval of the cash, performance bond or irrevocable letter
of credit by the County, the subdivider shall deposit with the County the amount specified by the County
Engineer in the form of cash, cash equivalent, or irrevocable letter of credit.
68: Enforcement of Ordinance
(5) Building Permits may be denied for lots that have been illegally subdivided,
--.---. _._---------~~-,_._-- ".--..--------.'----
97
Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Pagc 1 01'6
PC-2005 Legal Update: Part II
Land Subdivision Control, Development Agreements, and Tree Protection:
A Selection of Legislation from
the 2005 North Carolina General Assembly
Richard Ducker
I nstitute of Government
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
October 6, 2005
This memo summarizes certain key provisions in three major bills (S 681, S 814, and S 518)
adopted by the General Assembly this summer that will affect local planning and land development
regulation. A fourth bill, S.L. 2005 -286 (H 1469), affecting road easements is also briefly discussed.
The first bill, S 681 (An Act to ClarifY the Role of Counties and Cities in Regulating Certain
Forestry Activities), has passed both chambers of the General Assembly and been ratified, but has not
(yet) been signed by the Governor. If signed by the Governor, it would become effective immediately.
It has important implications for local tree protection programs.
This memo also analyzes portions of two other bills that affect land subdivision control and
development agreements, but not the other portions of those bills. These two bills have already been
enacted-- S.L. 2005 - 418 (S 518) (An Act to Clarify and Make Technical Changes to City and County
Planning Statutes) and S.L. 2005 - 426 (S 814) (An Act to Modernize and Simplify City and County
Planning and Land-Use Management Statutes). The land subdivision control and developer agreement
portions of these bills become effective January 1, 2006.
All three ofthese bills affect the authority of both cities and counties. In each instance amendments
to G.S. 160A affect municipalities and those to G.S. 153A affect counties. The full text of these bills
may be found on the General Assembly's web site at http://\VWlv.n<:;ga.state.Jll.:.us/. Enter the bill number
under "Bill Look - Up" on the column on the right-hand sidc ofthc home page.
Tree Protection/Forestry Activity
The last five years have seen a growing interest among municipalities in preserving stands of trees
from destruction and protecting undeveloped areas from clearcuUing. Good arguments may be made
that local governments have had the necessary general legislative authority to restrict and even prohibit
activities of this sort. Nonetheless, between one and two dozen local governments have followed a
conservative course by seeking local acts specifically authorizing them to undertake certain regulatory
activities. The struggle and debate during the past several years over whether local legislation is needed
and what form local acts may take has pitted local governments and environmental groups against
home builders and timbering interests. This year some of the lingering questions about local government
authority were resolved by S 681.
The bill clarifies local authority over certain forestry activities in a way that recognizes tree
protection as an adjunct of land development regulation, but substantially restricts local authority in
other respects. First, it prohibits cities and counties from enforcing any regulation affecting forestry
activity on forest land that is assessed at its present-use value for purposes of local propcrty taxes. (Such
properties are typically found in rural areas, but are also not uncommon in urban fringe areas.) In
addition, municipal rcgulations may also not be applied to forestry activity conducted in accordance
with a forest management plan prepared by a registered forester. In contrast, county regulations may not
be applied to activity conducted in accordance with a management plan regardless of who prepared the
plan.
file: IIC: \D ocuments%20and %20 Settings\swynn \Local %2 0 Setti ngs\' ]'emp \ C. Note s .Data \S u.. . 1/26/2006
--,-- -~-
98
Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 2 of6
There are, however, a variety of exceptions to this general prohibition. First, tree protection
regulations that are part of land development regulations are exempt. Cities and counties may thus
enforce such regulations if they are adopted as part of a zoning or land subdivision ordinance. Local
governments sometimes face property owners who wish to clear land in anticipation of development and
to circumvent these regulations. See the discussion of that issue below.
A second important exception to the prohibition against local regulations is those regulations that are
nccessary to comply with any federal or State law, rule, or regulation. If, for example, a local
government regulation protecting buffers along a water course is required under state watershed
protection or stormwater management rules, that regulation may be enforced by a local government
notwithstanding the new prohibition.
A third exception allows a city to regulate trees within or affecting a municipal street right-of-way.
For example, a city may require the trimming of trees if limbs or roots impede the use of the right-of-
way.
A fourth exception authorizes local governments that are permitted to regulate trees and forestry
activity under existing local acts to continue to do.
One of the impost important issues separating forestry and development interests from local
government and environnlental interests concerns clearing of sites in anticipation of development. The
owner of land on the urban fringe may wish to harvest an old stand of timber before selling the land to a
developer. Or a development company that has invested in land may wish to harvest the timber either
simply to enjoy the cash flow or to avoid having to comply with the land development and tree
protection standards that would apply (or would have applied) were a development application to be
submitted.
The remedy for this "clearing in anticipation of development" that was madc available in much of
the local legislation that has been adopted in the past five years has been to allow the local government
to withhold development permission for the property for a certain period of time after the clearing
occurs. S 681 adopts similar standards. A city or county may deny a building permit or withhold site or
subdivision approval for a period of up to three years after the completion of a "timber harvest" if it
results in the removal of "all of substantially all of the trees that were protected" under development
regulations that apply (or would have applied) to the tract ofland. If the harvest is a "willful violation"
of local government regulations, development approvals may be withheld for a period of five years after
the clearing. Although withholding development permission seems like a strong remedy, the remedy is
triggered only after a local government is prepared to demonstrate just how their tree protection
standards would have applied to the development site.
Land Subdivision Control
Subdivision plat approval
S.L. 2005 - 418 (S 518), one of the two major planning bills to be enacted this year, includes several
parts that will affect the local government plat approval. Sections 2.(a), 2.(b), 3.(a), and 3.(b)
collectively amend OS 160A-371 and -373 (cities) and 153A-330 and -332 (counties) to make several
sets of changes to plat approval arrangements. The first clarifies that a local government may adopt a
subdivision ordinance as a separate ordinance or as part of a consolidated unified development
ordinance. What's more, a city or county may apply any definition or procedure authorized for one type
of land development ordinance to any aspect of a unified development ordinance and use any
organizational arrangement authorized for any other planning and development ordinance to the reviews
provided for in the unified development ordinance. The second set of changes enables cities and
counties to provide for the review and approval of sketch plans and preliminary plats as well as final
plats and for different classes of subdivisions that are each subject to different review procedures. The
third set of changes provides that plats may be approved by any of a variety of groups--the governing
board (city councilor county board of commissioners), the governing board on the recommendation of a
tile ://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes. Data \Su... 1/26/2006
- -- - - _...,..._._----"..._-~------~~.__.._---_.--.- - .'.- ------'---' __ 'n'" __ _ ___._______.__________~.___._._._..._____
99
Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 3 of6
designated body, a planning board, a technical review committee, or some "other designated body"
or staff person. The legislation answers affirmatively the question of whether special subdivision review
committees or staff members are authorized to approve plats required by the ordinance. It also appears
to make it possible for a zoning board, like the board of adjustment, to be assigned that power.
Subdivision ordinance standards
Sections 2.(a) and 2.(b) also amend GS 160A-371 and 153A-330 to reflect a concern of the
development community. These subsections provide that decisions on whether to approve a subdivision
plat (whether preliminary or final) must be made on the basis of standards set forth explicitly in the
ordinance. Although the new act does not prohibit or circumscribe the use of discretionary standards in
subdivision regulations, it requires that if ordinance criteria require the application of judgment, the
criteria "must provide adequate guiding standards for the entity charged with plat approval."
Subdivision ordinance performance guarantees
Several additional changes to the subdivision statutes are included in S.L. 2005 - 426 (S 814).
Section 2.(a) and 2.(b) amend GS 160A-372 (cities) and 153A-331(counties) respectively to make
several changes to the language of these statutes concerning the construction of community service
facilities. First, a subtle but important addition requires such facilities to be in accordance with not only
local government policies and standards but "plans" as well. This reference establishes more fully the
link between subdivision requirements and external plans such as transportation plans and land-use
plans. In addition, the act rewrites existing language to clarify that performance guarantees are intended
to assure successful completion of required improvements. The final and perhaps most important
addition is language that declares that if a performance guarantee is required, the local government must
provide a range of options or types of performance guarantees that are available to the developer. These
may include, but are not limited to, surety bonds and letters of credit. The new law then provides that the
type of performance guarantee to be used shall be at the election of the developer, not the unit of local
government.
Scope of land subdivision regulation
One subtle change can be found in the definition of "subdivision" in G.S. 160A-376 and G.S. 153A-
335. Before, a land subdivision ordinance applied to divisions involving "two or more lots, building
sites, or other divisions for the purpose of sale or building development." Some local governments
(mainly counties) have interpreted this language to allow the owner of a tract of land to sell a single
building lot created from it without being subject to regulation. The amended language provides that a
regulated subdivision includes divisions into "two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions when
illlY--.illle or moreQLtl1Q~edi.Yisions~cre~ted for the purpose of sale or development." (Underlining
added.) The act effectively removes all doubt about whether the ordinance applies to the "first lot out."
Remedies for subdivision ordinance violations
The remedies and sanctions available to local governments when there are violations of a
subdivision ordinance have always been weak. Section 3.(a) and 3.(b) amend G.S. 160A-375 and G.S.
153A-334 to make two sets of changes. First, local governments will now be able to withhold building
permits for lots that have been illegally subdivided. This change may be viewed as a successful attempt
to overcome the ruling of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Town of Nags Head v. Tillett, 314 N.C.
627, 336 S.E.2d 394 (1985). In that case the court ruled that there was no statutory authority for a local
government to withhold a building permit for a lot merely because the lot was part of an illegal
subdivision. Local governments, however, could withhold such a permit if the lot violated the current
zoning ordinance. This new power to withhold a building permit for a subdivision ordinance violation
must be used carefully since it will have special consequences when an innocent purchaser of an illegal
lot applies for the permit. However, the availability of this remedy will also give local governments
greater leverage over subdividers that ignore local regulations.
file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \S u... 1/26/2006
_..~,-----~-, ---~---~---_. ..._w________.____._____
100
Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 4 of6
The subdivision statutes have for some years provided that a local government may also enjoin
illegal subdivision and obtain a court order requiring the offending party to comply with the subdivision
ordinance. However, it has been unclear to what extent a court may also prevent or restrain unlawful
subdivision activity from occurring or whether it may issue an order to correct or abate the violation.
S.L. 2005 - 426 (S 814) provides a statutory basis for a local government to seek and a court to authorize
the use of these remedies.
Pres ale of lots allowed
One section of the act that has caused some alarm among planners is a section designed to allow
developers to enter into contracts for the sale or lease of lots before a final, surveyed plat is approved
and recorded. Some developers to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed development to lenders
use these so-called "pre-sale" or "pre-lease" contracts. Although the North Carolina Attorney General
has rendered the opinion that entering into a sales contract to sell a lot from a parent tract constitutes a
"subdivision", the practice of developers entering into such contracts before a final plat is approved and
recorded is not necessarily rare in this state. Section 3 of S 814 thus may be viewed as providing
authorization for a not uncommon but arguably illegal practicc.
The new section amends G.S. 160A-375 and 153A-344 to allow pre-sale and pre-lease contracts, but
only after a preliminary plat has been approved. The requirement that a preliminary plat be approved by
the local government before these contracts are executed, a last-minute addition to the legislation, should
help insure that planners are at least aware that a particular subdivision is being undertaken. The act
provides that the closing and final conveyance of the lots subject to these contracts may not occur until
after the final plat is approved and recorded.
G.S. 160A-375(c) and G.S. t53A-334(c) allows subdividers to pre-sell or pre-lease lots to builders
and commercial intermediaries without any additional protection for these purchasers. It: however, the
lots are to be sold to those who are not engaged in the construction business (i.e., consumers), then a
variety of protections apply. The buyer must receive a copy of the preliminary plat at the time the
contract is executed. In addition, the buyer must be notified that no final plat has been approved and
that there is no guarantee that changes will not be made to the plat before final approval. Also, the seller
must furnish a copy of the final plat to the buyer prior to the closing. The contract or lease may be
terminated by the buyer or lessee if the final recorded plat differs in any material respect from the
preliminary plat
Infrastructure Agreements
Section 8 of S.L. 2005-426 (S 814) includes enabling authority for local governments to enter into
reimbursements agreements with land developers that construct or install infrastructure in behalf of the
public. Developers, as a condition of development permission, routinely install or construct
infrastruetural improvements on property that is eventually dedicated to a public agency or
governmental unit. When a city or county uses it regulatory power to compel the developer to furnish
the improvement, it is generally understood that developer will determine who docs the work and that no
formal contract is required. However, in some cases it may desirable for a developer to construct
facilities and improvements that serve more than just the developer's own property. Local governments
may offer to reimburse the developer (or his contractor) to the extent that the improvements are
"oversized," and a local government may better make these arrangements through an agreement than
through regulation. Enabling legislation for several different types of infrastructure agreements is
included in S 814. Each piece is patterned after local legislation on the same subject.
Section 8. (a) and (b) provide one model for cities and counties to use, adding new G.S. 160A-499
and G.S. t 53A-451. These provisions apply to the construction of local government infrastructure
anywhere within a local government's planning jurisdiction. The new law authorizes reimbursement
agreements with developers and property owners for a wide variety of purposes, including water and
sewer utilities and street and traffic control improvements. In order to qualify, the facility or
fi le://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes. Data \S u... 1/26/2006
- -----_.._-----~~~~--~----
101
Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 5 of6
improvement must be included on the local unit's capital improvement plan. The city or county
must also have adopted an ordinance setting out the procedures and terms under which it may entcr into
such an agreement. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of section 8 is the following requirement. If the
work would have required competitive bidding had the project been undertaken by the local
government, then the developer or property owner that actually undertakes the work must use the same
bidding procedures as the local government would have used.
Section 8. (c) and (d) provide an alternative model for public enterprise improvements if they are
adjacent or ancillary to a private land development project. This section adds new G.S. 160A-320 ands
G.S. 153A-280 to allow a city or county to reimburse those costs associated with the design and
construction of improvements that are in addition to those required by local land development
regulations. The public bidding requirements of G.S. Chapter 143, article &, do not apply if two
requirements are met. First, the public cost may not exceed $250,000. Second, thc city or county must
determine either that (i) the public cost will not exceed thc local government's estimated cost of using
force account labor or the cost of a public contract let through competitive bidding procedures, or (ii) the
coordination of separately constructed improvements would be impracticable. The act clarifies that the
improvements may be located on land owned by the private party or by the local government. It also
authorizes the private party to help the city or county obtain any necessary easements that may be
required.
Section 8. (c) adds a new G.S. 160A-309 and offers authority similar to that described in the last
paragraph. It, however, allows cities to enter into reimbursement agreements for intersection and
roadway improvements that lie within city limits.
Development agreements
Infrastructure agreements discussed above are good vehicles for allocating the costs of oversized
public facilities that benefit both private development and the public. The state, however, has recently
seen development projects that are far larger in scope and that are built out over longer periods of time
than ever before. Local governments have noticed that the off-site impacts and public facility
implications of such projects outstrip the ability of their regulatory tools to manage them. Developers
have major concerns of their own, particularly the risks involved with committing substantial funds to
projects without adequate assurance that local development standards will not bccome more demanding
as the full extent of the project takes form. Even procedures for establishing vested rights, established
under North Carolina legislation enacted over fifteen years ago, may not adequately satisfy the concerns
of developers and local governments in these unusual circumstances. A new tool or mechanism has
been needed. At least fifteen states have authorized so-called "development agreements." Section 9. (a)
and (b) provide this authority to North Carolina cities and counties by making substantial additions to
the North Carolina statutes in the form of G.S. 160A-400.20 to --400.32 and G.S. 153A-379.1 to -
379.13. South Carolina legislation served as the model.
The development agreements enabled by the new legislation are limited in scope. Under an
agreement a local government may not impose a tax or a fee or exercise any authority that is not
otherwise allowed by law. The development agreement must be consistent with the local laws that
apply when the agreement is approved by the local government. The new legislation does not provide
express authority for a local government to commit its legislative authority in advance. Cities and
counties may not make enforceable promises to refrain from annexing the property or from using their
taxing power in a particular way in the future. The ordinances in effect when the agreement is executed
do remain in effect for the life of the agreement, but the development is not immune from changes in
state and federal law.
The agreement may specify that the developer furnish certain public facilities, but it must also
provide that the delivery date of these facilities is tied to successful performance by the developer in
completing the private portion of the development. (This feature is designed to protect developers from
file:IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local%20Setti ngs\ T emp\C.N otes. Data \S u... 1/26/2006
._----~'_._-- .. _.-.----_._--~_.._--_._--"._._..__._-_..__._-_._~-~
102
Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 6 01'6
having to complete public facilities in circumstances where progress in buildout may not generate
the need for the facilities.) A development agreement may specify that the project be commenced or
completed within a certain period of time. It must provide a development schedule and include
commencement dates and interim completion dates for intervals no greater than five years. However,
the act expressly provides that failure to meet a commencement or completion datc does not necessarily
constitute a material breach of the agreement. The act does provide a procedure by which a local
government may declare that the developer has materially breach the agreement and cancel the
agreement. But it is remains unclear whether traditional remedies for the breach of the contract (e.g., an
action for damages, specific performance) are also available.
The property subject to a development agreement must be at least 25 acres in size. The agreements
may last no more than 20 years. In order to be valid the agreements must be adopted by ordinance by
the governing board. The same public hearing requirements that apply before a zoning text amendment
may be adopted also apply before a development agreement may be adopted. Once executed by both
parties, the agreement must be recorded and binds subsequent owners of affected land as well the
current owner.
Easements Within Certain Public Rights-of-Way
In most municipalities it is understood that if a subdivider offers to dedicate to the public a street in a
new subdivision, the street interest dedicated also accommodates various public utilities that are
typically located within street rights-of-way. However, in some unincorporated areas of the state a
subdivider of land may establish the necessary easements within new public or private road rights-of-
way to accommodate telephone, cable television, and other public utility services only if the service
provider is prepared to pay the subdivider for doing so. Utility easements are viewed as "burdens" on a
highway easement that are not included or accommodated within it. 2005-286 (H 1469) will alter these
arrangements insofar as new publicly dedicated roads outside city limits are concerned. It adds a new
GS 62-182.1 to provide that the recordation of a subdivision plat for an unincorporated area that reflects
the dedication of a new public street or highway shall automatically serve to make that public right-of-
way available for use by any telephone, cable television, or other public utility for the installation of
lines, cables, and other facilities to provide service. The act requires utility service providers who wish
to take advantage of this accommodation to comply with standards established by the Division of
Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), for accommodating utilities or
cable television systems within its highway rights-of-way. It also applies only to plats that subdividers
properly record under GS 47-30 (requirements for the recordation of maps in the office of the register of
deeds) and that comply with GS 136-102.6 (dedication of roads to NCDOT).
S.L. 2005 - 286 (H 1469) applies only to maps and plats recorded on or after August 22, 2005, the
effective date of the act.
file:IIC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \S u... 1/26/2006
------, -..-------
103
Summary Analysis of S Page 1 of 6
Brief'.SltlIlmary of 2005 Arnelldments toNQrth CarolinaJ)lanning
8tatutes~_ 8.._518 andS._814
David Owens
Institute of Government
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The Institute of Government will publish its usual bulletin summarizing all planning related
legislative activity by the 2005 General Assembly later this year. In the interim, this memo briefly
summarizes the key provisions in two major bills affecting planning and development regulation-S.L.
2005-418 (S. 518), An Act to Clarify and Make Technical Changes to City and County Planning
Statutes, and S.L. 2005-426 (S. 814), An Act to Modernize and Simplify City and County Planning and
Land-Use Management Statutes. Both bills received final legislative approval on August 24,2005 and
were signed into law by Governor Easley on September 22, 2005. The bills generally become etlective
January I, 2006. The exception is that the amendments relative to development moratoria become
effective for moratoria adopted or extended after September 1,2005.
This discussion is organized by the changes made by both bills in particular areas-general
provisions, zoning, subdivision regulation, infrastructure agreements, and development agreements.
Unless otherwise noted both of these bills amend the laws for both cities and counties. The general
format used in both bills is for subsection (a) of each section to amend laws in G.S. 160A affecting
municipalities and subsection (b) to amend the comparable law for counties in G.S. 153A.
Throughout the statutes the bill modernizes the references to "planning agency" in the statutes to
reflect the change in terms to "planning boards." Both bills also have provisions that provide that they
do not override previously adopted local legislation on these matters.
l. _Gemrm PrQyisiolls
Unified development ordinances. Section 1 ofS. 518 revises G.S. 160A-363 and G.S. 153A-322
to specifically allow cities and counties to combine various planning and development ordinances into a
single ordinance. An increasingly common way of accomplishing this is to merge zoning, subdivision,
and other development regulations into a single unified development ordinance. Some local
governments have felt local legislation is necessary to allow this; others have been uncertain whether
tools and institutions used under one authority could be used in a different context. This clarification
recognizes internal coordination and simplification efforts. It allows a single set of definitions,
organizational structure, and procedures to be used for any and all development ordinances unless there
is a specific restriction of authority. The ordinances that may be combined under this authority are those
authorized by the Articles of G.S. 160A and 153A related to planning and development regulation. It
does not include separate ordinances adopted under the general ordinance-making authority (noise
ordinances, nuisance lot ordinances, junk car ordinances, etc.). Other amendments in both bills include
reference to unified development ordinances in the zoning and subdivision statutes.
II. Zoning
Hearing notices for rczonings. Local governments are now required to do an on-site posting of
the notice of hearings on all zoning map amendments. Section 4 of S. 518 creates G.S. 160A-384(c) and
G.S. 153A-343(c) to require that site posting be used to notify persons of hearings on rezonings. The
county exemption for mailed notice of zoning map amendments that initially zone a parcel is repealed
(there was no comparable city exemption). This section of the bill also amends 160A-384(b) and G.S.
153A-343(b) to simplify the alternate notice provision for large-scale rezonings (those affecting more
than 50 properties) by requiring the half-page newspaper advertisement to be published twice rather than
four times.
file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\sw)'nn\Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes. Data \S u... 1/26/2006
""._"--,.,...._,~.,--_...__._-,.__.~.~-".- .- ----~--------
104
Summary Analysis of S Page 2 of6
Protest petitions. Section 5 of S. 518 substantially revises the definition of a qualifying area for a
zoning protest petition in O.S. 160A-385. It simplifies the definition of a qualifying area for a protest so
that it is 5% of the land included within a 100-foot wide buffer around each separate area proposed to be
rezoned (rather than 20% of anyone of four sides). Street rights-of-way are not considered for the 100-
foot buffer unless the right-of-way has a width greater than 100 feet. Oiven that many rezonings are of
irregularly shaped parcels, this will significantly simplify application of the protest calculation. This
section also changes the law to provide that when less than an entire parcel is proposed to be rezoned,
the qualifying buffer is measured from the property line rather than the zoning district boundary. It
provides that the three-fourths majority required if there is a qualified protest is calculated on the basis
of the number of council members eligible to vote on the matter (excluding vacancies and those who
have a financial conflict of interest and are prohibited by law from voting on the matter). It also
simplifies the protest provision by limiting its application to zoning map amendments. The amendment
also adds references to the increasingly common practice of conditional zoning and treats protests
regarding amendments of these in the same manner as the previously provided for conditional use
district and special use district zoning. There is no comparable county statute on protest petitions. The
bill as introduced authorized optional county protest petitions; the bill as passed deletes that
authorization. Section 6 of S. 518 amends O.S. 160A-386 to clarify that a person filing a protest against
a proposed zoning amendment may withdraw the protest any time prior to a vote on the rezoning.
Comprehensive plan. Several sections of these bills strengthen the role of the comprehensive
plan and any other officially adopted plan (such as a small area plan, a corridor plan, or a transportation
plan). Section 7 of S. 814 amends O.S. 160A-383 and O.S. 153A-341 to require that planning board
review of zoning amendments include written comments on the consistency of the proposed amendment
with the comprehensive plan and any other relevant plans that have been adopted by the governing
board. The amendment provides that a statement from the planning board that the proposed amendment
is inconsistent with a plan does not preclude the governing board from adoption of the amendment. This
governing board is then required to adopt a statement on plan consistency before adopting or rejecting
any zoning amendment. This statement must also explain why the board believes the action taken is
reasonable and in the public interest. The statement adopted by the governing board on plan consistency
is not subject to judicial review. Section 7 of S. 518 amends O.S. 160A-387 and O.S. 153A-344 to
clarify that planning board recommendations are required prior to initial adoption of zoning. It mandates
referral of proposed zoning amendments to the planning board for review and comment (this was
previously mandated for counties, but not for cities, though virtually all city zoning ordinances already
in practice provide for such review). It allows the governing board to proceed with consideration of the
amendment if no comments are made within 30 days of referral and specifies that the planning board
recommendations are not binding on the governing board.
Conflicts of interest. For legislative and advisory decisions, Section 5 ofS. 814 creates O.S.
160A-381(d) and O.S. 340(g) to codify existing law prohibiting financial conflicts of interest on zoning
amendments. Members are not to vote on ordinances (or recommendations) if they have a direct,
substantial, readily-identified financial interest in the outcome ofthe decision. It also applies that same
rule to planning board advisory recommendations on zoning text and map amendments. For quasi-
judicial decisions, Section 8 ofS. 518 amends O.S. 160A-388 and I 53A-345 to create a new subsection
(el) to codify existing case law on the constitutional limitation requiring impartial board members for
quasi-judicial decision-making (and applies this same rule to any board exercising the functions of a
board of adjustment). Members must not participate in or vote on any matter where they have a fixed
opinion on the case prior to the hearing, they have undisclosed ex parte communications, have close
family, business, or associational ties with an affected person, or have a financial interest in the outcome
of the case.
Moratoria. Section 5 ofS. 814 creates O. S. 160A-381(e) and O.S. 340(h) to explicitly recognize
the authority of cities and counties to adopt temporary moratoria of reasonable duration (now generally
file ://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn\Local %20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \Su... 1/26/2006
_ _ _________..__._m"._....~______,_.___,._
105
Summary Analysis of S Page 3 of6
assumed to be an implied power) and codifics thc constitutional limitations on the use of
moratoria. It requires cities and counties at the time of adoption of a moratorium to expressly state the
reasons for the moratorium and why other alternative actions are deemed to be inadequate, its scope and
duration, and set forth an action plan to address the issues that led to its imposition. It specifies that
temporary moratoria of 60 days duration or less may be adopted with a public hearing that has one
notice published seven days in advance (unless there is an imminent and substantial threat to public
health and safety, in which case a hearing is not required). Longer moratoria (and extensions beyond 60
days) require the same notice and hearing as routine land use ordinance amendments. Moratoria may be
renewed or extended only if the government has taken all reasonable and feasible steps to address the
problem leading to the moratorium and if new facts and conditions warrant an extension. Unless there is
an imminent threat to public health and safety, moratoria do not apply to projects that have already
received a vested right under current law; nor do they apply to preliminary or final plats or to special and
conditional use permit applications that have been accepted for rcview prior to the call for a hearing on
the moratorium. Provision is also made for expedited judicial review and the government has the burden
of showing compliance with the procedural requirements of the statute in such challenges.
Conditional zoning. Section 6 ofS. 814 amends G.S. 160A-382 and G.S. 153A-342 to
incorporate reference to the conditional zoning technique now approved by the courts (the conditional
zoning is entirely legislative, as opposed to the conditional use district zone (also still allowed) that also
includes a required concurrent conditional use permit). It clarifies that specific conditions imposed in
conditional zoning and for special and conditional usc district zones may be proposed by the owner or
the city and its agencies, but only those mutually approved by the owner and government may be put
into the regulations and permits. It limits conditions and site-specific standards to those that address
conformance of the development and use of the site to ordinances and offIcially adopted plans and those
that address the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development and use of the site.
Spot zoning. Section 6 ofS. 814 amends G.S. 160A-382 and G.S. 153A-342 to codify the
exi sting court mandated analysis of the reasonableness of small-seal e rezonings. It requires a statement
analyzing the reasonableness of the proposed rezoning be prepared as part of all rezonings to
special/conditional use districts, conditional zonings, and other small-scale zonings. The statute does not
specify who must prepare this statement or when it is required, thus leaving some flexibility to local
governments in this regard. For example, the petitioner for a rezoning could be required to address this
issue as part ofthe application process, it could be prepared by staff for presentation at the hearing, or it
could be addressed by the planning board (or any combination of these).
Special and conditional use permits. Section 5 ofS. 814 amends G.S. l60A-38l(c) and G.S. 340
(cl) to clarify that planning boards may be authorized to issue special and conditional use permits (as
opposed to having to use the BOA authority). It confirms that governing boards and planning boards
must follow quasi-judicial procedures when acting on special and conditional use permits and provides
that both planning boards and governing boards need only a simple majority (not a 4/5 vote) to approve
these. It provides that vacant seats and disqualified members are not counted in computing required
majority votes. It simplifies the law by replacing detailed provisions on appeals of these special and
conditional use permits with a simpler cross-reference to an existing statute that already has those
details.
Variances. Section 5 ofS. 814 amends G.S. l60A-38l(bl) and G.S. 340(c) to codify current law
that use variances are impermissible (as changes in permitted uses must be addressed by ordinance
amendment rather that by variance). Section 8 of S. 518 makes this same amendment to G.S. l60A-388
(d) and l53A-345( d). It also provides that any conditions imposed on a variance be related to the
variance standards.
Board of adjustment. Section 8 ofS. 518 makes several amendments to G.S. l60A-388 and
l53A-345 regarding board of adjustment procedures. The revision to subsection (a) clarifies that
file :IIC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn\Local%20Settings\ T emp\C. Notes. Data \Su... 1/26/2006
106
Summary Analysis of S Page 4 of6
alternate members of a BOA may serve either temporarily (as when a member is disqualified
from participation on an individual case due to a conflict of interest) or to fill a vacancy, as well as
serving for an absent member. The revision to subsection (c) clarifies that the term "special exception"
is limited to modest, non-use related modifications and that this authority includes provisions for special
and conditional use permits (as is now commonly assumed). The amendments to subsection (e) clarify
that the size of the board for purposes of calculating the requisite four-fifths vote is reduced by
vacancics and members who are disqualified from voting if there are not alternate members available.
The county provision also adds a new subscction (g) to give county boards of adjustment the same
subpoena power that now exists for cities.
III. Subdivision Ordinance~
General. Section 2 ofS. 518 revises G.S. 160A-37l and l53A-330 to add reference to sketch
plans and preliminary plats, which are now commonly used in addition to final plats. It also confirms
that different review procedures can be established for different classes of plats (e.g., distinguishing
major and minor subdivisions) and that the subdivision ordinance can be consolidated into a unified
development ordinance. This amendment also codifies existing case law that only those standards
explicitly set forth in the ordinance as criteria for decision may be used in making individual plat
approval decisions and requires that if a subdivision ordinance uses standards for approval that require
judgment, the ordinance must provide adequate guiding standards (as is the case with special and
conditional use permits).
One lot out. Section 4 ofS. 814 revises the definition ofa "subdivision" in G.S. l60A-376 and
G.S. l53A- 335 to clarify that the creation ofa single new lot or parcel may be considered a subdivision.
It also explicitly notes that a local government may provide for expedited review of specified classes of
subdivisions.
Authorization for plat approval by staff. Section 3 of S. 518 amends G.S. l60A-373 and l53A-
332 to clarify that decisions on preliminary and fInal plats may be assigned to technical review
committees. It also allows delegation of review and approval of plats to a designated staff person. This
would allow, for example, an expedited review of a designated class of subdivisions (e.g., minor plats
for intrafamily transfers) to be handled by staff.
Performance guarantees. Section 2 ofS. 814 revises G.S. 160A-372(a) and G.S. 153A-331(a) in
several ways. It updates the reference to coordination of "streets and highways" to the more
contemporary coordination of "transportation networks and utilities" and clarifies that the regulations
must "substantially promote" (rather than be "essential to") the public health, safety, and welfare. It
revises G.S. l60A-372(c) and G.S. l53A-331(c) to modernize the language allowing performance
guarantees. It provides that the ordinance is to provide a range of types of performance guarantees from
which developers may choose for individual plats.
Enforcement. Section 3 ofS. 814 amends G.S. 160A-375 and G.S. l53A-334 to extend the same
routine enforcement options available for zoning enforcement (including denial of building permits) to
subdivision ordinance enforcement (as opposed to limiting enforcement to criminal citations and
injunctive relief under the current statute).
Presale contracts. Section 3 ofS. 814 creates a new subsection (b) ofG.S. 160A-375 and G.S.
l53A-334 to allow use of pre-sale and pre-lease contracts to obtain development financing for
subdivisions that have received preliminary plat approval but have not yet had final plats approved and
recorded. The section provides detailed requirements for these contracts, specifying notices that must be
provided to prospective buyers and grounds for cancellation of the contract. The prospective buyer must
receive a copy of the preliminary plat at the time of contracting and must receive a copy of the final plat
prior to closing. The prospective buyer must be clearly notified that final plat approval has not yet bccn
secured, that approval is not guaranteed, and that the contract may be terminated if the final plat is
file:IIC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local %20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \Su... 1/2612006
----------------
107
Summary Analysis of S Page 5 of6
materially different from the preliminary plat. This amendment also allows contracts to sell lots
to the developers ofthose lots after the preliminary plat is approved but before final plat approval. Thc
final conveyance may not take place until after the final plat is approved and recorded.
IY. Developmen~Agre~ments
Section 9 ofS. 814 creates a new tool for public-private cooperation in North Carolina. A
number of states allow cities and counties to enter into development agreements. Among the states with
these statutes are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada,
New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. This section incorporates a version of
the South Carolina development agreement statute into the North Carolina statutes as G.S. l60A-400.20
to l60A-400.32 and l53A-379.l to l53A-379.13.
The use of development agreements is optional for cities and counties. If used, each agreement
must be adopted as an ordinance by the governing board (with the same standard notice and hearing
required for zoning amendments). The agreement cannot impose any tax or fee not otherwise authorized
by law. The minimum land size to be included is set at 25 developable acres (exclusive of wetlands,
mandatory buffers, unbuildable slopes, and other areas precluded from development) and the maximum
term is set at 20 years. The contents of the agreement are specified, including a clear identification of the
exact land involved, the duration of the agreement, a description of the uses ofthe property, the
population density, and building types, intensities, placement, and design. It must also include a
description of any new public facilities that will serve the development, who will providc them, and
when they will be provided. It must also include a list of all local regulatory approvals required, any
conditions need to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and any provisions for preservation and
restoration of historic structures. Provisions are made for amendment, extension, and cancellation of the
agreement. The development agreement must be consistent with the local laws in effect at the time of
agreement approval. The ordinances in effect at the time of the agreement generally are to remain in
effect for the life of the agreement, with specified exceptions (such as changes in state and federal laws
affecting the development). The agreement must be recorded and is binding on subsequent purchasers of
the land.
v. Infrastmcture AgretlPlents
Section 8 of S. 814 provides statewide authority for cities and counties to adopt infrastructure
agreements with developers. These are agreements where developers construct infrastructure that serves
the development but that is beyond the regulatory requirements of the city or county. The developer is
then reimbursed by the government for these extra expenses. These sections are similar to previously
adopted local legislation that authorized these agreements for several cities and counties. Several
different mechanisms for these agreements were created.
First, G.S. l60A-499 and 153A-451 are created to allow agreements for a variety of
infrastructure purposes. To use this authority, the infrastructure needs must be included within the
government's capital improvement plan and developer must solicit bids for the work if that work would
have been subject to the competitive bidding requirements if done directly by the government.
Second, it creates G.S. l60A-320 and l53A-280 to allow such agreements for public enterprise
improvements that are adjacent or ancillary to a private land development project, up to a cost of
$250,000. Based on the initial experience with similar provisions in local bills, these statutory provisions
may well be the most widely used vehicle to allow these agreements. Bidding by the private developer is
not required, but in order to use this tool the government must find that the cost of securing the
improvements would be less than if done directly by the government or through a public contract.
file :IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local %20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \S u... 1/26/2006
108
Summary Analysis of S Page 6 of6
Third, G.S. l60A-309 is created to allow cities to enter into similar agreements on intersection
and roadway improvements up to a cost of $250,000.
file :IIC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynl1 \Local%20Settings\ T emp\C.N otes.Data \S u... 1/26/2006
____"'_._"..M___._______._~_.._._~__
109
November 1,2005 Page 1 of 8
November, 2005
Local Ordinance Amendments to Secure Compliance with 2005 Legislation
David Owens
Richard Ducker
Institute of Government
UN C-CH
In 2005 the General Assembly adopted two major bills that amend the state's planning and development
regulation statutes, S. 518 and S. 814. Several other bills making individual changes were also adopted.
The checklist below highlights the potential changes in local zoning, subdivision, and development
ordinances that need to be considered as a result. Most of the state law amendments take effect on
January 1, 2006. Exceptions are the provisions on moratoria, city zoning of state lands without a
involvement of a building, and restrictions on flag regulations, all of which are already effective.
The table below lists the topics that need to be considered. For each item, the table lists thc reference to
the new statute involved, the section of the bill amending the statute, a brief explanation of the
provision, and the relation ofthe statutory language to the need to amend local ordinances. In many
cases where the law involves a statutory mandate it will be useful or even necessary for local land
development ordinances to be amended. In other cases the legislation takes thc form of enabling
authority so that local governments will need to choose whether to take advantage of new options. In
any event it is important that local ordinances not include anything that is contrary to state law.
In the chart below "Z/UD" refers to a zoning ordinance or to a unified development ordinance. The
letters "S/UD" refers to a land subdivision ordinance or to a unified development ordinance. "LG"
refers to a local government (city or county).
A second chart (using this same format and order of presentation) that also includes the new statutory
language that is involved for each of these items is available on line from IOG. A link to that chart is
posted at: http://ncinfo.iog.ufl.(:, eduLQIgill1izations/planning.llegisinfo/S tat W orkSbeet~StatL(l ngU(lg~. htm.
file :IIC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\swynn \Local %20Settings\ T emp\C. N otes.Data \Le... 1/26/2006
_u_.__._
110
ZOniD!!
Item Topic Statute Bill Explanation Relation to Local
Ordinance
1. Planning G.S. 160A- 387 S.518, Requires referral of all Statutory mandate.
board G.S. 153A-344 Sec. 7 proposed zoning Conforming amendment to
reVIews amendments to planning ZIUD ordinance highly
board for review and recommended. Also check
.. " comment ordinance establishing
planning board for possible
amendment.
2. Planning G.S. 160A- S.814, Prohibits participation Statutory mandate.
board 381(d) Sec. 5 on any zomng Conforming amendment to
conflict of G.S. 153A- amendment ZIUD ordinance or
interest 340(g) recommendation by ordinance creating planning
member with direct, board recommended. Check
substantial financial also for possible amendment
interest to PB rules of procedure
3. Planning G.S.160A-383 S.814, Requires written Statutory mandate.
board G.S. 153A-341 Sec. 7 recommendation from Conforming amendment to
statement planning board on all ZIUD ordinance
proposed zoning recommended. Amendment I
amendments; requires may also identify planes)
that recommendation referred to and set forth
address plan standards for determining
consistency. consistency
4. Published G.S.160A- S.518, Reduces required Relaxes a particular notice
hearing 3 84(b ) Sec. 4 alternative half-page requirement. Conforming
notices G.S. 153A- published notices for amendment to ZIUD
343(b) large rezonings from ordinance recommended.
four to two times Failure to amend ordinance
may result in ordinance
requirements that exceed
state standards.
5. Posted G.S.160A- S.5l8, Requires on-site posting Statutory mandate.
hearing 384(c) Sec. 4 for all proposed zoning Conforming amendment to
notices G.S.153A- map amendments ZIUD ordinance practically
343(d) essential.
6. Mailed G.S. l53A- S.518, Requires mailed notice Statutory mandate with
hearing 343( c) Sec. 4 when counties initially limited applicability.
notices zone property Conforming amendment to
county ZIUD ordinances
recommended, but counties
with countywide zoning
may choose to ignore
'")
L
---- ~-~--~--~------
111
7. Protest G.S. l60A- S.5l8, Requires that protest Statutory mandate.
petition 385(a) Sec. 5 petitions only apply to Conforming amendment to
applicability zomng map ZIUD ordinance
amendments; no longer recommended, even though
applicable to text overwhelming majority of
amendments such petitions protest map,
not text, amendments
8. Protest G.S. 160A- S.518, Requires that vacant Statutory mandate.
petition 385(a) Sec. 5 seats and members who Conforming amendment to
voting ..... are recused from voting municipal VUD ordinance
not be considered in amendment practically
calculation of three- essential since rule might
fours majority otherwise be overlooked
9. Protest G.S. l60A- S.518, Requires that area for Statutory mandate.
petition 385(a) Sec. 5 valid protest be 20% of Conforming amendment to
qualifying area included or 5% of municipal Z/UD ordinance
area 100- foot perimeter practically essential since
buffer; requires that failure to determine properly
property boundary be the validity of petition can
used to compute buffer affect validity of rezoning
if less that full parcel
proposed for rezoning
10. Protest G.S. 160A- S.518, Limits applicability of Statutory mandate. J
petition 385(a) Sec. 5 protest petition for some Conforming amendment to
applicability conditional zoning municipal Z/UD ordinance
amendments (same as recommended for those
for CUD amendments) cities using or intending to
use conditional zoning
11. Protest G.S.160A-386 S. 518, Requires that petitioner Statutory mandate.
petition Sec. 6 can withdraw protest Conforming amendment to
verification any time up to vote on municipal Z/UD ordinance
rezorung recommended
12. Governing G.S. l60A- S.814, Prohibits participation Statutory mandate.
board 381(d) Sec. 5, on any zomng Conforming amendment to
conflict of G.S. l53A- 5.1 amendment decision by ZIUD ordinance
interest 340(g) member with direct, recommended. Consider
G.S.160A-75; substantial fmancial also possible amendment to
G.S. l53A-44 interest governing board's rules of
procedure, if any.
13. Conditional G.S.160A- S.814, Allows use of purely Enabling statute. Boilerplate
zorung 382(a) Sec. 6 legislative conditional from statute need not be
G.S.153A- zorung incorporated into Z/UD
342(a) ordinance. Provides
opportunity for LG to
consider whether
conditional zoning is an
3
- -----~,_._._------
112
.
appropriate technique fo~
that LG to use.
14. Conditions G.S.160A- S.814, Requires that site Statutory mandate.
in CUD, 382(b) Sec. 6 specific conditions in Conforming amendment to
SUD, G.S.153A- zoning districts be ZIUD ordinance
Conditional 342(b) limited to those needed reconunended.Arnendment
zones for conformance to may identify the plan to
plan, ordinance, or to which conditions must
address project impacts conform.
15. Statement G.S. 1-60A- S.8l4, Requires statement Statutory mandate.
for small- 382(b ) Sec. 6 analyzing Conforming amendment to
scale G.S. l53A- reasonableness for all Z/UD ordinance strongly
rezonings 342(b) small-scale rezonings recommended. May provide
(also see # 16) opportunity to designate
who prepares such
statement, when it is
prepared, and how it is to be
used.
16. Governing G.S. 160A-383 S.814, Requires written Statutory mandate.
board G.S. 153A-341 Sec. 7 statement on all zoning Conforming amendment to
statement amendment decisions Z/UD ordinance strongly
(adoption and reconunended. May provide
rejections); requires that opportunity to identify "an I
statement address plan adopted comprehensive
consistency, plan". May also provide
reasonableness, and opportunity to clarify what
public interests it means for governing
furthered. board to "reject" a proposed
zoning amendment.
17. Government G.S.160A-392 S.669 Repeals provision that Statutory mandate.
land made governmental use Conforming amendment to
ofland with no building ZIUD ordinance not
involved subject to city essential. Ordinance should
zomng be checked to ensure
conformity with legislation.
18. Regulation G.S.144-7.l H.829 Limits regulation of Mix of statutory mandate
of flags official national and and enabling authority.
state flags; allows Conforming amendment to
reasonable regulation of ZIUD ordinance not so
flag size, number of important, but ordinance
flags, and location and should be checked to ensure
height of flagpoles conformity with legislation
19. Forestry G.S. l60A- S.68l Limits regulation of Primarily a statutory
regulation 458.5 forestry that is not mandate. LG may need to
G.S. 153A-45l associated with repeal or amend any
development if land is ordinance regulating clear
4
,-.._--
113
subject to forestry use- cutting or forestry.
value taxation or Conforming amendment to
forestry management zoning, land subdivision, or
plan development ordinance
strongly recommended if
LG wishes to withhold
development permission for
tree harvesting "in
anticipation of
r" development. "
20. BOA G.S. l60A- S.518, Allows alternates to Enabling authority.
membership 388(a) Sec. 8 serve on individual Amendment to ZIUD
G.S.153A- matters based on a ordinance to take advantage
345(a) member's temporary of this option recommended.
disqualification Consider also possible
amendment of BOA rules of
procedure
21. Conflicts on G.S. 160A- S.518, Prohibits and defines Statutory mandate.
quasi- 388( el) Sec. 8 conflicts of interest for Conforming amendment to
judicial G.S. 153A- all quasi-judicial ZIUD highly recommended,
matters 345(el) decisions; requires that particularly since statutory
rest of board votes to provisions apply to all
resolve objection if boards exercising powers of"
member does not recuse a board of adjustment.
him/her self (applies to Consider also possible
BOA, planning board, amendment of applicable
governing board) board's rules of procedure
22. BOA voting G.S.160A- S.518, Requires that vacant Statutory mandate.
388(e) Sec. 8 seats and disqualified Conforming amendment to
G.S. l53A- members are not ZIUD highly recommended
345(e) considered in since failure to ascertain
calculating 4/5 votes if properly the validity of vote
there are no qualified affects validity of decision.
alternates
23. SUP ICUP G.S.160A- S.814, Requires that only Statutory rnandate.
voting 38l(c) Sec. 5 simple majority vote is Conforming amendment to
G.S. l53A- needed for planning z/UD highly recommended,
340(cl) board and governing particularly since statutory
board approval of provisions apply to all
SUP/CUP; requires that boards exercising powers of
vacant seats and a board of adjustment.
disqualified members Consider also possible
are not counted in amendment of applicable
computing majority board's rules of procedure
24. Special and G.S.160A- S.814, Allows planning boards Enabling legislation.
conditional 381(c) Sec. 5 to decide SUP/CUP Conforming amendment to
5
114
use permits G.S. 153A- ZIUD ordinance
340(cl) unnecessary since provision
restates existing law.
Provides opportunity to
consider appropriate role for
planning board
25. SUP/CUP G.S.160A- S.8l4, Requires use of quasi- Statutory mandate.
procedures 38l(e) Sec. 5 judicial procedures for Conforming amendments to
G.S.153A- all SUP/CUPs by all ZIUD ordinance
340( c1' ) decision-making boards recommended.
26. Use G.S. l60A- S.5l8, Specifically prohibit use Statutory mandate. Largely
vanances 388(d) Sec. 8; variances (under either restates existing law, but
G.S. 153A- S.814, variance or special amendment to ZIUD
345( d) Sec. 5 exception power) ordinance recommended so
G.S. 160A- language may serve as a
38l(bl) reminder.
G.S.153A-
3400
27. County G.S. 153A- S.518, Allows county BOA to Enabling statute.
BOA 345(g) Sec. 8 issue subpoenas Amendment of county ZIUD
subpoena ordinance to take advantage
of this option recommended
1
Subdivision
Item Topic Statute Bill Explanation Relation to Local
Ordinance
1. Plat approval G.S.160A- S.518, Allows staff member and Enabling legislation.
373 Sec. 3 committees to approve Amendment to SID
G.S. 153A- subdivisions ordinance to take
332 advantage of these
options recommended,
even if these options are
already being used.
2. Standards for G.S.160A- S.518, Requires all standards to Statutory mandate.
reVIew 371 Sec. 2 be used in subdivision Boilerplate from statute
G.S decisions to be set out in need not be incorporated
ordinance; into SIUD ordinance, but
3A- LGs will want to review
0 ordinances to ensure
compliance with statute.
3. Review G.S. l60A- S.518, Allows for differing types Enabling legislation.
procedures 371 Sec. 2; of review for differing Largely codifies existing
G.S.153A- S.814, classes of subdivisions authority. LGs may \",ish
330 Sec. 4 to review S/UD ordinance
6
115
G.S.160A- to determine whether
376 (b) establishing classes of
G.S. 153A- subdivisions is desirable
335{b)
4. Performance G.S.160A- S. 814, If performance guarantees Best viewed as a statutory
guarantees 372(c) Sec. 2 required, must provide mandate since many
G.S.153A- range of options from S/UD ordinances require
331(c) which developer chooses financial performance
for individual project guarantees. If so, then
,,-" SIUD ordinance may need
to be amended to allow
range of options,
including either letters of
credit or bonds, or both.
5. Pre-sale G.S. 160A- S.814, Allows subdivider to Statutes effectively
contracts 375(b) Sec. 3 enter into contracts to sell establish a special
G.S.153A- or lease based on plats exception to rules
334(b) with preliminary approval governing saleslleases of
lots. Transfer of statutory
boilerplate to S/UD
ordinance recommended,
although exception
unlikely to affect LG ,
procedures directly.
6. Enforcement G.S.160A- S. 814, Expands enforcement Enabling authority.
, 375(a) Sec. 3 options for subdivision Amending to SIUD
G.S.153A- violations to include ordnance to take
I
334{a) building permit denial and advantage of authority to
any other appropriate deny building permit
action (including recommended, although
injunctions) many ordinances include
such language already.
Other conforming
language also
recommended
7. Definition G.S.160A- S.814, Provides that fIrst lot out Statutory mandate.
376(a) Sec. 4 from parent tract is a Conforming amendment
G.S. 153- subdivision to SfUD ordinance
335(a) affecting definition of
.'subdivision" practically
essential
7
116
Other
1 Moratoria G.S.160A- S.8l4, Requires hearing Statute both enables and
381(e) Sec. 5 procedure for moratoria if restricts use of
G.S. 15.3A- no imminent threat to moratorium authority.
340(h) health or safety; requires Conforming amendments
statement of rationale to Z1S/UD and perhaps
from board at time of other ordinances
adoption; sets projects recommended. LGs will
"" exempted from coverage; want to have moratorium
limits extensions; authority in place in
provides for prompt ordinance since need for
judicial review moratorium may come
quickly. Moratorium
restrictions may also
apply to land
development approvals
(and ordinances) other
than zoning.
2. Unified G.S.160A- . S. 518, Allows definitions, Enabling statute. No need
development 363(d) Sec. 1 procedures, organizations to repeat statutory
ordinance G.S. I53A- for all land use language in any
322((d); regulations to be ordinance. Provides LGs '
combined with opportunity to
{also explicitly authorized consider consolidation of
in zoning and subdivision ordinances.
statutes}
3. Development G.S. I60A- S. 814, Allows use of binding Enabling statute.
agreements '400.22 - . Sec. 9 ; development agreements . Conforming amendments I
160A-40032 that lock in regulations to Z'SIUD ordinances
G.s.153A- and infrastructure recommended only for
379.1 to provision for up to 20 jurisdictions with
I 53A-379.13 years substantial staff capability
where very large-scale
developments are
expected
8
.._-~--,---
-~-----
117
This page intentionally left blank.
118
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Regular Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenters: Pastor Robert Campbell, Chairman
John Ranalli, JDTC Director
Contact: Patricia A. Melvin
SUBJECT:
Presentation of Project Results to Date on the Problem of Disproportionate Minority Contact
BRIEF SUMMARY:
This project has been supported by a grant from the Governor's Crime Commission. Year one of the grant gathered data
from a variety of sources (including the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Sheriff's Department,
Wilmington Police Department and New Hanover County Schools) to examine and assess the extent of disproportionate
contact of minority youth with the juvenile justice system in New Hanover County. Year two (the current budget year) is
designed to integrate the results of the data collection and interpretation and compare to existing programs to determine
where gaps still exist that need to be filled to address this problem.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Make the County Commissioners aware of the results of this project and the recommendations being suggested while at
the same time giving them the opportunity to ask questions.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation: This is just a project update for the commissioners.
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Hear presentation.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Heard presentation.
119
This page intentionally left blank.
120
MEETING OF THE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
ASSEMBLY ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE
24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301
WILMINGTON, NC
ESTIMATED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No.
9:15 p.m. 1. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
9:20 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes 123
121
This page intentionally left blank.
122
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQU EST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Water & Sewer Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Governing Body Presenter: Sheila L. Schult
Contact: Sheila L. Schult
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Water and Sewer District - Approval of Minutes
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Approve minutes from the January 23,2006 Regular Meeting of the Water and Sewer District.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approve minutes.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-0.
123
This page intentionally left blank.
124
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 02/06/06
Additional Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenter: Patricia Melvin
Contact: Patricia Melvin
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Procurement of Additional Bracelets for Electronic Monitoring
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Electronic monitoring is an effective tool currently employed by New Hanover County to reduce the jail inmate population.
The County contracts with Reliant Management Group, Inc. for this service. The current contract provides electronic
monitoring for up to 70 court-ordered pretrial release detainees. The contract was amended in December 2005 to expand
the capacity of the program from 60 slots to 70, at no additional cost to the County. There is currently a need to expand the
capacity to provide services for ten to twenty more slots. Last week judges referred eight to ten subjects to pretrial release
for electronic monitoring, but all available equipment was in use.
A minimum of ten additional bracelets for electronic monitoring are needed to address the current need, though staff and
law enforcement officials feel it may be prudent to expand the capacity by twenty. The additional cost to provide the
services for the remainder of the contract is $12,025 for ten and $28,025 for twenty.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Consider expanding the capacity of the electronic monitoring contract with Reliant Management Group, Inc. and approval of
associated budget amendment to budget the funds from contingency.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
Pricing matrix
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved twenty additional bracelets 4-0 and associated budget amendment.
125
Turnkey Electronic Monitoring Expansion Pricing Matrix
#5 I ots Cost p/dav Annualized Monthlv
FY 2005-06
Current 70 $ 11.61 $ 296,720.00 $ 24,726.67 rounded
+10 slots 80 $ 11.15 $ 325,580.00 $ 27,131.67 rounded
+20 slots 90 $ 1108 $ 363,978.00 $ 30,331.50
FY 2006-07 90 $ 11.08 $ 363,978.00 $ 30,331.50
Please note the followina specific answers to reauested scenarios:
1) To add 10 slots (for a total of 80) through the end of June, 2006 would increase
the monthly cost by approx. $~
2) To add 20 slots (for a total of 90) through the end of June, 2006 would increase
the monthly cost by approx. $5,605.
3) To add 20 slots (for a total of 90) for FY 2006-07, annual contractual cost would
increase by $67,258 to $363,978. This represents a daily per slot reduction
of .53 [cents] from the current contractual pricing.
126