The Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina
Get on our Email list!
 Today is  <%=monthname(month(now)) & " " & day(now) & ", " & year(now)%>

Search our Site:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click for Emerald Isle, North Carolina Forecast

Commissioner's Minutes
 

March 12, 2002 Agenda
March 12, 2002 Minutes

ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EMERALD ISLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002
7:00 PM – EMERALD ISLE TOWN HALL

  1. Call to Order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Pledge of Allegiance
  4. Adoption of Agenda
     (Approved 5-0)
  5. Consent Agenda
    1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting – February 12, 2002
    2. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting – February 20, 2002
    3. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting – February 25, 2002
    4. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting – February 27, 2002
    5. Tax Refunds / Releases
    6. Order to Advertise Tax Liens
    7. Privilege License Fee Schedule
      (Approved 5-0)
  6. Public Comment
  7. Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 (Zoning) of the Emerald Isle Code of Ordinances to Remove Condominiums / Townhomes from the List of Permitted Uses in the MH-1 District
    1. Public Hearing
    2. Consideration of Ordinance
      (3-2 Vote Farmer, Eckhardt, Marks For, Messer McElraft Against - Motion Carried)
  8. Consideration - Osprey Bluff Subdivision Final Plat
    (Approved 5-0)
  9. NCDOT Thoroughfare Plan
    1. Public Hearing
    2. Consideration – Resolution Opposing NC 58 Widening Recommendations
      (3-2 Vote Farmer, Eckhardt, Marks For, Messer, McElraft Against - Motion Carried)
  10. Consideration - Ordinance Amending Chapter 16 (Stormwater Management) of the Emerald Isle Code of Ordinances
    (Approved with changes 5-0)
  11. Consideration – Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Submit a Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Application For Park Development at the Coast Guard Road Storm Water Site
    (3-2 Vote Farmer, Eckhardt, Marks For, Messer, McElraft Against )
  12. Consideration – Resolution Certifying Bond Results
    (Approved 5-0)
  13. Consideration – Resolution Requesting Governor Mike Easley to Remit Obligated Funds to Cities and Counties
    (Approved 5-0)
  14. Comments from Town Clerk, Town Attorney, Town Manager
  15. Comments from Town Board, Mayor
  16. Adjourn

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING
OF THE EMERALD ISLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 – 7:00 P.M. – TOWN HALL             Mayor Art Schools called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Board members present were Mayor Schools, Commissioner Pat McElraft, Commissioner Richard Eckhardt, Commissioner Emily Farmer, Commissioner Dorothy Marks and Commissioner Floyd Messer.  Staff members present were Frank Rush Town Manager, Georgia Overman Asst. Town Manager/Finance Officer, Carolyn Custy Town Clerk, Inspections Department Head Carol Angus, Building Inspector James Taylor and Parks & Recreation Director Alesia Sanderson.  Also present was Town Attorney Derek Taylor.

            After roll call the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Mayor Schools acknowledged that in looking at the plaque that is placed beneath the Town Seal in the Board Room, he noticed that a former Mayor and Commissioner, Vera Gaskins was the artist who painted the picture and commended her on the good job she did. He also recognized Mr. Ed Franzel who was the craftsman for the ships wheel, and June Boyette who was the designer of the seal

ADOPTION OF AGENDA

            Commissioner Farmer made a motion that agenda be adopted as written, Commissioner Eckhardt seconded and the board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.  Motion carried.

ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA

            Mr. Rush pointed out that there was a change in the Minutes of the February 12, 2002 regular meeting dealing with Bogue Inlet and Point erosion. 

Commissioner McElraft asked if the Privilege License fees on the scheduled have changed?  Mr. Rush answered, “there are no increases”.

Commissioner McElraft made a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda and the board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.  Motion carried.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

John Wootten, 103 Eagles Nest, commented how nice it is to be in the meeting room without a coat and tie on.  He said he would like to take this opportunity to present a Petition from the voters of Emerald Isle.  The Petition read as follows:

“The Town of Emerald Isle has entered into a ninety-day revocable purchase agreement to buy a 40.7-acre tract of land for $3.3 million as part of $5.0 million storm water project to alleviate flooding in the Coast Guard Road corridor.  The town has received a grant of $2.4 million from the Clean Water Trust Fund.  To pay for the remainder of the project ($2.6 million), the Town has already raised our taxes ($0.02 per hundred in property tax rate) annually, and plans to keep this increase in place for ten years.  Resident taxpayers had a vote on the question of raising taxes by $0.03 for eight years for beach nourishment.  We should get a chance to vote on a tax increase of $0.02 for ten years.  By signing this petition I indicate that I want the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners to delay execution of the aforementioned revocable land purchase agreement and bring this entire $5.0 million storm water project to a referendum of Emerald Isle voters so they may decide if they want their tax money spent for this project”.

More than 450 Emerald Isle voters’ signatures were acquired in just over one week.  This is a “hot button” issue for folks and the 450 signatures represent 38 percent of the voters who voted last week on the beach renourishment issue.  He in fact may have more than 450 because he received additional sheets of paper tonight before the meeting, but there are at least 450, which will be turned over to the Town Clerk. Mr. Wootten went on to say that since the petition was drafted, the total cost of the Coast Guard Road Project has increased to at least $5.3 million per town information and after the Clean Water Management Trust Fund Grant is subtracted the cost to the town will be $2.9 million or $0.02 for at least 12 years.  $2.9 million is the same debt that non-ocean front owners were asked to approve for beach renourishment.  You should ask for voter approval, via referendum for $2.9 million of debt for storm water management.  Mr. Wootten ask that it be noted that this issue is about debt and taxes and not storm water.  Voters are concerned about flooding on Coast Guard Road but they are also concerned about the future tax levels of this town, particularly in light of published reports of a possible $0.05 tax increase next year above the $0.02 identified with storm water in place now.  Voters should be given the opportunity to judge the many merits of this project versus the long-term debt to be incurred.  Mr. Wootten said he believes this request is very timely since it was only yesterday that an engineering report that indicated this project is viable.  If the board acts promptly on this request, a general obligation bond referendum can be held in June of this year before next years budget and tax rate is finalized.  Such a schedule will protect the availability of the Clean Water Management Trust funding and will mean only a 60-day delay in signing of the contract for the purchase of the land.  After voter approval in June, the board could proceed with the taxpayers support. He asked that as this request is considered to please bear in mind that the largest debt every incurred in this town without direct voter approval was $600,000 for the purchase of the Western Regional Park Access property.  $2.9 million and 12 years of debt is a quantum leap of taxpayer burden and almost demands voter approval.  He also asked that consideration be given to the fact that in the last town election, none of the commissioners here received even a majority of the votes.  That election did not give the board a mandate for this level of debt.  He asked to please let the voters have a say on this issue.

Mr. Harry Thompson, 1603 Ocean Drive, reminded the board of a statement before the outcome of the beach referendum, that they would support the outcome of this vote.  He hopes this means that the entire board would now support the beach  nourishment referendum and diligently apply their energies to expediting this process to put sand on the beach.

Mr. Jack Seikman, 218 Sandfiddler, said the thing that impressed him about this petition is the number of people that were willing to sign that petition.  Another thing that also impressed him was the lack of knowledge of what was going on.  It is a fairly complex project and it is getting more complex as it goes along to try to solve the obvious problems of the project in his estimation, the town has much more urgent problems such as the Point erosion and the beach erosion. If the economic impact of flooding is looked at, it is very hard to establish a large economic impact even during the hurricanes. There is an awful lot of calling city hall and complaining about water in those years but very little damage is done as such.  What is being talked about is a project that is approaching $6.0 million and Mr. Seikman feels the voters should know more about this and give some idea as to what they think about it.

Mr. Ronnie Watson, 9102 Coast Guard Road, reiterated some of the comments that Mr. Wootten and Mr. Seikman have made about the storm water problems that exists on Coast Guard Road.  A look at the overall debt has to be looked at.  What is it going to cost the town?  He reads in the paper and sees from the comments that the town has a $700,000 to $800,000 deficit and he asked where the money was going to come from.  Taxes have to be raised and that is understandable.  You can’t keep raising taxes and raising taxes and raising taxes for a project that is really not needed that much.  There has been flooding during hurricane Floyd, Fran and Bertha but nothing that was not gotten over.  It did not cause any deaths or any major damage but to spend this kind of money?  He cannot believe that it is even being thought about.  Mr. Watson said he would hate to think that he spent money wastefully and he thinks the board needs to think about what they are doing and let the people say.  If they say we need to do this, if it is the way they want the money spent, fine.  Let the people vote on it.  Let them have the say and then we live with what they have to say.  Anytime that kind of money is being spent, it really needs to be thought about.  He said, “It is not just you, it is all of us”.  He does not think a few people should make a decision, especially on $3.0 to $4.0 million.  What it is going to cost in the long run has not been discussed.  What is being talked about is the short run and major, major money when money is needed in other departments in other areas so start to tighten belts. If the town goes into a deficit year, where is the money going to come from to make up the deficit.  He suggested starting to thinking about what we’ve got going on.

Mr. Charles Vinson, 7209 Ocean Drive, said the people have spoken as far as the bond issue that was held last week.  He has spoken with a majority of the board that have said they were going to support whatever the people decided to do but he has also heard some rumors that there might be an effort by some people to extend the length of time before we could bring to fruition both the beach nourishment and correcting the problem at the Point.  He encouraged the board that any delay that might be taken, that might be considered a form of a road block for any of this, would only cost us more money in the long run and he encouraged the board to do everything they could to carry out the will of the people as spoken in the bond issue.

Ms. Gayle Smye, Outer Banks Wildlife Shelter, said the town was wonderful to them last year with a donation and they are hoping that with budget time coming up maybe room can be found for them again this year.  She related that over 1,000 animals and birds were taken in this year.  The workload is very heavy and she reaffirmed that they are a service provider to the people.  They are not a luxury item. 

  The next closest wildlife shelter is in Raleigh so if it were not for Outer Banks those animals would be dead. They have 4 part-time employees that are paid with everyone else being volunteers.  Some of the medicines are discounted.  Some are free.  They barely make it every year.   

Mr. Bill Reist, 8520 Woodcliffe Drive, stated that he finds the petition that Mr. Wootten has proposed to be interesting.  Mr. Reist had an article in the paper about neighbor helping neighbor and this phrase has been heard throughout the entire beach nourishment referendum.  He questioned about how long that neighbor helping neighbor policy was going to continue once the beach renourishment folks got their way.  He found out that even before, probably before he wrote the letter, Mr. Wootten was petitioning to kind of undermine or undercut the storm water issue.  Mr. Reist finds it as a contradiction that on the one hand talking, and he thinks Mr. Wootten in his writings even spoke to neighbor helping neighbor, but now it seems as though Mr. Wootten is on the other side.  Mr. Reist stated he has no position on whether it should be voted or not.  That is not his issue.  His issue is are we really talking about neighbor helping neighbor or is this attempt to delay something.  Mr. Wootten had been on this board and had an opportunity, up until 3 months ago, to raise this issue.  Mr. Reist said he finds it interesting in this point in time, now suddenly, this becomes an interest of his and Mr. Murphy’s. 

Mr. Murphy, from the audience, told Mr. Reist not to speak for him.  He did not know what Mr. Murphy’s opinion is.

Mayor Schools gaveled Mr. Murphy and said he could speak when Mr. Reist finished.

Mr. Reist continued that his own perception is that it is not about taxes, and it is not about the use of that property, otherwise that would have been brought up three months ago.  This is about a different issue and he thinks everyone can make up his or her own mind, but it is certainly not about neighbor helping neighbor.

Mayor Schools asked Mr. Murphy if he wanted to make any comments.  From the audience, Mr. Murphy said he wanted “to call Bill Reist a liar”.  At this point Mayor Schools gaveled Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Rush reminded the audience that if they wanted to speak on any issue other than the Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 to remove condominiums/Townhomes from the List of Permitted Uses in the MH-1 District or the NC DOT Thoroughfare Plan, now was the time to make comments.  For the two public hearings, comments could be made at the time that item was brought up.

Mrs. Paxon Holz, 6715 Ocean Drive, said although she is not a voter in Emerald Isle she is a taxpayer and she is profoundly grateful and congratulatory to the citizens of Emerald Isle for the vote on beach nourishment.  She said “You are saving the Goose that lays the golden egg for Carteret County and on behalf of the whole county, I thank you for the vote saving the taxpayers”. 

She continued that previously she had asked about the drinking water with which the town is watering the plants on the right-of-way.  She said she could not wait 6 months.  Since the town purchased a water meter from Bogue Banks Water Corporation, it has pumped one-half million gallons of drinking water on the plants on the right-of-way.  She urged the board to reconsider this waste of water.

Mr. Frank Vance, 2302 Ocean Drive, said he came before the board last year and asked specifically what was going to be done if the beach was renourished and it washed out?  What kind of maintenance and where would the money come from?  He said he would like a good straight answer from the board because he went up before the storm and saw what it could do with a little rough sea.  He said before he goes putting his tax money in the sand and it washes out, he would like to know how it is going to be replaced.  He asked if taxes were going to be raised even more, what is the $0.05 to $0.06 that was quoted in the paper for, how much is it going to cost total, is there going to be more than one contractor to bid on it, it is going to be a fixed fee or a cost plus?  He understands that Pine Knoll Shores has already escalated.

George Kuhorn, 7223 Canal Drive, related to last months meeting when he came before the board and talked about the possibility of using parking facilities and he is happy to say someone did come forward and offered their house as a place for him to fish and he wished to thank the Stockdales for that offer.

Mr. John Kilgore, 105 Bogue Court, commented it is difficult for people to fish if the Point of our island is not there.  Mr. Kuhorn would not have to ask people to park at their home to fish if the public land that was there should be there now.  He said there is a very unique opportunity available to give all of that back to the citizens of Emerald Isle so everyone can use it. Mr. Kilgore said people come through his yard, urinate in his yard, and use it as a public access.  There is no public access, no emergency service, and there is no Point.  He has heard the same thing as the first gentleman said, it seems that people are trying to stop it.  Mr. Kilgore said, “We voted on it.  We approved it and we’d like it”.  We do it the way the system is set up, you set up the system, the town voted on it and the people voted on it and the people approved it.  Mr. Kilgore indicated he is worried about the things he is hearing – that people are going to try to fight it or delay it.  He sits in his home every night with his wife and children and when the wind blows he can hear the waves breaking over his sandbags.  It scares him and he is tired of being scared.  It upsets him to hear that the town wants to slow the process up.  Houses are going to fall into the water.  People will lose tax values.  He disagreed with this and he does not think it is fair that people can lose their homes and lose where they live while other people sit back and watch it happen.

Mr. Harry Thompson, 1603 Ocean Drive, related to a public access two doors down from him and he has no problem with the access being there. He said within the past two months a sign has been put up on the beach that says “This is a vehicle access for emergency vehicles only”.  Since the sign has been erected, everybody and his brother have been using that as an access to the beach for their vehicles. Mr. Thompson feels there should be some type of movable blockade placed there.  Mr. Rush replied that that problem is being worked on right now to barricade it and prevent general vehicles from using it.

No other public comments were forthcoming.

Commissioner McElraft asked, concerning the petition, was there a way this could be placed on the agenda to discuss it tonight?  Attorney Taylor said a motion could be made to amend the agenda for a discussion of it if it is the board’s general approval.  It would be up to a vote of the board.  The Mayor has control.

Commissioner McElraft made a motion to add this item to the agenda and that the board listens to the petition on the storm water project.  When the public speaks on an issue like this, I think we need to listen.  She is not against the storm water project but she does not know if she is totally for it but her personal opinion does not count.  The personal opinion of the taxpayer does count.  This is a big project and she really thinks the board needs to listen.  If you can get that many people interested in one week, then she is real concerned that there are many more that need to speak.

Mayor Schools asked if there were any more comments about putting the item on the agenda? 

Commissioner Eckhardt commented “We all agreed to a suggested Rules and Procedures when we started out.  One of the rules that we are trying to abide by is that when we have an Agenda Item, Frank does the prep work on it and we have as much information as we can in front of us when we make an informed decision.  I am willing to listen but as far as a decision tonight, we haven’t had any prep work, we do not have anything in front of us and this is the second month we have gotten into this.  I just don’t feel it is right.  We agreed we would not do it.  We agreed that we would be prepared to make decisions and now we are being asked to make a decision without anything in front of us.  I don’t think it is fair.

Commissioner Farmer remarked “I would certainly be happy to have a public hearing or whatever at the next board meeting and put Mr. Wootten on the agenda for that, but I think adding it to this agenda is not real good.

Commissioner McElraft said the only problem with that is if we made the decision within the next few days, we could have this thing voted before any impact on the Clean WaterTrust Fund Grant. If we delay it for a month, I feel like having to have a date for the referendum for the Carteret County Board of Elections, I am afraid it makes it impossible to do what we might be trying to do and get it done in a timely fashion.  This gives us the time to hear the voters during the permitting process.  We could even start the permitting process since it is going to take up to 150 days for the permits. I feel like it is very important to hear them and I was hoping to do that tonight.

Commissioner Messer said we don’t have any literature before us but we do have 450 signatures and I think that is very important.

Commissioner Marks remarked that back in 1992, we tried to give to the board petitions containing 417 registered voters and we were told by the then Town Attorney that is was not a popularity contest.  They would not accept those petitions if anyone signed those petitions were in the audience, they could speak.  That is the way this is going to go.

Commissioner McElraft said that was a board that was reprimanded and this board talked about that they were wrong and this new board has said that we want an open policy.  We want to hear the people and to refer back to another board that you discredited, our attorney says you can hear it.

            Commissioner Farmer said again, she would be glad to put this on the agenda at the next board meeting.  That is the way we actually work agendas.  Things are put on ahead of time but I would not support adding it tonight.

            Mayor Schools called for a vote to put this item on tonight’s agenda.  The board’s vote was 3-2 with Commissioners McElraft and Messer voting for and Commissioners Farmer, Eckhardt and Marks voting against.  Motion denied.

            Mr. Rush said the storm water land purchase will be on the agenda for April 9th anyway.  There will also be a public hearing on the financing of the balance of the land purchase.  That portion will also be on the agenda. 

ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 (ZONING) OF THE EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REMOVE CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOMES FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES IN THE MH-1 DISTRICT

            Commissioner Marks made a motion to open the Public Hearing and the board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.  Motion carried.

            Mrs. Nita Hedreen, 501 West Harbor, said she lives in Forest Hills which is a very nice mobile home park on the Island so she feels as qualified as anyone to speak about town homes and condominiums. She said MH-1 is the only area where all types of dwellings can be constructed to live in.  She does not understand why this particular group needs to be excluded. Density and safety concerns have already been eliminated as reason to exclude the condos and town homes.  Aesthetically, when you drive around town you see that the condos and town homes are beautifully maintained and they are landscaped.  She does not know why that type of construction is not wanted here.  Any structure has to adhere to strict standards of height restriction, which is not an issue either. Mrs. Hedreen said town homes and condos do offer distinct advantages for many people who live here permanently or seasonally.  The elderly benefit greatly from having their property and lawns maintained.  People who live here only seasonally like knowing that the property is going to look nice year around and not just when they are there.  The other thing is that people who can afford anything choose to live in town homes or condos because of things that they allow you to have.  She believes that there is some concern by the Commissioners and Planning Board that MH-1 is shrinking and that is why they want town homes and condos eliminated.  She is not absolutely certain of this but it is something she had heard.  She really does not buy this totally because she thinks it is a mistake to become more restrictive.  She feels it should be left the way it is.  People should be allowed to make the choices of types of dwellings as long as they meet the codes for buildings on the island.  She thinks it is their right to live in different types of buildings.  Mrs. Hedreen said “We have heard neighbors helping neighbors tonight so I think that as neighbors, we should look out for each other, that we should protect their rights to live in town homes and condos”.

            Mr. Andy Harris, Attorney representing Martha Howe, who owns some of the mobile home parks within Emerald Isle.  He said while she does not have any immediate plans to develop any of these properties for condominium and town house development she is concerned about the Planning Board’s decision to put this in front of the town board and why that is being done.  He talked about the advantages of having condominium and town houses as an available use in the mobile home district.  (1) It serves as an incentive for the owner of the park to redevelop their property and as part of doing this it increases the tax base.  Condominiums are much more valuable than mobile homes so that helps with the town’s tax base.  When they redevelop their property they are required to update their facilities, their septic tank facilities, they are required to comply with curbed storm water regulations, water quality regulations and things like that.  Many of these mobile home parks are older and were grandfathered in and did not have to comply with those things at that time.  When they redevelop that property, they will have to comply with those regulations. (2) Aesthetics – the town already has regulations regarding aesthetics.  During their planning they come before the board and present their design, the Planning Board looks at it, approves it, makes modifications and then it comes before the town board and is either approved or reviewed at least. 

            Mr. Harris said he saw that one of the reasons it was being proffered by the Planning Board was to deal with compatibility issues and density issues. He said he has driven through Island Harbor Mobile Home Park and there are a lot of mixed uses there, single family, condos, and mobile homes.  As far as compatibility is concerned, that is already seen in the town.  It has been compatible for 20 years so why change it now.  As far as density is concerned, Mr. Harris said there are already regulations regarding density of development that deal with condominiums. He thinks what is being said is “you are not satisfied with your multi-family ordinance restricting the number of units per acre and if that is the concern that is fine but I don’t think you want to cut your nose off to spite your face by eliminating the use, especially giving the advantages it is going to have for the town dealing with tax values, increasing revenue to the town, improvement of aesthetics, improvement of water quality, storm water and those issues the town is concerned about”.  Mr. Harris said “We don’t think it is appropriate to remove this as an use.  It is “win-win” situation for the town and property owner.  They are able to redevelop their property.  If you take this away from them the likely hood of development diminishes significantly and thereby you loose the ability of bringing them up to current standards regarding storm water and water quality.

            Mrs. Paxon Holz said, “In much simpler terms than Mr. Harris, you will remove the incentive from my family to redevelop mobile home parks if you remove the option to include town homes and condos.  Because we believe, very strongly, that Emerald Isle should welcome all levels of income, we still have in our park a 1969 mobile home that was brought in new.  The same family has rented the lot since 1969. If we do not have the option to replace that mobile home with a new one, and we may or may not ever ask them to replace that mobile home with a new one, if we don’t have the option to request it, if we don’t have the option to ever put a multi-family dwelling there, I can’t imagine what the town is collecting in taxes on a 1969 mobile home, but I bet it is not worth the stamp to send the notice”.

            Mrs. Holz said she has to question the money for removing the ability for them to increase the tax base.  Sound front lots in Forest Hills are 12,500 square feet.  If we can’t replace the mobile homes on those lots with condos or town homes, then Emerald Isle is doomed to collect, on the mobile home as personal property, only the tax value of that constantly depreciating mobile home.  It does not make sense. She went on to say that people have enjoyed Emerald Isle for decades without having to put out a fortune for a place to stay and she urged the board to consider every income bracket and not keep pushing up the income level for living on Emerald Isle.

            Mr. Harry Wigmore, 105 Purdie Street, who has been coming here since 1956.  There was no bridge and doesn’t believe the ferry was even running when he started to come to Emerald Isle. To take and allow more condos and multi-family homes on this island is the wrong thing.  All it is, is talk about “money-money-money”. What about the folks that have been living in these trailer homes for years and have very low income.  They are some of the nicest people you ever want to meet.  He asks why are we going to run them off the island by allowing them to build these monstrosities.  He wants to see this island safe and not all the buildings.

            Commissioner McElraft made a motion to close the Public Hearing and the board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.  Motion carried.

            Commissioner Marks commented the plan did not to do away with town houses and condos but was an attempt to right what was seen as wrong.  Back in 1992, there was a change in the zoning, which for some reason, was to allow town houses and condos in the MH-1 zoning.  Who ever initiated that never put it up on the option and it was never put on the books.  She said she is not opposed to town houses.  She is not opposed to condos.  She is opposed to blanket saying in any MH-1 zoning, we can put in town houses and condos and put these people out. The landowners may well replace mobile homes with town houses and condos and put these people out.  There is lots of space on Emerald Isle for town houses that is perfectly appropriate and many people prefer that.  She has no problem with that.  She does have a problem where the zoning is changed for somebody and let that zoning end up hurting people.

            Commissioner McElraft said she is not sure why it was done in 1993 but it was done.  In 2001 Mrs. Martha Howe came to the board and indicated she wanted to change a B-3 to a MH-1.  We said sure without any hesitation.  We let her downgrade from a B-3, which is the most prestigious commercial property and the most valuable, to a MH-1.  At that point, she thought when she had a MH-1 that she could possibly someday take that B-3 to maybe condo or town houses because that was the use that was established in 1993.  The board did her a disservice.  The board allowed her to take that from a B-3 down to a MH-1 and devalue her property when she thought she at least had a value of town houses and condos in there.  Now her land is even less valuable than what she thought.  This is the wrong kind of zoning, taking uses away.  It is taking property rights away, taking their decision to use the property in any way they choose.  This is America.  Commissioner McElraft referenced a survey that went out where it said that single-family residential units should be protected from multi-family and commercial development.  Nine hundred people said yes.  If there was a question put in there about mobile homes versus condos – no. There was a question that said would you discourage mobile homes and mobile home parks? This got the highest “discourage” mark.  When the survey went out, the restriction on the height of condos had not been changed.  The restriction on height is now 3 stories. This is a disservice.  It is a property taking where a zoning was changed to make it restrictive even more.  There are people who live in the mobile home parks who would someday like to move into town houses. They cannot do it because there is not going to be any group of them anywhere. There are one or two on the island and the rest is totally full.  Commissioner McElraft said her opinion is it is time it be realized that it is no more wrong to use them in a condo and town home area than it is in a MH-1 area.  This absolutely should not be done.  It is a property taking.

            Commissioner Eckhardt supports the motion.  The reason is not necessarily the density issue, which is secondary to him and he is not too sure it could be proven one way or the other.  His problem is it is propagating mixed zoning and that is certainly something that will always be but we don’t need to aspire to it.  This is another incidence of mixed zoning and he doesn’t think it is needed in this case.

            Commissioner Messer remarked he does not believe this board has the right to arbitrarily rezone someone’s property against their wishes especially if it is zoned to get the best use out of the property and improve the property if they so desire.

            Commissioner Farmer commented that apparently people are assuming that the board is prohibiting town houses and condos in Emerald Isle.  She went on to explain that what this ordinance change is about is removing a permitted use from a table.  If someone has a property that they want to redevelop, the process is to go before the board for a zoning change.  When you do that, all adjacent property owners are notified.  Many of the adjacent property owners living in houses beside mobile homes now have no idea what could be next door to them and that in the future it could be condos and town houses and would never be given the opportunity to say “no I don’t want that”.  This is giving a board an opportunity to look at a particular piece of land, see whether it is in the best interest of the town to have condos and town houses there and make the decision whether to rezone at that point.  A number of the mobile home parks at this time are in the new Accident Potential Zone that the Navy has designated according to the department of the Navy.  According to the Navy dense development, including mobile homes, is not a great thing to have in the Accident Potential Zone.  Commissioner Farmer said she does not think more should be encouraged.

            Commissioner McElraft said she is thrown back by the Accident Potential Zone situation. She asked, “You don’t care about the safety of mobile homes as you do about someone who lives in a condo or townhouse?  That makes no sense.  Absolutely not”.

            Commissioner Farmer said “ we are not going to go to people living in mobile homes right now and say get out of the Accident Potential Zone because they are already there.  What is being discussed here is redevelopment.

            Commissioner McElraft interjected “At a same or lesser density.  It has already been proven”.

            Mayor Schools called for a vote. 

            Commissioner Marks made a motion to approve the Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 (Zoning) of the Emerald Isle Code of Ordinances to Remove Condominiums and Townhouses from the List of Permitted Uses in the MH-1 District. The board’s vote was 3-2. Voting in favor of the motion were Commissioners Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks.  Voting against the motion were Commissioners McElraft and Messer.  Motion carried.

Mr. Rush interjected this item would appear again on the April 9th board meeting due to the fact that on the first reading of the ordinance, it requires a two-thirds majority vote.  That did not occur this evening for a passing on the first reading. 

CONSIDERATION OF OSPREY BLUFF SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT 

The Planning Board tabled the final plat after its January meeting because the street and drainage improvements that were initially constructed were not acceptable.  After the January Planning Board meeting, Town staff worked with the developer, Mr. Larry Spell, and his agents to insure that these public improvements were constructed to an acceptable standard.  The developer reconstructed the road shoulders and drainage ditches and stabilized the roadway adjacent to the pond with riprap.  Public Works Director Bob Conrad recently reviewed the street and drainage improvements and recommends them for acceptance by the Town, with one small exception.  Mr. Conrad has requested that the developer re-seed or sod one of the reconstructed ditches along Osprey Ridge Drive.  As of March 7, this work was not yet complete, however, the developer has deposited a certified check for $3,000 to the Town to cover this work if it is not completed prior to the March 12 meeting.  Pursuant to the Town code, and indicated on the final plat, the developer will provide a one-year warranty on the public improvements in this subdivision.

It should be noted that the final plat now contains the dedication of a short segment of Osprey Ridge Drive in addition to the previously indicated Christina Court.  This short street segment was not included on the preliminary plat.  This short segment has been improved to Town standards over the existing Osprey Ridge Drive, which is actually not a recorded private or public street.  The existing Osprey Ridge Drive loops around the existing pond, but is technically private, undeveloped property.  Somewhere in the process of granting preliminary approval to Osprey Bluff subdivision, a decision was made to improve the short segment of Osprey Ridge Drive to town standards to provide access to Osprey Bluff.  Because Osprey Bluff would not have access to an existing public street without the dedication of this short segment of Osprey Ridge Drive, the developer was instructed to include this on the final plat for approval by the Board and dedication to the Town.  Town Attorney Derek Taylor and Planning Board Member and Attorney Frank Erwin are both comfortable with this approach.

The Planning Board recommended approval of the final plat at its February 25 meeting by a 5-1 vote.  The review of this final plat has alerted the Planning Board to the need to amend the Town’s standards for drainage ditches, and the Planning Board is scheduled to consider potential changes along with street ROW recommendations at its March 25 meeting. 

            Mrs. Carol Angus said this is a 12-lot subdivision that had already been through preliminary approval in the fall of 2000. It is located North of the existing Osprey Ridge subdivision in Block 43.  There were some concerns about the road but this now meets the requirements necessary for the Public Works Director and through Jimmy Taylor Building Inspector. 

            There were no further comments.

            Commissioner McElraft made a motion to approve the final plat for Osprey Bluff Subdivision and the board voted unanimously with a vote of 5-0.  Motion carried.

NC DOT THOROUGHFARE PLAN

            Mr. Rush said Mr. James Upchurch, Transportation Engineer in the NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch was scheduled to speak on this subject but was unable to attend because of a death in his family. 

A public hearing has been advertised as required.  Following the public hearing, the Board should consider the attached Resolution Opposing the NC 58 Widening Recommendations.

Black and white copies of both the ‘Crystal Coast Area Thoroughfare Plan’ and the “Recommended New Locations and Widenings’ maps are attached at the end of these minutes.  NCDOT is requesting that the Town of Emerald Isle formally endorse the ‘Crystal Coast Area Thoroughfare Plan’ only, which is the plan that identifies the locations of proposed new road locations before development occurs within the proposed route.  The ‘Crystal Coast Area Thoroughfare Plan’ does include the identification of a few new roadway routes in Carteret County, but none of these are located in the Town of Emerald Isle.  The closest new roadway route is the proposed NC 24 bypass north of Cedar Point.  One item that should be noted is that the revised version of the ‘Thoroughfare Plan’ no longer includes a new interchange at the intersection of NC 24 and NC 58.  This item has been removed from the ‘Thoroughfare Plan’ based on additional research by NCDOT and the removal of this item from the Carteret County Transportation Committee’s list of priorities.  (Please note that the yellow label was left on the map in error; the actual notation has been removed from the plan.) 

NCDOT is not requesting that the Town endorse the ‘Recommended New Locations and Widenings’ map, but the Town may choose to comment on the proposed new locations and widenings.  The ‘Recommended New Locations and Widenings’ map includes the construction of a new bridge to Emerald Isle adjacent to the existing bridge, the widening of NC 58 from 3 to 5 lanes from the bridge to Town Hall, and the widening of NC 58 from 2 to 3 lanes east of Town Hall to the Indian Beach town line.  Based on previous Board discussion, it appears that the entire Board is opposed to these ‘Recommended Widenings’.  As such, the attached resolution opposing the NC 58 Widening Recommendations is presented for the Board’s consideration. 

It should be noted that the language in the resolution does officially endorse the ‘Crystal Coast Area Thoroughfare Plan’ but strongly opposes the ‘Recommended New Locations and Widenings’. 

            Commissioner Eckhardt made a motion to open the Public Hearing, and the board voted unanimously with a vote of 5-0.  Motion carried.

Mr. Harry Wigmore, 105 Purdie Street, commented that the idea of construction of another bridge is ridiculous. There is no need for another bridge. The first bridge should not have been built. He questioned where the widening was going to be put?  We have a nice entrance way and he questioned why destroy it? Mr. Wigmore feels people should take their time, drive the speed limit and they will get where they are going eventually. He also feels there is enough traffic on the island now. He encouraged the board not to ruin the island.

            Mr. John Wootten, 103 Eagles Nest, said he agrees with Mr. Wigmore.  Resolutions do not cut it.  Resolutions get filed in cabinet drawers.  If the public really wants to take the leadership position on this issue, you need to raise this up a notch in the upcoming elections for County Commissioner.  That is the next pressure point.  Make this issue a lit list test to be exposed to the citizens of Emerald Isle.  Make a lit list test for support of election of representatives, from at least District 1, and you may even be allowed some influence in the other districts as well.  He encouraged the board to take that path.  Resolutions don’t cut it.

            Mr. Harry Thompson, 1603 Ocean Drive, asked what the big objection to adding a couple of lane to Highway 58 is?  The right-of-way is already there.  It would not take any more right-of-way to do it.  It would be so much simpler to get traffic through town and it would definitely help during hurricane season.

            Mr. Larry Spell, 8810 Emerald Drive, said to him it is almost ridiculous.  Apparently a lot of people present do not get around on Saturdays and Sundays and the weekends during the summer time.  He has seen the cars backed up from the stoplight at Highway 58 and 24 all the way past Chapel By The Sea.  He asked if this is something we want to continue to have?  It is obstacles to the Fire trucks and ambulances. He asked what if someone had a heart attack and was trying to get off the island and the roads are blocked with all the cars?  Improving the infrastructure does not change the quality of the town.  It simply makes it function better.

            Mr. Lee Lipsitz, 11007 Inlet Drive has no strong feelings about the 5 lanes but three would be a tremendous help.

            Mrs. Paxon Holz suggested all who vote against widening Highway 58 be the last ones off Bogue Banks in the event of a hurricane evacuation.

Commissioner McElraft made a motion to close the Public Hearing.  The board’s vote was unanimous with a vote of 5-0.

            Commissioner Marks commented her feeling, relative to the evacuation plan, is if the town wants to expedite evacuation, a third bridge should be located in the middle of the island.  All of the people living on the island would have a route if the far west end were closed. There are plans to widen Hibbs Road and another third bridge could be suggested to DOT.  DOT is talking about 5-lanes on Hibbs Road which would be a good reason to locate a third bridge from the island directly across from this widening. 

            Commissioner Farmer made a motion that the board adopt the recommendation of this Resolution but with some changes.  It currently reads A Resolution Opposing The NC Crystal Coast Thoroughfare Plan and Opposing the NC 58 Widening Recommendations.  Her suggestion was changing this to Resolution Opposing the NC Crystal Coast Thoroughfare Plan and in the body of the Resolution and change the last paragraph to read, Be it further resolved that the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners opposes the Crystal Coast Area Thoroughfare Plan as presented by NCDOT.

            Commissioner McElraft said it is OK for us to talk about the roads on Emerald Isle but when you go out and start dictating to the other parts of the County, how they widen their streets, what their infrastructure is like, that should be left up to them.

            Commissioner Farmer feels the Resolution makes it very clear what the town’s opposition is.  It talked about all the widening in town.  DOT has known, since 2000, when they first presented this to the board, that there have been problems with their recommendations for widening.  They have had ample opportunity to adjust the recommendations and chose not to.  They have been saying that they just want the board to adopt the map that shows the roads not what they want to do to the roads and yet they are calling the map The Crystal Coast Thoroughfare Plan.  She had a document from them saying the crystal coast area thoroughfare plan that indeed talks about the widening.  She is not comfortable passing it.  If they would like to come back with Emerald Isle’s widenings removed, then she would support that.   

            Commissioner Messer said he has no problem with 5-lanes.  There are not many people who have driven this island, as many years as he has and until they looked at the double yellow lines to slow the traffic down, there were head-on collisions after head-on collisions.  People were pulling out to pass and then someone would pull out of a side street.  If the third lane were put in, he thinks a problem would be created that the town tried to solve with the double lanes and he cannot support it.

            Commissioner Marks had trouble with the 5-lanes.  There is talk about getting sidewalks and getting more pedestrian friendly.  This is a very unfriendly town for pedestrians.  Trying to cross Emerald Drive is almost impossible. The town is trying to do something significant with traffic here.  There is a need to have crossing lanes where pedestrians can safely cross in town.  Her concern with 5-lanes is there is no way anyone would be able to cross.  She would tend to favor a third lane east of town hall if it were extended to Lee Street to relieve some of that congestion. 

            Commissioner Eckhardt asked to go over the motion one more time.  Mr. Rush clarified the title would be changed to Resolution adopting the NC DOT Crystal Coast Thoroughfare Plan And Opposing The NC 58 Widening Recommendations. The last paragraph is to be changed to "Be It further Resolved that the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners opposes the Crystal Coast Area Thoroughfare Plan as presented by NCDOT".

            Commissioner Farmer amended her motion to approve, with the recommended changes that Mr. Rush suggested above, the Resolution adopting the NC DOT Crystal Coast Thoroughfare Plan And Opposing The NC 58 Widening Recommendations.

            Commissioner McElraft commented she came ready to support this Resolution because it dealt with opposing the widening of Highway 58 in Emerald Isle.  It dealt with that and the board opposes it.  She stated, “Now we are going to go out and be the ugly citizens of Emerald Isle that people have betrayed us to be, telling the rest of the County how they can and cannot do their own thoroughfare.  It makes her sad”.

            Commissioner Farmer said if the DOT would like to come back and remove the widenings they have planned for Emerald Isle in this plan, she would be more than happy to adopt it.

            Attorney Taylor said since the board is opposing the DOT Crystal Coast Thoroughfare Plan to add the word “ and opposing the NC 58 Widening Recommendations”.

            Commissioner Marks commented she does not think this is telling other towns what to do.  Our town does not approve the plans DOT has laid out now.  They have all seen the plan.  We are not telling them what to do and what not to do.  We are just saying we are not putting our two cents in saying we think it is OK to do in your town.

            Commissioner McElraft said the Emerald Isle portion was not a part of the thoroughfare plan and she asked Commissioner Farmer to clarify.

            Commissioner Farmer read from her document “Crystal Coast Thoroughfare Plan, widening improvements, major thoroughfare plan, NC 58 bridge 2 to 4 lanes; NC 58 downtown Emerald Isle 3 to 5 lanes; NC 58 on Bogue Banks 2 to 3 lanes which may or may not be supported by Emerald Isle.  It is the bridge and the commercial district being widened to 5 lanes that Commissioner Farmer cannot support.

            Commissioner Eckhardt said the way he read it they are asking that the map be approved that says really not much of anything.  Mr. Rush said as far as Emerald Isle is concerned it does not have any impact, that what they are asking the board to approve is the thoroughfare plan map.  The recommended widening locations, they are not asking the board to adopt that widening location map but in previous discussions it has been pretty clear there have been pretty strong opposition to widening. 

            Commissioner Eckhardt agreed with Mr. Wootten that Resolutions do not do a whole lot of good.  He feels the board needs to go on record as not supporting this map.  If this map is what is being used to drive their plan, which is what they say, he does not see how the board can support it.  He cannot.

            Mr. Rush said that certainly is the board’s decision.  If the Resolution was presented the way it was, based on conversations with DOT and their communication of what they were asking for approval.  If the board feels it should take a stronger stance on this issue, by all means they should.  Commissioner Eckhardt said he feels they should take the strongest stance they possibly can take on this.

            Commissioner McElraft said she wished, so that it doesn’t look like this board is telling the rest of the town’s what to do by not approving this, since Emerald Isle will be the only town not approving, that the town would step back one step, get DOT here and wait on this Resolution until we have straight facts and what it means to DOT and not have it appear in the papers that we are trying to hurt others by not approving for other people what they want. 

            Commissioner Eckhardt said he “might agree with Commissioner McElraft except that the Mayor of Indian Beach and the Mayor of Cape Carteret has stepped up and tried to tell us what we need here and that is not any more appropriate than us trying to tell them, and I don’t think we are telling them, all we are saying is that we don’t agree with the thoroughfare plan for Emerald Isle”.

            Mr. Rush clarified that the Title of the Resolution will read Resolution opposing the NC DOT Crystal Coast Thoroughfare Plan and Opposing the NC 58 Widening Recommendations.  The first WHEREAS would remain as is, the second WHEREAS would be deleted, the third and fourth whereas’ would remain and the last paragraph would read "Be it further resolved that the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners opposes the Crystal Coast Area Thoroughfare Plan as presented by NCDOT".

            Commissioner McElraft asked to make a comment for the record.  She said she wanted everyone to know, because during the election it was not brought out, she absolutely opposes 5-laning of Emerald Drive.  She absolutely opposes putting another lane on the bridge or building another bridge.  She wants that to be in her statement.  But there is a way it can be done without slapping neighbors in the face and she is absolutely opposed to doing that.

            Mayor Schools called for a vote.  The board’s vote was 3-2 on this Resolution.  Voting to approve the Resolution with the changes discussed were Commissioners Farmer, Eckhardt and Marks.  Voting against approval were Commissioners McElraft and Messer.  Motion carried.

            A short break was taken and the board came back into session at 8:45 P.M.

CONSIDERATION – ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT) OF THE EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES

The comprehensive revision of the Stormwater Management Ordinance is very similar to the February draft version that was discussed at the February 27 workshop meeting.  Changes have been incorporated that were suggested by the Board at that meeting.

One additional change (besides those discussed on February 27) has been made to the ordinance. The language in Section 16-4 (b) that requires the applicant / developer to submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan to the Town has been removed, at least temporarily.  It was mentioned at the February 27 meeting that the Land Quality Section of the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources must approve a local government’s ordinance creating its own erosion and sedimentation control program.  An attempt to secure model language from NCDENR-Land Quality to incorporate into our ordinance was made; however, the appropriate staff person at NCDENR-Land Quality has been on extended leave since the February 27 meeting.  A suggestion is to consider the ordinance without that requirement and after the model information is received on the ordinance from NCDENR-Land Quality, it will be forwarded to the Planning Board for their review and recommendation regarding its inclusion in our stormwater management ordinance at a later date.

            Commissioner Farmer thanked the previous Planning Board, the Town Manager, and Carol Angus for all the work they have done on the stormwater ordinance.  It has been a long time coming.  Ceil Saunders was Chairman at that time.  She did a wonderful job.  Commissioner Farmer thinks this new ordinance will go a long way or at least not making our storm water problems worse.

            Mr. John McLean, 7511 Ocean Drive, asked about the disturbance of land being as small as practical (page 7) and where the possible indigenous vegetation shall be retained and protected and where it is not possible, suitable nature species shall be planted.  He asked suitable to whom?  Mr. Rush said that provision in the ordinance has not changed from the original ordinance and the way it was first adopted.  The intent of that provision is to encourage the replanting of native vegetation, like live oak and holly trees, etc.

            On another page headed Submittal and Approval.  It reads “storm water management plan must be submitted and approved before" – and there are several things listed – Mr. McLean asked who is it approved by?  Mr. Rush answered that for a single-family home, the project does not go to the Planning Board and Town Board for review, the town Inspections would approve the storm water plan.  Any project such as subdivisions, commercial developments that go to the Planning Board and Town Board, the storm water plan would be approved by the board at that time. Mr. McLean asked again, the Planning Board would approve it?  Mr. Rush said the Planning Board would review it and they would make a recommendation to the town board that would have final approval.  Mr. McLean asked about the technical part where it says, “Submitted and approved before - - -“ and his question was is the Planning Board the ones who approve the plan.  Mr. McLean said before it goes to the town board, he assumes it would be approved by somebody. Mr. Rush said it would be approved in conjunction with the development plans.  Mr. McLean asked again, “who approves it”?  Mr. Rush answered that the town board will ultimately approve it for major projects.  Mr. McLean asked, “Before it gets to the town board who approves it”?  Mr. Rush said it would go through a level of staff review.  Mr. McLean asked if he, Mr. Rush, would review the plans of a professional engineer? He guesses that is his question. Mr. McLean asked Mr. Rush if he was the staff member who was going to approve the professional engineers plans?  Mr. Rush’ answer was it would be the staff in the Planning and Inspections Department.  He would get involved if necessary.  He usually does not get involved unless there are problems.  Mr. McLean replied, “I would submit to you that you do not have the expertise you need to review professional engineers plans”.  Mr. Rush agreed that he is not a professional engineer. We are relying on a professional engineer that is required to compile these plans.  The intent of this ordinance is to make sure they are in compliance.  The town staff, the Planning Board and the town board would be reviewing to make sure that it is in compliance. He went on to say that one of the things the town is considering right now is identifying some funds to hire a county engineer just as a retainer.

            Mr. McLean noted there is one Professional Engineer on the Planning Board that may have the expertise but if he were sick you would not have him available.

            Mr. McLean asked If Mr. Rush would guess that there is 90 percent on build out of the island?  Mr. Rush replied this has been calculated and it comes to about 82 percent.  This is all lots, which include a one-acre lot or a 40 acre tract.  This total is by number of parcels.

            Mr. McLean wanted the board to know that it is very expensive to go out and hire a surveyor to do a topo on every lot that is going to be built on.  He feels it is unfair to make a new property owner coming to Emerald Isle, who has owned property for a while and wants to build, to create a hardship whereby he has to hire a professional engineer to get a plan done and then he has to dance to go through a storm water review process for what Mr. McLean considers very little good.  He does not think single-family residents are the ones giving the trouble. 

            Mr. Ricky Taylor, owner of Bogue Sound Septic, commented he has worked on the island a lot and his concern is the topo. He does not know exactly what the cost would be but thinks it would be between $500 and $700 for a single-family lot. At present, the contractors go through a lot to get a lot graded on the island.  Most of the good lots are built on already. In the past several months on lots he has graded, several concerns have come up.  He does not know if the people who have expressed a concern about it have come to town hall and have checked the permits that have been pulled.  He thinks they have been going to the lots and looking and then calling the Inspectors and saying that the lots have been cleared too much.  His concern is he thinks the people with concerns should go to town hall, pull the plat and see what they are doing.  He does not agree with the storm water professional part of it.  With what Mr. Taylor does and what the town has already, he thinks something could be brought up that would work and cost a lot less to the homeowner.  Mr. Taylor feels it is a little late in the ball game to be coming up with a the storm water part for single family lots.

            Clint Routsen, 9721 Green Glen Road and representative of the Nassau Corporation, indicated he has been in discussions with the board for some time with respect to this ordinance and he thanked the board for listening to his many comments where some were accepted and rejecting most.  They are opposed to the ordinance as written.  He pointed out there were two main things, again, pointing out the thing about having to have the topo for every 2-feet for all lots.  There were quite a few modifications with respect to the requirements for the storm water management plan but that topo requirement remains in it and the cost of that is going to be fairly significant.  He requested the commissioner consider that.  The other issue is in relation to the restriction to be able to fill a low-lying area over 1,000 feet of wetland.  That regulation has been taken over by the State and/or Federal Government.  We request that you allow them to do that.  That restriction was going to unduly burden property owners that have purchased property in the past, come back to find areas which were previously high and dry and due to various other things are now showing some sort of moisture on them.  Again, it would be unfair to the property owner.  Mr. Routsen requested that these two concerns be given consideration. 

            Mrs. Paxon Holz, 6715 Ocean Drive, remarked she “has one lot in Osprey Ridge and it is very simple.  If it is good for me, it is good for you and if I have to abide by this storm water regulation then so should all of you.  If I can catch any of you letting one drop of storm water leave your existing home and your existing lot and you have made it impossible for my purchaser or me to have the same treatment, then look out”.

            Commissioner McElraft made a motion, in reference to the low-lying area, to strike the words “low-lying” on page 18 (11) because the State and Federal Government will have jurisdiction there.

            Commissioner Farmer asked Commissioner McElraft to consider amending her motion to have it read lot owners and contractors shall not fill more than 1,000 feet in any part of pond or wetland unless that pond or wetland is expanded or a new retention area is built to replace it.

            Commissioner Messer asked if the low-lying area is being deleted and the answer was yes.  He said a lot of people have built around a pond or wetland and have created low-lying areas.

            Commissioner Farmer said it serves the purpose to keep these low-lying areas.  She thinks it is going to be impossible to enforce that.  It is going to be disputed how you define a low-lying area.  Some of them are more valuable than others.  Some actually collect water.  Some don’t.  It would be very difficult to enforce.

            Commissioner Messer said a lot of the low-lying water collection area – it would be unfair for the owner if he brought the lot thirty years ago and everyone built around him and thirty years ago he had the best lot on the street.  Now, he has the junk pile on the street where all of the water is lying. It is not fair to keep him from getting reasonable use of his property.

            Commissioner McElraft said she would agree to the deleting the low-lying area and she likes that better because you can expand that one pond rather than building a new one.

            Attorney Taylor said the next sentence, if the board was going to go with that language should be “ this expansion for the retention area”.

            Commissioner Marks commented she understands there is a new type of waste treatment facility that is under observation in Onslow County now.  The board is concerned about filling of wetlands.  Water is dumped on the town roads and then there is a storm water problem. 

            Mr. Routsen said he does understand. The ordinance does require all storm water be retained on the lot.  What is otherwise being done is pushing that property owner into having to apply for a variance because that is what he is going to have to do.

            Commissioner Marks remarked her concern is if the problem of storm water is not taken care of now, there will be no end to the problems.

            Commissioner Farmer said she is happy with the variance process.

            Commissioner McElraft said she is hoping that with taking out the low-lying areas and with the 1,000 square feet – “if this should preclude any reasonable development of the lot, the applicant may apply to the board of adjustment for a variance”.  Commissioner McElraft felt that board of adjustment would definitely give a variance there if another pond could not be placed anywhere.

            Commissioner Farmer said the intent is not to make people stop building on their lots.  The intent is to make people stop and think about where they are sitting houses and driveways, etc.

            Attorney Taylor suggested since there is a motion on the table for the revision of the proposed storm water management plan that a vote for that particular area be taken.

            The board voted unanimously for the revision of the proposed storm water management plan, with a vote of 5-0.  Motion carried.

Commissioner Farmer suggested the board act on a typo that has been corrected in Section 16.4 definitions.  The second correction was in 16.6 Storm Water Management Standards talks about artificial recharging of ponds.  There is one subdivision in town that has been doing that.  They originally asked the board to prohibit this recharging in their subdivision as well.  She is not comfortable with letting this ordinance go out like this. The Town Attorney, added at her request, “However the town currently encourages compliance with this prohibition of existing user of groundwater recharge systems” in 16.4 (21).

            Commissioner Farmer made a motion to adopt these changes and the board voted unanimously with a vote of 5-0. Motion carried.

             Commissioner McElraft, in talking about the topography, said trees left on lots should be 24 inches in circumference. She also indicated that she has a problem with the requirement of having them retain 2” of storm water on their property, why should they be made to spend another $700 to get topography?  They are being required to have dry wells, retain the water on their lots, etc.  She does not feel that is necessary when surveyors say it is not necessary. 

            Commissioner Farmer asked for comments from the Planning Board Chairman of how the Planning Board felt on this issue.

            Mr. Phil Almedia, 103 Barracuda Court and Planning Board Chairman, Mr. Almeida stated that most of the lots that remain on the island are marginal lots. There is a misconception as to how much the individual owners are to hold as being two inches over the whole lot, which is not true. They are required to hold on the premises the runoff from impervious area, not from pervious areas. The reason it was suggested that you have a topo (topographic survey) there have been cases in town where a lot is filled and dump on someone else. Unless you have a topo there is no way for the inspections staff to really know what is the layout of the ground, what is happening at the site, that was the reason.

Commissioner McElraft asked if the 2” is retained on the lot by the stormwater plan, if they put fill on the lot they have to have an engineered stormwater plan, why is it necessary to have a topo? 

Mr. Almeida first responded to the issue of using fill.  Unless you have a topo you don’t know if a stream is running through property. The moment you start building you might be obstructing the flow of water that is going through your property. You can provide for it without abandoning the lot, without condemning the lot, to provide for the flow of water by providing some type of a pipe or something, some throughway for the water to go through. Unless you have a topo for the marginal lots you cannot determine what is happening at the site.

Commissioner McElraft then asked if it could be required that only the marginal lots require surveys?

Mr. Almeida then asked how you would define marginal lots? There are sections in town where he was told there is not flooding, but when he goes around he sees flooding.  The problem has been, in town, the lack of enforcement of the 1 ½” to be retained until about a year ago. That is the problem and why we are faced with a stormwater problem.

Commissioner McElraft responded that “We have enforcement now”.

Mr. Almeida stated that we now have enforcement, but it’s not complete. 

            Mr. Almeida said that if filling is allowed, the current practice has been to issue permits by the truckload. He was in Lands End where there was a permit 2 or 3 years ago to bring in 150 truckloads.  There is no way anyone in town can check whether 150 are coming in or 200 have come in.  What happened was the lot was raised 12 to 15 feet.  To go beyond, the condition of the permit was that you retain all the water on your property.  What the owner did was to shelve the whole lot.  The only way to retain water was to slope the lot toward the center to a collection basin, and he did not.  He needed a retaining wall all around, he did not put that, and that was under the permit that was issued by the town. 

Commissioner McElraft added that there is now a section that talks about fill. Any more than 2 feet of fill you have to have a professional engineer to design the plan to retain the 2” of storm water.  Why do you want to make them pay for a topo?

            Mr. Almeida said you would be requiring limiting the amount of fill to 2 feet, unless there is a variance.

            Commissioner McElraft said if it is limited to 2 feet and engineered storm water plan, for over 2 feet.

            Mr. Almeida asked how you would determine, unless you have a topo, the average of 2 feet of fill has been placed on the property?

            Commissioner McElraft asked if that is part of the engineered storm water plan?

            Mr. Almeida answered “no”.  “It is a condition”.  Commissioner McElraft said in that case, if Mr. Almeida thinks that is necessary, she could understand that.  But on a property, just because some of the lots are bad and may be required, why should everyone be required to pay $700 for a topo?  She has talked to town staff who have said it would be so cluttered on the topo’s that they would not be able to read it with every elevation noted.

            Mr. Almeida indicated he has no answer for Commissioner McElraft.  Commissioner McElraft said if it is necessary fine.

            Mr. Almeida said there are two PE’s on the Planning Board.  That was their recommendation and now it is up to the commissioners to take it or leave it.

Commissioner Farmer made a motion that the board adopt the Storm Water Management Plan with changes approved tonight.

Commissioner McElraft noted for the record that there are a lot of things she has had to compromise on.  She does not agree with it but she does believe that storm water needs to be retained on the owners property. 

Commissioner Farmer said there have been compromises all over the place to try to come up with a document that would do what was really needed to be done in Emerald Isle so that storm water problems would not be made worse. 

Commissioner Messer indicated he had two problems with the ordinance.  One was the low-lying which he felt would make lots unbuildable if it was not dealt with and he still has a problem with the topography on single family lots.

Commissioner Eckhardt said he has just one.  He thinks Ricky Taylor hit it on the head when he said the good lots have been developed and now the lots that are being worked with need to be paid more attention to.  Commissioner Eckhardt thanked the previous Planning Board, the present Planning Board, Town Manager and Carol Angus who has done a lot of hard work on this issue.

The board voted unanimously for approval of the Storm Water Management Plan, with a vote of 5-0.

 

CONSIDERATION – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO SUBMIT A LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT APPLICATION FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AT THE COAST GUARD ROAD STORM WATER SITE

The Town is moving forward with plans to purchase the 40.7 acre site for the Coast Guard Road storm water project, and is scheduled to make a final decision on the purchase at the April 9 Town Board meeting. The Board has previously discussed the possibility of constructing a new, passive park on the 40.7 acre site in conjunction with the storm water project if grant funds become available.  In light of this, the Board of Commissioners is asked to consider the attached resolution authorizing an application to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for a $246,000 grant for 50% of park development costs at the Coast Guard Road storm water project site. 

Alesia Sanderson, Parks and Recreation Director, has been working on a concept for the potential new park over the past couple of months.  Ms. Sanderson’s concept is indicated on the attached preliminary sketch, and a detailed budget estimate is also provided.  The total estimated cost of the park project is approximately $492,000, of which $246,000 would be funded by the LWCF grant, with the remaining $246,000 funded by the Town.  The improvements that are envisioned include:

  • Nature trails throughout the site, with educational signs describing the storm water project.
  • 2 small picnic shelters, and limited associated parking.
  • A small gazebo near the north end of the park.
  • A small maintenance / restroom facility. 
  • A canoe / kayak access with a public walkway to the sound.
  • Other park amenities, including picnic tables, trash cans, etc. 

The conceptual design includes the use of the existing cleared roadway, and also utilizes pervious materials where possible in an attempt to minimize disturbance and environmental impacts on the site.  This conceptual design has not yet been reviewed by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, and the Town would need to secure the CWMTF’s approval before committing to a final park design concept.  However, it is our opinion at this point in time that the proposed park concept is consistent with the goals of the CWMTF grant program.  The park concept can certainly be modified if we learn otherwise, or if the Board has alternative ideas they would like to investigate. 

The deadline for the LWCF grant application is April 2, and there are no other regular Board meetings scheduled prior to that date.  There will certainly be other grant opportunities in the future, but I did not want to pass up this opportunity without giving the Board a chance to discuss it.  If the Town is fortunate to be awarded a grant, it is recommended that the $246,000 local match be folded into the total financing package for the Coast Guard Road storm water project.  If the total Town cost of the Coast Guard Road storm water project, including the local match on a park grant, is financed over 15 years at current interest rates, It is believed that we could accommodate this additional expense within the $270,000 annual allocation for the storm water project that is already in the Town budget, or with a minimal additional appropriation.  Essentially, the inclusion of the park match in the overall financing package would increase the annual debt service payment by approximately $25,000 - $30,000.

            Commissioner Farmer asked if some of the town match could be in kind match would be?  Ms. Sanderson indicated it could be and the percentage is 25%.

            Commissioner Farmer remarked there are a lot of grants out there for the storm water projects and she assumes the town will also be going for those.  She hopes the town will give the taxpayers a break whenever it can by going for some of the grants. Mr. Rush said the town would be going for other grants.

            Commissioner Farmer said she and Mr. Rush have talked about FEMA.  Originally it was thought that FEMA would pick up the tab for the storm water project.  They baulked because the land is on a barrier island.  If it were decided to move forward on the project and purchase the land with the $2.4 million from the Clean Water Trust Fund, she would hope that the town would go back to FEMA again and say redo your cost benefit now because we now own that land and take the land out of the equations.  She feels that with the land taken out of the equations, the cost benefit analysis would come out better. 

            Commissioner Messer said parks and trails are very nice and if you can afford them it is fine, but he does not think we need to spend money we do not have.

            Commissioner Marks disagreed saying the town cannot keep putting this project off.  It gets more costly every year.  If grant money can be obtained to turn this into a park, it should be applied it.  This is an opportunity to solve the storm water problems and the people are excited about it. 

            Commissioner McElraft asked if the grant money could be turned down if there was no park to put it into.  Ms. Sanderson replied you can always turn down money.

            Commissioner Messer asked if at the time the grant application, the town has to submit that it will have the match the grant money?  Mr. Rush said they are looking for a good faith that the town can come up with the matching money.

            Commissioner McElraft said if the town could wait one year, after the storm water project gets underway because it will take 160 days for that permitting process.  She cannot obligate any more taxpayer money without a vote.

            Commissioner Farmer said she would be happy to give it back to them if it cannot be used.

            Commissioner Farmer made a motion supporting the Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Submit a Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Application for Park Development at the Coast Guard Storm Water site. 

            Commissioner Eckhardt agreed as long as it was only the application that is being done at this time, he could support it.  He thinks since it is talking 2 years out from October, there is time to make some decisions.  He would like to see if the town could submit an application.

            Commissioner Messer asked if we would be making the match at the time the application was made?

            Mr. Rush said, if a grant is awarded, there would be a formal granting, and that is the point in time when the town would be committing the money for the match.  

            Mayor Schools asked for a vote.  The board voted, 3-2. for approval of the Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Submit A Land And Water Conservation Fund Grant For Park Development At The Coast Guard Road Storm Water Site. Voting for were Commissioners Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks.  Voting against were Commissioners Messer and McElraft.  Motion carried.

RESOLUTION CERTIFYING BOND RESULTS

Pursuant to State law, the Board of Commissioners must adopt the attached resolution certifying the results of the March 5 beach nourishment bond referendum.  The attached resolution was prepared by the Town’s bond counsel, Robinson, Bradshaw, & Hinson, P.A. 

The results of the bond referendum were certified by the Carteret County Board of Elections on Friday, March 8.  The results were as follows:

            District            Yes No

            Primary Benefit    57            29

            Secondary Benefit            642            596

            TOTAL          699            625

            Following adoption by the Board, the “Statement of Result” will be advertised in the Carteret County News-Times, in accordance with State law.

            Commissioner Messer made a motion to approve the Resolution Certifying Bond Results and the board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.  Motion carried.

RESOLUTION REQUESTING GOVERNOR MIKE EASLEY TO REMIT OBLIGATED FUNDS TO CITIES AND COUNTIES

Mayor Schools has requested that the Board of Commissioners consider the attached resolution requesting Governor Easley to remit obligated funds to cities and counties.  The attached resolution is similar to resolutions adopted by other local governments, and conveys Emerald Isle’s displeasure with the Governor’s recent budget actions.

Emerald Isle is slated to lose approximately $103,000 in revenues in FY 01-02 as a result of the Governor’s actions.  These revenue losses break down as follows:

            Utility Franchise Taxes  $ 78,269

            Beer and Wine Taxes            14,426

            Inventory Tax Reimbursement            10,629

            Homestead Exemption Reimbursement       160

            TOTAL            $103,484

            The Board has already taken action to reduce General Fund expenditures by approximately $145,000 in the FY 01-02 budget.  Although we have adjusted our own budget in response to the loss of these revenues, the eventual release of these funds will bolster the Town’s fund balance as we head into next fiscal year.  Furthermore, as the resolution states, it is simply not fair for the Governor to balance the State’s budget on the backs of local government, and it is important for the Town of Emerald Isle, and other NC local governments, to convey that message to the Governor.

            The most significant revenue withheld is the utility franchise tax.  The amount indicated above reflects only a half-year’s worth of utility franchise taxes.  Emerald Isle received a total of approximately $192,000 in FY 00-01, which ranks the utility franchise tax as one of our largest revenue sources.  The Governor has stated that of all local revenues withheld, the utility franchise tax is on the top of his list to release to local governments before June 30.  It is hoped that he will eventually release all four revenue sources before June 30, however, the utility franchise tax is the most critical.

            It remains to be seen what impact the State’s budget crisis will have on local governments’ budgets next year.  Emerald Isle and other local governments must carefully monitor the State’s budget process to insure that local government revenue sources remain intact.  The loss of utility franchise taxes from next year’s Town budget would be a serious problem for the Town, especially with the additional budget challenges facing the Town next year.

            Commissioner Farmer made a motion to approve the Resolution Requesting Governor Mike Easley to Remit Obligated Funds to Cities and Counties and the board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.  Motion carried.

COMMENTS FROM TOWN CLERK, TOWN ATTORNEY AND TOWN MANAGER

            There were no comments from the Town Clerk.

            Attorney Taylor informed the board there were rumors that there might some suit against the state for the money to go to the towns.  He has not seen anyone stand forward with their swords yet ,but he will keep the board informed if some opportunity presents itself.

            Mr. Rush commented that the NC League of Municipalities is working very hard to get this money back and is hoping they will be successful. 

            Mr. Rush said the only other item he has is there are several issues that the board needs to discuss on the beach renourishment and asked that the board hold a Special Meeting on Monday, March 18th at 10:00 A.M. to discuss beach nourishment. 

COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD

            Commissioner Marks remarked she is concerned about the comments at the beginning of the meeting regarding that people would do something to drag their feet in implementing the beach nourishment project. 

            There were no more comments from the board members.

            Mayor Schools made a comment about the art work hanging on the wall and hopefully there will be more coming. 

            Commissioner Farmer made a motion to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. and the board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.  Motion carried.

Respectfully Submitted,

Carolyn K. Custy, CMC




©2005 - 2012 Town of Emerald Isle North Carolina. All rights reserved.
 

  

Email Town Manager

Emerald Isle, North Carolina ~ Incorporated July 1957
 7500 Emerald Drive. Emerald Isle, NC 28594
Phone (252) 354-3424, Fax (252) 354-5068