Agenda 2006 04-03
AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Assembb Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse
24 North Third Street, Room 301
Wdmington, 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
April 3, 2006 5:30 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman Robert G, Greer)
INVOCA TION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
ESTIMA TED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No,
5:40 p,m, 1. Consideration of Resolution of Appreciation to Jean and Eddie Lawler. Chairs 31
of "Enchanted Airlie"
5:45 p,m, 2, Recognition of Bruce T, ShelL Outstanding AlumnL Cameron School of 33
Business. UNC-Wilmington
5:50 p,m, 3, Consideration of Proclamation to Designate the Month of April 2006 Sexual 35
Assault Awareness Month
5:55 p,m, 4, Consideration of Proclamation to Designate the Month of April 2006 Child 37
Abuse Awareness Month
6:00 p,m, 5, Consideration of Proclamation to Designate the Week of April 17-21. 2006 39
Appreciation Week f'or CountJ,' Department o{'Social Services Emplovees
6:05 p,m, 6, Expression of Appreciation and Support bv Kure Beach for the 800 MHz 41
Upgrade Project
6:10 p,m, 7,1 Public Hearing 43
Text Amendment (continued) - 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)
6:40 p,m, 7,2 Public Hearing 61
Text Amendment - Request by planning staff to amend the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance Section 110 Development Agreements to reflect
changes made by the North Carolina General Assembly in the 2005 Legislative
Session (A-346, 1/06)
6:55 p,m, 7,3 Public Hearing 77
Special Use Permit - Request by Withers and Ravenel for Kevin Hoban to
consider a Special Use Permit for a High Density Development in an R-15
Residential District at 4416 South College Road (S-549, 02/06)
7:10 p,m, 7.4 Public Hearing 83
Special Use Permit -Request by Withers and Ravenel to consider a Special Use
Permit for a Community Boating Facility in an R-20S Residential District at
1647 and 1653 Canady Road (S-554, 03/06)
7:25 p,m, Break
7:35 p,m, 7,5 Public Hearing 89
Special Use Permit -Request by Betsy Burbank and Brad Kerr to consider a
Special Use Permit for a Veterinary Office in an 0&1 Office and Institutional
District at 2311 Castle Hayne Road (S-552, 03/06)
7:50 p,m, 7,6 Public Hearing 97
Special Use Permit - Request by Lucille Piner to consider a Special Use Permit
for a cemetery in an R-15 Residential District at 5708 Myrtle Grove Road
(S-553, 03/06)
8:05 p,m, 7,7 Public Hearing 103
RezoninK -Request by State Employees Credit Union to rezone 8,72 acres
from B-2 Highway Business District and R-15 Residential to B-1
Neighborhood Business Conditional Use District at 535 Sanders Road and
5830 Carolina Beach Road (2-831, 03/06)
8:25 p,m, 8, Consideration of Drainage Issues on Amold Road 113
8:40 p,m, 9, Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding for Metropolitan Plmming 119
Organization
8:50 p,m, 10, Consideration of Medicaid Positions for the Department of Social Services 135
9:00 p,m, 11. Presentation on the New Hanover County Roadside Cleanup Program and 139
Approval of Associated Budget Amendment 06-0166
9:10 p,m, 12, Meeting of the Water and Sewer District 145
9:30 p,m, 13, Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
9:35 p,m, 14, Additional Items
County Manager
County Commissioners
Clerk to the Board
County Attomey
9:45 p,m, 15, Additional Item to Consider Real Estate Purchase 143
10:00 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
ASSEMBL Y ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE
24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301
WILMINGTON, NC
ESTIMA TED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No,
9:10 p,m, 1. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
9: 15 p,m, 2, Approval of Minutes 147
9:20 p,m, 3, 149
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 ofN, C. Pandemic Influenza Planning Funds - Ratification of Grant 9
Application
3, Approval of the N, C. Public Beach and Waterwav Access Program Grant for 13
Middle Sound Park and Associated Budget Amendment 06-0164
Approval of Budget Amendments
4,1 06-0143 Juvenile Dav Treatment/NHCS 17
4,2 06-0144 Juvenile Dav Treatment/Medicaid 19
4,3 06-0153 ContingencieslN on -Departmental 21
4.4 06-0157 Sheriff's Office 23
4,5 06-0161 Health 25
4,6 06-0162 Non-Departmental 27
5
This page intentionally left blank.
6
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
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 Regular Meeting of the Board held on March 13, 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:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
7
This page intentionally left blank.
8
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Consent Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Health Presenter: Scott Harrelson, Asst. Health Director
Contact: Scott Harrelson, Asst. Health Director
SUBJECT:
NC Pandemic Influenza Planning Funds - Ratification of Grant Application
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The NC Office of Public Health and Health Preparedness has offered Local Health Departments the opportunity to apply for
federal funds for the purpose of Pandemic Influenza planning. The offer was extended with only 10 days notice prior to the
deadline for applications, which was March 2, 2006, Eligibility was only extended to counties in compliance with Local
Bioterrorism reporting requirements, and New Hanover County Health Department meets this criteria, If received, the
funds ($49,030 requested) will be used to establish a local health alert network between area physicians and the Health
Department, to purchase masks for personal protection, to fund a mass vaccination exercise and a public health
information campaign, and to pay the cost of salary and fringe for existing nursing staff to work with area physicians to
develop the local compliance with the North Carolina Immunization Registry. This is a one-time grant-funded project which
will end when grant funding ends.
The grant application is available for review in the County Manager's office.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Recommend ratification of the application which was submitted by the March 2, 2006 deadline, approve acceptance of the
grant if awarded ($49,030 requested), and approve any associated budget amendment related to the receipt of the grant
funds.
Funding Source: NC Office of Public Health and Health Preparedness is the pass-through agency for federal funds that will
be allocated to local health departments awarded these grants, No County match required. Existing space will be used,
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
Pandemic Flu Fund Requestdoc
9
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
10
.~
00
Qj
~oc ~
~ :? ;7 -$: ~
;;jujO 1l '';:::: .g
_ =t; 0 0 ~ -~.
~ :=~ 0 0 0 0 00 13,:;
:::: 0:= 0 V) 0 0 0 00 ~ '2 ,S
v 8 g' 00 N. 00. ~ 0\0. l=: 55
z <~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~;9"O;,
.- [;3....
o ~ ~
I.;:;.. '" .s "0
,~ ~ ~[;3
~ ~ = u_
5 .- ~ Qj ::r: 2
'" 0 ..d..... e 0-
~ V) f-;....;.:::8
_ ...-< g 0 .gU
~ a..: ~ro l'J ~U
t;:: ;;I ~::r:'s O~
,- ..d 0 ....... "'c::l 0 II)
~ "'..d U ~ Qj a ,~
0.. ~" ZQ.l Qj ::::Q
'" Q.l ~ Z = ';:).0
<l> .......!:1 0..... C ,-
-B .....0 ;;1>-. 0 ;;3
<l> "d!:1 _,D = "'13
-g a:E M"d 0 ~E
_ ~ ...'" - I-< 0
<.) '" '~ 0 >. ' "':r2 u
!:: 0::> - 0 tt:1 :=....
._", (':j rn........ ro 0 0 g'
-= '(J ~ a 0.. tl :>; ~ ~
e 'r;;:: ,!:1 '(J ~ ~ ~ Z "0
'" >-.:E ,- v :=. "0 [;3
'" ..dU ~>>- '" [;3,:;
~ 0.. ro ....,"d H Qj 0
en ro S ~ ro.......o ~ ,9<'g
~ OJ ~ d) .""" ..c ..0
~ I-< ~ ro"::; on .:: ~ '5
<l> ro..... VOJO'" "0'"
'" 0 ~ \+-; '~ (,l oj'-
~ Q.l 1:: '1a ,:::< ~ j ::
.... Q.lQ.l o_..d '" 0 ",o:l
'" ~ I-< 0 '" Q.l "d '" ,!::
,~ _.!ll ...-< I-< > I-< - g .~
~ v~ 0- ro Qj -
<l> ,D:::: -S<+=<O 0 ~ 1l~
P- ...:.d "d .- Q.l >::S e ~
t; 1-<00 ~ ;:p,5:-:::i :== fr~
'" ~ 00 0lJ ,:::< - c:o '" d: ~
>, ~ ~ '" C ,I-< 0 >>"0
....' .... +:;...-< Q.l ,:::< ~ 0 1!:1 = a [;3
.;::!:: Z ~ ,-..., '" -t: c '" !:1 ,9 =2
I-< S ~ e ~ M ~ 0 ro 8 ,::P ~ ~ ~ ,~
Q.l~ 0 C':..2 t::o;;l 0 Q.l ~~"d roQ.l :.= ,13;:;
~ Q) ~ ~ "'0 If) .~ C/) fZl ~ tn = ~ 0 :-9
> ~..g <r:>-'2 N ~ M15"g ~p ~::C~t;
ii: 0 .... .- ..d.t:: ro I v I-< <+=< ro U i:<l = ... 6
U ....~ _:-:::is '" ~ ;;I"d' Q.l .:J"'=
-S 00 "E 0 0.. ~ ~ .- ...:.d ~ !:1 v P, ..d ~ = ~ 5 ~
] l:: ~ ~ ~ g. ~ ~ 8 c ;g Q ~ a 5 '; ~'~
::r: \0 0 '.C ~ --= U ';:;' '-8 -S ~..d ~ ..d 1::'" ~ >
('<')0 c.lI) '" ro V) ". ro--.....u =",,,,.
8 ~ ~ '5 ~ ]' .9 ~ ~ ~ '6 ~ ~ ] ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~
"'o..d '" ~_Vl-< U ;;I".......,D- QlO
!:1 _ 0 ~ .c ,= "';;l S Q.l M ro 0..... ;;I >-. ..= "'c::l '" u
..d 0\ :.- "l:l '> t; :=: t 0.. ro ;> S 0 o...::c: ~ 't:l Ql t::
~ ro ~'B~,D(ij~ -s ~ ~:.o!:1 ~1:: ~=.;,g
ro ~ .. .. oj ~ ..9 0.. ;::l ..., ro U ~;;I ro 0 = l;' = ~
v I:: ~ "" "" II) '" Q.l 0 ;::l ""'" 0 ""'" ""'" .- ""
..d 0 I:: = c-B ~ Q ..d 0... ~ Z U ~ ~ ..: e 't:l..s
'=:I:.I.;O Qj:==.r
..... I:.I.; "'c::l 0 := tl
'-'<0lJ0lJ 0.. ->>0':;
.. ,5 ~ .- 0 ~.. 1"'
a - ,- U U {;i U >. '" '" 03 ~
d) ........ .~ "'0 ._ I . "_ ....... aJ IX) A-. 1::
- (1) - c ........ -........ .C .- 0
~ & S -a ~ ..g ~ ~.g .g..g .S :~ ~ ~ ~
> 0lJ 0 S t',-, 0...,. 0 ,_ 0... Q.l on 0... ~ a ~ ~::r: '"
g!:1UUO o.?;> ]~.;::~ ]~ .....:l~]~ 0 ==..=<..>8
ro ';:i !:1 !?!l 8: ro ~ 0"":9 ro Q.l "':Q ro ~ -S '-8 .- Ql Qj:g 5
::r:v !:1 -oj "";;1 B >>"'1-<"" -'" >.~"';;''''''
~ -as ~?;l u~ tii ~"g ~ d ~ ~ '8,g ~ ~ "g ] '8 .~' '; .9 ~ -g
Q.l v~ -B uo...o- uo... ;;Iv+:;uo... .....;;1 '';::::= [;3:S
Z 8 ~ 0... ~ ::;;; :E:E'B,~ :E -s S ~ z -s :E .~ S ~ .; ~ ~ ~
!:10....... 0.... rorov~ ro~ So.. ~ro :as Ql.:!<..>O
. , I-< 0 "" ,~ Q.l Q.l <+=< :=: v Q.l 0 v "d v Q.l ;;I 0 ..= _ (,l..c:: ',=
~ ~] ~ = 8 ::r:::r:.E U ::r: ::r: U ~ a ::r: ::r: 0... U ~ ~.9 ~ ,~
i:<lVR~ .... :;::r:;;
Z e: ;3:g .. :!l ~ 'c if ~
>> 0 Z ro t' Qj ~ ='^.;::: 0
~ (l) "- rI.l 'fW.I,JO U
!:1 Q.l~ o:a .~...-< N ('<') '<t V) ~ = ~ ~ .s
;;I Os ... _0=0_
Uo Z ..d 'T1 -< ~ .t u ~ ~
0........ oS ._-'" ...J:I:
----~_._.,---_._,--.-------
11
This page intentionally left blank.
12
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Consent Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Parks Presenters: Dave Weaver, Neal Lewis
Contacts: Neal Lewis, Chris O'Keefe
SUBJECT:
NC Public Beach and Waterway Access Program Grant - Middle Sound Park
BRIEF SUMMARY:
New Hanover County received notification of award of a grant in the amount of $97,000, The grant requires a local match of
$24,250, The grant will fund the development of a one-mile walking trail with three small footbridges, replacement of an
existing twenty-foot pier, and construction of an unpaved parking area for ten cars on a seventeen-acre tract of land
previously purchased through the New Hanover County Tidal Creeks Program, The property is located off of Dunbar Road
in the Middle Sound area, on Pages Creek,
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Accept the grant, authorize the Chairman to sign the Contract, and approve the related budget amendment to appropriate
$24,250 from Contingency for the match and budget the grant funds,
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
........
, ..
CAMA Site Plan 06,0164,doc
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
13
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Budget Amendment
DEPARTMENT: Parks/Contingencies
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0164
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
Contingencies:
Contingencies $24,250
Parks:
NC Public Beach Grant $97,000
Other Improvements $121,250
EXPLANATION: To budget North Carolina Public Beach and Waterway Access Program Grant for the development
of Middle Sound Park. With approval of this budget amendment, the remaining balance in Contingency will be
$121,341.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board of Commissioners
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
14
This page intentionally left blank.
16
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Budget Amendment
Consent Item #: 4,1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
DEPARTMENT: Juvenile Day Treatment/NHCS
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0143
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
New Hanover Co. Schools:
Contributions $117,200
Salaries and Wages $73,213
Social Security Taxes $4,031
Retirement - local Government $2,695
Medical Insurance Expense $26,701
long Term Disability $200
Printing $2,000
Supplies $7,000
Training and Travel $1,360
EXPLANATION: Decrease contribution from New Hanover County Schools to show actual amount received for FY
05-06.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Reduction based on turnover in positions and military leave.
APPROVAL STATUS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
17
This page intentionally left blank.
18
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Budget Amendment
Consent Item #: 4,2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
DEPARTMENT: Juvenile Day Treatment Center/Medicaid
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0144
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
Medicaid:
Title XIX Fees $25,000
Salaries and Wages $25,000
EXPLANATION: Adjust budget to show decrease in Medicaid revenues received.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Mental Health laws changed which disallowed billing for youth in group homes;
therefore, decreasing the number of youth for whom Juvenile Day Treatment received revenue.
APPROVAL STATUS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
19
This page intentionally left blank.
20
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Budget Amendment
Consent Item #: 4,3 Estimated Time: Page Number:
DEPARTMENT: Contingencies/Non-Departmental
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0153
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
Contingencies:
Contingencies $66,667
Non-Departmental:
Guilford Mills $66,667
EXPLANATION: To budget the first of three payments to Guilford Mills. Funding was approved September 6,
2005.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: With the approval of this budget amendment, the amount remaining in the
Contingency account is $78,924.
APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
21
This page intentionally left blank.
22
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Budget Amendment
Consent Item #: 4.4 Estimated Time: Page Number:
DEPARTMENT: Sheriff's Office
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0157
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
General Government:
Appropriated Fund Balance $125,000
Sheriff's Office/Patrol:
Capital Outlay - Motor Vehicle $125,000
EXPLANATION: To budget for the purchase of vehicles. This amount includes the road ready tax.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: With the approval of this budget amendment, $8,751,754 of fund balance will be
appropriated in FY 05-06.
APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
23
This page intentionally left blank.
24
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Budget Amendment
Consent Item #: 4,5 Estimated Time: Page Number:
DEPARTMENT: Health
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0161
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
Animal Control:
Miscellaneous Revenue $6,600
Capital Outlay/Motor Vehicle $6,600
EXPLANATION: To budget insurance proceeds for wrecked vehicle. Funds will be used to buy a replacement
truck.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
25
This page intentionally left blank.
26
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Budget Amendment
Consent Item #: 4,6 Estimated Time: Page Number:
DEPARTMENT: Non-Departmental
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0162
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
General Government:
Appropriated Fund Balance $250,000
Non-Departmental:
Fortron Industries $250,000
EXPLANATION: To budget first of five payments to Fortron Industries. Total contract amount is $1,750,000.
Agreement was approved by County Commissioners on May 16, 2005. With approval of this budget amendment,
$9,201,754 of fund balance will be appropriated in FY 05-06.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
27
This page intentionally left blank.
28
REGULAR AGENDA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ESTIMA TED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No,
5:40 p,m, 1. Consideration of Resolution of Appreciation to Jean and Eddie Lawler, Chairs 31
of "Enchanted Airlie"
5:45 p,m, 2, Recognition of Bruce T, Shell, Outstanding Alumni, Cameron School of 33
Business, UNC-Wilmington
5:50 p,m, 3, Consideration of Proclamation to Designate the Month of April 2006 Sexual 35
Assault Awareness Month
5:55 p,m, 4, Consideration of Proclamation to Designate the Month of April 2006 Child 37
Abuse Awareness Month
6:00 p,m, 5, Consideration of Proclamation to Designate the Week of April 17-21, 2006 39
Appreciation Week for County Department of Social Services Employees
6:05 p,m, 6, Expression of Appreciation and Support by Kure Beach for the 800 MHz 41
Upgrade Project
6:10 p,m, 7,1 Public Hearing 43
Text Amendment (continued) - 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)
6:40 p,m, 7,2 Public Hearing 61
Text Amendment - Request by planning staff to amend the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance Section 110 Development Agreements to reflect
changes made by the North Carolina General Assembly in the 2005 Legislative
Session (A-346, 1/06)
6:55 p,m, 7,3 Public Hearing 77
Special Use Permit - Request by Withers and Ravenel for Kevin Hoban to
consider a Special Use Permit for a High Density Development in an R-15
Residential District at 4416 South College Road (S-549, 02/06)
7:10 p,m, 7.4 Public Hearing 83
Special Use Permit -Request by Withers and Ravenel to consider a Special Use
Permit for a Community Boating Facility in an R-20S Residential District at
1647 and 1653 Canady Road (S-554, 03/06)
7:25 p,m, Break
7:35 p,m, 7,5 Public Hearing 89
Special Use Permit -Request by Betsy Burbank and Brad Kerr to consider a
Special Use Permit for a Veterinary Office in an 0&1 Office and Institutional
District at 2311 Castle Hayne Road (S-552, 03/06)
29
7:50 p,m, 7,6 Public Hearing 97
Special Use Permit - Request by Lucille Piner to consider a Special Use Permit
for a cemetery in an R-15 Residential District at 5708 Myrtle Grove Road
(S-553, 03/06)
8:05 p,m, 7,7 Public Hearing 103
RezoninK -Request by State Employees Credit Union to rezone 8,72 acres
from B-2 Highway Business District and R-15 Residential to B-1
Neighborhood Business Conditional Use District at 535 Sanders Road and
5830 Carolina Beach Road (2-831, 03/06)
8:25 p,m, 8, Consideration of Drainage Issues on Arnold Road 113
8:40 p,m, 9, Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding for Metropolitan Planning 119
Organization
8:50 p,m, 10, Consideration of Medicaid Positions for the Department of Social Services 135
9:00 p,m, 11. Presentation on the New Hanover County Roadside Cleanup Program and 139
Approval of Associated Budget Amendment 06-0166
9:10 p,m, 12, Meeting of the Water and Sewer District 145
9:30 p,m, 13, Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
9:35 p,m, 14, Additional Items
County Manager
County Commissioners
Clerk to the Board
County Attorney
9:45 p,m, 15, Closed Session to Consider Real Estate Purchase 143
10:00 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.
30
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenter: Robert G, Greer
Contacts: Dave Weaver, Jim McDaniel
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Resolution of Appreciation to Jean and Eddie lawler, Chairs of "Enchanted Airlie"
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The first "Enchanted Airlie" was held November 25 to December 23, 2005. The event was three years in the making and
involved dozens of volunteers including the Lawlers, whose efforts were tireless. New Hanover County would like to give
special recognition to Jean and Eddie Lawler, Chairs of "Enchanted Airlie", Their dedication and diligent efforts are
apparent in the success of the event, one that promises to be a joyful new holiday tradition in New Hanover County,
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Read the resolution and present it to the Lawlers,
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
""....
, ..
Enchanted Airlie Volunteers, doc
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
31
RESOLUTION
OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WHEREAS, Eddie and Jean Lawler served as Chairs of the 2005 "Enchanted Airlie" holiday
lights display at Airlie Gardens; and
WHEREAS, Eddie and Jean Lawler's vision for the inaugural holiday event was to create a
new tradition in the area; and
WHEREAS, more than 13,500 visitors participated in "Enchanted Airlie" making for a
profitable first attempt at creating a new community experience; and
WHEREAS, Eddie and Jean Lawler's graciousness, generosity, and 'can-do' attitude during
the months of planning leading up to "Enchanted Airlie", are exemplary of their community
spirit.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners does hereby express their thanks and appreciation to Eddie and Jean Lawler
for their tireless support for "Enchanted Airlie", and encourages all citizens to consider
volunteerism as a way to support their community,
Adopted this 3rd day of April, 2006.
Robert G. Greer, Chairman
ATTEST:
Sheila 1. Schult, Clerk to the Board
- --.._----- _.""._-_._~_._--
32
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenter: Robert G, Greer
Contacts: Dave Weaver, Mark Boyer
SUBJECT:
Recognition of Bruce T. Shell, Outstanding Alumni, Cameron School of Business, UNC-Wilmington
BRIEF SUMMARY:
On March 22, 2006 County Manager Bruce Shell was recognized as one of three recipients of the 2006 Cameron School of
Business Outstanding Alumni Awards, These awards are given periodically by the Cameron School of Business as part of
the school's observance of Business Week for their personal achievements, service to community or service to the
Cameron School of Business, Bruce is a 1977 graduate of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, The other two
recipients of the award this year are Linda Baddour, Chief Financial Officer, PPD, Inc., and Louis Rogers, Regional Director,
Self-Help Credit Union.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Recognition and congratulations to Bruce Shell.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Recognized Bruce Shell.
33
This page intentionally left blank.
34
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenters: Amy Feath, Crisis Intervention Services Director, Coastal Horizons Center
Contact: Bruce Shell
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Proclamation to Designate the Month of April 2006 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Jennifer Stancil, Rape Crisis Center Supervisor at Coastal Horizons Center, submitted the attached proclamation for your
consideration,
The following staff from Coastal Horizons Center, Inc. are present today:
Amy Feath, Crisis Intervention Services Director
Shemekka Miles, Advocate/Educator
Angie Nance, Counselor/Advocate
Jennifer Stancil, Supervisor
Gayle Tabor, Victim Response Coordinator
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Recommend adoption,
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
' ,
"I!
5 e~ual Assault Awareness Month Proclamalion-County 06, doc
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
35
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROCLAMATION
SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH
APRIL 2006
WHEREAS, sexual assault affects every person in New Hanover County as a victim or survivor, or as a family
member, significant other, neighbor, co-worker of a survivor, with over 313 rape and sexual abuse victims served in
the last year; and
WHEREAS, many citizens of Wilmington, North Carolina are working to provide quality services and assistance to
sexual assault victims or survivors, including dedicated community volunteers, who provide crisis response on hotlines
and respond to emergency departments to offer support, provide comfort and offer advocacy during forensic medical
exams, criminal proceedings, and throughout the healing process; and
WHEREAS, the New Hanover County Rape Crisis Center staff and volunteers are promoting prevention and
awareness education by offering training to schools, churches, civic organizations, as well as professional training for
medical, mental health, law enforcement, education and criminal justice personnel regarding sexual assault issues and
victim response; reaching over 6,032 participants; and
WHEREAS, it is critical to increase New Hanover County's awareness of sexual assault, to educate citizens
regarding the prominent incidence of sexual violence, efforts to reduce sexual violence, increase support and
cooperation between agencies providing sexual assault services, and to increase the awareness of the healing power of
creative expression for victims and survivors in the community through events such as Rock Against Rape and
Operation Freefall; and
WHEREAS, in cooperation with Child Abuse Prevention Month efforts, it is important to alert New Hanover
County that of the 313 rape and sexual abuse victims served at the Rape Crisis Center last year, 114 of these victims
were under the age of 18; and
WHEREAS, Rape Crisis Center of Coastal Horizons Center, lnc, and the New Hanover County Sexual Assault
Response Team request public support and assistance in aspiring toward a society where all women, children and men
can live in peace, free from sexual violence, rape, sexual abuse and sexual exploitation in all its forms.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
proclaim the month of April 2006 as SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH;
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners pledge themselves and ask our
citizens, public and private, professional and volunteer, to redouble their efforts to obliterate sexual violence from our
families, our neighborhoods and our community,
Adopted this the third day of April, 2006,
Robert G, Greer, Chairman
ATTEST:
Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
36
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: DSS Presenter: Wanda Marino
Contacts: Wanda Marino/LaVaughn Nesmith
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Proclamation to Designate the Month of April 2006 as Child Abuse Awareness Month
BRIEF SUMMARY:
April 2006 is Child Abuse Awareness Month throughout the state, We would like the County Commissioners to recognize
this month as Child Abuse Awareness Month as well.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt Proclamation
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
' '
'f!
Child Abuse Prevention Proclamation,doc
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
37
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
APRIL 2006
BY THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Child Abuse continues at near record levels across our Nation and our State; and
WHEREAS, in Fiscal Year 2004-2005, there were 3,011 child abuse and neglect reports involving 3,385 children in New
Hanover County; and
WHEREAS, 485 children in New Hanover County were found to be abused or neglected; and
,
WHEREAS, April 2006 has been proclaimed Child Abuse Prevention Month in North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, beyond the family unit, the effects of Child Abuse are most immediately felt in neighborhoods and
communities; and
WHEREAS, Child Abuse, like other crimes and social problems, destroys the tranquility offamilies, neighborhoods and
communities and robs children of their childhoods and neighborhoods of their vitality; and
WHEREAS, the family unit is the building block of the community, and healthy families make healthy communities; and
WHEREAS, the most effective solutions are local solutions and there are within our community, professionals of all
disciplines and volunteers from all walks of life dedicated to the amelioration of the effects of child abuse,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners proclaims the month
of April 2006 as CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THA T the Board of County Commissioners pledges itselfand asks our citizens, public and
private, professional and volunteer, to redouble their efforts to obliterate the social problem of child abuse from our families,
neighborhoods and community.
Adopted this the 3rd day of April, 2006,
''\)
New ILJnlNcr (
N ,\ I .:. ': 1('; 1"-
Robert G, Greer, Chairman
ATTEST:
Clerk to the Board
----------.- - -- ------------ ----_._._-_._-_._..__.~--
38
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 5 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: DSS Presenter: LaVaughn Nesmith
Contact: LaVaughn Nesmith
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Proclamation to Designate April 17 -21, 2006 as Appreciation Week for County Department of
Social Services Employees
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The week of April 17 -21, 2006 is Appreciation Week for the County Department of Social Services, We would like the
County Commissioners to recognize this week as such by adopting the attached proclamation.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt proclamation,
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
' ,
"I!
Employee Appreciation Prodamation,doc
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
39
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A PROCLAMA nON
APPRECIA nON WEEK
FOR
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES
APRIL 17-21,2006
WHEREAS, dedicated men and women in the New Hanover County Department of Social
Services provide services and support for thousands of our citizens; and
WHEREAS, these Social Services professionals accomplish many goals in their life's work;
they provide financial and medical assistance for those unable to meet basic needs; protect children,
older adults and the disabled; guide the needy toward self-sufficiency through education and job
placement; offer services to children, older adults and the disabled that enhance their quality of life
and provide administrative support for program operations; and
WHEREAS, these Social Services professionals are dedicated to improving the quality of life
for the citizens of this County, They also strive to improve the delivery of services and to operate
social services programs as efficiently and effectively as possible.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners proclaims the week of April 17-21, 2006, "APPRECIATION WEEK FOR COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES" in New Hanover County, and urges our
citizens to recognize these professionals and commend them for their efforts,
Adopted this 3rd day of April, 2006
Robert G, Greer, Chairman
Attest:
Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
-~-_.~,-
40
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 6 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenters: Kure Beach Mayor Tim Fuller and Police Chief Dennis Cooper
Contact: Dave Weaver
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Expression of Appreciation and Support by Kure Beach for the 800 MHz Upgrade Project
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Mayor Tim Fuller would like to address the Board, followed by Police Chief Dennis Cooper, to express their support and
appreciation for the recent upgrade to the 800 MHz system, Kure Beach officials have experienced marked improvements
in communications with the 911 Center and with each other. Officer safety is greatly improved and critical information is
now immediately available, Officers from the Kure Beach Police Department will be on hand as well to show their
appreciation,
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Recognize Mayor Fuller and Chief Cooper and hear their remarks.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Hear remarks,
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Heard remarks,
41
This page intentionally left blank.
42
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 7,1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Text Amendment (continued) - 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)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The County Commissioners met on February 6, 2006 and voted 4 to 0 to table the request to amend Section 55-4
Dimensional Requirements of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, The Board wanted staff to publicize the
amendment request because of its potential impact to the city and county, Additional notification and publicity efforts since
the last meeting include meetings and notification to various groups,
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The Planning Board voted 4 to 0 to recommend the staff version of the amendment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
A-345- Staff Summary-R
15 pages of illustrations and back-up materials 16 pages
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 3-2, Davis and Pritchett opposing.
43
CASE: A-345, 12/05 Applicant: John Evans, Jr.
REQUEST: Zoning Text Amendment for Height and FAR Requirements in Section
55-4 Dimensional Requirements
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The County Commissioners met on February 6, 2006 and voted 4 to 0 to table the
request to amend Section 55-4 Dimensional Requirements of the New Hanover County
Zoning Ordinance. The board wanted staff to publicize the amendment request
because of its potential impact to the city and county.
PLANNING BOARD
The Planning Board met on January 6, 2006 and voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval
for the staff version ofthe 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 mav exceed 1,0. but shall not exceed 1.4 if:
(a) The ratio of the total building footprint to the total buildable site area does 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,
STAFF 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 arterials, At this point in
time the land economics of the 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 detennine 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,
----- _._'._~------_...,.
44
Staff suggests 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 1 ft of floor area per 1 ft of parking
area,
45
ANALYSIS Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
CONT. : A Floor Area Ratio is a performance device commonly employed
to control the relationship between: (1) the area of pennitted
floor space in a structure; and, (2) the area of the lot on which
it is situated. Use of this device results in controllinq the
size, bulk, height and density of structures to insure adequate
light; reduce fire hazards; and, to maintain a safe environment.
The FAR can be expressed as a fonnula:
FAR = Floor Area
Lot Area
A FAR of 1.0 pennits a developer to build a one-story bUilding
coverning 100% of the lot area (minus setback and oarking
requirements); a two-story bUilding covering 50~ of ~he entire
lot area; a four-story building covering 25% of the entire lot
area, etc. A FAR of 2.0 pennits a developer to bui1:: a two-story,
building covering 100% of the entire lot area (~inus setback and
parking requirements); a four-story building coverir.; 50% of the
entire lot area, and so on (see examples below).
.
~
I I = 1.0
= I . I I = I
~
I I
/. I
00.:!i .
~ ~~
I :=o.5~ 0 EXAMPLES
of
I I" I :=3.0
b"; FLOOR AREA I
.
I I I
I 'I I RATIO
I I
$"0 I,
~ "/
" "
~.s ",/
~
--
--,"
46
14 Incentive Zoning: Meeting Urban Design and Affordable Housing Objectives
II order to be eligible for a bonus, a parcel park (e,g" a vest pocket park)
Ii must be at least 3/000 square feet and no more than 7,000 square feet of
I' contiguous space,
,I
I In an analysis of incentive zoning schemes, Mandelker noted several
scenarios that elucidate the right vs, discretion problem (Mandelker
I ,. 1970/17), For example, a city may not like the developer's design of cer-
I. tain amenities, even if the developer complies with the formal require-
Ii ments, Moreover Usubstantive ambiguitiesu inherent in design guide-
lines mean that explicit procedures are needed to ensure that the public
II gets the amenities commensurate with the bonuses being provided,
Another problem noted by Mandelker has not been borne out in the last
I 30 years; namely, a developer may not develop the site to its fullest po-
I In Chicago, the evaluation tential but the site still qualifies for the bonus, In reality, the base zon-
I determined that design ing that is permitted as of right is typically adequate and is at the low
guidelines were sorely needed to end of the range of what is actually desired in a given district or on a
improve the appearance of the site. The additional density that is allowed via a bonus represents the
amenities being provided, The maximum acceptable density at the site,
I study also concluded that the
gains to developers through CASE STUDIES
bonuses far outpaced the public Zoning incentives ate being used extensively by local governments to
benefit of any of the amenities meet urban design and planning objectives, such as provision of urban
provided, design amenities, human services, and transit-related improvements. As
has been described, in many cases, the amenities provided by developers,
while meeting the requirements of the ordinances, have fallen short of
producing a high-quality urban environment where the public benefit is
of equal value to the increased return on investment realized by the de-
veloper through increased density or floor area,
Some cities, induding Chicago and Minneapolis, have found it neces-
sary to evaluate their programs to determine how well the amenities
being provided meet the needs of the public and to assess their impact on
urban design, In Chicago, the evaluation determined that design guide-
lines were sorely needed to improve the appearance of the amenities
being provided, The study also conduded that the gains to developers
through bonuses far outpaced the public benefit of any of the amenities
provided, In redrafting its bonus provisions, Minneapolis refocused the
amenities to meet progressive smart growth and sustainability goals con-
In redrafting its bonus tained in the city's new comprehensive plan, In short, the bonuses offered
provisions, Minneapolis and the amenities required by cities must be evaluated and reconsidered
refocused the amenities to meet to ensure that they meet contemporary community planning objectives,
progressive smart growth and With that in mind, we now address how incentive zoning has been used
sustainability goals contained in to meet state and local goals of smart growth,
the city's new comprehensive
plan. Arlington County, Virginia
Two of the earliest applications of bonuses to meet smart growth objec-
tives were in the Ballston and Rosslyn neighborhoods of Arlington
County, Virginia. The extension of Metrorail service in the late 1970s
prompted the county to prepare a series of station-area sector plans for
the areas in the immediate vicinity of the new train stations, including
Ballston, At the time, the Ballston area lacked a downtown or definable
center and was regarded as ripe for redevelopment.
The Ballston Sector Plan, which was adopted by the county in May
1980, called for Ballston to be transformed into a modern housing and
commercial center focused around the Metrorail station (Bernick and
Cervero 1997, 220). Indeed, that has occurred in the last 20 years. A key
implementation mechanism for the plan was the use of density incentives
to achieve a desired built form. A seven-block area around the Metro sta-
-~~.._----- _._----
47
II!""""
- Part 2. Incentive Zoning for Urban Design and Smart Growth 15
tion was designated as a coordinated mixed-use district with high per-
mitted densities of 3.5 FAR for commercial buildings, 135 dwelling units
per acre for apartments, and a maximum of 210 dwelling units per acre for
hotels. Street-level retail uses were also required for all commercial-office
buildings within the district. The FAR for commercial buildings is al-
lowed to be increased to 6 from 3.5 for buildings that have 50 percent or
more of their floor space as residential units,
In 19621 well before the Ballston Sector Plan process, a redevelopment
plan for the Rosslyn area of Arlington County had led to rezoning of the
area from a mishmash of low-intensity warehouses and industrial build-
ings to very-high-density commercial and residential development, The
county sought to capitalize on Rosslyn's proximity to downtown
Washington, D,C., Georgetown, and federal employment centers, as well
as a new Metrorail station, The resulting development, according to
Bernick and Cervero (1997), reflected the state of planning practice of the
1960s; namely, it aimed for an automobile-oriented environment with
broad boulevards, wide plazas, a skywalk system, and little street-level
pedestrian amenity or activity.
An Amended Plan for the Rosslyn Area was adopted in 1992, and new
zoning regulations followed in 1996, The amended plan "refines the vi-
sion for Rosslyn as a first-class urban center and incorporated new goals
and objectives!' for development in the area (Arlington County 2000),
Under the new zoning ordinance, the base density in the downtown area
is 3,8 FAR, which means that almost every project is large enough that it
is subject to a site plan review process, Through this process, additional
density is granted to the developer, and the developer provides public The Rosslyn bonus program is
benefits and amenities, unique In that additional floor
There is a wide range of public benefits that developers may provide in area can be granted in exchange
exchange for additional floor area, These include connections to transit for not only urban design
benefits, but also for off-site
stations, public art, subsidies for retail parking, and streetscape improve- amenities and economic
ments, The Rosslyn bonus program is unique in that additional floor area development benefits,
can be granted in exchange for not only urban design benefits, but also for
off-site amenities and economic development benefits, Developers may
also receive density bonuses in exchange for cash contributions to the
Rosslyn Fund, monies from which have been used to convert a movie the-
ater into a performing arts space and to install a wayfinding signage sys-
tem in Rosslyn,
The County Board established the Rosslyn Fund in 1991 as a Trust
and Agency Account with an initial contribution of $25,000, Subsequent
funds have been contributed by developers of projects in Rosslyn as
part of their development agreement with the county, The Rosslyn
Station Area Plan Addendum of 1992 outlined future capital improve-
ment projects related to skywalks, streetscape, and entryways to
Rosslyn, As of May 2000, some of these improvements have been made
or are in process as part of site plan projects and the county's capital im-
provements program,
To implement the economic development element of the Rosslyn Plan,
developers may also be granted additional density in exchange for pro-
viding high-technology upgrades within office towers, Developers of the
1801 N. Lynn project, a 24-story office tower, the first building to be ap-
proved under the new zoning ordinance, are spending $2,7 million on
"smart-building technology:' including prewiring for voice, data, and
video communications, a teleconference center, and energy efficient
HVAC systems, among other features, Robert Adkinson, economic devel-
opment planner with Arlington County says that, when completed, it will
be the only building of its kind in the country.
48
16 Incentive Zoning: Meeting Urban Design and Affordable Housing Objectives
Bernick and Cervera (1997) note that the sector plans for Rosslyn and
Ballston are examples of the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority
(WMATA) aggressively pursuing joint development opportunities that
link transit stations to high-density, public and private development in
close proximity to the stations, Although these initiatives were not char-
acterized as transit-oriented development (TOD) plans at the time they
were prepared, today they are recognized as a precursor to the TOO plan-
ning paradigm,
Chicago
As noted above, Chicago was the first city to use zoning bonuses when it
adopted incentive provisions in 1957, The primary goal of the 1957 ordi-
nance was not to obtain public amenities. Rather, it was to encourage
large-scale development by making it possible to build bigger buildings
(Chicago Department of Planning and Development 2000), Developers in
downtown Chicago may increase the FAR from a base of 16 to 30 if they
provide plazas and arcades. A 15 percent as-of-right increase in floor area
is provided for buildings that adjoin a public open space, which in
Chicago includes parks, the Chicago River, and even Lake Michigan,
In 19981 the city began a comprehensive analysis of its bonus provi-
sions, A full study of the system was released in July 2000, and a draft
amendment to the Chicago zoning ordinance that would significantly
overhaul the system was introduced to the city council at the same time,
Similar to the situation in New York and Minneapolis, which are also re-
vamping their programs, Chicago's system has resulted in overly gener-
ous bonuses vis-a.-vis the amenities received in exchange, and it has been
only marginally successful in meeting the city's needs with regard to de-
sign and public improvements,
The 2000 study by the city Department of Planning and Development
identified six major problem areas with the system:
1, The ordinance awards huge FAR increases for minimal amenities, Under
current regulations, a ground-floor plaza on a building with a base FAR of 16
would qualify for three separate bonuses, all of which could be "stacked<l onto
the base building, It would receive: a bonus of 10 FAR for a 2D-foot, full-height
building setback; a 6,83 FAR increase for upper-story setbacks; and a 1,14 FAR
increase for ground-level open space, This would bring the total allowable
FAR to 33,97, and more than double the size of the building,
2, No design standards are prescribed for open space amenities, The
only requirement for open space amenities under the current system is
that they be <Isuitably paved and landscaped, <I Many of the open spaces
that have been provided in retum for added FAR are unusable and unap-
pealing to people,
3, Some bonusable amenities are of questionable value, Some of the
amenities for which bonuses are provided no longer reflect the best ap-
proach to urban design and community aesthetics, Arcades are the feature
most commonly criticized (not just in Chicago, but Minneapolis and New
York too). Arcades disrupt the continuity of street-level retail uses and often
terminate at blank wallsl creating dark unpleasant environments for pedes-
trians, The lack of design guidelines has also contributed to their misuse as
loading areas, service ramps, and areas for mechanical storage.
4, The menu of bonusable amenities does not adequately address the
city/s needs. Chicago has many needs in the downtown that the bonus
system could be designed to provide, Such things include more public
open space, additions to the Chicago Riverwalk, urban heat island reduc-
tion, better designed parking stmctures, historic preservation, and transit
improvements.
--- ------
49
Part 2, Incentive Zoning for Urban Design and Smart Growth 17
In some cases in Chicago, areas that
should have been designed as public
open space in exchange for increased
floor area have instead been used for
trash receptacles or loading areas.,
AODmONAl
AREA WITH
BONUS
EXAMPLE OF FAR INCREASE DUE TO
MUlTIPLE BONUSES
Assuming a 20-slory building proposed on the
same 25,OOO-square-Ioot site with a 12,500-
square-fool plaza and 20,Ioot building set,
backs along lot lines, the FAR can be increased
as follows:
Basic FAR 12.00
20-foot building setback
along 3 slreet frontage, 6,00
Ground-floor open area bonu, 1,32
Upper-floor open area bonus 3.96
Total FAR: 23.28
Allowable Floor Area:
Without bonus: 300,000 square feet
With bonus: 582,000 square feet
By combining all the bonuse" the base FAR
has nearly doubled,
. '
.t J ~'~
';' (Left) Developers in downtown Chicago may increase the FAR from a base of 16
to 30 if they provide plazas and arcades, (Below) In neighborhoods that lack open
spaces, public plazas and parks offer residents and workers opportunities for rest
and relaxation in open, bright landscaped spaces,
Enlraneesloadlacenl
buildings Ir. ~nccu'ag.cl
4,000 square-foot plaza 24,000 square-foot plaza
12,000 square-foot plaza
I
,
South-facina plazas with 30"'/0 landscapinq or water features.
--.-----,.------
50
18 Incentive Zoning: Meeting Urban Design and Affordable Housing Objectives
5, Density "pricing" is much
lower in Chicago than in other
cities that have bonus systems.
The Chicago planning staff re-
viewed bonus systems in "peer
cities" and found Chicago to have
the most permissive system of
any major city, (See Table 2~1 on
pages 22-23,) A ground-level
plaza in Chicago could earn an
FAR bonus equivalent of 100 per-
cent, whereas in New York it
would earn a 20 percent bonus,
The study notes that "the generos-
ity of the present bonus system
makes it difficult for Chicago offi-
cials to bargain aggressively with
developers during planned devel-
opment negotiations" (City of
Chicago 2(00),
6, The current negotiated, ad
hoc bonus system is unpredictable
and unfair. Most large projects in
Chicago where bonuses and
amenities are exchanged go
through the planned develop-
ment process, Although the city
and developers do benefit from
the flexibility the process pro-
vides, it has led to piecemeal deci-
sion making with very little pre-
dictability.
The new bonus system pro-
posed in Chicago aims to improve
the existing system by adding
some new amenities to meet the
city's current needs, to more
closely link the value of the bonus
floor area with the amenities pro-
videdl and to institute design
~ guidelines for the plazas, arcades,
~ and amenities, The bonuses will
~ be capped at a maximum of 6 FAR
for public plazas and pedestrian
Developers who opt to participate in Chicago's adopt-a-Iandmark parks, which will be the highest
program provide money to owners of nearby designated historic bonus allowed. Multiple bonuses
landmarks for substantial interior or exterior renovation work. for one design feature, such as the
example above where the one
plaza was eligible for three
bonuses, will be eliminated.
"Green roofs:' (i.e., rooftop gar-
dens designed to help mitigate the
urban heat island) are a new op-
tion eligible for a ,30 FAR increase,
And cash contributions for five
-
-- -
51
Part 2. Incentive Zoningfor Urban Design and Smart Growth 19
types of off-site improvements, in-
cluding an adopt-a-Iandmark pro-
vision, would also be provided,
Developers who opt to participate CONTINUING THE IlISION INTO THE 21ST CENTURY
in the adopt-a-Iandmark program
would provide money to owners An Excerpt From the Downtown Minneapolis 2010 Plan
of nearby designated historic
landmarks for substantial interior Irnplemenlalion: Zoning
or exterior renovation work. Revising the downtown zoning will be an important part of the process of im-
plementing the land-use and development recommendations of this plan,
Several building design fea- Revising the code will enable the city to ensure the highest standards for new de-
tures were considered for velopment while protecting the private investment that already has been made in
bonuses but were ultimately downtown.
omitted from the proposed The City is currently comprehensively revising its zoning code. The current
amendments. Ground-floor re- code needs to recognize the changes in the nature of development as well as the
tail. for example, which is a physical changes that have occurred withing the City OVer the past 30 years.
bonusable amenity in numerous The current zoning code divides most of downtown (excluding the Loring Park
other cities, was not added to the and Elliot Park neighborhoods) into 13 zoning districts and subdistricts. The
list because the city believes that, boundaries and standards of these districts should be revised and updated to re-
if it is important enough in high- fleet the recommendations contained in this plan. Particular attention should be
density areas, it should be pro- paid to the following:
vided as a practice rather than an . Revise the organization and boundaries of the B4 districts to reflect current
exception worthy of a bonus, development patterns and objectives for future growth,
. Revise the parking requirements to balance transit policies with the goals of
Minneapolis retaining a compact core and providing parking to met projected demand.
Minneapolis has had proVISIOns . Revise the bonus system to more effectively match bonuses with amenities
for zoning "premiums" (the term that benefit the public and develop design stat'.dards to ensure quality
the city uses for bonuses) in place results,
since 1960, Like many other cities,
Minneapolis offered floor area Bonuses for the following should be evaluated:
bonuses in the downtown for 0 Street-level retail (beyond what might be required in certain districts)
street-level plazas and arcades. It 0 Weather-protected bus stops that are incorporated into office and retail
also provided floor area premiums development
for pedestrian connections to
parking garages, sidewalk cano- 0 Large urban plazas or parks; smaller plazas and parks; indoor atriums
pies to protect pedestrians from designed for public use
inclement weather, and off-street . Short-term parking
parking and loading, These provi- 0 Indoor public display areas for art or cultural exhibits
sions met the planning objectives 0 Develop standards for street-level development such as street-level retail,
of the era in which they were en- street-level building design, and parking lot landscaping,
acted; namely, they were aimed at
improving design in an automo- . Develop a residential mixed-use zoning district for downtown residential
bile-oriented downtown, But as districts.
was true in other cities, the quality , Revise the T and TC Districts to reflect projected demand in the Minnesota
of the amenities being provided Technology Corridor,
was not considered high, and
changes needed to be made to the , Incorporate a Transfer of Development Rights mechanism for designated
ordinances, historic buildings.
The plan for Downtown Minne- 0 Revise the approvals process in order to achieve an understandable and
apolis 2010 (an excerpt appears in efficient process.
the sidebar) was adopted in 1996,
It addresses the use of zoning pre- Responsibility: City Planning Department, Downtown Council
miurns in the central business
district. The planning process pro-
vided the city with the opportu-
nity to rethink the bonus system to
ensure that it meets the CIty's up-
______"w..~_.___._
52
20 Incentive Zoning: Meeting Urban Design and Affordable Housing Objectives
dated planning objectives. To im-
plement the plan, the city adopted
a new zoning ordinance in
November 1999, which includes
several major changes to the
bonus program, Bonus floor area
may noW be granted in exchange
for 11 types of amenities, includ-
ing public outdoor open space, in-
terior through-block connections,
pedestrian connections to the
city's extensive skyway system,
public art, historic preservation,
and ground-floor retail. Ground-
floor retail is also mandated in
some parts of downtown through
an overlay district, Floor area pre-
miums range from an increase in
~ the FAR of ont~.-for through-
i block connections, skyway con-
,;;
~ nections, transit facilities,
1i widened sidewalks, and street-
!
level retail-up to eight for pro-
Street-level arcades were removed from the list of ban usable amenities when jects that include outdoor open
Minneapolis revised its system in 1999, space,
Blake Grahaml the city's plan-
Indoor open spaces, such as the Crystal Court in the IDS Center in downtown ning supervisor, says the first
order of business in drafting the
Minneapolis, are required to be open to the public during normal business hours,
~-
-"---'---
53
Part 2, Incentive Zoning for Urban Design and Smart Growth 21
new premium standards was to
remove street-level arcades from
the list of amenities for which
bonus floor area would be
granted, Graham joked that, be-
fore the arcade bonus was elimi-
nated, he had been tempted on
occasion to grant a developer a
bonus if they would agree not to
include such an arcade, (Such a
"trade-off" actually did happen in
Chicago on more than one occa-
sion,) Added to the list of bonuses
is a mixed-use retail provision,
The new ordinance provisions
also contain design standards reg-
ulating the location and appear-
ance of the amenities to be pro-
vided. The ci ty' s planning
director or the director's designee
is charged with administrative re-
view of all applications for premi-
ums, In that capacity, the director
does have discretion to approve
al terna tives to the proscribed
standards; those decisions may be
appealed to the planning com-
mission, Large projects in the
downtown must go through site
plan review, The appendix to this
report includes an excerpt of the
new premium provisions in the
Minneapolis ordinance,
The Minneapolis system provides
bonus floor area for buildings that
make connections to the city's
famed skyway system (above).
Street-level retail-with awnings
or canopies for weather protec-
tion-may also garner additional
floor area for office towers (right),
-~._--
-- ._---".
54
22 Incentive Zoning: Meeting Urban Design and Affordable Housing Objectives
Tabla 2-l,HEIGHT AND DENSITY LIMITS AND ZONING INCENTIVES IN MAJOR U,S, OFFICE MARKETS, 1998
METRO ZONING HIGHEST
OFFICE MARKET BONUS BUILT
CITY [millions of square feel) SYSTEM BONUSABLE AMENITIES BULKIHEIGHT L1MITS1 FAR
4 to 10 FAR for ~owntown
Bonus (typically 2 FAR districts, 155-foot height
Boston 143,8 Lim~ed plus additional height) for limit as of right with large Not known
participation in "large pro- proiact review bonus; 400-
ject review" foot iimit achievable
through PO process,
. Bonus of 55 square feet 3 to 5 FAR in most down-
of office space per 1 town districts; 10 to 25
square foot of residential FAR ~ within overlay dis-
Atlanta 91 Yes space. tricts centered on rapid Not known
. 100 Square feet of offica transit stations (ganerally
space per 1 to 2 square 1 ,500-foot radius), Wider
feet of public open space, sidewalks mandated in
overlay dis1ricts,
For existing construction 5to 9 base FAR in down-
only, limited bonus for town districts; by purchas-
provision of affordable ing unused ~eveJopment Approximately
San FranCIScO 84 Limited housing. Seldom used, potential from other sites 24 (pre-1984)
More extensive bonus pro- within a given district,
gram repeated in 1984, maximum FAR of 18 is
obtainable
FAR bonus 01 8 if building
provides all of following:
frontage on at least two
streets, iandscaped publiC Base FAR of 12 in highest
space (can be enclosed), density district; maximum
public art, retail space, On of 24 with bonuses,
certain streets, additional although see below, No
bonuses up to maximum overall height limit, but
philadelphia 83 Ves at 4 tor observation decks, heigl1l limits apply on cer- Not known
through-block connec- tain streets, Additional 20
tions, transit or park percent FAR allowed for
improvements, housing IDR south of Chestnut
fund contributions, etc, Street; judging from ordi-
TOR from historic sites nance, this is above and
permitted. Retail space, beyond 24 FAR limit.
day care facililles, etc" do
not count toward FAR,
Bonuses for downtown
housing, historic preserva-
tion, childcare facilities, 17 FAR iimit, uniess 50
"residential support percent of building is resi-
tacilites,"schools, "pedes' denllal, in which case 20
trian activity uses" (e,g., FAR limit. No neight ilmit
storetronts), "suniight in downtown core; 400-
Denver 70 Yes preservation," outdoor art, foot height limit in one Approximately
etc, 1,5 to 4 square feet of peripheral downtown area 15
additional space allowed (transitions to residential
per 1 square foot of area), 200-toot in another
amenity; qualifying aut' (preserves mountain
door art earns 0,25 FAR views),
bonus, additional FAR
obtainabie through TOR.
Various "public benefit
teatures," e,g., iow' 450-100t height limit in
income housing, trans- downtown districts, Base 28 (Columbia
Seattle 53 Ves ferred development rights, FAR 5; can be increased to Seafirst
either are not counled 14 through bonuses in Center)
against FAR or earn FAR highest ~ensity districts,
bonus,
---
--~----,-
- --------"~
55
Part 1. Legal Foundation 23
Table 2-1,HEIGHT AND DENSITY LIMITS AND ZONING INCENTIVES IN MAJOR U,S, OFFICE MARKETS, 199B
METRO ZONING HIGHEST
OFFICE MARKET BONUS BUILT
CITY {millions of "q'ulIre feel) SYSTEM BONUSABLE AMENITIES BULKfHEIGHT L1MITS1 FAR
Bonuses are offered lor No overall height limits apply
arcades, open plazas, covered in some lower-density special
districts, Base FAR ot 15 in
pedestrian spaces, subway highest density districts; maxi-
improvements, and other pub- mum FAR of 1 B wifh bonuses, Approximately
New York 462.7 Yes lie amenities. Bonuses vary by Development rights may be 26 (several
zoning classification; special transferred from adjacent pre-1961 build-
bonuses apply in defined dis- structures, typically landmarks, ings); 21,6 max
tricts (e,g., midtown), Addi- by special permit; no limit to since 1961
tionai FAR obtainable through obtainable FAR. In TOR dis-
transfer at development rights Iricts, adjacency nol required,
(TOR), but 21,6 FAR limit applies
Bonuses provided for "pre- 130-foot height limit (street
terred uses" (e,g" department
stores, theatres) at a rate of width plus 20 feet) except for
1,3 square feet at floor space certain biocks on north side of
per 1 foot of preferred use Pennsylvania Avenue, where
Washington, D.C, 243.7 Yes 160-loot limit applies; howev- Approximately
space, TOR program permits
unused FAR trom renovated er, other limits apply to these 11
historic buildings to be trans- biocks Base FAR of lOin high-
terred to 1 of 5 "receiving est districlS; may be increased
zones" outside downtown. to 10.5 with bonuses.
For building setback beyond
10-foot minimum require- Approximately
175 ment. Six square feet of addl- Base FAR of 20 in downtown 25 (Nalions
Dallas (Includes Yes Iional floor space permitted districts; maximum FAR 24, Bank received
Fort Worth) for each square toot of addi- No statutory height limit. variance)
tional ground floor open
space, up to max FAR of 24,
No; Approximateiy
Houston 167 there is NA No statutory limits, Houston 27 (1.7 million-
no zoning has no 20ning ordinance square-foot
building on
62,500 square-
toot site)
In business districts;
. arcades
. fUll-height setbacks No statutory height or bulk
. groundfloor open space 32, 7 [Three
Ch icago 163 Yes . upper story setbacks limits, Base FAR of 16 in high- First National
In residential districts: est density districts. FARs of Plaza)
. reduction in units 33+ achievable wilh bonuses,
. adjacent to publiC open
space
"Transler of floor area ratio"
(same as TOR) permitted in
CBD redeveiopmenl area, where 13 FAR in highest density dis-
base FAR is 3 or 6; transfer tricts, No overall height iimit; 17 (Library
Los Angeles1 158 Limited entails payment of exaction fee height limits apply in certain Tower; see
to city, Proiects within 1,000 areas (e.g" historic perserva- note 2)
teet of Iran sit stailon eiigible lor tion districts).
20 percent reduction in parking
requirement
1. "Bulk/Height Limits" refers to statutory limits in the municipal zoning code Of equivalent. In some cities, practical limits may apply to some properties
due to FAA limits, private deed restrictions, sewer restrictions, and the like.
2. In Los Angeles, FAR of 17 was granted to 73-slory Library Tower by special ordinance in which several building lots near LA Central Library were
consolidated for purposes of density calculation; FAR of entire site including Library Tower is 11.8.
Source: City of Chicago
'--- ^-~-------
--_._---~-
56
24 Incentive Zoning: Meeting Urban Design and Affordable Housing Objectives
New York
The use of zoning bonuses has
had its most profound impact on
the built environment of New
York City, That program, in place
since 1961, has resulted in more
than 500 public plazas, arcades,
and open spaces at about 325 com-
mercial and residential towers
(Kayden 2000).
The city of New York uses den-
sity bonuses in high-density dis-
tricts in two ways, Firstl they are
used to provide street-level
amenities in high-density residen-
tial and commercial districts, in-
lii eluding plazas, arcades, and shop-
&< ping gallerias, Second, bonuses
~ are used to protect the neighbor-
""
hood character of certain districts,
Once plazas are constructed, it takes ongoing monitoring to ensure that they remain In residential and commercial dis-
open to the public. This one, at 90 Washington Street in New York City, provides tricts, developers receive either
little if any benefit to the neighborhood, floor area bonuses or are allowed
The lively plaza at 1755 Broadway in New York City serves both the building's tenants and passersby very well,
57
Part 1. Legal Foundation 25
-
to reduce lot sizes in exchange for a plaza or arcade (New York City
Zoning Resolution, Section 23-16-18),
In lower-density residential districts, floor area bonuses are available in
exchange for deep front and wide side yards, In most cases, the bonuses
are available as of right. Bonuses for large residential developments and
buildings that contain community facilities (e.g., a library or a museum)
are subject to a special permitting procedures-similar to a planned unit
development review process-through which the developer and the city
negotiate the amenities and bonuses to be provided, All residential pro-
jects that incorporate bonuses are subject to mandatory streetscape urban
design guidelines (Weinstein 1994), Arcades, for example, must run the
length of a block and cannot be terminated by a blank wall, although they
can be interrupted by a pedestrian plaza,
Incentive zoning regulations are also applied in special districts in
New York City to help achieve certain planning objectives, These dis- Incentive zoning regulations are
tricts are areas deemed to have special character or specific develop- also applied in Special districts in
ment issues, such as theater districts. tourist areas, and mixed-use New York City to help achieve
shopping and residential districts. Additional regulations-including certain planning objectives,
These districts are areas deemed
the, zoning bonuses-are applied as overlay regulations in these dis- to have special character or
triets, The purpose of the Special Midtown District, for example, which specific development issues, such
was enacted in 1980, is (1) to encourage intensive development in some as theater districts, tourist areas,
subdistricts, such as Times Square, (2) to protect and preserve various and mixed-use shopping and
Broadway theaters (many of which were being demolished and re- residential districts. Additional
placed with office towers), and (3) to protect the Overall character of the regulations-including the
theater district, The same basic types of amenities are provided in spe- zoning bonuses-are applied as
cial districts in exchange for increased floor area, but the exact require- overlay regulations in these
ments and design guidelines are specific to each special district and districts,
even further refined within subdistricts, Moreover, some of the special
districts also apply transfer of development rights to shift development
and density from one part of the district to another,
In 1999, the city began its Unified Bulk Program, which includes (1)
a study of problems of building height and bulk that have resulted from
the city's existing zoning regulations, and (2) a draft comprehensive re-
vision to the city's zoning resolution that is intended to clarify rules re-
garding the height and bulk of large buildings throughout the city, Part
of the program involves an examination of the height and bulk prob-
lems caused by the too generous allowances given through zoning
bonuses, For example, the study notes that "floor areas bonuses for res-
idential plazas and certain other public spaces have too often produced ,
larger buildings without providing meaningful public benefits" (New
York City 1999). Moreover, plazas for residential high-rises have been
privatized for enjoyment by building residents-they do not serve the
general public as open space. Under the draft revision, bonuses would
no longer be provided for residential plazas, with the exception of res-
idential projects in high-density commercial districts areas, where
bonuses are allowed by special permit. Bonuses for commercial and
community facility plazas, which are of greater value because of the
public nature of the buildings, would be retained,
Seallle: The Denny Triangle Neighborhood
Seattle has provided zoning bonuses, which the city refers to as "public
benefit features," in its downtown since the early 1980s, The 28 public
benefit features that developers may provide in exchange for additional
development density include the common ones, such as shOpping atri-
urns, plazas, affordable housing, and transit station access, There is also a
long list of unique features that includes rooftop gardens, hilI climb as-
--
58
26 Incentive Zoning: Meeting Urban Design and Affordable Housing Objectives
sists, sculptured building tops,
short-term parking, and green
streets, A green street is a street
right-ai-way that is part of the
city's street circulation pattern
that has been improved through
sidewalk widening, landscaping,
traffic calming. and pedestrian-ori-
ented features. Improvements to
green streets may qualify for a zon-
ing bonus,
The state of Washington's
Growth Management Act of 1990
required that Seattle and other
cities update their comprehensive
plan to meet statewide goals for
"" growth over a 20-year period,
j Seattle's comprehensive plan,
,~ Toward a Sustainable Seattle, was
::! adopted by the city Council in
1994 (Sea ttIe 2000), The plan
Zoning bonuses and transferable development rights are being used called for future growth in the
to transform the Denny Triangle neighborhood in downtown Seattle Puget Sound region to be concen-
from a mix of underused, low-density commercial and industrial trated in the city's 37 neighbor-
sites into a high-density, mixed-use center. hoods, The plan established a
neighborhood planning process
that involves nongovernmental
neighborhood planning associa-
tions to prepare their own plans,
The Denny Triangle neighbor-
hood is an area adjacent to down-
town Seattle that is relatively un-
derdeveloped.
The comprehensive plan desig-
nated the area as an "urban center
village," which, to paraphrase the
technical definition, meant that
the area was considered to have
the greatest potential of the city's
five downtown neighborhoods to
accommodate much more resi-
dential density than what existed
there at the time. Specifically, the
city plan suggested a target of
3,778 additional housing units to
be built in that area, which con-
tained only about 1,000 people jj
when the plan was prepared,
Sea ttle' s downtown housing
program allows commercial de-
velopers to increase their permit-
ted FAR and add commercial
square footage by earning hous-
-;J ing bonus credits through either a
N
~ cash option (e.g" payments to a
s
> housing trust fund in lieu of
,,:!
.---
59
Part 1. Legal Foundation 27
-
building housing) or a production option (e,g" the developer builds both
the housing and the commercial space),
The Denny Triangle Neighborhood Plan calls for the city to rezone the
area to permit higher densities and taller buildings in certain areas, and to
use zoning bonuses and transfers of development rights to generate mod-
erate-income housing in the area. Specifically, the plan calls for the city to
provided a "super bonus" above what was already provided for (1) the
first 300 housing units servings residents in the 50 to 80 percent median-
income range, and (2) the first 200 units serving residents in the 80 percent
to 120 percent median-income range. The neighborhood plan noted that
the area contains only low-income and low-to-moderate-income housing,
thus the bonuses should be used to promote a mix of housing prices, par-
ticularly moderate-income housing, Developers aTe given additional com-
mercial development capacity in exchange for the housing and other pub-
lic amenities provided.
CRITIQUES OF INCENTIVE PROGRAMS AND LEGAL ISSUES
There have been very few legal challenges to incentive zoning pro-
grams, most likely because such arrangements are generally beneficial
to developers, allowing them to build at higher densities and achieve
profits that are greater than what may otherwise result with the under-
lying zoning, Plus, even when bonuses are provided as of right, incen-
tive zoning is an elective rather than mandatory land-use control
(Getzels and Jaffe 1988, 14),
In some cases, developers have expressed legitimate concern that the
underlying zoned density is set artificially low to arm twist them into pro- The use of incentives also raises
viding amenities to increase the size of the project to an economically fea-
sible level. But as long as the base zoning does not extinguish reasonable the issue of uniformity of
development rights under the ordinance, developers would have diffi- treatment, Allowing density for a
given project to be increased
cu1ty proving that their investment-backed expectations had been above what is permitted by the
thwarted. Also, through planning, communities can establish a solid ra- base zoning in exchange for
tionale for linking the amenity to the mitigation of impacts created by ad- certain amenities understandably
ditional density (Getzels and Jaffe 1988, 15). leads to questions about the
The use of incentives also raises the issue of uniformity of treatment, legitimacy of the underlying
Allowing density for a given project to be increased above what is per- zoned densities,
mitted by the base zoning in exchange for certain amenities understand-
ably leads to questions about the legitimacy of the underlying zoned den-
sities, A developer of a similarly situated property that was completed
prior to enactment of bonuses may ask why his developable density was
limited to begin with. Moreover, residents of buildings adjacent to .
bonused buildings may question if the public benefit conferred by the de-
veloper (e,g" a public plaza) is adequate compensation to them or the gen-
eral public for something like the loss of sunlight that occurs because of
the added height of the new building,
Another concern is what Jerold Kayden refers to as "privately owned
public space," When a developer enters into an agreement with a city to
provide an amenity, such as a street-level plaza, in exchange for increased
floor area, the developer also consents to allow the plaza to be open to the
public. For indoor bonusable spaces, such as a through-block shopping
arcade, the building owner must agree to allow the public in the space
during normal hours of operation. What Kayden found in an extensive
study of such spaces is that, gradually, building owners privatize the pub-
lic space by: using gates to restrict public access; opening cafes and restau-
rants in the spacel which gives the perception that it is private space; or
otherwise find ways to discourage people from simply hanging around,
The issue is one of enforcement, but building and zoning enforcement of-
.-
60
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 7.2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Text Amendment - Request by Planning Staff to Amend the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 110
Development Agreements to Reflect Changes Made by the North Carolina General Assembly in the 2005
legislative Session (A-346, 1/06)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
This legislation creates a new tool for public-private cooperation in North Carolina, The use of development agreements is
optional and must be adopted as an ordinance by the Commissioners,
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The Planning Board voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval for the staff version of the text amendment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
A-346-Development Agreements
13 pages of supporting materials.
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0,
61
CASE: A-346, 12/05 Applicant: New Hanover Planning Staff
REQUEST: Zoning Text Amendment for Development Agreements
PLANNING BOARD
The Planning Board met on January 6, 2006 and voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval
for the staff version of the text amendment.
In the 2005 long session of the North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA), several bills were
introduced that affected current planning legislation, Senate Bill 814, titled Modernizing City and
County, was an attempt by the legislature to update those planning statutes, The crafting of the
legislation involved several interest groups; including the North Carolina Association of
Realtors@ (NCAR), the North Carolina Homebuilders Association (NCHBA), the University of
North Carolina Institute of Government (lOG), and the North Carolina Chapter ofthe American
Planning Association (NCAPA), After several (29) revisions of the bilI, the legislature passed it
on January I, 2006. Part of the legislation is a provision for "developer agreements." I will
attempt to explain the purpose of these agreements and a summary of the legislation,
The provision for development agreements came about from local governments in the central part
of the state changing zoning and subdivision regulations midway through large-scale projects, for
our area a good example of a large-scale extended duration project is Beau Rivage, Without
clogging the courts with challenges to the current planning legislation, the aforementioned
interest groups created the criteria for development agreements. Other states have similar
legislation, A local government and developer now have the authority to enter into development
agreements if certain criteria are met, both by the developer and the local government and the
agreement can last up to twenty (20) years, The developer criteria are that the project must have a
minimum of 25 buildable acres and a timeline for the development. Local governments
responsibilities in a developers agreement include listing of the criteria for the agreement, holding
a public hearing, periodic review for compliance, and uphold what ordinances and regulations are
in effect at the time of the agreement for the duration of the agreement.
One crucial part of this legislation is that "a local government may not exercise any authority or
make any commitment not authorized by general or local act and may not impose any tax or fee
not authorized by otherwise applicable law," So to answer some of the issues we discussed the
other day, a development agreement is not procedure to require developers to donate land or
buildings for parks, school, library or fire station sites in return for entering into the agreement.
However, it is our opinion that development agreements could be used to voluntarily provide
these facilities in a contractual or joint arrangement between private developers and the county,
Section 109,2: Development Agreements
In addition to the requirements of this Ordinance and as provided in NCGS
153A-379. the County Commissioners after conducting a public hearing may
enter into private development agreements, These development agreements may
require a commitment of public and private resources for large-scale projects,
Such proiects must contain at least 25 acres or more exclusive of wetlands.
mandatory buffers. and other portions of the property precluded from
development. In entering into such agreements. the County may not exercise any
authority or make any commitment not authorized by general or local act and
may not impose any tax or fee not authorized by otherwise applicable law,
- -------
62
Summary Analysis of S Page 40f5
III~ Subdivision Ordinances
General. Section 2 of S, 518 revises G.S, 160A-371 and 153A-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 of a single new lot or parcel may be considered a subdivision.
It also explicitly notes that a city may provide for expedited review of specified classes of subdivisions.
Authorizationforplatapproval by staff Section 3 ofS. 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, l60A-372(a) and G.S. l53A-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-33 I (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. 153A-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. l60A-375 and G.S.
I 53A-334 to allow use of pre-sale and pre-lease contracts to obtain development fmancing 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 been
secured, that approval is not guaranteed, and that the contract may be terminated if the final plat is
materially different from the preliminary plat. This amendment also allows contracts to sell lots to the
developers of those lots after the preliminary plat is approved but before final plat approval. The final
conveyance may not take place until after the final plat is approved and recorded.
IV. Development Agreements
Section 9 ofS, 814 cr~ates 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. 160A-400.20
to 160A-400,32 and 153A-379,l to 153A-379.l3,
Th~se o~v.elopm~1p~nts ~,.2p-Eonal for cities _aIlcig.~nties, lfused, each agreement
must be adop'tea as an orCfiii~mce by the governing 1ioafa(wttnffl.e same sfandard notice and hearing
"'._~.~._------~---_._~-,_._.~_._--~. ,..~'- -.. '_~~--'~----"--'-'--------'---' ---'~--"--'~-------""-----"_.__ ,.._ - . ,__ - n"'_u.. --
http:/ /ncinfo.iog, unc,edu/organizations/planning/legisinfo/Summary%20Anal ysis%200 5", 1 0/31/2005
-"---~'--
63
Summary Analysis of S Page 50f5
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 of the
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 provide
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. Infrastructure Agreements
Section 8 ofS. 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 1 53A-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. 160A-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 govenunent must find that the cost of securing the
improvements would be less than if done directly by the govenunent or through a public contract.
Third, G.S. 160A-309 is created to allow cities to enter into similar agreements on intersection
and roadway improvements up to a cost of$250,000.
http://ncinfo,iog, unc.edul organizations/planning/legisinfo/Summary%20Analysis%2005.,. 10/31/2005
~ ____~.u._
64
Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 5 of6
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 become 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
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 date 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
httu:/ /www.iOg. unc,edul organizations/Dlanning/legisinfo/Ducker -Subi v _ Dev Aennt- Tree,." 1 1110/2005
65
. Legisltoin of interst to Plasnners Page 60f6
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- I 82. I 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.
htto:llwww jOg, unc,edu/organizations/olanning/legisinfo/Ducker -Subiv- Dev Agrmt- Tree".. 11/10/2005
66
SL2005-0426 Page 15 of 23
be entered into before the ac uisition of an
PART V. DEVELOPMENT A~REEMENTS
/.
SECTION 9.(a) Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by
adding a new Part to read:
"Part 3D. Development Agreements,
"~ 160A.400.20. Authorization for development agreements.
W The General Assembly finds:
ill Lar e-scale develo ment ro'ects often occur in multi,t..le ...hases extendina
over a period of years. requiring a long-term commitment 0 both public and
private resources.
ill Such large-scale developments often create potential communiry- impacts and
potential opportunities that are difficult or impossible to accommodate within
traditional zoning processes.
ill Because of their scale and duration. such large-scale projects' often require
careful inte ration between ublic ca ital facilities lannin financin and
construction schedules and the phasing of the private evelopment.
f4} Because of their scale and duration. such lar;e-scale pr~ects involve
substantial commitments of private capital by developers. which evelopers are
usually unwilling to risk without sufficient assurances that development
standards will remain stable through the extended period of the development,
ill Because of their size and duration such develo ments often ~ermit
communities and developers to experiment with different or nontra Itional
thpes of development concepts and standards. while still managing impacts on
t e surrounding areas.
@ To better structure and manae develo ment a~.. rovals for such lar""e.!.scale
developments and ensure their proper integration into local capital acilitieSi'
programs. local governments need the flexibility in negotiating such
developments.
.au Local governments and agencies may enter into development agreements with
developers. subiect to the procedures and requirements of this Part. In entering into such
agreements. a local government may not exercise any authority or make any commitment not
authorized blJ general or local act and may not impose any tax or fee not' authorized by
otherwise applicable law.
10 This Part is supplemental to the powers conferred upon local governments and does
not Jjreclude or supersede rights and obligations established pursuant to other law regardini
buil ing permits. site-specific development plans. phased development plans. or other
provisions of law.
"~ 160A-400.21. Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this Part:
ill ComprehensIve plan. - The comprehensive plan. land-use plan. small area
' lans nei hborhood lans trans ortation Ian ca ital imcrovement Ian
official map. and any other plans regarding land use and development that aYe
been officially adopted by the governing board.
ill Developer. - A person. including a governmental agency or redevelo~ment
authority. who intends to undertake any development and who has a Ie alar
e uitable interest in the ro ert to be develo ed.
ill Development. - The panning for or carrying out of a buildin: activity. the
making of a material change in the use or appearance of an structure or
pro ert or the dividin of land into two or more ~ arcels. 'Develo....ment'. as
designated in a law or development permit. includes the plannin for and aU
other activit customaril associated with it unless otherwise s....ecified. When
appropriate to the context. 'development' refers to the plannin", for or the act 01
developing or to the result of development. Reference to a specific operation is
http://www ,ncga.state,nc, us/Sessions/2005/BilIs/Senate/HTML/S814 v6.html 12/9/2005
_..~"._~._---
67
SL2005-0426 Page 16 of 23
not intended to mean that the operation or activity. when part of other operations or
activities. is not development. Reference to particular operatIOns is not
intended to limit the generality of this item.
@ Development permit. - A building permit. zoning permit. subdivision
approval. special or conditional use permit. variance. or any other official
action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of
property.
ill Governing body, - The city council of a municipality.
@ Land development regulations. - Ordinances and re:ulations enacted by the
appropriate governing body for the regulation of an aspect of development
and includes zoning. subdivision. or any other land development ordinances.
ill Laws. - All ordinances. resolutions. regulations. comprehensive plans. land
develo ment re ulations olicies and rules ado ted b a local overnment
affectin the develo ment of ro ert and inclu es laws ovemin ermitted
uses of the property. density. esign. and improvements.
(8} Property. - All real property subiect to land-use regulation by a local
government and includes any improvements or Structures customarily regarded
as a part of real property. ,
{2} Local government. - Any municipality that exercises regulato~ authorit~ over
and ~rants development permits for land development or which rovides ublic
facilIties.
am Local planning board. - Any planning board established pursuant to
G.S. 160A-361.
(l1} Person. - An individual. corporation. business or land trust. estate. trust.
partnership. association. two or more persons having a joint or common
mterest. State agency. or any legal entity.
f.l21 Public facilities. - Maior capital improvements. including. but not limited to,
trans ortation sanit sewer solid waste draina e _otable water
educational. parks and recreational. and health systems and fad ities.
" 160A-400.22. Local overnments authorized to enter into develo ment a reements.
approval of governing body required.
A local government may establish procedures and requirements. as provided in this Part. to
consider and enter into develo ment a reements with develo ers. A develo ment a reement
must be approved by the govermng body of a local government y ordinance.
" 160A-400.23. Develo ed ro ert must contain certain number of acres' ermissible
durations of agreements.
A local government may enter into a development agreement with a developer for the
development of property as provided in this Part. provided the property contains 25 acres or
more of developable property (exclusive of wetlands. mandatory bUffersp unbuildable slopes~
and other portions of the property which may be precluded from develo ment at the time of
a lication. Develo ment a reements shall be of a term s ecified in the a reement rovided
they may not be for a term exceeding 20 years.
"~ 160A-400.24. Public hearing.
Before entering into a development agreement. a local government shall conduct a public
hearing on the proposed agreement following the procedures set forth in G.S. 160A-364
re arclin zonin ordinance ado tion or amendment. The notice for the ublic hearin~ must
specify the location of the property subje~t to the development a~eementp the development use&
proposed on the property. and must speCIfy a place where a cop, of the roposed development
agreement can be obtained. In the event that the development agreement provides that the local
government shall provide certain public facilities. the development agreement shall provide that
the delivery date of such public facilities will be tied to successful performance by the developer
in implementing the proposed development (such as meeting defined completion percentages or
other performance standards).
" 160A-400.25. What develo ment a reement must rovide' what it ma rovide- ma'or
modification requires public notice and hearing.
ill A development agreement shall at a minimum include all of the following:
http://www ,ncga,state.nc, us/Sessions/2005/Bills/Senate/HTML/S814 v6,htmI 12/9/2005
68
SL2005-0426 Page 17 of 23
ill A legal description of the property subject to the agreement and the names of
its legal and equitable property owners.
ill The duration of the agreement. However. the parties are not precluded from
entering into subsequent development agreements that may extend the original
duration period.
ill The develoEment uses permitted on the property. including population
densities and uilding types. intensities. placement on the site. and design.
(4) A descriJ?tion of ~ublic facilities that will service the develoQment. including
who provIdes the acilities. the date any new public facilities. If needed. will be
constructed. and a schedule to assure public facilities are available concurrent
with the impacts of the development.
ill A description. where appropnate. of any reservation or dedication of land for
public purposes and any provisions to protect environmentally sensitive
property.
@ A description of all local develooment permits approved or needed to be
apJjroved for the development of the property together with a statement
in icating that the failure of the agreement to address a particular permit.
condition. term. or restriction does not relieve the developer of the necessity of
complying with the law governing their permitting requirements. conditions.
terms. or restrictions.
ill A descri tion of an conditions terms restrictions or other re uirements
determined to be necessary by the local government for the pub ic health:
safety. or welfare of its citizens.
(ID A description. where appropriate. of any provisions for the preservation and
restoration of historic structures.
fQ} A development agreement may provide that the entire development or any phase of it
be commenced or completed within a specified period of time. The development agreement
must provide a development schedule. including commencement dates and interim completion
dates at no greater than five-year intervals: provided. however. the failure to meet a
commencement or completion date shall not. in and of itself. constitute a material breach of the
development agreement pursuant to a.s. 160A-400.27 but must be judged based upon the
totality of the circumstances. The development agreement may include other defined
erformance standards to be met b the develo er. The develo er ma re uest a modification in
the dates as set forth in the agreement. Consi eration of a proposed maior modification of the
agreement shall follow the same procedures as required for initial approval of a development
agreement.
W If more than one local government is made party to an agreement. the agreement must
specify which local government is responsible for the overall administration of the development
agreement. '
, @ The development agreement also may cover any other matter not inconsistent with
this Part.
"~ 160A-400.26. Law in effect at time of agreement governs development; exceptions.
ill Unless the development agreement specifically provides for the application of
subsequently enacted laws. the laws applicable to development of the property subject to' a
development agreement are those in force at the time of execution of the agreement.
@ Except for grounds specified in a,s. 160A-385.1(e). a local government may not
apply subsequently adopted ordinances or development policies to a development that is subject
to a development agreement.
ill In the event State or federal law is changed after a development agreement has been
entered into and the change prevents or precludes compliance with one or more provisions of the
development agreement. the local government may modify the affected provisions. uEon a
finding that the change in State or federal law has a fundamental effect on the develo ment
agreement. by ordinance after notice and a hearing.
@ This section does not abrogate any rights preserved by a.s, 160A-385 or
a,s. 160A-385.1. or that may vest pursuant to common law or otherwise in the absence of a
development agreement.
httD:/ /www,ncga.state.nc,us/Sessions/2005/Bills/Senate/HTML/S 814 v6.html 12/9/2005
---------.- ----~-
69
SL2005-0426 Page 18 of 23
" 160A-400.27. Periodic review to assess com liance with a~reement. material breach by
developer; notice of breach; cure of breach or modification or termination of
agreement.
W Procedures established pursuant to G.S. 160A-400.22 must include a provision for
requiring periodic review by the zoning administrator or other approtriate officer of the local
government at least every 12 months. at which time the develo er must be required to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement.
@ If. as a result of a periodic review. the local government finds and determines that the
developer has committed a material breach of the terms or conditions of the agreement. the local
government shall serve notice in writing. within a reasonable time after the periodic review~
upon the developer setting forth with reasonable particularity the nature of the breach and the
evidence supporting the finding and determination. and providing the developer a reasonable
time in which to cure the material breach.
(ill If the developer fails to cure the material breach within the time given. then the local
ovemment unilaterall ma terminate or modi the develo ment a eement. rovided. the
notice of termination or mo ification may be appealed to the board of adjustment m the manner
p,fOvided by a.s. 160A-388(b).
I 160A-400.28. Amendment or cancellation of develo ment a reement b mutu I consent
of parties or successors in interest.
A development agreement may be amended or canceled by mutual consent of the parties to
the agreement or by their successors in interest.
" 160A-400.29. Validit and duration of a reement entered into rior to chan e of
jurisdiction; subsequent modification or suspension.
W Except as otherwise provided by this Part. any develol>ment agreement entered into
by a local fovemment before the effective date of a change of junsdiction shall be valid for the
duration 0 the a reement or ei ht ears from the effective date of the chan e in ~Urisdictiont
whichever is earlier. The parties to the development agreement and the ocal ""overnment
assuming jurisdiction have the same rights and obligations with respect to each other regarding
matters addressed in the development agreement as if the property had remained in the previous
iurisdiction.
@ A local government assuming jurisdiction may modify or suspend the provisions of
the development agreement if the local government determines that the failure of the local
government to do so would place the residents of the territory subject to the development
agreement. or the residents of the local government. or both. in a condition dangerous to their
health or safety. or both.
" 160A-400.30. Develo er to record a reement within 14 da S' burdens and benefits
inure to successors in interest.
Within 14 days after a local government enters into a development agreement. the developer
shall record the agreement with the register of deC?ds.in the county where the property is located.
The burdens of the development agreement are bmdmg upon. and the benefits of the agreement
shall inure to. all successors in interest to the parties to the agreement.
" 160A-400.31. A licabilit to local overnment of constitutional and statu tor
procedures for apfroval of debt.
In the event that any 0 the obligations of the local government in the develol>ment
agreement constitute debt. the local government shall complY: at the time of the obligatIOn to:
incur the debt and before the debt becomes enforceable against the local government. with any
applicable constitutional and statutory procedures for the approval of this debt.
"~ 160A-400.32. Relationship of agreement to building or housing code.
A development a~reement adopted pursuant to this Chapter shall not exempt the properti
owner or developer rom compliance with the State Building Code or State or local housin
codes that are not part of the local government's planning. zoning. or subdivision regulations. "
SECTION 9.(b) Article 18 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes is amended by
adding a new Part to read:
"Part 3A. Development Agreements.
"~ 153A-379.1. Authorization for development agreements.
ill The General Assemblv finds:
http://www .nega.state.ne. us/Sessions/2005/Bills/Senate/HTML/S814v6.html 12/9/2005
--
70
SL2005-0426 Page 19 of 23
ill
ill
ru
ill
ill
@
with
ill
ru
ill
ill
@
http://www .ncga.state.ne. lls/Sessions/2005/Bills/SenateIHTML/S814 v6.html 12/9/2005
71
SL2005-0426 Page 20 of 23
and includes zoninfI' subdivision, or any other land development ordinances.
ill Laws. - A I ordinances. resolutions. regulations. comprehensive plans. land
develo ment re ulations olicies and rules ado ted b a local overnment'
affectin the develo ment of ro ert and inclu es laws overnin ermitted
uses of the property. density. esign. and improvements.
fID Property. - All real property subject to land-use regulation by a local
government and includes any improvements or structures customarily regarded
as a part of real property.
(22 Local government. - Any county that exercises regulatory authority over and
grants development permits for land development or which provides publi~
facilities.
am Local planning board. - Any planning board established pursuant to
G.S. 153A-321.
aD Person. - An individual. corporation. business or land trust, estate. trus~
partnership. association. two or more persons having a ioint or common
mterest. State agency. or any legal €ntity.
ill.) Public facilities. - Major capital improvements. including. but not limited to.
trans ortation sanit sewer solid waste draina e otable water
educational. parks and recreational. and health systems and facilities.
" 153A-379.3. Local overnments authorized to enter into develo ment a reemenfs'
approval of governing body required. rovided in this Part to
A local overnment ma establish rocedures and re uirements as
consider and enter into develo ment a reements with evelo ers. A develo ment a reement
must be approved by the governmg body of a local government y ordinance.
" 153A-379.4. Develo ed ro e must contain certain number of acres' ermissible
durations of agreements.
A local government may enter into a development agreement with a developer for the
development of property as provided in this Part. provided the property contains 25 acres or
more of developable property (exclusive of wetlands. mandatory buffersp unbuildable slopesi
and other portions of the property which may be precluded from develo ment at the time of
application . Develo ment a reements shall be of a term s ecified in the a eement rovided
they may not be for a term exceeding 20 years.
"~ 153A-379.5. Public hearing. overnment shall conduct a
Before enterin into a develo ment a reement a local ublic
hearin on the ro osed a reement fol owin the rocedures set forth in a.S. 153A-323
re ardin zonin ordinance ado tion or amen ment. The notice for the ublic hearin~ must
specify t e locatIon of the property subie<;:t to the development a~eementp the development uses
proposed on the property. and must speCIfy a place where a cop. of the roposed development
agreement can be obtained. In the event that the development ~greement provides that the local
government shall provide certain public facilities. the development agreement shall provide that
the delivery date of such public facilities will be tied to successful performance by the developer
in implementing the proposed development (such as meeting defined completion percentages O{
other performance standards).
" 153A-379.6. What develo ment a reement must rovide' what it ma rovide' ma' or
modification requires public notice and hearing.
W A development agreement shall at a minimum include all of the following:
ill A legal description of the property subiect to the agreement and the names of
its legal and equitable property owners.
ill The duration of the agreement. However. the parties are not precluded from
entering into subsequent development agreements that may extend the original
duration period. .
ru The development uses permitted on the property. including population
densities and building types. intensities. placement on the site. and design.
ill A description of Eublic facilities that will service the develoQment. including
who provides the acilities. the date any new public facilities. If needed. will be
constructed. and a schedule to assure public facilities are available concurrent
httn://www .nCl!a.state.nc. us/Sessions/2005/Bills/Senate/HTML/S814 v6.html 1 2/9/200S
--
72
SL2005-0426 Page 21 of 23
with the impacts of the development.
ill A description. where appropriate. of any reservation or dedication of land for
public purposes and any provisions to protect environmentally sensitive
property .
@ A description of all local development permits aPtroved or needed to be
apJiroved for the development of the property to ""ether with a statement
in icating that the failure of the agreement to address a particular permit,
condition. term. or restriction does not relieve the developer of the necessity of
complying with the law governing their permitting requirements. conditions.
terms. or restrictions.
m A deseri' tion of an conditions terms restrictions or other re_uirements
determined to be necessary by the local government for the pub ic health,
safety. or welfare of its citizens.
ill A description. where appropriate. of any provisions for the preservation and
restoration of historic structures.
.au A development agreement may provide that the entire development or any phase of it
be commenced or completed within a specified period of time. The development agreement
must provide a development schedule includin commencement dates and interim com letion
dates at no reater than five- ear intervals' rovided however. the failure to meet a
commencement or completion date shall not. in and of itself. constitute a material breach of the
develooment al!reement ursuant to G.S. 153A-379.8 but must be 'ud ed based H....on the totalitv
of the circumstances. The development agreement may include other defined performance
standards to be met by the developer. The developer may re'luest a modification in the dates as
set forth in the agreement. Consideration of a proposed major modification of the agreement
shall follow the same procedures as required for mittal approval of a develo[ment agreement.
(Q} If more than one local government is made party to an agreement the agreement must
s ecif which local overnment is res onsible for the overall administration of the develo ment
agreement.
@ The development agreement also may cover any other matter not inconsistent with
this Part.
" 153A-379.7. Law in effect at time of a reement overns develo ment; exceytions.
UU Unless the development agreement specifically provi es for the application of
subse uentlv enacted laws the laws a licable to develorment of the g;roperty sub'ect to a
development agreement are those in force at the time of execution of the a_ eement.
@ Except for grounds specified in G.S. 153A-344.l(e). a local government may not
a I subsequentl ado ted ordinances or develo ment olicies to a develo ment that is sub' ect
to a development agreement.
(Q} In the event State or federal law is changed after a development agreement has been
entered into and the change prevents or precludes compliance with one or more provisions of the
development al!reement the local overnment ma modif the affected rovisions u on a
findin that the chan e in State or federal law has a fundamental effect on the develo ment
agreement. by ordinance after notice and a hearing.
@ This section does not abrogate any rights preserved by G.S. 153A-344 or
a.s. 153A-344.1. or that may vest pursuant to common law or otherwise in the absence of a' .
development agreement. .
" 153A-379.8. Periodic review to assess com llance with aoreement; material hreach b~
developer; notice of breach; cure 0 breach or modification or termination of
agreement.
Procedures established pursuant to G.S. 153A-379.3 must include a provision for
re UInn eriodic review b the zonin administrator or other a ro riate officer of the local
overnment at least ever 12 months at which time the develo~er must be re uired to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement.
@ If. as a result of a periodic review. the local government finds and determines that the
develo er has committed a material breach of the terms or conditions of the a reement the local
overnment shall serve notice in writin within a reasonable time after the periodic review.
upon the developer settinl! forth with reasonable particularitv the nature of the breach and the
http://www .nega.state.nc. us/Sessions/2005/Bills/Senate/HTMLlS814 v6.html 12/9/2005
73
SL2005-0426 Page 22 of 23
evidence supporting the finding and determination. and providing the developer a reasonable
time in which to cure the material breach.
W If the developer fails to cure the material breach within the time given. then the local
overnment unilaterall ma terminate or modif the develo ment a reement. rovided. the
notice of termination or mo ification may be appealed to the board of adiustment m the manner
provided by a.s. 153A-345(b).
" 153A-379.9. Amendment or cancellation of develo ment a eement b mutual consent
of parties or successors in interest.
A development a!reement may be amended or canceled by mutual consent of the parties to
the agreement or by eir successors in interest.
" 153A-379.10. Validit and duration f a reement entered into rior to chan e of
jurisdiction; subsequent modification or suspension.
W Except as otherwise provided by this Part. any develol>ment agreement entered into
by a local fovernment before the effective date of a chanie of iunsdiction shall be valid for the
duration 0 the a reement or ei ht ears from the effectIve date of the chan e in 'urisdiction
whichever is earlier. The parties to the development agreement and the ocal government
assuming j.urisdiction have the same rights and obli~ations with respect to each other regarding
matters a dressed in the development agreement as If the property had remained in the previous
jurisdiction.
.(b) A local government assuming jurisdiction may modify or suspend the provisions of
the development agreement if the local government. determines that the failure of the local
government to do so would place the residents of the territory subject to the development
agreement. or the residents of the local government. or both. in a condition dangerous to their
health or safety. or both.
" 153A-379.11. Develo er to record a reement within 14 da S' burdens and benefits
inure to successors in interest.
Within 14 days after a local government enters into a development agreement. the developer
shall record the agreement with the register of deeds in the county where the property is located.
The burdens of the development agreement are binding upon. and the benefits of the agreement
shall inure to. all successors in interest to the parties to the agreement.
" 153A-379.12. A licabilit to local overnment of constitutional and statuto
procedures or apfroval of debt.
In the event that any 0 the obligations of the local government in the develol>ment
agreement constitute debt. the local government shall compli at the time of the obligatIOn to
incur the debt and before the debt becomes enforceable against the local government. with any
applicable constitutional and statuto rocedures for the a roval of this debt.
" 153A-379.13. Relationshi of a reement to buildin or housin_ code.
A development a~reement adopted pursuant to this Chapter sha I not exempt the propert~
owner or developer rom compliance with the State Building Code or State or local housin
codes that are not part of the local government's planning. zoning. or subdivision regulations."
PART VI. LOCAL ACTS SAVING CLAUSE
SECTION 10. The provisions of this act shall not be deemed to repeal or amend the
validity or enforceability of any local act or charter provision previously enacted by the General
Assembly.
PART VII. EFFECTIVE DA TE
SECTION 11. This section and a.s. 160A-381(e), as enacted by Section 5(a) of this
act, and G.S. 153A-340(h), as enacted by Section 5(b) of this act, become effective September 1,
2005. Any renewal or extension on or after September I, 2005, of a moratorium on development
approvals that is in effect prior to or on that date, is subject to the provisions of this act. The
remainder of this act becomes effective January 1,2006.
2005. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 24th day of August,
http://www .nega.state.ne. us/Sessions/2005IBills/SenateIHTMLlS814v6.html 12/9/2005
74
SL2005-0426 Page 23 of 23
sf Beverly E. Perdue
President of the Senate
sf James B. Black
Speaker of the House of Representatives
sf Michael F. Easley
Governor
A nnrnl1"',-1 1 ',,\0 n In thic 'J'Jud ,-1"" nf' <;1pntpTnh"'r 'J(l(l,,\
http://www.ne ga.state.ne. us/Sessions/200SlBills/SenatelHTMUS814v6.html J ?/Ql?no'l
75
This page intentionally left blank.
76
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 7.3 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Special Use Permit - Request by Withers and Ravenel for Kevin Hoban to Consider a Special Use Permit for a High
Density Development in an R-15 Residential District at 4416 South College Road (S-549, 02/06)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Planning Board voted 6 to 0, with one abstention, on March 2, 2006 to recommend denial of the request for a Special
Use Permit for a High Density development in an R-15 Zoning District. The Georgetown Homeowners Association made a
presentation opposing the project. The Board felt the project would not be in harmony with the area and was concerned
with the additional traffic on South College Road.
The Planning Board earlier voted 6 to 0 on February 2, 2006 to continue the Special Use Permit for a High Density
development in an R-15 Zoning District. The board members desired to have more information on drainage and traffic
concerns affecting surrounding areas. Several residents spoke about drainage issues in the adjoining Georgetown
neighborhood. Those residents submitted a petition signed by approximately 46 neighbors.
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: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
S-549 ii!linq of Facts-
S 549-Petition Sum
Aerial Map and Site Map (hard copies)
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Denied 5-0 because the Board felt it was not in harmony with the area.
77
Case: S-549, 02/06
APPLICANT: Withers and Ravenel for Kevin Hoban
REQUEST: R-15 High-Density Residential for 122 Dwelling Units
ACREAGE: 12 Acres
LOCATION: 4416 South College Road
PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS
The planning board voted 6 to 0, with one abstention, on March 2, 2006 to recommend denial ofthe
request for a Special Use Permit for a High Density development in an R-15 Zoning District. The
Georgetown Homeowners Association made a presentation opposing the project. The board felt the
project would not be in harmony with the area and was concerned with the additional traffic on
South College Road.
The planning board voted 6 to 0 on February 2, 2006 to continue the Special Use Permit for a High
Density development in an R-15 Zoning District. The board members desired to have more
information on drainage and traffic concerns affecting surrounding areas. Several residents spoke
about drainage issue in the adjoining Georgetown neighborhood. Those residents submitted a
petition signed by approximately 46 neighbors.
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if
located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is located within the Myrtle Grove VFD.
B. Public water and sewer will serve the site.
C. The subject property is not located in a I OO-year floodplain.
D. Access to the site is from South College Road, a major arterial thoroughfare.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning
ordinance.
A. The site is located in an R-15 Residential Zoning District. A Special Use Permit allows High-Density
development in an R-15 Residential District in accordance with certain performance criteria.
B. The maximum number of allowed units on 12 acres in an R-15 under High-Density development is
122 units. The applicant proposal has 122 units.
C. The minimum required amount of improved recreational area is 1.8 acres. The proposed site has 2.0
acres of improved recteationalland.
D. Parking, building height and impervious coverage satisfy the county zoning ordinance.
E. Buffer yards and setbacks are on the proposed plan and meet the county zoning ordinance.
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.
~-~-_.__._------------_.._- --------~~--_...- -.---,-_..._~..~--
78
A. Similar type projects exist in other residential districts in New Hanover County.
B. Other high-density projects are located in direct proximity to the proposed site.
C. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property values.
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 New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as Developed. The purpose of the
Developed class is to provide for continued intensive development on lands that have urban services.
B. Several High Density projects already exists along South College Road.
Staff Comments:
1) Staff recommends the applicant obtain a connection to Tesla Park Drive- a private street.
2) Utility easements will be required for the proposed drainage and utility lines.
- ----~~-_.._--------_..._--_._--_.__....- -_.__._-_._-_._~----_.._-----
79
Case: S-549, 02/06
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: Withers and Ravenel for Kevin Hoban
Existing Land Use: Golf Driving Range
Zoning History: October 15, 1969 (Masonboro)
Land Classification: Developed
Water Type: Public
Sewer Type: Public
Recreation Area: Myrtle Grove Park
Access & Traffic Volume: 24,000 ADT(2001)
Fire District: Myrtle Grove VFD
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Barnard's Creek
Aquifer Recharge Area: Primary Recharge Area
ConservationlHistoricl Archaeological Resources: NI A
Soils: Lynn Haven, Leon, Murrayville fine sand
Septic Suitability: All Class III soils-severe limitations
Schools: Pine Valley Elementary
---~---~~--_.._.__.- --~----~_._---_._-- _ -------------------------------..--..- .-.-,,". --..----...-.---
80
v
::'
~
M
"
"t:l
C
" CIl
.- Cl
~ Gl
,,- ...J
.! 5.:E
~~~5
:g l~ h " "-
--o..cu>oc ~
N CD~:!::.g '" \I
ai'!!:~ ~.~ -+_:-
.qoca3~a:" ~
Ion 'u:::: J:.1.t) J ~ 81
u, 8. 8:.~~
1Il<l:J:
UJOJ"I"Il.M~j'iJd41!M 11l.MM ueld al!S I!WJ3d 3Sn lepads i" b ~ ~
t'IlSl-'lSl-tl16 :~l?1 LLt6-<JSHlL6:1"1 : : ~
fO{ltrll!llltOll':) Il).lON 'IJOllilJIWIIM WlI ~1f1S ';lAIlO Aill~OIS LO l nMll IN '1l0l8111WIIM ~ a
Pl"O"1:lIlJl!a81'Ullou!JOO9S
510Ai^lnS I 5Ii11.,."'.. I SIJ:ilIIIII!!tNJ dnoJ9 "Aaa 4J~a9 wl~d ""1"'''] ~~... '''"~.)'''''''''H'"''N '~'J"'''"l OJ"""".... ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~
'3N3^"'~ "}1 S~3H.LIM I _~I"""'O swn!u!wopUO) suapJP~ II. ii u ~ Ii ..
......-.a ,_ A,__'f&tH
j 'c II z-rf.
II i ~ i
.!; 11 pil I
-- -- i Jill ill
-- · P f" it
1 ~. ~ . ~ : '
----
---------
I'll ----
,ll" (MI~ '!~"d ,OOZ;) C:EI . ,(mH 'J'N / ~ ~IlO::> 4l00s
il' ri! -----------
.,1 -----------
i >!
I --
:
~ .
;! I ~
i ~~ a ~
''''~ ~
, ~
i B
! ~!
! "
11 li!
~~U
h.
" .
!~ .
tj ~!i r-' --
.1
~~~ ~tl .!h~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti
;~h r~ ~il~! _6. 1 ..
1) . ,.1. f!
>- ~-n ~h !f ii: i
! , .
n; Ii i!~j
Wi. II ! . j ~
hi
1 JI Pli'
· IHI'; ilt :t J ! , Hi ,;! I
t .!l ! 11q J I f Ii l!.~~~~~~
IJ f' ~IHI jt I. I 111, I t fl P 1 ~m:! ., 11. 1
J. ;11 'b'l !~f i: !II! 11!, ' ! I I .. ~' : : j ~ ~:
! ~I ~ l~h!h~S~!! : lIt J 'I. ';;ti r' ."
! ,I i lii!!~:
1 Milt rlllt~ ! I it 1'1 2 II t ~ ,ali I bff 'Ill · 'I.'
t "II .. ~l: I l' . B :i
A:!' :'1 ~t!11 !!l !l ~i ~' !. ~l d II ~~I~l I ]!jij f:~' fl
~llll!1 t" ,.
82
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 7.4 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Request by Withers and Ravenel to Consider a Special Use Permit for a Community Boating Facility in an R-20S
Residential District at 1647 and 1653 Canady Road (S-554, 03/06)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At their regularly scheduled meeting on March 2, 2006, the Planning Board voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval with four
conditions for a Special Use Permit for a seven-slip Community Boating Facility in an R-20S Residential Zoning District at
1647 and 1653 Canady Road. In addition to the conditions recommended by staff, the Planning Board recommended that
the waterfront lots relinquish their right to build individual docks and the boating facility not install any type of overhead
lighting.
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: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
8-554 Finding of Facts-
iii
8-554 Petition 8um
Aerial Map and Site plan (hard copies)
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 4-1, Pritchett opposing, with the four conditions recommended by the Planning Board.
83
Case: S-554, 03/06
APPLICANT: Withers and Ravenel for GCW Properties, LLC
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a Community Boating Facility-7 Slips
ACREAGE: 3.49 Acres
LOCATION: 1647 and 1653 Canady Road
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
At their regularly scheduled meeting on March 2, 2006, the Planning Board voted 7 to 0 to
recommend approval with 4 conditions for a Special Use Permit for a 7-slip Community Boating
Facility in an R-20S Residential Zoning District at 1647 and 1653 Canady Road. In addition to the
conditions recommended by staff, the planning board recommended that the water-front lots
relinquish their right to build individual docks and the boating facility not install any type of
overhead lighting.
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if
located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is located within the Ogden Fire District.
B. A private well will serve the dock facility.
C. A very small percentage of the subject property is located in a ] OO-year floodplain.
D. Access to the site is from Canady Road off Mason Landing Road.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning
ordinance.
A. The site is located in an R-20S Residential Zoning District. A Special Use Permit allows a community
boating facility in an R-20S Residential District.
B. The property has existing docks that need rehabilitation, which would require minimal environmental
impacts.
C. The site will not need any off-street parking, because it is close enough to the residential lots it serves.
D. The proposed community boating facility has seven (7) boat slips and seven (7) proposed residential
lots, which meets the required ratio.
E. A pedestrian easement will be provided and conferred to each owner for access to the community
boating facility.
F. No commercial activities, as required by the ordinance, are proposed for the facility.
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 projects exist in other residential districts in New Hanover County.
B. Some commercial marinas and some community boating facilities have been previously permitted in
the Middle Sound area.
C. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property values.
84
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 New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as 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. The Resource Protection class has been developed
in recognition ofthe fact that New Hanover County, one ofthe most urbanized counties in the State,
still contains numerous areas of environmental or cultural sensitivity which merit protection from
urban land uses.
B. An area approximately ten (10) feet wide that runs along the entire creek bank is brackish marsh and is
in the Conservation Overlay District (COD).
C. Surrounding land uses include single-family housing.
Staff Comments:
I) Staff recommends the applicant mitigate the four trees cut down along the bluff of Pages Creek. The
trees stabilized the bluff.
2) Staff recommends the other significant trees on the property be protected.
--.----.---------- ._~-~--~----_._._--~_._,,-----_.~_._,--
85
Case: S-554, 03/06
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: Withers and Ravenel for GCW Properties, LLC
Existing Land Use: Single family residential and vacant
Zoning Historv: October 15, 1969 (Masonboro)
Land Classification: Resource Protection
Water Tvpe: Well
Sewer Type: Septic
Recreation Area: Ogden Park
Access & Traffic Volume: 4,900 ADT (Middle Sound Loop, 2001)
Fire District: Ogden FD
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Pages Creek (SA)
Aquifer Recharge Area: A shallow water table sand aquifer and underlying
artesian aquifer
ConservationlHistoricl Archaeological Resources: Popular Grove Plantation
Soils: Lakeland
Septic Suitability: Class I, Suitable
Schools: Ogden Elementary
-"--~,_-'--'--- - ---_._~~--_._--------
86
~ "0
'<3 ~
.,
IL Z
OJ ~
.E
10 <: 0
"ca <:(
0 0.. ~
In
Z' "0 <9
"C g ~
.~ "ii c ;: 01 C1J
E 5i ~ U;;:..:~
E>
S~ ...I ~: ::':.. .
to '" oll
o .~;
Ci; 1f:E 8
0,,;;:
... 14.. "
q-~'E +."
Ln -., " ~ ;
., (,I
Ln (,1'- , ~
I 8. Q.
en Ul ~
.'-~,
-----~~- ------ --
~~
87
JIifl ^Ul3dO~d ffi \11
'" ..
@s 0
[i! ",1'1
i:; ~....
Q ffi~
o 0:;;;
:( ~ $'
> ~ 5 ~
· "!:( ~ 8 ".
> · ~ ~~~h
/ "S1<!o,.~
· · "'~~z~ "'>-
i~~~~ !~
01( ....ow 0::::1
't: , ~".' .<
g~
> - z
> 0
-------". ~ Iii ~
,.0
~H ~~
~u! ',.. fh'l!
.~, , 1 5'5 8
on N
0,,-
iJl5 c;1E
caffi~z~
~~e~~
.<1; e>:5xo..
\.;.J .G:og;::;~
~!!'wo:i<
~0!'~Q.;<0
3~ AJ.O:lmJd
---
JNlllllli3lnld ffi \1)
::z ..
l!! 0
Ii! "'-
~ '.E
o iili
:( 1:-<
l'l z"'
~ 5 :i
~ ~ 0 0 .
> i: 1: & S~"'hl
. it ~ ~q* ,.~
/ · f." "'~zz:;; "'>-
t; J ; Z!1<<Si5'" ;;~
~. ~~~g~ ~ii!
- ~<2oz 0
't: <,
lit",
\
\
\
\
\ ~
' \--- . . .1
'" , , <.
. \ ----~-- " ,.
" , , ~ ,I
' , I . "'
\ ,\ .' , 8" ,
" \ " ., ~ " " ,
\ \ \ I' .. , I, ;.
", " , . ~ -'!C'
\ \ '-->--.-------. ------ , 0' ,",.
\ \ - - 0 <J) ::>o:-....~
' , III > . ',"".
\ \ , ,:.'!!
\ \ ~ oO!'O!' a: 3!o
~ \ ~ Z
/ J
/ I
) /
/ /
/ /
/ / ."..,u,,"",
I /
/ /
" '------- d
1/ /' ~
/ /
/ /
J I
I ,
88
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 7.5 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Special Use Permit - Request by Betsy Burbank and Brad Kerr to Consider a Special Use Permit for a Veterinary
Office in an 0&1 Office and Institutional District at 2311 Castle Hayne Road (S-552, 03/06)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At their regularly scheduled meeting on March 2, 2006, the Planning Board voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of a
Special Use Permit for a veterinary office in an 0&1 Office and Institutional Zoning District at 2311 Castle Hayne Road.
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: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
8-552 Finding of Facts-
iii
8 552-Petition 8um
Aerial map and site plan (hard copies)
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
89
Case: S-552, 03/06
APPLICANT: Betsy Burbank/Brad Kerr
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a Veterinary Clinic in an 0&1 Office and Institutional
District
ACREAGE: 2.25 Acres
LOCATION: 2311 Castle Hayne Road
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
At their regularly scheduled meeting on March 2, 2006, the planning board voted 7 to 0 to
recommend approval ofa Special Use Permit for a veterinary office in an 0&1 Office and
Institutional Zoning District at 2311 Castle Hayne Road.
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if
located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is located within the Wrightsboro VFD.
B. Water is provided by a well and sewer is provided by a septic tank.
C. The subject property is not located in a IOO-year floodplain.
D. Access to the site is from Castle Hayne Road, a major arterial.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning
ordinance.
A. The site is located in an 0&1 Office and Institutional Zoning District. A veterinary clinic requires a
Special Use Permit in an 0&1 zoning district.
B. Parking, street yard and setbacks satisty the county zoning ordinance.
c. The applicant is requesting a variance for the buffer yard requirements of the county zoning ordinance.
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. The abutting property to the south of the applicant's lot is a church in an R-20 Residential Zoning
District.
B. The abutting property to the north of the applicant's lot is a rental residential house.
c. The property across Castle Hayne Road is zoned 0&1 Office & Institutional, but vacant.
D. In addition to the veterinary clinic, other offices are proposed for the same building.
E. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property values.
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 New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as Urban Transition. The purpose of
._._-_.~.._---~-.-_._,--_...._-
90
the Urban Transition class 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. A few veterinary clinics already exist in 0&1 districts and neighborhood districts in other areas of the
county.
___......_~_M.._____~"._...__ -------.--.---------..---
91
Case: 8-552,03/06
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: Betsy Burbank/Brad Kerr
Existing Land Use: Auxiliary Church Functions
Zoning History: July 1, 1974 (Area lOA)
Land Classification: Urban Transition
Water Tvpe: Well
Sewer Type: Septic
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: Thistle Creek
Aquifer Recharge Area: Second Recharge Area
ConservationlHistorie/ Archaeological Resources: N/ A
Soils: Johnston, Onslow
Septic Suitability: Severe, Wetness
Schools: Parsley Elementary
-----
92
I
i
\
I .
'I ~
\
\
z
w
;;C
d:
a: a:
!;! <(
\
\
i7
ID k
~ "
U
en
~
~
It)
,...
..
a:
I:)
C\I
ri:
"
o
7ii
Z
51
.~~ ~ ~
2)-g ~ a ~
~rD ~ ~ t d;
-E~ ~ 8"~~
.B C CD ~:.,-:,:./:.::::I:'I. I
Cl) n:I -I W. .
>-2 '..
._ "::l
'W :t::m
~ E'"
M ....
o o..1D -
~ &l~ . ~
C\I ~1: -+- .
LO"i5 ,. ~
it) "u:: .S!
,J..&8: ~ ~
.., Ul <(
93
FEB-21-2886 83:29 PM WELLSPRING HOLISTIC YET 91876312383':1 P.83
"-
~
\a.\t. ~
~ ~~J!: ·
1 'llI '" ~~ /
~ ~ ~ IA'.... r",~
"C' '" l
~~~ ~t
~ <' ""'~ VI ~
,,~~ ~ I~
~ ~ " VI 'l-~
~... . -......,
J ~ ".
~~ <> "
~ ~ >::-- ~
IIIIli; .. . "....
~ ... ~ s. ""-.
~~ ...,
'C It ~ /
~~
/
/
L_.._
-"
'---"--"'~
....-
"
~~
"""
.,
'.... i
........, ,
~, t...
t~ .. lo:
"-., \ ~ ft"
.. ~,,,... . ~
.........""-.., '"'" Ii - '" "" I; ~ ~
f1~ V) '0"'....11(
........~ \~ ..c cQ d ~ \Ii u:
~' I ,
"6
---_.._-----
94
I
..-
i ~~ ~ ~
f
:- \\ .... ~ :\ ..4 /
'='" ~ 'J
<<i' '\ It C\
~ ~,~
~ i ~~
~ :~~
~~
~. .;'f
\:.~
."?
I
~
~
.....
"
1
~
. "
".. f
~~~~
=l~~ J>
h~
~ ~:II
~ ~~
..
~ ~
..
't ~
-. ~\. ~'
Ii'
~El'd 6~EI~G:l~9.!.Elt6 ~3^ 8I~SIIOH ~NI~dSI13M Wd ElG::~EI 9ElElG:-1G:-a3~
95
This page intentionally left blank.
96
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 7.6 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Special Use Permit - Request by Lucille Piner to Consider a Special Use Permit for a Cemetery in an R-15
Residential District at 5708 Myrtle Grove Road (S-553, 03/06)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
At their regularly scheduled meeting on March 2, 2006, the Planning Board voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval with two
conditions for a Special Use Permit for a family cemetery in an R-15 Residential Zoning District at 5708 Myrtle Grove Road.
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: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
8-553 Finding of Facts-
iii
8 553-Petition 8um
Aerial Map and Site plan (hard copies)
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Motion to approve the Piner Cemetery for the Piner family only passed 4-1, Davis opposing, to include the two conditions
recommended by the Planning Board.
97
Case: S-553, 03/06
APPLICANT: Lucille B. Piner
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a Family Cemetery
ACREAGE: .23 Acres
LOCATION: 5708 Myrtle Grove Road
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
At their regularly scheduled meeting on March 2,2006, the planning board voted 7 to 0 to
recommend approval with 2 conditions for a Special Use Permit for a family cemetery in an R-15
Residential Zoning District at 5708 Myrtle Grove Road.
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if
located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is located within the Myrtle Grove VFD.
B. No public water or sewer will serve the site.
C. The subject property is not located in a 1 OO-year floodplain.
D. Access to the site is from Myrtle Grove Road.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning
ordinance.
A. The site is located in an R-15 Residential Zoning District. A Special Use Permit allows a cemetery in
an R-15 Residential District if the proposed cemetery meets health department regulations for
cemeteries.
B. The zoning ordinance does not require any other regulations or conditions for cemeteries.
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 uses exist in other residential districts in New Hanover County.
B. All the abutting and adjoining property owners are family members to the appl icant.
C. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property.
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 New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as 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. The Resource Protection class has been developed
in recognition of the fact that New Hanover County, one of the most urbanized counties in the State,
still.contains numerous areas of environmental or cultural sensitivity which merit protection from
urban land uses.
- -~.__._.._._- - -------~--- --
98
B. Surrounding land uses include farming and single family residential.
Staff Comments:
1) Staff recommends the applicant register the proposed cemetery with the North Carolina Cemetery
Commission for the purpose of keeping records of the site.
2) Staff recommends a legal description of the site be recorded.
- -~~.._--
99
Case: 8-553,03/06
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: Lucille B. Piner
Existing Land Use: Farm
Zoning History: April 7, 1971 (#4)
Land Classification: Resource Protection
Water Type: Well
Sewer Type: Septic
Recreation Area: Myrtle Grove Park
Access & Traffic Volume: 7,900 ADT (2002)
Fire District: Myrtle Grove VFD
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Barnard's Creek
Aquifer Recharge Area: A shallow water table sand aquifer containing fresh water
over salt water
ConservationlHistorie/ Archaeological Resources: N/ A
Soils: Lynn Haven, Leon-sand and fine sand
Septic Suitability: All Class III soils-severe limitations
Schools: Bellamy Elementary
_._..._~.~_._-_._---- _...._._~
100
"C
o
-5i
z
::E
" 0
Oco <(
a ~ (")
'8 ~ :2
~ ~JE.~ch
i ~ ~ PI:~~~~\:! r 1 ~
COG) -J ~..ts;j
0"
to ;,;c:
o Eo!!!
c;, ~1i .
~O ~.3 ~ I"
-~~ .- ~ ~
M_.. ". "-
.10 .!!!.!! .. ! ~
.Il)"li 'ell I /"'-.
en g.~ I, __.
101
1 1
-.,-".-
~ @
~ ~ ~ ~
Q 0
,
'^'
~.. :> 8
0
S ~
N
~ If)
~ -
\) /
~ oL
Q]
Lf\
----
I
cL
H
Lf\
.--'"
\
cf-. 0
~ 0
8
~
N
~
~
-~----~- ----
102
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 7.7 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes
Contact: Steve Candler
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Rezoning - Request by State Employees Credit Union to Rezone 8.72 Acres from B-2 Highway Business District
and R-15 Residential to B-1 Neighborhood Business Conditional Use District at 535 Sanders Road and 5830
Carolina Beach Road (Z-831, 03/06)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The New Hanover County Planning Board in regular session on Thursday, March 2, 2006 unanimously voted 7 to 0 to
recommend approval of the petition to rezone 8.72 acres of property located at 5830 Carolina Beach Road and 535
Sanders Road from R-15 Residential and B-2 Highway Business District to B-1 Neighborhood Business Conditional Use
District. The Board placed the following conditions on the conditional use rezoning; provide interconnectivity to the Molt's
Landing subdivision to the north of the property, preserve the wetlands and COD area, participate in the costs of the
required traffic improvements to Sanders Road and the Carolina Beach Road intersection according to a Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA).
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The County Commissioners may approve or deny the conditional use rezoning portion of the request
If the zoning is approved the County Commissioners must approve or approve with conditions the accompanying special
use permit.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
iii
Z-831-Staff Summary-Re
iii
Z-831-Staff Summary-Findin<
iii
Z-831 Petition Sum
Aerial Map and Site Plan (2) (hard copies).
103
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
The rezoning was approved 5-0. The conditional use permit was approved 5-0, with the conditions as presented.
104
CASE: Z-831, 03/06; PETITIONER: JC Hearne for State Employees Credit Union
REQUEST: B-2 Highway Business District and R-15 Residential District to
B-1 Neighborhood Business Conditional Use District
ACREAGE: 8.72
LOCATION: 5830 Carolina Beach Road and 535 Sanders Road
LAND CLASS: Limited Transition-the purpose of this land class is to provide
for development in areas that will have some services, but at
lower densities than those associated with Urban Transition.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
The New Hanover County Planning Board in regular session on Thursday, March 2,2006
unanimously voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of the petition to rezone 8.72 acres of
property located at 5830 Carolina Beach Road and 535 Sanders Road from R-15
Residential and B-2 Highway Business District to B-1 Neighborhood Business Conditional
Use District. The board placed the following conditions on the conditional use rezoning;
provide interconnectivity to the Mott's Landing subdivision to the north of the property,
preserve the wetlands and COD area, participate in the costs of the required traffic
improvements to Sanders Road and the Carolina Beach Road intersection according to a
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
STAFF SUMMARY
A small remnant of the petitioner's property located in the northwest corner of Carolina
Beach Road and Sanders Road is currently zoned B-2 Highway Business. The balance of the
property located along Sanders Road is zoned R-15 Residential. The petitioner proposes to
rezone the property to B-1 (CD) Neighborhood Conditional Use District to allow for the
construction of a State Employees Credit Union. The Land Use Plan classifies this area as
Limited Transition.
The eastern portion of the property is vacant and wooded. The property abutting to the
north is Bowen's Chapel. The property on the southwestern corner, across Sanders Road, is
zoned B-2 and is currently vacant. Directly across Carolina Beach Road are mini-storage units in
a B-2 zoning district. A portion of the tract is bisected with a Pocosin wetland community. The
contours in this area show an 8-foot change in elevation draining into a larger wetland and a small
pond on the property abutting it to the north. The western portions of the property contain a
mobile home park with approximately 33 units of affordable housing. The petitioner proposes to
eliminate the mobile home park. The property directly south across Sanders Road is the proposed
Beau Rivage Marketplace and has a B-1 (CD) zoning. The far southwest corner of the property is
adjacent to a portion of the residential section of Beau Rivage. An adjoining development to the
north is proposed as Mott's Landing, a 654-unit subdivision with clustered housing. The first
phase ofthe subdivision is under construction now. A future road connection through the
petitioner's property was part ofthat approved plan. Primary access to the petitioners' property
should be from Sanders Road instead of Carolina Beach Road.
In order to accommodate the wetland and topographic features of this site as well as the need for
improved access to the 283 town homes to the north and the intersection improvements at
Sanders and Carolina Beach Roads, staff recommends that the petitioner proceed with the State
Employees Credit Union. Any further development of the site requires plan submission and
review.
~--_._---~_..,'-_._---
105
Case: Z-831, 03/06
APPLICANT: JC Hearne for the State Employees Credit Union
REQUEST: B-1 Neighborhood Business Conditional Use District
ACREAGE: 8.72 Acres
LOCATION: 5830 Carolina Beach Road and 535 Sanders Road
Planning Board Action
The New Hanover County Planning Board in regular session on Thursday, March 2, 2006
unanimously voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval ofthe petition to rezone 8.72 acres of property
located at 5830 Carolina Beach Road and 535 Sanders Road from R-15 Residential and B-2
Highway Business District to B-1 Neighborhood Business Conditional Use District. The board
placed the following conditions on the conditional use rezoning; provide interconnectivity to the
Mott's Landing subdivision to the north of the property, preserve the wetlands and COD area, and
participate in the costs of the required traffic improvements to Sanders Road and the Carolina
Beach Road intersection according to a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if
located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is located within the Myrtle Grove VFD.
B. Public water and sewer will serve the site.
C. The subject property is not located in a 1 aD-year floodplain.
D. Access to the site is from Sanders Road.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning
ordinance.
A. The site is located in a B-1 (CD) Neighborhood Conditional Use Zoning District.
B. A credit union is an allowed use in a B-1 (CD) Neighborhood Conditional Use Zoning District.
C. The site plan meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance for parking, but does not show the
requirements for setbacks, buffers, landscaping.
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. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property.
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 New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as Limited Transition.
..------ ----------~-_.__._---_._-------
106
B. Surrounding land uses include a residential development of284 units directly to the north of the
property, B-1 CD directly across Sanders Road and south of the property.
Staff Comments:
1. Provide interconneetivity to the Mott's Landing subdivision to the north of the
property.
2. Preserve the wetlands and COD area.
3. Participate in the costs of the required traffic improvements to Sanders Road and the
Carolina Beach Road intersection according to a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
107
Case: Z-831, 03/06
Petition Summary Data
Owner/Petitioner: JC Hearne for the State Employees Credit Union
Existing Land Use: vacant and mobile home park
Zoning History: April 7, 1971 (#4)
Land Classification: Limited Transition
Water Type: County
Sewer Type: County
Recreation Area: Arrowwood Park
Access & Traffic Volume: 9,800 (2001 ADT)
Fire District: Myrtle Grove FD
Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Motts Creek (SW)
Aquifer Recharge Area: Primary Recharge Area of Principle Aquifers
ConservationlHistorie/Arehaeological Resources: Cape Fear River
Soils: Kureb Sand and a small portion in the COD Class III-Lynn Haven
Septic Suitability: Class I and Class III; Slight to Severe Limitations
Schools: Bellamy Elementary
n_ ______~_._._d__
108
~
z.
0
'W
~ ~
7!-
0
()
>:;
<r
0
Ol
~
(J)
~
a: <(
0 :;;
W "
~ (J)
if
if :r
D.- o
W
f-
~ S
a:
D.-
~ -J
r:b D.-
-J
~ ~
Cl (J)
0 ....0 z ~
(eDO-__ a N
"0 ~ I
(]) ED
'" \ )
0 " " .is 113HS ~3dd"S
a. ''"'-_~,.--r
e
a..
'"
0 III
15
" z ~
0 ~ N
C " Cl
:> "(tj <(
'ij Q. ~ .....
" 'tl 15 ~ &J ~ -J ~I
0 c ~ "5 N
~= e ~....~
I:Il ''''''j
ail. CD .':-;<. - o <( ~ ~
~o ..J :::~;.. J 10 ::Jg I;j N 0
CD. :j~<o~ ~~ ~ ~~:j
cg(JE
o EW O!<(15~mo~o;tll!ll!~~!
(;)~i g ~~~~~~!~Hmi
Or:/:", +I
... 0':': ~@~()~~iii:5!!L~
C;; "2 ~ "
ex) 0'- . ~ ,,~<li~~;i;1jd H"
N ~:
---
109
-__ _~ __ M_~_ _. .__ ..~........ __...- ......-.. ....__~
........................' r ~...............,..,
"e::J vv"
If' =- _:::::- -<~ -'- -l'l
l '-~ I'
II ~} I I
:1-'~--- --f - ~ I i
~~ . t I
\.rV ;f\" .
.) t U!f II
\1) ~Jj
.J; 'I [ .
~ I I ~
· I :l ~l . ~~
. ll{ l! ~ I ~
ill ~l1 ~~ . -P
· 5R :1l ~ I
. 1 I ~
r-~';~ - ~ - ~ - J .: 11 ;
. ~ I + I
, I 9
i~ C -iO :;j ~
I I~.
. ~ I~' ~
~ %
i~ I t I ~.
1 (' ," . g I .
e hi I
. 11 .
~ ;} I 1."7- i
J~.'. I' ~ ~
~f- L ~- '1 -.,..
&- ._ .-.-:J--'-)-. Ii ,
~. ,,:lIWQl!J~ 41t! 191 '" '"
D ~t!J
(J
110
:t-t-tt!-ti :=":::.- ....~~~ UW(OJU;) 4110N 'U01SU!LUJIi\\ lJJ.lJJ l-
IIIIII1 · ...... --. .....~l ,to : ---lJOIUfllIP;}l;) ~s~-6^old':~3'~fgs""-- ~~nnl ~ ~
I' ,-~
I I I K'\
I I 'C>'
, I
I I
I I
I I
I
.....-
I --'___,--,--,--, .- -._--'
i (II )
I
~ ~
I co
I ..--
I ..--
ci
(/)
a
<t:
o
a:::
a:::
LU
a
I :z:
C75
/'
I L -- - - - __u - -.- ~~-_~__.:-_- 'U._ _.u u _. u..J
-
111
This page intentionally left blank.
112
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 8 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Legal Presenter: Thomas Toby
Contacts: Dave Weaver, Assistant County Manager and Cindy Kee-MacPherson, Paralegal
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Drainage Issues on Arnold Road
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Mr. Thomas Toby received a Notice to Abate Nuisance regarding his property on Arnold Road. A hearing was
subsequently held and continued until Mr. Toby could be heard by the New Hanover Board of County Commissioners.
Basically, a drainage pipe runs from the NCDOT road right-of-way along the length of Mr. Toby's lot to a ditch in the back of
his lot. The pipe has become blocked, possibly from roots and/or sediment. Under County ordinance, the property owner
is required to maintain the drainage way. Efforts to obtain NCDOT and other assistance have not been successful. If Mr.
Toby does not fix the pipe to alleviate the flooding, under the ordinance, the County will perform the work and charge Mr.
Toby. A similar case concerning Mrs. Mongold on Arnold Road resulted in the property owner fixing the pipe at her own
expense.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
hand delivered
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Hear Mr. Toby's presentation. No action is required.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
The item was tabled 5-0 until the Assistant County Manager makes a decision on the appeal.
113
NAME Thomas Toby
ADDRESS 812 Arnold Road
SITUS ADDRESS 812 Arnold Road
CORRESPONDENCE First Abatement Process (ditch behind property)
June 11, 2003 Letter from Jerry May to clean ditch and remove fence & building
from the easement (no compliance date)
Feb. 18,2004 Letter from Kemp Burpeau giving 30 days to comply
July 27,2004 Notice to Abate Nuisance issued
Aug. 10,2004 Notice to Abate Nuisance served by Sheriff's Office
Oct. 12, 2004 Letter from Dave Weaver stating drainage was adequately restored
Second Abatement Process (drainage beside property)
Oct. 13, 2005 Letter from Kemp Burpeau giving 10 days to comply
Nov. 7, 2005 Toby discussed DOT responsibilities with Kemp
Dec. 12,2005 Notice to Abate Nuisance issued
Dec. 14,2005 Notice to Abate Nuisance served by Sheriff's Office
Dec. 19,2005 Received Toby's request for hearing for appeal
DETERMINATION Dave Weaver agreed to continue the hearing to a later date to give Toby the
opportunity to be heard at the Commissioner's meeting
~.._~-----
114
r ---- ",-,.~~,,-~-,...;il
~
(l ~u
a <a ~H
-\tI5
i - ~
o(l~
- cO
~~
.0
O8a
a:
~~
! 1 ~!
,. ^ ,t
I '..;..
; ~~
i.' ~
~... ..
~ . ,. ~ '"
!J' -
. c
-
N
-
,;dor
.'-'--'-"-'-
115
~~. \'2.\ I" '()~
}
Date: 12/14/05
To: County Managers Office
From: Tom and Kathy Toby
Re: Appeal of abatement notice.
I hereby appeal the abatement notice served upon myself Thomas Toby and my wife
K.ath Toby in regards to our property at 812 Arnold rd. The following are the grounds for
my appeal.
1- Under the Hydraulics unit of the DOT guidelines, section 2 General Drainage
Policies and Practices, Improvements and Maintenance Outside the Right-of-Way
it states that DOT will due maintenance out side the right-of-way under two
justifications. 1) Sufficient benefit could be gained by such action to warrant the
cost. Benefits would be in such areas as reduction in roadway flood frequency or
extent, facilitation of maintenance, or a reduction in potential damages. If DOT
would do the required work set forth in this policy it would ELIMINATE the
flooding in this area and reduce damage to the underlying roadbed of their own
road. 2) Work is required to correct a problem or condition created by some
action of the DOT. A precedent has already been established, DOT has
maintained this very culvert in the past at no expense to the homeowners. They
have abandoned this practice leading to the flooding problem. In the obstructions
section it states that: It is the policy of the DOT that when a drain is blocked
below the highway, which is detrimental to highway drainage, if from natural
causes, the DOT will take necessary measures to remove the block or obstruction.
The blockage has been caused by a natural cause, RAIN. Every time it rains sand
washes into the culvert filling up the pipe. These two sections clearly state who is
responsible for this drainage issue. I feel it is New Hanover counties I
responsibility to make the DOT follow their own policies not mine.
2- The culvert in question sits at the bottom of a low lying area and services the
storm water runoff from approximately 20 homes. I don't feel that I should be
responsible for bearing the entire cost of maintenance for this many homes. I have
on three separate occasions removed the sand that washes down the hills and is
deposited in front of my house at my own expense trying to help alleviate some of
the clogging problem. It is not right for me to be solely responsible for the whole
neighborhood.
3- The hindrance of flow has not been caused by anything on my property. My 80-
called property (the culvert) has been clogged by sand and sediment running into
the pipe from other properties and off a DOT road. The design of the drainage is
such that this cannot be avoided, thus how am I to maintain flow and again why is
it my responsibility.
4- I have been actively pursuing an equitable means of alleviating this problem and
securing a means for future maintenance. I feel it is unjust to saddle me with this
--_.._-----_._-~--_.._.- --
116
<
entire cost. I have made contact with Senator Boseman on this issue and have
been told that her office is working with DOT and the county to rectify this
problem but have not been told what is being done. I don~t feel I should be
threatened with a lien when I have been trying to proactively get something done.
S- There is nothing in my homeowners paper work that says that the property I
bought at 812 Arnold road included a buried culvert pipe as part of my property
or that I was responsible for said pipe. An attorney consulted on this matter
informed me that this is the fIrst time the county has ever gone after a homeowner
in regards to a buried drain pipe. ~
In addition to the previous reasons for this appeal I also request to be placed on the
agenda at the next commissioners meeting following the abatement hearing to address
the problems regarding the current drainage ordinances. I feel that the issue of
responsibility should be solved before I am burdened with undue cost.
~~,.~
117
This page intentionally left blank.
118
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 9 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Planning Presenters: Commissioner Kopp, Mike Kozlosky
Contacts: Dexter Hayes, Mike Kozlosky
Item Does Not Require Review
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding for Metropolitan Planning Organization
BRIEF SUMMARY:
This is a request from the Transportation Advisory Committee of the MPO to adopt the revised MOU that changes the
makeup of the representation from the various jurisdictions. The T AC currently has eleven representatives with the Board
of Transportation member, Lanny Wilson, as Chairman.
The initial proposal was to include one representative from Pender County and an additional representative from New
Hanover County based on population. The recommendation of the TAC with a vote of 6 -1 was to add an elected
representative from Pender County and a new member from the Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority.
Commissioner Kopp is the County's representative on the TAC.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The Board may approve or deny the revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
The Board may approve or request a modification of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: No Change In Position(s) Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~'
."' ,_On
~'
M 0 U Master Doc R el'ised 3_1 5_05. pdf
ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Consider revision of Memorandum of Understanding.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
The item was removed.
119
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR
COOPERATIVE, COMPREHENSIVE, AND CONTINUING TRANSPORT A TION
PLANNING
Between
THE CITY OF WILMINGTON, TOWN OF CAROLINA BEACH, TOWN OF KURE
BEACH, TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER,
TOWN OF BELVILLE, TOWN OF LELAND, TOWN OF NA V ASSA, COUNTY OF
BRUNSWICK, COUNTY OF PENDER, CAPE FEAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT A TION
AUTHOTIRY AND THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
WITNESSETH
THAT WHEREAS, Chapter 136, Article 3A, Section 136-66.2(a) of the General
Statutes of North Carolina require that:
"Each MPO, with cooperation ofthe Department of Transportation, shall develop
a comprehensive transportation plan in accordance with 23 U.S.C. S 134. In addition, an
MPO may include projects in its transportation plan that are not included in a financially
constrained plan or are anticipated to be needed beyond the horizon year as required by
23 U.S.c. S 134. For municipalities located within an MPO, the development of a
comprehensive transportation plan will take place through the metropolitan planning
organization. For purposes oftransportation planning and programming, the MPO shall
represent the municipality's interests to the Department of Transportation."; and,
WHEREAS, the said Chapter 136, Article 3A, Section 136-66.2(b) provides that:
"After completion and analysis of the plan, the plan shall be adopted by both the
governing body ofthe municipality or MPO and the Department of Transportation as the
basis for future transportation street and highway improvements in and around the
municipality or within the MPO. As a part of the plan, the governing body of the
municipality and the Department of Transportation shall reach agreement as to which of
the existing and proposed streets and highways included in the adopted plan will be a part
ofthe State highway system and which streets will be a part of the municipal street
system. As used in this Article, the State highway system shall mean both the primary
highway system of the State and the secondary road system ofthe State within
municipalities;" and,
WHEREAS, the said Chapter 136, Article 3A, Section 136-66.2(d) provides that:
"For MPOs, either the MPO or the Department of Transportation may propose
Page I of 15
120
changes in the plan at any time by giving notice to the other party, but no change shall be
effective until it is adopted by both the Department of Transportation and the MPO.";
and,
WHEREAS, Section 134(a) of Title 23 United States Code states:
It is in the national interest to encourage and promote the safe and efficient
management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that will
serve the mobility needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and
development within and through urbanized areas, while minimizing transportation-related
fuel consumption and air pollution.
To accomplish the objective stated in paragraph (1), metropolitan planning
organizations, in cooperation with the state and public transit operators, shall develop
transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of the State.
The plans and programs for each metropolitan area shall provide for the
development and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and
facilities (including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) that will
function as an intermodal transportation system for the metropolitan area and as an
integral part of an intermodal transportation system for the state and the United States.
The process for developing the plans and programs shall provide for consideration
of all modes of transportation and shall be continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive to
the degree appropriate, based on the complexity of the transportation problems to be
addressed.
WHEREAS, Section 134(f) of Title 23 United States Code states:
The metropolitan transportation planning process for a metropolitan area under
this section shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will-
(A) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling
global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
(B) Increase the safety ofthe transportation system for motorized and non-
motorized users;
C) Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-
motorized users;
(D) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for
freight;
Page 2 of 15
--------- -
121
(E) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation. and
improve quality of life;
(F) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across
and between modes, for people and freight;
(G) Promote efficient system management and operation; and
(H) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
WHEREAS, Section 134(g) of Title 23 United States Code states:
Each metropolitan planning organization shall prepare, and update periodically,
according to a schedule that the Secretary determines to be appropriate, a long-range
transportation plan for its metropolitan area in accordance with the requirements of this
subsection. A long-range transportation plan under this section shall be in a form that the
Secretary determines to be appropriate and shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
(A) An identification of transportation facilities (including but not necessarily
limited to major roadways, transit, and multimodal and intermodal facilities) that should
function as an integrated metropolitan transportation system, giving emphasis to those
facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions. In
formulating the long-range transportation plan, the metropolitan planning organization
shall consider factors described in subsection (f) as such factors relate to a 20-year
forecast period.
(8) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted long-range transportation
plan can be implemented, indicates resources from public and private financing strategies
for needed projects and programs. The financial plan may include, for illustrative
purposes, additional projects that would be included in the adopted long-range
transportation plan if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the
financial plan were available. For the purpose of developing the long-range transportation
plan, the metropolitan planning organization and state shall cooperatively develop
estimates of funds that will be available to support plan implementation.
(C) Assess capital investment and other measures necessary to--
(i) ensure the preservation of the existing metropolitan transportation system, including
requirements for operational improvements, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of
existing and future major roadways, as well as operations, maintenance, modernization,
and rehabilitation of existing and future transit facilities; and
(ii) make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular
congestion and maximize the mobility of people and goods.
(D) Indicate as appropriate proposed transportation enhancement activities.
Page 3 of 15
----- -~--~..._._._--~---------_._-----'_.__._-
122
WHEREAS, Section 134(h) of Title 23 United States Code states:
In cooperation with the state and any affected public transit operator, the
metropolitan planning organization designated for a metropolitan area shall develop a
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program for the area for which the
organization is designated.
In developing the program, the metropolitan planning organization, in cooperation
with the State and any affected public transit operator, shall provide citizens, affected
public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees. freight shippers,
providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation,
representatives of users of public transit, and other interested parties with a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the proposed program.
For the purpose of developing the transportation improvement program, the
metropolitan planning organization, public transit agency, and state shall cooperatively
develop estimates of funds that are reasonably expected to be available to support
program implementation.
The program shall be updated at least once every 2 years and shall be approved by
the metropolitan planning organization and the Governor.
WHEREAS, a transportation planning process includes the operational
procedures and working arrangements by which short and long-range transportation plans
are soundly conceived and developed and continuously evaluated in a manner that will:
I. Assist governing bodies and official agencies in determining courses of
action and in formulating attainable capital improvement programs in
anticipation of community needs; and,
2. Guide private individuals and groups in planning their decisions which
can be important factors in the pattern of future development and
redevelopment of the area; and,
WHEREAS, it is the desire ofthese agencies that a Memorandum of
Understanding dated October 24, 2002, be revised and updated. NOW THEREFORE,
the following Memorandum of Understanding is made.
I Section 1. It is hereby agreed that the CITY OF WILMINGTON, TOWN OF
CAROLINA BEACH, TOWN OF KURE BEACH, TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE
BEACH, COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER, TOWN OF BELVILLE, TOWN OF
LELAND, TOWN OF NA V ASSA, COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK, COUNTY OF
PENDER, CAPE FEAR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION in cooperation with
Page 4 of 15
---- .-._.~~----
123
the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, will participate in a
continuous planning process as related in the following paragraphs:
1. The Metropolitan Planning Organization in the Wilmington Urban Area
includes the boards of general purpose local government: Wilmington City
Council; Carolina Beach Town Council; Kure Beach Town Council;
Wrightsville Beach Board of Alderman; New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners; Belville Board of Commissioners; Leland Town Council;
Navassa Town Council; Brunswick County Board of Commissioners;
Pender County Board of Commissioners; the Cape Fear Public
Transportation Authority; and the North Carolina Board of Transportation;
a Transportation Advisory Committee hereinafter defined; a Technical
Coordinating Committee hereinafter defined; and the various agencies and
units ofIocal and state government participating in the transportation
planning for the area.
2. The area involved, the Wilmington Urban Area MPO Metropolitan Area
Boundary, will be the Wilmington Urbanized Area as defined by the
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau ofthe Census, plus that
area beyond the existing urbanized area boundary that is expected to
become urban within a 20-year planning period.
3. The projected Metropolitan Area Boundary will be periodically re-
assessed and revised in the light of new developments and basic data
projections for the current planning period.
4. The continuing transportation planning process will be a cooperative one
and all planning discussions will be reflective of and responsive to the
programs of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and to the
comprehensive plans for growth and development of the municipalities of
Wilmington, Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, Wrightsville Beach, Belville,
Leland, Navassa, and the counties of New Hanover, Brunswick and
Pender.
5. The continuing transportation planning process will be in accordance with
the intent, procedures, and programs ofTitIe VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended.
6. Transportation policy decisions within the planning area are the
responsibility of the Wilmington City Council; Carolina Beach Town
Council; Kure Beach Town Council; Wrightsville Beach Board of
Alderman; New Hanover County Board of Commissioners; Belville Board
of Commissioners; Leland Town Council; Navassa Town Council;
Brunswick County Board of Commissioners; Pender County Board of
Commissioners; Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority and the North
Carolina Board of Transportation.
Page 5 of 15
-- - ----.--------------_...-
124
7. Transportation plans and programs and land use policies and programs, for
the local urbanized area, having regional impacts will be coordinated with
the Cape Fear Council of Governments, an agency established by the City
of Wilmington, Town of Carolina Beach, Town ofKure Beach, Town of
Wrightsville Beach, New Hanover County, Town of Belville, Town of
Leland, Town of Navas sa, Brunswick County, Pender County, and other
municipalities and counties of the region.
8. A Transportation Advisory Committee (T AC) is hereby established with
the responsibility for serving as a forum for cooperative transportation
planning decision making for the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization. The Transportation Advisory Committee (T AC)
shall have the responsibility for keeping the policy boards informed of the
status and requirements of the transportation planning process; assist in the
dissemination and clarification ofthe decisions, inclinations, and policies
ofthe policy boards; and ensuring meaningful citizen participation in the
transportation planning process.
The Transportation Advisory Committee (T AC) will be responsible for
carrying out the provisions of23 U.S.c. 134; and Sections 5(1) and 8(a)
and (c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as amended, (49
U.S.c. 1604(1) and l607(a) and (c); including:
a. Review and approval of the transportation Planning Work Program
which defines work tasks and responsibilities for the various
agencies participating in the transportation planning process;
b. Review and approval of the Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program for multi-modal capital and operating
expenditures and to ensure coordination between local and State
capital and operating improvement programs;
c. Endorsement, review and approval of changes to the adopted Long
Range Transportation Plan. As required by the General Statutes
Section 136-66.2(d) revisions in the Transportation Plan must be
jointly approved by the MPO and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation;
d. Endorsement, review and approval of changes to the Federal-Aid
Functional Classification System and the Wilmington Adjusted
Urbanized Area;
e. Establishment of goals and objectives for the transportation
planning process.
Page 6 of 15
125
f. May install bylaws for the purpose of establishing a quorum and
operating policies and procedures.
The membership ofthe Transportation Advisory Committee shall include:
a. Two members of the Wilmington City Council;
b. One member of the Carolina Beach Town Council;
c. One member of the Kure Beach Town Council;
d. One member of the Wrightsville Beach Board of Alderman;
e. One member of the New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners;
f. One member ofthe Belville Board of Commissioners;
g. One member ofthe Leland Town Council;
h. One member ofthe Navassa Town Council;
I. One member of the Brunswick County Board of Commissioners;
j. One member ofthe Pender County Board of Commissioners;
k. One member ofthe Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority;
and
I. One member of the North Carolina Board of Transportation;
Representatives from each ofthe following bodies will serve as non-
voting members of the Transportation Advisory Committee (T AC).
- Federal Highway Administration (North Carolina Division
Administrator)
- Cape Fear Council of Govemments
- North Carolina State Ports Authority
- New Hanover County Airport Authority
- North Carolina Turnpike Authority
- Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority
- Other local, State, or Federal agencies impacting transportation in
the planning area at the invitation of the T AC.
I The Transportation Advisory Committee will meet as often as it is deemed
appropriate and advisable. On the basis of majority vote, the
Page 7 of 15
126
Transportation Advisory Committee may appoint a member of the
Committee to act as Chairperson with the responsibility for coordination
ofthe Committee's activities. A member ofthe staff ofthe Wilmington
Department of Development Services, acting as MPO Coordinator, will
serve as Secretary to the Committee.
9. A Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) shall be established with the
responsibility of general review, guidance, and coordination of the
transportation planning process for the planning area and with the
responsibility for making recommendations to the respective local and
State governmental agencies and the Transportation Advisory Committee
(T AC) regarding any necessary actions relating to the continuing
transportation planning process. The TCC shall be responsible for
development, review, and recommendation for approval ofthe Planning
Work Program, Transportation Improvement Program, Metropolitan Area
Boundary, revisions to the Long Range Transportation Plan, planning
citizen participation, and documentation reports ofthe MPO.
Membership of the Technical Coordinating Committee shall include
technical representatives from all local and state governmental agencies
directly related to and concerned with the transportation planning process
for the planning area. Initially, the membership shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
a. Director of Department of Development Services, City of
Wilmington;
b. MPO Coordinator and Senior Transportation Planner, City of
Wilmington;
c. Planning Division Manager, City of Wilmington (alternate: Senior
Long Range Planner);
d. Traffic Engineer, City of Wilmington;
e. Transportation Demand Management Coordinator, Cape Fear
Breeze;
f. Planner, Town of Carolina Beach;
g. Town Clerk, Town ofKure Beach;
h. Director of Planning and Parks, Town ofWrightsville Beach;
l. Assistant Manager, New Hanover County;
J. Director, New Hanover County Planning Department;
k. Deputy Director, Wilmington International Airport;
I. Planner, North Carolina State Ports Authority;
m. Planner, Town of Belville;
n. Town Manager, Town of Leland (alternate: Director of
Developmental Services);
o. Town Council Member - Planning Administrator, Town of
Navassa;
p. Director, Brunswick County Planning Department;
Page 8 of 15
---------,--
127
I q. Director, Pender County Planning Department;
r. Planning Director, Cape Fear Council of Governments;
s. Division Engineer, Division of Highways, North Carolina
Department of Transportation;
t. Division Traffic Engineer, Division of Highways, North Carolina
Department of Transportation;
u. Division Operations Engineer, Division of Highways, North
Carolina Department of Transportation;
v. Division Construction Engineer, Division of Highways, North
Carolina Department of Transportation;
w. Wilmington Urban Area Coordinator, Transportation Planning
Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation;
x. Transit Planner, Public Transportation Division, North Carolina
Department of Transportation;
y. District Engineer, North Carolina Division, Federal Highway
Administration, United States Department of Transportation
(Advisory and non-voting member);
z. Planning and Research Engineer, North Carolina Division, Federal
Highway Administration, United States Department of
Transportation (Advisory and non-voting);
aa. Director, Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority
bb. General Manager, Brunswick Transit Systems
cc. Director, Pender Adult Services
The Technical Coordinating Committee shall meet when it is deemed
appropriate and advisable. On the basis of majority vote of its
membership, the Technical Coordinating Committee may appoint a
member ofthe committee to act as chairperson with the responsibility for
coordination of the committee's activities. On the basis of majority vote
of its membership, the Technical Coordinating Committee may also
appoint a vice-chair to lead meetings in the absence of the chair.
Membership to the Technical Coordinating Committee may be altered on
the basis of a majority vote of its membership, provided all agencies with
T AC membership are represented.
10. The Wilmington City Council; Carolina Beach Town Council; Kure
Beach Town Council; Wrightsville Beach Board of Alderman; New
Hanover County Board of Commissioners; Belville Board of
Commissioners; Leland Town Council; Navassa Town Council;
Brunswick County Board of Commissioners; Pender County Board of
Commissioners; and the North Carolina Board of Transportation shall
serve as the primary means for citizen input to the continuing
transportation planning process. The Transportation Advisory Committee
(T AC) may initiate other vehicles to solicit citizen input at its discretion."
Page 9 of 15
- ~------~.
128
I Section 2. It is further agreed that the subscribing agencies will have the following
responsibilities, these responsibilities being those most logically assumed by several
agencies:
City of Wilmington
The City of Wilmington shall serve as the Lead Planning Agency and will provide
the staff of the MPO, including the MPO Coordinator and Secretary to the T AC.
As such, staff will maintain the official record of the MPO and all state and
federal reporting and budgeting requirements in cooperation with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation staff. The city will further assist in the
transportation planning process by providing planning assistance, data, and
inventories in accordance with the Planning Work Program. Additionally, the
city shall coordinate zoning and subdivision approvals within its jurisdiction in
accordance with the adopted Transportation Plan.
Town of Carolina Beach
The Town of Carolina Beach will assist in the transportation planning process by
providing planning assistance, data, and inventories in accordance with the
Planning Work Program. Additionally, the town shall coordinate zoning and
subdivision approval within its jurisdiction in accordance with the adopted
Transportation Plan.
Town ofKure Beach
The Town ofKure Beach will assist in the transportation planning process by
providing planning assistance, data, and inventories in accordance with the
Planning Work Program. Additionally, the town shall coordinate zoning and
subdivision approval within its jurisdiction in accordance with the adopted
Transportation Plan.
Town ofWrightsville Beach
The Town of Wrightsville Beach will assist in the transportation planning process
by providing planning assistance, data, and inventories in accordance with the
Planning Work Program. Additionally, the town shall coordinate zoning and
subdivision approval within its jurisdiction in accordance with the adopted
Transportation Plan.
New Hanover County
New Hanover County will assist in the transportation planning process by
providing planning assistance, data, and inventories in accordance with the
Planning Work Program. Additionally, New Hanover County shall, to the extent
allowed by state law, coordinate zoning and subdivision approval within its
jurisdiction in accordance with the adopted Transportation Plan.
Town of Belville
The Town of Belville will assist in the transportation planning process by
providing planning assistance, data, and inventories in accordance with the
Page IOof15
129
Planning Work Program. Additionally, the town shall coordinate zoning and
subdivision approval within its jurisdiction in accordance with the adopted
Transportation Plan.
Town of Leland
The Town of Leland will assist in the transportation planning process by
providing planning assistance, data, and inventories in accordance with the
Planning Work Program. Additionally, the town shall coordinate zoning and
subdivision approval within its jurisdiction in accordance with the adopted
Transportation Plan.
Town of Navas sa
The Town of Navas sa will assist in the transportation planning process by
providing planning assistance, data, and inventories in accordance with the
Planning Work Program. Additionally, the town shall coordinate zoning and
subdivision approval within its jurisdiction in accordance with the adopted
Transportation Plan.
Brunswick County
Brunswick County will assist in the transportation planning process by providing
planning assistance, data, and inventories in accordance with the Planning Work
Program. Additionally, Brunswick County shall, to the extent allowed by State
law, coordinate zoning and subdivision approval within its jurisdiction in
accordance with the adopted Transportation Plan.
Pender County
Pender County will assist in the transportation planning process by providing
planning assistance, data, and inventories in accordance with the Planning Work
Program. Additionally, Pender County shall, to the extent allowed by State law,
coordinate zoning and subdivision approval within its jurisdiction in accordance
with the adopted Transportation Plan.
Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority
The Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority will assist in the transportation
planning process by providing planning assistance, data and inventories in
accordance with the Planning Work Program.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will assist in the transportation
planning process by providing planning assistance, data, and inventories in
accordance with the Planning Work Program. The Transportation Planning
Branch will designate a Wilmington Urban Area Coordinator to serve as staff
I liaison and participant in the Wilmington Urban Area MPO planning process.
The Department to the fullest extent possible and as permitted by existing state
and federal regulations, will provide assistance in the protection of necessary
rights-of-way for those thoroughfares designated in the transportation plan.
Page 11 ofl5
130
I Section 3. Activities of the Wilmington Urban Area MPG, as set forth in
the annually adopted Planning Work Program, are funded through federal
planning funds distributed through the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. These funds require a twenty percent (20%) Local Match. Parties
to this Memorandum of Understanding agree to fund the Local Match in an
amount in direct proportion to their share of the total population contained in the
approved Metropolitan Area Boundary. Population figures for determination of
Local Match contribution shall be determined based on the most recent federal
decennial census. This funding share shall be invoiced on a regular basis by the
City of Wilmington, acting as Lead Planning Agency, and as recipient ofthe
federal planning funds distributed by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
I Section 4. Parties to this Memorandum of Understanding may terminate
their participation in the continuing transportation planning process by giving 30:
days written notice to the other parties prior to the date of termination.
I Section 5. In witness whereof, the parties of this Memorandum of
Understanding have been authorized by appropriate and proper resolutions to sign
the same, the City of Wilmington by its mayor, the Town of Carolina Beach by its
mayor, the Town ofKure Beach by its mayor, the Town ofWrightsville Beach by
its mayor, New Hanover County by its chairman ofthe Board of Commissioners,
the Town of Belville by its mayor, the Town of Leland by its mayor, the Town of
Navassa by its mayor, Brunswick County by its chairman of the Board of
Commissioners, Pender County by its chairman of the Board of Commissioners,
the Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority by its Chairman and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation by the Secretary of Transportation, this
day of 2006.
(Seal) CITY OF WILMINGTON
By
Clerk Mayor
I
(Seal) TOWN OF CAROLINA BEACH
By
Clerk Mayor
Page 12 of 15
131
I
(Seal) TOWN OF KURE BEACH
By
Clerk Mayor
(Seal) TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
By
Clerk Mayor
(Seal) NEW HANOVER COUNTY
By
Clerk Chairman of the Board of Commissioners
(Seal) TOWN OF BELVILLE
By
Clerk Mayor
Page13ofl5
---
132
(Seal) TOWN OF LELAND
By
Clerk Mayor
(Seal) TOWN OF NA V ASSA
By
Clerk Mayor
(Seal) BRUNSWICK COUNTY
By
Clerk Chairman of the Board of Commissioners
(Seal) PENDER COUNTY
By
Clerk Chairman of the Board of Commissioners
I
Page 140f15
~
133
(Seal) CAPE FEAR PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
By
Clerk Chairman
(Seal) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
By
Asst. Attorney General Secretary
Page 15 of 15
134
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 10 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: DSS Presenters: LaVaughn Nesmith and staff
Contact: LaVaughn Nesmith
SUBJECT:
Medicaid Supervisor and Medicaid Caseworker Positions
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Due to the continued expansion of Medicaid and NC Health Choice, the caseload in the Family and Children's Medicaid
programs grew five percent from July 2004 through June 2005 when we added 442 cases. Since the start of fiscal year
2005-06, we have added 584 more cases which is partially due to the implementation of a new Medicaid category, the
"Family Planning Waiver." At this rate, we expect the increase to top eight percent by June 2006.
Thus, there is a need to increase the number of staff serving Medicaid clients in order to ensure effective processing of
cases. Without the addition of two workers and a supervisor, we are concerned about our ability to avoid costly errors as
the workers and supervisors are already managing extremely heavy workloads.
Attached are justifications for three positions: one Economic Services Supervisor and two Economic Services Caseworkers,
Zone 2. We request that these positions be established during the current fiscal year.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approve New Position Requests
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: New Position(s) Number of Positions: 3
Explanation: There are sufficient funds in the DSS budget to absorb the cost of the positions for the remainder of the fiscal
year. The annual county cost ofthe positions would be $65,247. The county pays 50% of the cost of the positions.
ATTACHMENTS:
~
3 Medicaid Position J uslifications. doc
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Consider request.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
135
New Position Request Form - Multiple Positions
FY 06-07
Department: Social Services
Division: Family & Children's Medicaid
Total # of Positions Requested in this Division: 3
Note: spaces will expand to allow continued typing.
New Position #1
Title: Economic Services Caseworker, Zone 2
# of Positions: 2 Pay Grade Reauested:
Offsettino Revenue or Cost Savinas: (explain)
Primary Purpose and Function of Job:
To determine initial and ongoing eligibility for applicants/recipients for the multiple
categories of Family and Children's Medicaid (including foster care) and emergency
assistance according to guidelines, standards and timeframes set by the Federal and
State government as well as the Department of Social Services.
Justification of Position:
The case load in the Family and Children's Medicaid programs grew 5% from July 2004
through June 2005 when we added 442 cases. In the past six months, we have added
425 more cases. At this rate we expect the increase this year to top 8% due in part to
the implementation of a new Medicaid category, the Family Planning Waiver.
Family Planning Waiver provides family planning services to eligible women age 19
through 55 and men age 19 through 60 whose income is at or below 185% of the
federal poverty level. According to the recent report from the Sheps Center for Health
Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, New Hanover
County has 21,223 individuals between the ages of 18 and 64 who are uninsured.
Without a doubt, a large number of those are under 185% of the poverty level as well.
Although the State has not given us any projections regarding increased case load for
the county, we are anticipating that this will have a significant impact on our rolls.
Possibly all of the pregnant women who are currently losing coverage after they have
their babies will remain eligible for FPW. In addition, this is the first Medicaid program
we have had that single individuals could qualify for without being aged, disabled or
having a dependent child. This has both brought in new applicants and has required us
to evaluate every recipient within this age limit who becomes ineligible for full Medicaid.
Since the program started in October of 2005, 315 individuals have requested this
coverage.
One of our Leading By Results indicators is the number of individuals who are
potentially eligible for Medicaid and Health Choice and receive it. We have expanded
. -----
136
our outreach efforts in order to move this indicator and have begun a campaign with the
schools to publicize Medicaid and NC Health Choice with parents and with school
personnel.
Our foster care caseload continues to grow. In July, 2004, we had 586 cases. As of
December, 2005, we have 654. If our new positions are approved, we would like to
utilize one of them part-time to assist with this increased workload.
New Position #2
Title: Economic Services Supervisor
# of Positions: 1 Pav Grade Requested:
Offsettino Revenue or Cost SavinQs: (explain)
Primary Purpose and Function of Job:
To manage a unit of Family & Children's Medicaid staff who determine initial and
ongoing eligibility for applicants/recipients for the multiple categories of Family &
Children's Medicaid and emergency assistance, ensuring that all case actions comply
with mandated program regulations and that the delivery of services is both efficient and
effective.
Justification of Position:
The 3 supervisors in the section currently have 10 workers each. In addition, one
supervises the temporary trainee. We have one leadworker for the section. If we get
the two additional staff, the supervisors would have 11 each. Our supervisors are
already having an extremely difficult time monitoring the work, ensuring that mandated
time frames are met, training staff and employing the PMP techniques appropriately.
Adding one more supervisor would create units of 8 workers each (one would have the
trainee for nine), which would be more manageable. We checked with counties that
had Family and Children's Medicaid caseloads of comparable size to ours and the
results are as follows:
Rowan County - average of 8 workers and 1 leadworker per supervisor
Randolph County - average of 6 workers per supervisor and 1 leadworker for
the section
Catawba County - 6 workers per supervisor
Cabarrus County - average of 7 workers per supervisor
Wayne County - 15 workers and 2 lead workers and one supervisor
--~-.----_.._._---
137
New Position #3
Title:
# of Positions: Pay Grade Reauested:
Offsettina Revenue or Cost Savinas: (explain)
Primary Purpose and Function of Job:
Justification of Position:
New Position #4
Title:
# of Positions: Pay Grade Reauested:
Offsetting Revenue or Cost Savings: (explain)
Primary Purpose and Function of Job:
Justification of Position:
New Position #5
Title:
# of Positions: Pay Grade Reauested:
Offsetting Revenue or Cost Savinas: (explain)
Primary Purpose and Function of Job:
Justification of Position:
---" " ..~--~_._.._---~_._---_._._._---- ..---
138
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Regular Item #: 11 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenter: Patricia A. Melvin, Assistant County Manager
Contact: Patricia A. Melvin
SUBJECT:
New Hanover County Roadside Cleanup Program
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Per request of the Board of Commissioners, staff has collaborated with Commissioners, Community Services Program
staff, and Judges Ernest Fullwood and J. Corpening (who also collaborated with the Adult Probation staff) to develop a
roadside cleanup program. This program will utilize community service workers to ensure the cleanliness of the County's
roadsides. These workers will be directed by the Judges to serve in this capacity via the Community Services Program.
The County will be required to enter an agreement with the Community Services Program for this service.
Designees will work one day per weekend, removing debris from designated locations, and depositing it in appropriate
receptacles. The County will provide a vehicle to transport workers to and from sites, supervision of workers, and all
necessary supplies for the removal. The debris will be picked up and disposed of by the Dept. of Transportation, upon
notification. Keep America Beautiful staff will be responsible for administrative oversight and management of this program.
Implementation of the program this fiscal year is projected to cost $2,500. This amount will cover the cost of hiring a part-
time supervisor, fuel, cellular phone for emergencies, and debris removal supplies. The amount of $8,651 will be included
in the FY 06/07 budget to cover the continuation of this program. If approved, a part-time supervisor will be hired and the
program will begin by May 1, 2006.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Request approval of implementation of the Roadside Cleanup Program beginning FY 05/06, and associated budget
amendment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
06-0l66.doc
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
139
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
140
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Budget Amendment
DEPARTMENT: Contingencies/Courts
BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 06-0166
ADJUSTMENT DEBIT CREDIT
Contingencies:
Contingencies $2,500
Courts:
Temporary Salaries $1,560
Miscellaneous Pay (MPAYT) $120
Cellular $150
Supplies $670
EXPLANATION: To budget start-up costs for Roadside Cleanup Program. Program will begin May 1, 2006. With
approval of this budget amendment, the amount remaining in Contingency is $76,424.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board of Commissioners
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
141
This page intentionally left blank.
142
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Additional Item #: 2 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Parks Presenters: Dave Weaver, Neal Lewis, Holt Moore
Contacts: Neal Lewis, Chris O'Keefe, Holt Moore
SUBJECT:
Closed Session Item to Consider Real Estate Purchase
(The item was discussed in open session as an additional item.)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Board shall conduct a closed session pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 (a) (5) (i) to discuss a potential acquisition of real
property.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Consider acquisition of real estate, details to be discussed in closed session.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved purchase of parcel of property associated with the Spike property 3-2, Davis and Kopp opposing.
143
This page intentionally left blank.
144
MEETING OF THE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
ASSEMBL Y ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE
24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301
WILMINGTON, NC
ESTIMA TED ITEMS OF BUSINESS Page
TIMES No.
9:10 p.m. 1. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes)
9: 15 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes 147
9:20 p.m. 3. Update on Status of Development of Drinking Water Treatment Plant 149
145
This page intentionally left blank.
146
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
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 & Sewer District - Approve Minutes
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Approve minutes from the Water & Sewer District meeting held on March 13, 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 5-0.
147
This page intentionally left blank.
148
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Water & Sewer Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: Water & Sewer District Presenter: Greg Thompson
Contact: Dave Weaver
SUBJECT:
Update on Status of Development of Drinking Water Treatment Plant
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Information will be provided on the status of the development of the drinking water treatment plant, with the focus on the
schedule and budget.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
No action is required.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Hear update.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Heard update.
149
This page intentionally left blank.
150
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date: 04/03/06
Additional Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number:
Department: County Manager Presenter: Bruce Shell
Contact: Mark Boyer
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Proclamation to Designate April 2-8, 2006 as The Week of the Young Child
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The New Hanover County Partnership for Children would like the Board to recognize "The Week of the Young Child" to
focus public attention on the needs of young children and their families and to recognize the early childhood programs and
services that meet those needs.
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Consider proclamation. The Partnership for Children will also have a presentation from a group of children.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Will above action result in: Number of Positions:
Explanation:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
,......,
. --
Week of lhe Young Child.doc
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:
Approved 5-0.
151
PROCLAMA nON
BY THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WHEREAS, the New Hanover County Partnership for Children, in conjunction with the
National Association for the Education of Young Children, is celebrating The Week of
the Young Child April 2-8, 2006; and
WHEREAS, since 1997, the New Hanover County Partnership for Children has
provided health care, family support, and access to quality and affordable ehildeare to the
11,500+ children under age six that live in the county; and
WHEREAS, over 70% of children ages birth to five in New Hanover County live in
single parent homes, 16% of children ages birth to five in New Hanover County live in
poverty and 6% of children in New Hanover County who receive child care subsidy are
enrolled in non-licensed care situations; and
WHEREAS, the future of our community depends on the quality of early childhood
experiences provided to young children today; and
WHEREAS, high quality early childhood services represent a worthy commitment to our
children's future.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, by the New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners that the week of April 2-8, 2006 be recognized as
The Week of the Young Child
in New Hanover County. All citizens are urged to recognize and support the needs of our
young children.
Adopted this, the 3rd day of April 2006.
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
[Attest]
Robert G. Greer, Chairman
Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board
._~- - -~--,.~--~----- .. --------
152