MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING
OF THE EMERALD ISLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JULY 10, 2001 – 7:00 P.M. – TOWN HALL
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro-Tem Farmer at 7:00 P.M. Present were Commissioners Trainham, Murphy, McElraft, Wootten and Mayor Pro-Tem Farmer, Town Attorney Derek Taylor, Town Manager Frank Rush, Town Clerk Carolyn Custy, Parks and Recreation Director Alesia Sanderson, Inspections Department Head Carol Angus, Public Works Director Robert N. Conrad, Fire Chief William Walker, Police Chief Mark Wilson and Planning Board Chairman Ceil Saunders. Absent was Mayor Harris due to illness
Mayor Pro-Tem Farmer stated that Mayor Harris was
not present due to her not feeling well.
Commissioner Trainham moved, Commissioner McElraft
seconded and the board voted unanimously to adopt the Agenda with no changes.
Commissioner Wootten Murphy moved, Commissioner
Wootten seconded and the board voted unanimously to approve the consent agenda
that included Minutes of Storm Water Workshop May 18, 2001; Minutes of Budget
Workshop May 18, 2001, Minutes of Budget Workshop May 29, 2001, Minutes of
Regular Meeting June 12, 2001, Minutes of Sign Ordinance Public Hearing June
13,2001 and Tax Refunds in the amount of $84.05.
Mr. Thomas Snee came forward and expressed his
concern about the fact that he feels not being able to drive on the beach
before
The
current Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 5-22 is as follows:
Driving on beach and sand dunes prohibited:
Exceptions. It shall be unlawful for
any vehicular traffic to travel upon the beach and sand dunes located within
the town between sundown on March 31 or sundown on the Thursday before Easter
weekend, whichever comes first, through sundown on September 30. This does not apply to commercial fishermen
holding valid state licenses while engaged in commercial fishing activities.
Mr. Snee asked the board to consider revising the
current Ordinance and go back to Memorial Day to Labor Day. He feels that many of the fishermen would
come back especially in September. He
contacted 8 other businesses and he put them on a list and presented it to the
board. These businesses were also
negatively impacted by the new policy that was enacted for driving on the
beach. He understands that one of the reasons for the change was the joy-riding
on the beach.
Mr. Snee went on to say that he has checked into
it and there has only been one official complaint this year according to Police
Chief Wilson. Mr. Snee feels that the
charge change from $40.00 per permit to $80.00 per permit has worked and
eliminated some of the problems.
Joy-riders are not going to spend $80.00 just to ride up and down the
beach.
He again asked the board to consider his thoughts and give some consideration as to maybe part of what was done was very good but maybe the board went a little overboard when the month of September was removed. He asked the board to go back to Memorial Day/Labor Day but he would appreciate it if they would put September back in.
Mr. Richard Eckhardt said that the decision to
limit beach driving from April to October was based on the request of a
majority of homeowners by a survey that was done. From this survey the majority of homeowners thought that beach
driving should either be eliminated or restricted and the board acted on the
homeowners response. They had the same
issues that had little to do with fishermen.
If you visit the beach in September, you would see that fishermen are
few and far between. Mr. Eckhardt
to say that relative to the economics – who knows? When this issue was originally addressed, Commissioner Wootten
felt that if it was really dug down into the economics, we would probably find
out that it was actually costing the town money to do this.
Mr. Eckhardt said he has lived in Emerald Isle for
8 years and has never heard a renter or visitor that had a positive comment
about beach driving. Normally the
response that you get is “We can’t believe they allow it.” He said that the beach is a family
playground. In May through September it
is very difficult to accept that you have to tell you family who lives here
that when they run around on the beach playing, they have to look both
ways. He asked that the Ordinance
change be left the way it is.
Mrs. Connie Richardson, 401 Tern Terrace said she
is coordinator for the turtle protection program. She said in the last two years Emerald Isle has had more turtle
nests than they have ever had and the thanked Public Works and all who have
helped with the program. Mrs.
Richardson also asked that the current restrictions remain to protect the
turtles.
Mr. Harry Wigmore, 105 Purdie Street was on the
committee that worked on driving on the beach.
He said he is in favor of absolutely no driving on the beach. He has a hard time walking but he manages to
get on the beach and if he can he feels anyone else can. Mr. Wigmore said to change now and go
back to what the rules and regulations were before will destroy the beach. Why renourish the beach if we allow driving
on it. He said to remember that the
beach is a place to visit, sit, run and play on not to drive on. People who come from other places are not
interested in driving on our beaches.
They want the beach to be an open place. He asked the board to please think about this and save the beaches.
Commissioner Wootten said he does not want to
dismiss this without some data and he would like to have the Town Manager get
data from the Real Estate Agencies, from vehicle owners and even some financial
information if they want to share it and then the board can make a judgment as
to what the impact is on businesses with information and not with
opinions.
Commissioner Murphy said “What you are saying is
to table it, study it and then come back to it.” Commissioner Wootten said “Yes”.
Commissioner Wootten said the key point is data. When the decision was made to set the record
as it is now, the board had data from the survey. Better than 50% of the people who responded said they wanted to
change the starting time of driving picked October 1st and as
point. If there is now data that the
present specific time might not be a good time, we will look at it.
Motion was made by Commissioner Wootten, seconded
by Commissioner McElraft and the board voted unanimously to direct this to the
Town Manager to gather data on the beach driving issue as quickly as he can and
the board will assess it and see if a change is needed.
Commissioner McElraft commented she feels
Commissioner Wootten’s suggestion about checking with the Real Estate Companies
to see if the houses were rented at that time, what it was like last year as
compared to what it is this year. She
suggested looking at it and not totally dismissing it but not yet make a
decision without some facts.
Mayor Pro-Tem Farmer said she thinks the board
already has the data. She thinks that
is why there was a committee to look at it.
Commissioner McElraft feels there is additional
information to gather and if is has had an economic effect on people that is
important. She checked the beach in
September because her personal rental had not rented as it had in the
past. She also checked with a Real
Estate Company to see how their business was and both she and the Real Estate
Company were not sure if business was not hurricane related versus driving on
the beach related. Commissioner
McElraft would not object to going back and taking a look, check with Real
Estate Companies to see if there was truly a hurricane impact or driving on the
beach impact. She is certainly not for
bringing the spring time back. She
feels that absolutely, we need to keep the driving off the beach during that
time. This is the time when the beach
is most crowded. In September, she went
out on the beach every weekend to see how many people were there and there were
not many visitors there. Joy-riders have probably been cut down because of the
$80.00. She suggested looking at this
and evaluate it again.
Mr. Trainham said he had no problems with going
back and looking at it again. It seems
to him from what he has heard from people who are anxious about what the
committee reported, they are in favor of it staying like it is. He is the first one to say that if some data
is secured and if it is affecting business to an extent as the board had been
led to believe, it would be worthwhile to take another look at it.
Commissioner Wootten moved, Commissioner McElraft
seconded to table this item tonight and direct the Town Manager to solicit data
that will substantiate or not substantiate the opinion of at least eight or
nine business people in town that driving in September has hurt their
business. The board voted 4 to 1 in
favor of the motion. The dissenting
vote was cast by Mayor Pro-Tem Farmer.
AMENDMENT TO EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 11 – MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, REGARDING FINES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS
Town Manager Frank Rush explained that the purpose
of this amendment is to designate parking violations as civil offenses and
establishes a uniform penalty of $20.00 for these violations. It also increases
the civil penalty to $50.00 if not paid within 8 days. The town’s only recourse
for recovery of these fines would be through civil action.
Under current practice, parking violations are not
classified as civil offenses and all parking fine revenues are remitted to the
Carteret County Board of Education. The
proposed ordinance will provide a more effective deterrent to parking
violations and will increase revenues for the town.
The Amendment reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE IV
SECTIONS 11-97 ENTITLED “PENALTY”
WHEREAS, the Town of Emerald Isle proposes to amend the
Parking Ordinance contained within Chapter 11, Article IV of the Emerald Isle
Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Town Board, to be consistent with other town
ordinances, recommends the code be changed to a civil penalty for violation of
the Parking Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Board of Commissioners
of the Town of Emerald Isle that Chapter 11, Article IV, Section 11-97 (a,b)
entitled “Penalty” shall be amended to read as follows:
(a)
Any person
violating the provisions of this article relating to the parking of motor
vehicles, shall be required to pay a twenty ($20.00) dollar civil penalty in
accordance with Section 1-6 of the Town Code of Emerald isle, except that no
warning citation shall be required or issued for such violations.
(b)
The charge for any
violation is as specified above if paid to the police department within eight
(8) days. In the event such payment is
not made within eight (8) days, the civil penalty shall be increased to fifty
dollars ($50.00) and may subject the violator to a civil action for collection
of same.
This
amendment shall become effective upon its adoption. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court or competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Commissioner Wootten commented that the
significance of this change is that the money instead of going to the Board of
Education comes to the town.
Commissioner McElraft asked about parking in the
Fire Lane at Food Lion.
Chief Wilson explained that he would like to see
parking in the fire lane at Food Lion remain as it is now. They are writing them on a parking citation
and if it is flagrant they are also writing them on a state citation which is
$105.00 fine.
Commissioner Murphy asked that the Town Manager
get in touch with the owner of the Shopping Center to get their permission for
the town to make some signs. He said
the biggest reason people park in the fire lane is laziness. The second reason is that we are not
educating them as to what the penalty is for parking in a fire lane. We have a limited number of police and they
cannot be there all the time.
A half dozen signs along
that building saying this is a fire lane. No Parking. Strictly Enforced.
Commissioner Murphy clarified that to being a
civil penalty; the town would have no other recourse but to take it to small
claims court. Attorney Taylor clarified – “small
claims or district court, depending on where they are living. “
Jim
Brooker, 11105 Inlet Drive asked
if the numbers take into consideration the cost of pursuing recovery of civil
fines. Mr. Rush said the figures
do not take into account the cost of recovery.
Commissioner Wootten moved, Commisisoner Trainham
seconded and the board voted unanimously to approve Amendment to Chapter 11,
Article IV, Sections 11-97 Entitled “Penalty” of the Emerald Isle Codification.
Mr. Robert Isenhour, 313 Channel
Drive made a presentation. Mr. Isenhour is a member of the Beach
Nourishment Committee that was formed by the town board. The other members of the Committee were
Julia Wax, Chair, Jerry Huml, Vice Chair, Bob McInnis, Charles Stuber, Burnell
Vance and Charles Vinson. Commissioners
McElraft and Wootten assisted.
Mr. Isenhour said prior to the committee being
born, the Board of Commissioners had received several indications from property
owners, especially in the eastern part of town, they might be willing to bear
the expense of a beach nourishment project.
The committee was formed to determine the feasibility. The first order of business was to determine
the cost of the effort to restore the beach in a manner consistent with Pine
Knoll Shores and Indian Beach nourishment projects. While it was realized the property located in the first 30 blocks
of Emerald Isle have the greatest need, it was also determined that additional
nourishment was needed for the entire ocean front in order to project the
beach. As was stated in the letter of
April 29 to all property owners, the cost as presently envisioned is expected
to be $15.8 million dollars. The debt
service will bring the total cost to slightly over $19 million dollars over the projected life of the bond
financing.
The town is a big player in this because it would
ultimately be responsible to the bond holders.
The town will also contribute $152,000.00 per year for the life of the
bond for the town owned beach property.
In order to take the pulse of the town for this project, a color coded
survey was used. Green forms were sent
to Emerald Isle residents and Yellow forms to non-Emerald Isle residents. The survey forms were
received at town hall and were given a control number. The results were entered into a spread sheet
for eventual tabulation. A cut-off date
of Friday June 2nd was established.
One important thing in the procedure was that each form was only counted
once regardless of the number of properties that were owned by an individual or
family. In studying the results the
committee was conscious of the many comments of the survey participants, some
of which were quite colorful. The
majority of the comments were articulate and expressed a need to preserve the
beaches and economics they represent.
Mr. Isenhour showed overheads that showed the
results of the survey. Results
were: Number of surveys mailed and
returned – 5,795 mailed, 2989 were returned which is 44.68%. This was an excellent return. Survey Results – 73% of all
participants in the survey voted “yes” to proceed with beach nourishment Vs.
27% “no”. Breaking the results down – Oceanfront
owners by residents and non-residents – 76% said “yes”. Non-oceanfront owners – residents and
non-residents – 73% said “yes” to
proceed with beach nourishment. Residents
and non-residents together – 73% have said “yes” to proceed with beach
nourishment.
Mr. Isenhour continued there is overwhelming
approval of the beach nourishment project.
Whether they are oceanfront, non-oceanfront, resident or non-resident,
there is a clear majority that Emerald Isle’s property owners wish Emerald Isle
to proceed with the beach nourishment project funded through a bond
referendum. The “Yes” vote outnumbered
the “No” vote 3 to 1. Based on this
mandate from the property owners, the committee recommended that a favorable
vote be given to the following Resolution of Intent to Create Municipal Service
Tax Districts for the purpose of partially funding, along with the anticipated
increase in room occupancy tax, the proposed of Emerald Isle beach
nourishment. Mr. Isenhour read the
Resolutions (two) one for the Intent To Create A Municipal Service District For
Beach Erosion Control – Primary Benefit (PB) District and the second one will
be for a Secondary Benefit (SB) District. A copy of the two Resolutions have
been incorporated at the end of these Minutes.
Mr. Isenhour continued that the committee further
recommends to the Board of Commissioners that after these Resolutions are
passed and the appropriate steps are taken, that a referendum for a bond issue
be held in March 2002. This date is suggested
because of the advisement of a bond attorney that a shorter time line would be
difficult to achieve. The results of
the pending occupancy room tax which it is hoped to achieve $540,000.00 annual
for four years to help pay off the bonds.
With a successful bond referendum in March, the beach nourishment
project can be scheduled in November 2002 after the turtle season is over. If the town is fortunate and does not have a
severe hurricane or northeastern in 2001-2002, this project will be in place to
assure the town’s viability and tax base.
Comments
from the public on the above subject came from the following:
Mr. George Kuhorn – 7223 Canal Drive – said he
does not see a problem with the renourishment of Bogue Banks. He has been around a long time and done a
lot of traveling in his life. He has
seen Hatteras in 1950 and saw what they were trying to do at that time. After the beach was renourished, Hatteras
had stones break loose, they had to move the lighthouse. The Town of Emerald Isle is going to see
itself spending for this year $19 million, 3 years from now if another
hurricanes comes another $19 million or more.
He lives away from the beach and he came home Saturday
after working and wanted to stop at the Emerald Isle parking area. He could not. It was completely packed with non-residents. He paid for that place. He would like to see the people with passes
that will let them back on the island be able to park on Ocean Drive. He knows a Commissioner’s wife that had a
little problem and walked from her house to the beach. A lot of people have to walk a long way to
get to the beach. He does not think that is fair. He also does not know why people can park on his street for 4
days, in the street but he cannot park on Ocean Drive for 45 minutes. He was told by the previous Town Manager it
was because fire engines could not go down Ocean Drive. Mr. Kuhorn feels we should think about
these things before we jump in and spend this kind of money.
Mr. Gus Farmakadis, 322 Loblolly Street, said he
does not disagree with what Mr. Isenhour said.
He addressed something a little different and that is
what is causing beach erosion. He has
heard a lot of excuses lately. He said
when they built up Atlantic Beach they built
Mr. Wayne Yelverton, Ocean Drive, spoke about
seeing the beach for 18 years since he has been here for 18 year. He said he has more sand where he is than he
had 18 years ago. The sand bars out there
are the feeders and they feed regularly.
Mr. Yelverton said we see our children grow and we see our beach
grow. He even had a place where he had
a third dune started, wasn’t very high, only about 4 feet, but it was
there. The grass comes back and starts
itself. It starts moving out the following
year, it builds even more. The grass
understands that something is starting.
Nature takes care of its own.
He said he has as much sand as he has ever had if not more. Mr.
Yelverton related to Florida where they have renourished their beaches and
their beaches are not worth a “tinkers damn” anymore. It used to be beautiful when he was young. Today, they have hard sorry beaches. The government helped them considerably with
their renourishment. He does not see
why we don’t get some of their funds.
He suggested we look into that.
Gloria
Jimenez, 1208 Timber Trail, said she had owned property here since the
early 1970’s. During the Carter
administration she was a federal insurance administrator. She was administering the Federal Insurance
Program. As an Administrator and as an
owner of property here, she was very concerned as she thought about how poorly
the town was enforcing the flood insurance insurance ordinance. She does not believe that after the recent
hurricanes that have affected our beach that the town has done what it should
have done because we saw houses that were repaired that should have never been
repaired. They should have been left to
open space.
Now for the other side.
As an insurance administration, she went around the country and saw
beaches that were renourished. It was an exercise in
futility. If you want to spend money
forever and forever, well that is fine.
If you are the property owners and are
This is another issue she has. We have just adopted an ordinance change on garbage. She related that we have “rats” on the
island. They are not two legged
rats. She said they are all over. If you walk down Ocean Drive on Sunday or
Monday and look at the rats.
She went back to the flood issue and said “You are making
a mistake”.
Mark Brennersholz, 9322 Ocean Drive, asked if this
proposal would be for 1st through 30th streets? Is this correct or is it for all the way
down? It was confirmed that the $1.8
million was for the whole island. Mr.
Brennersholz related that his family for many years had a cottage on the south
shore of Long Island which is also an East/West island and a project was done
on Fire Island Inlet there in the late 1950’s or early 1960’s. That project was extremely successful and to
his knowledge no additional renourishment or dredging activity has taken place
since then. Dredging and pumping up on
the beach is not an unmitigated disaster but there are success stories as well. He was there for one hurricane and it took
out the first three rows of dunes.
Those since, which were Carol, Diane and Hazel, have not done
significant damage to the work that was implemented at that time.
Mr.
John McEnaney, 106 Tammy Street, who has been coming to the island since
1992 asked to make a couple of remarks.
The first was that he was appalled at the lack of privacy on the
letter. The fundary of the town to send
something like this out and to have cases
beach nourishment was
complete. Now in fact that may be the
case. He is very interested in
maintaining the beach but when he read the survey it looks like the town will
pay about $1.2 million per mile, it looks as though the town is going to start
cheating itself out of occupancy tax money because it says you are going to
provide $540,000. There is an implication, an assumption, that the federal
government may want to help out. He
said “Don’t kid yourselves”. Furthermore,
it is known that George Bush and the Republicans
under Clinton, we do
know that beach nourishment programs were opposed by the Clinton administration
and currently the Bush administration were overthrown. We know that they are being funded. Maybe we will have some help on this
thing. Mr. McEnaney said he
would have been a little happier with the MEMO if it had indicated the pros and
cons.
He asked about the fact that 45% of the
people responded and what happened to the other 56%? Mr. Isenhour answered, “They did not respond”. Mr. McEnaney said “right” they did
not respond. He submitted that the real
estate interest in this town has taken this thing over and seem to be running
it. The town has not in fact
demonstrated that $19.2 million which we are going to pay for this bond will in
fact benefit the businesses in this town.
There is no solid economic information for going ahead. If demonstration can be done, if businesses
in this town, rentals, gain $19.2 million, then we will have something to go
for. Mr. McEnaney said from the
numbers on the board everyone was for beach nourishment and asked if the 76%
who agreed about nourishment did they all agree in reference to the $.48 and
$.03? Commissioner Farmer
replied that the people were agreeing to go to a bond referendum. There were a number of comments about the
dollars and how that was divided. Mr.
McEnaney said one of the things he has seen in his years in Emerald Isle
is that, yes, the beach is eroding but some houses are in areas that are
building sand. Whatever is done as far
as renters are concerned and vacationers, everyone in the Town of Emerald Isle
does profit and benefit. If it is made
so costly for the ocean front owners what may happen will defeat the purpose
because the initial cost will probably be passed on to renters. There is a possibility of diminishing the
return.
Phil
Almedia suggested getting
details about all of the problems we have.
A need to look at water, the need, traffic or beach renourishment.
Mr.
Gregory Rudolph 7302 Canal Drive, who is a geologist spoke
on the problems of Emerald Isle, traffic and the beach nourishment and offered
any assistance needed.
Mr.
Robert Gordon, Azure Drive,
referred to an article in the Carolina Country magazine on sea oats. “Most of the ocean front properties here are
held by absentee owners. Here on
Emerald Isle, fewer than 1 out of 10 have planted sea oats or invested in sand
fences. Both maintain the dunes but the
property owners were quick to refill their dunes using bulldozers at the surf
line. This action lower the beach and
brought the surf to their dunes.” Mr.
Gordon said while we can spend the owners money building renourishment plans,
he doesn’t believe in winning the lottery, so if the talk is about having a
renourishment program and you don’t have a risk follow-up, like when Floyd came
and wipped away all the sand, the bond is going to be revoked? - because if
they ain’t that is not a very good investment.
Mr.
Phil Gagnon 606 Emerald Drive commented
that his understanding is that not all beaches are created equal and some are
suitable for renourishment and others are not. It is his understanding that
Bogue Banks is suitable for renourishment.
He wonders if someone has been studying if beach nourishment is viable
for Bogue Banks? There have been a lot
of questions tonight but no one is coming forward and presenting a study done
by the city that says “yes” beach nourishment should work for Emerald Isle.
Mr.
Charles Vinson of 3209 Ocean
Drive. He pointed out that a lot of
questions have been raised and the last one was about the feasibility of
nourishing this beach. He pointed out
that Atlantic Beach has been nourished twice.
The last time in 1986. The Point
or West End of our Island, was nourished back about 10 years ago. We have had 5
hurricanes, one twice, came through and Atlantic Beach is fine. They had no problems. Down at the west end
of the beach, they had no problems.
Nourishment on Bogue Banks have proved to work. The next question was about the bond. It is a federal program that if we set up
nourishment and we nourish our beaches and something happens like an event
causes them to wash away, FEMA will come
Mr.
Vinson said Hatteras had been mentioned.
It is a very unique situation.
Every state on the east coast renourishes their beaches. They had political influence enough to get
federal funds and get help. Some of
them had to sue the government. We might have to but everybody renourishes its
beaches. Only Carteret County says “I
don’t think it works”. It works
everywhere else. Someone mentioned
compatibility of the sand. There have
been places where shale and rock was put on the beach. Compatible sand has been waiting here to be
put back on the beach. In fact the
Corps of Engineers is dredging a million cubic yards of sand every year that
belongs on these beaches. They take it
out of the hole that they have dug to trap the sand and take it out into the
ocean and dump it. Mr. Vinson said his
solution is why not get the Corps of Engineers to do it. To get the federal government to do
something with no more political pull that we have here in Carteret County, we
are not going to get it done. Everyone who has done something with their
beaches has started with themselves. We
have to get this thing started and then get the Corps of Engineers to do the
right thing, get the federal government to correct the errors that they have. The whole economy of this island is because
of the beach. In past years before the
big duplexes were built there was a $.60/100 tax base. Now it is down to less than $.20 which is
about 1/3. It does affect us to have
all those big houses on the beach paying a lot of tax. Mr. Vinson said “we have to do it.”
Mr. Tim Brooker of Inlet Drive commented that this whole issue
is two major factors, one being environmental factor. The best study, including the letter that went out with the
survey indicated that this fix would last about 8 years. He questioned “what then?” It is going to take about 10 years to pay
the tab. If it lasts for 8 years do we
start all over again? The other factor
is basically our problem is not necessarily erosion but is hurricanes. Most of what has been lost has been from hurricanes
much more so than erosion. He said he
lives on the ocean and his beach is a whole lot bigger than it has been. He has about 125 feet more beach now that he
had 7 or 8 years. That is the way sand
moves in the ocean. From a financial
standpoint he was concerned that he fails to see the fairness of applying a
taxation on his property 16 times greater than his neighbor’s across the
street.
His house is a home, his
neighbors duplex, 8,000 square feet of it, is a rental. Who is going to benefit
financially more from that? Mr.
Brooker said he does not need any more sand. He said if someone could find a place to put some sand, they were
welcome to some of his. He said the
sand bar is building up so that they do not have waves any more. He contests that this is a totally unfair
basis for paying the tab. The survey indicated this entire community lives and
subsists by tourism; he submitted that every property owner should bear the
cost equally. He said if everyone paid $.16 it would be the same amount of
money. He believes politically that
would be devastation. He does not feel
that would fly and he thinks this is the reason the $.03 is there. One hurricane can wipe out all that is done
as has been pointed out, if this bond issues goes on for whatever length of
time it does, we pay forever. It starts
all over again and we keep paying. He
asked “who is going to determine who gets how much sand?” If he doesn’t need any, why is he paying
for it and the person down the street needs twice as much as the average
allotment, does he get all of it or what?
He gets a whole lot more for his dollar.” Mr. Brooker said his concern is that this community
relies on tourism as a whole and should be borne equally by all of those who
benefit by it including everyone on the island and businesses.
Mr.
Quinton Cook, 1113 Inlet Drive
said he wants to second everything Mr. Brooker said. The fairness is the thing that is most important to him. If it is done, it needs to be fair. He also asked “Who owns the sand when it is
pumped up?” Oak Island is going through
a legal thing right now because they will not allow people to build walkways
over the new dunes that have been created because according to them, that sand
is owned by the State and does not belong to the people. This needs to be addressed also.
Mr.
Charles Stuber, 1106 Timber
Trail said he has heard a lot of comments tonight. He has been working hard on several committees. He is a member of the Bogue Banks
Preservation Association and was on the Committee that Mr. Isenhour reported
on. He said they have worked hard to try
to come up with some plan that they thought was fair and that would take care
of the economic situation of the town and etc. What Mr. Isenhour presented is
the best they could come up with. He knows it is unfair but by the same token,
Pete Allen told him that 53% of the budget for this town comes from income
generated by tourism occupancy tax and sales tax. If two or three
Mr.
Pete Cochran, Coast Guard Road,
commented that the long term investments should be looked at. That is what everyone has. They have either
made investments 20 or 25 years ago. We
have a problem and the only way that we are going to resolve that problem is
that we have to look at what we need to do with our beach and do it now. If we
need to add beach renourishment and it is going to save everyone’s investments,
then we have to think ahead. Most of the investments are for children and
grandchildren. Mr. Cochran pleaded for
the board to look at beach renourishment.
Mr.
Harry Wigmore, said Mother
Nature is going to do what she is going to do no matter what we do with the
sand. The beaches are building because
of the hurricanes we have had. There
was a lot of northeasterns before the hurricanes and that is what tore up the
beaches, not the hurricanes. Hurricanes
build the sand bars and nature is going to do what she wants. All the bulldozing that was done only ruined
the turtles, the beach, the ghost crabs and all the environmental stuff. He
said leave nature alone. Why waste the money?
Put it into educational programs of our county and city. Give it to the libraries or something like
that. Let the beach go. It will come and go no matter what we do.
Commissioner
McElraft said Charles Vinson
answered a few questions she had, especially on the FEMA issue. It was investigated when Pine Knoll Shores
did their bond referendum that if you have a privately funded beach, privately
engineered beach, then if you had any of that beach destroyed during a
hurricane event, then FEMA would come in and replace that part of the beach
that was destroyed and after seeing what happened with nourished beaches and
hurricanes in the Wilmington area, she does not think FEMA will have
Commissioner Trainham said he thinks everyone knows his position. He has
been trying to be open to see what other source can be used. He said the board is supposed
to make a decision tonight about the referendum. He wants folks to know that he is in favor of the referendum
mainly because he promised his constituency that he would be open to their
wishes. It looks like the wishes have
changed since the last referendum. He
does have some very serious reservations about wasting our money. He also
commented that depending on FEMA is wasting a lot of money. You are using tax money. What he does not understand is if we are
concerned about the way tax money is used and expecting the government to pay
us out if we get into trouble does not seem to be a very good way to deal with
this. He is also concerned about issues
dealing with the inlet and concerns about the Corps of Engineers and the work
they should be doing and should have been doing for the last 10 to 15
years.
Commissioner Wootten indicated he has looked at just about every
survey that came back and he has to congratulate this group because they have
covered every comment that was included in that survey. He does not think he heard anything new on
either side of this equations. He said
what he is asked to vote on tonight is whether to take this thing to referendum
or not and he agrees with Mr.
Commissioner Farmer agreed with Commissioner
Wootten. The board will hear from the
public to decide whether to go to referendum on this and the referendum is
where the public gets to say “yes” we absolutely need to do this or “no” we
should not be even considering it. She
supports going to a referendum.
Town Attorney Derek Taylor suggested turning the
meeting over to the Town Manager to reintroduce what is on the agenda for
action.
Mr. Rush said there is a Resolution of Intent to
Create A Municipal District for Beach Erosion Control – Primary Benefit (PB)
District which is ocean front property within the town limits, and a Resolution
of Intent To Create A Municipal District for Beach Erosion Control – Secondary
Benefit (SB) which is all the other properties in the town. The Third item is approval of Bond Council
to take us through the bond referendum process. Mr. Rush recommended the firm of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson,
P.A. in Charlotte who has considerable experience in bond issues and also beach
nourishment bond referendums if the board wishes to continue with this process.
Mr. Rush went on to say that if the two
resolutions establishing the special tax districts are passed, a public hearing
will be held on September 11, 2001.
Following that public hearing by the board, notices will be sent to all
property owners in the town and advertise in the newspaper. Following that
public hearing the board will take official action formally creating the
districts. There will be no taxes
levied until next fiscal year. In terms
of the bond referendum process, after we get bond counsel on board, we will
begin the bone referendum process. It
is a three-step process that will begin sometime this fall.
Commissioner
Farmer asked if there is ample
time to get moving if the referendum passes?
Mr. Rush indicated there was.
The referendum will be held in March 2002.
Commissioner Farmer said if the referendum fails,
the tax districts will be abolished as will the proposed tax assessment.
Commissioner Wootten moved, Commissioner Murphy
seconded and the board voted unanimously to approve the Resolution of Intent to
Create A Municipal Service District For Beach Erosion Control – Primary Benefit
(PB) District and also approve A Resolution of Intent to Create A Municipal
Service District For Beach Erosion Control – Secondary Benefit (SB) District
and approved engagement of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. as bond
counsel.
COMMERCIAL REVIEW – THE REEL OUTDOORS – EMERALD DRIVE/CEDAR STREET
Mrs. Ceil Saunders, Chairman
of the Planning Board asked that the meeting be turned over to Mr. Rush because
he wrote a Memo that totally does not agree with the Planning Board. She said the board has been over everything
and has agreed that Section 19-74.1 Specifications for construction of outside
wall facings of commercial structures,(5) appears to have a word missing and
should read “A building face shall NOT have any wall component which exceeds
forty (40) feet -----“ She said number
(4) and (5) is questioned. She
commented that the town is trying to get away from the warehouse look. Mrs. Saunders said the Planning Board also suggested not going
with the off-sets on this building.
Commissioner Wootten said, for
the public benefit, that the plan for this building is 80 some odd feet across
the front and 46-feet or 48-feet down the side, the 80 feet being facing hwy
58. There is also on the books an
ordinance that says we don’t want a warehouse look but yet we cannot have an
exterior wall that is more than 40 feet long without having a recess in that
wall to break up at least 8 feet to try to avoid the warehouse look
appearance. The question is does these
plans comply with that ordinance?
Mr. Rush said for
clarification, in the ordinance that was discussed above, number (5) the
omission of the word NOT was an error.
Commissioner McElraft asked if
the face of the building is facing Highway 58, does it comply? Mrs. Saunders said “Yes it does comply.”
Commissioner Farmer said she
does not think the board wants the warehouse look on highway 58 and neither on
the side streets. She does not want to
look at a back of a building as she drives down Reed Drive and see that it is
essentially a warehouse.
She
apologized that the Planning Board got caught.
Mrs. Saunders said the developer of The Reel
Outdoors has said they will do what is in the ordinance but when the Planning
Board looked at it, it was more attractive to have it with the vegetation than
it was with a short wall with jetties in and out. That is why the Planning
Board came to this conclusion and passed it on the town board.
Commissioner Wootten
said the problem with that is
that the Planning Board is now asking the board to grant some type of waiver or
some kind of an exception to an ordinance on a specific case and that is not
the role of the town board. There are
one or two things in his mind. One is
to go back and take another look at the ordinance and decide what the board
really wants to do or if the board is really interested in keeping moving
forward, as he feels they are, would be to request that the owner comply with
the ordinance as it is written and in fact modify the side wall. This to him seems to be the two
options.
Mrs. Mindy Dennis, owner of The Reel Outdoors,
said “If you don’t want the warehouse look, I understand that completely. You get a warehouse look a lot of times with
a much larger building and this is not a very large building. We are going to landscape it. It is going to be one of the prettiest
little buildings in that area so if you are looking for something that is
appealing to the eye, why not let a building that is going to be that way go
up. You don’t want a building that is
not
Mrs. Saunders said in
the ordinance it is 40-feet, this is only 46-feet.
Mrs. Dennis said the
way the ordinance is written you have to go by it but read the words – the face
of the building is what we have done and we have done what you wanted on the
face. Don’t mean the side, don’t mean
the back, it’s the face.
Commissioner Farmer asked if
maybe there could be a compromise whereby the board interprets this side as
facing highway 58 as the Planning Board intended and then also go back and look
at this wording again. It would not
hold up the project.
Attorney Derek Taylor said there
is another body within the form of government called the Board of
Adjustment. What you have before you is
an application which you must apply the ordinance, the way you think it is
written, to. If it was the intention of
the board, which you have personally expressed an opinion now to the contrary,
that the face of the facility was all the side, all out external walls, if the
rest of the board feels, when they were talking about it, that wasn’t it
because the Planning Board said it wasn’t yet, then you interpret the ordinance
only to the extent of applying the facts of this application to the ordinance
as you understand it. You can’t really
interpret the ordinance, you have to change it as a legislative body.
Commissioner Farmer asked
“Then I could be out-voted?” Attorney Taylor’s answer was
“ That’s possible but is not necessarily the case. But this board’s
responsibility by law is to apply this
Adjustment to make a determination as to whether a
variance is justifiable to meet the intent of the ordinance and allow these
folks to do what they want to.”
Mrs. Saunders said the Planning Board assumed and
discussed this at length, that the face of the building was on Highway 58, and
asked, “Then why can’t we proceed with it?”
Attorney
Taylor said he was not saying you cannot proceed to apply the current
ordinance, as written, to the facts of this case. If this board, in their passing of this ordinance when they said
“face”, they meant what is on Highway 58 – Mrs. Saunders interjected,
they did not say that – Attorney Taylor continued, but this board will apply
what it thinks this ordinance means against that application.”
Commissioner McElraft asked, “How was that applied
on the CVS building? Mrs. Carol
Angus of the Inspections Office said the sides were not looked at. Commissioner McElraft said the board
has already made an interpretation on another building prior to this that the
sides do not matter. The face
matters. This is the way she
interpreted the ordinance to begin with.
Mr. Edmond Dowling, member of the Planning Board,
answered that CVS put up one building in one mode and that is their design
throughout the United States. So that
might help. What we are asking for,
that Mrs. Saunders pointed out, from everyone on the board, together with the
builders, we are asking for a variance because we could not interpret what you
passed.
Mrs.
Saunders said we don’t need a variance because the front of the building is
on Highway 58. Commissioner Murphy
asked, and he has done with the face of the building what the ordinance says so
let’s go ahead and approve it. Mrs.
Saunders answered, “Exactly.”
Attorney Taylor said there are two issues, one is
the issue of the face of the building.
The other is the roof line. None
of that has been discussed and probably should be.
Commissioner Wootten said there is a problem with
the height of the roof line on the front of the building and it is his
understanding that that can be adjusted relatively easily and the owner will do
that.
That is a fixable
thing. The owner said that either way
it needs to go, it can be fixed. Mrs.
Saunders said the lowest part of the roof would be the eaves and the 3-foot
gables would be considered above the eaves.
Commissioner Wootten moved, Commissioner Murphy
seconded and the board voted unanimously to approve the commercial review of
The Reel Outdoors contingent upon the front of the building being brought into
conformance with the ordinance as interpreted by Inspections Department and
that approval be given with the side wall as it is right now and then the board
take action separately and afterwards as to what the board wants to do about
the side wall issue.
Commissioner Farmer said “Thank you for the storm
water plan and the scenarios that went with it.” She doesn’t think the board has ever gotten one of these
before. She really appreciates it.
Mr. Pete Cochran, Coast Guard Road, came forward
and said earlier today he met with Carolyn (Town Clerk) and handed her
additional petitions for the horse issue.
He read a statement as follows:
“Tonight I bring you the remaining list of registered voters who are
supporting Suzanne and I on the horse issue.
Now that we have 10 per-cent of the registered voters and many other
people who are supporting our issue, I would like to see this issue move
forward with the boards approval.”
Commissioner Wootten asked Mr. Cochran what it was
that he wanted the board to do? He asked if Mr. Cochran wanted the board to
make a decision of did he want to go referendum? Mr. Cochran answered that he would like for it to be sent to
referendum.
Commissioner
McElraft suggested
sending this to referendum if Mr. Cochran has10 percent even though this is not
a requirement for sending this to referendum. In one meeting Mr. Cochran was
told that it was, legally, we did say that in public. We also had Commissioners
Commissioner
McElraft moved that pending verification of the registered voters, that this be
sent to referendum during the November time frame because it will cost
taxpayers just a minimal amount of money.
Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion.
Commissioner
Wootten said that it has been
said that this should not go to referendum because in order to change, it shows
weakness on the part of this board not to be able to make a decision. He said he does not buy into that
theory. He thinks this is a little town
and a little government and getting the voice of the people has become an
emotional thing, not as a result of any action of the board, but on a part of
an individual. It has become very
public and a very emotional issue and he feels the higher ground and the true
form of democracy is to referendum and let the people decide what they want and
let Mr. Cochran and other people have voices.
Commissioner
Trainham asked Attorney Taylor
to speak on the question of the legality of a referendum on an ordinance at
this point.
Attorney
Taylor said, “It would be in an
advisory mode. The Board would accept
the referendum results but it would not be compelling for the board to take
action in alliance with that vote. It
would be much like your surveys except it would be done through
referendum. The board would then make
an independent decision one way or the other on what it wanted to do but you
would not be compelled to act.”
Commissioner
Murphy said Commissioner
McElraft might want to amend her motion.
He feels it should be with conditions.
He has discussed certain conditions that would be beneficial not only to
the animals but to their community at large as far it getting passed.
Attorney
Taylor suggested that now would
be a good time to discuss what Commissioner Murphy feels those conditions are
and then ask the person who made the motion to see if they want to amend it.
Mr.
Cochran stated that also
discussed was the collecting the waste on a day-to-day basis.
Commissioner Farmer said the other thing stated was that the horses could not be ridden on town property. Mr. Cochran confirmed this was correct but asked if the window of September through May still open? Commissioner Murphy said that was not on town property, that is State property. Commissioner McElraft asked how would you get to the beach if you don’t ride them on town property? Commissioner Wootten said he would do it the same way people do the other horses.
Commissioner
McElraft said that was her
motion. Commissioner Murphy
seconded. Attorney Taylor
cautioned the board to be sure about the motion they are voting on.
Commissioner
Farmer related she has a lot of
problems, and she is not picking on Mr. Cochran, but she does have a lot of
problems with ordinance going to referendum. She does not think it has anything to do with the board being
perceived as weak. She also has
concerns over the woman who called her and was very concerned that her porch
was in the vicinity and is an adjacent and she was very concerned about the
smell. Commissioner Farmer
continued that the ordinance has been on the books since 1992 and she does not
think a referendum is warranted.
Commissioner
McElraft commented “ We have
been the kind of board that has listened to the public. It is hard to hear all of the people and
when you get this many people, registered voters, speaking for something that
was voted down and it makes you take a pause and think maybe we should
listen. I also agreed that maybe this
is not a great way to do an ordinance change but this is probably the only way
we are going to hear the real voice of the people.
Commissioner
Farmer asked Mrs. Custy, Town
Clerk, how many registered voters ended up being on the petitions? Mrs. Custy said 167 on the first
batch that have been verified. The ones
brought in today have not been verified.
Attorney
Taylor asked how many other
pieces of property would meet the criteria?
Mrs. Angus said there were at least 3 and maybe 4 that would
qualify. Attorney Taylor asked
Mr. Cochran, “This ordinance would not be just for you alone?”
Commissioner
Farmer said there was one other
thing discussed by the board, about a conservation easement, it had to be a
single residence.
Attorney
Taylor said for clarification so
that the board could move along, they are not trying to draft the
ordinance. Just the basic conditions
for what would qualify will be sufficient.
You will have the opportunity to draft the ordinance for the
restrictions and again the board is not compelled to whatever this vote
is. You should inform the public
generally of what you are asking for, allowing them to vote on it and when it
comes back then deal with it.
Commissioner Murphy asked, ”So all we need to do is to vote on whether to take it to a referendum pending verification of 10 % of registered voters. Attorney Taylor said it would be good idea, at least for broad terms, to go ahead and include the things she mentioned. The motion, as it stands now, is fine. You can do the things you want to do later.
Mayor Pro-Tem Farmer asked for a vote. Voting in favor of the motion was
Commissioner McElraft, Wootten and Murphy.
Voting in opposition was Commissioner Trainham and Mayor Pro-Tem
Farmer. Motion carried.
Mr. Ricky Farrington, 8802 Sound View Court, spoke on beach nourishment. He asked for confirmation of the number of taxable parcels of land in Emerald Isle. On the survey that was presented, there were 1350 tax payer residents and 4445 tax payer non-residents. If you compare it with $15 million 800 thousand, we are looking at $2,600 per parcel of land to get that amount of money. He suggests that the town start looking at a voluntary fund that each parcel owner would submit that amount to and forget a bond referendum. It almost seems too simple to think like this. The value of the property will probably go up a minimum of 10% on the day that fund was created it would show a huge positive effect on Emerald Isle. Based on the average lot now, the cheapest is probably $40,000 to $50,000. That is less than 10% of that. He wonders how the board would feel about trying that? If this was put into effect, the people would voluntarily start writing a check for each parcel of land, $2,600 to beach nourishment.
Again, on the storm water issue, he is tired of all the negative stuff in the newspaper on this issue. It is a money problem and it is something that we are all going to lose or gain on it if something is not worked out.
Mr. Farrington said he would like to know just what that number is so they can find out how to divide it and how they can start a fund and work with the town on collecting that money. You might be surprised on how many people would just write the check. He for one would be the first.
Commissioner McElraft commented it is probably going to be hard to get people to pay $60.00. She feels that we would never get beach nourishment doing it that way because she thinks people are objecting to paying even $60.00 to $120.00. She does not think it is legal. You cannot force anyone into doing that because it would be a volunteer situation. She does not think there would ever be enough collected for beach nourishment that way. She appreciates Mr. Farrington’s contribution to the town if he would like to make it.
Mr. Farrington said the fund would be refundable if it did not work. There might a slight chance that it would work.
Mr. Pete Cochran commented that a homeowners association assesses its members once a year for funds they will need for each property. He asked if a one time tax assessment to everyone’s property and that way there would be no long term bond referendum?
Commissioner Wootten said the committee looked up one side and down the other.
Commissioner Murphy suggested that Mr. Cochran and some of the other property owners and business people in the community to put together a committee, a citizens group, and solicit voluntary contributions and put it into an account that would reduce the debt if it was every gotten back. He clarified what he is saying is to go ahead and solicit the $2,800.00 and if that is put into an escrow account and when we get to the $19 or $20 million and you have collected $5 million we would have $5 million to pay against that and it is all voluntary money. Commissioner Murphy stated he feels there are not going to be too many volunteers. In January 2002, the town is going to start funding EMS. The EMS system has been a voluntary donation system ever since they have been in existence and their contributions keep going down year after year after year and the EMS person spends as much time soliciting money as they do going on EMS calls. Mr. Murphy thinks voluntary contributions because of the economy are starting to be non-existent.
COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS
Robert Conrad, Director of Public Works asked that everyone coming on the Island bring a bucket of sand and when leaving take a bucket of water.
Carol Angus, Department Head of Inspections, asked if anyone had any questions regarding the monthly report turned in. Rhonda Ferebee is doing a great job in keeping up with it.
Mrs. Angus, on a personal note, thanked everyone who had expressed concerns and offers of assistance to her and her husband over the last couple of months. It has really been appreciated and he is coming along pretty good right now.
Alesia Sanderson, Parks and Recreation
Director, commented that construction has started on the bathhouse for the
western regional access. Mr. Kuhorn was
correct in that all of the regional accesses and other accesses have been very
crowded over the past few days.
Commissioner Trainham said thanks for the wonderful fireworks. They were beautifully done this year. Probably the best he has ever seen.
There were no comments from Fire Chief Walker.
Police Chief Mark Wilson commented that he could not sit in his chair tonight because someone said the projector was going to shine on his head and blind everybody. He said the Police Department got a check today from the federal government for over $11,000 to be deposited to the drug fund.
COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD
There were no comments from the Town Clerk, Town Attorney, Commissioner McElraft, Commissioner Wootten and Mayor Pro-Tem Farmer.
Town Manager Frank Rush brought the board up to date on a couple of things. There were several injuries at the eastern regional access over the holiday weekend. The town is working with a contractor trying to get the remaining remnants of the pilings removed from the old Emerald Isle Fishing Pier. Alesia and he met with a contractor today hoping they will be able to get the pilings out of there and solve that problem. For the short term, there has been installed a buoys indicating a hazard out there and some additional signs have been ordered.
The room occupancy tax over in Carteret County is scheduled to be heard by the council and finance committee on July 17th at 8:30 A.M. The Mayor and he plan to attend as will Commissioner McElraft. He invited commissioners who would like to attend.
Mr. Rush thanked everyone on the board for
making his first seven days of work very enjoyable. Everyone has been very helpful.
Commissioner
Farmer commented it is wonderful
to have Mr. Rush here.
Commissioner
Murphy welcomed Mr. Rush, our
new Town Manager and wished him “Good Luck”.
Commissioner
Trainham thanked Mr. Rush for
bringing the board up to ”snuff” about what is going on. There was the one accident on Lee Avenue and
the new Manager called him on the phone to inform him. He thinks this is the
first time this has happened and he thinks it is wonderful.
Commissioner McElraft moved, Commissioner
Murphy seconded and the board voted unanimously to adjourn.
Adjournment took place at 9:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn
K. Custy
Town Clerk